Tragedy and Travesty - A Few Brief Thoughts on The Zimmerman Case

Your Typical Neighbourhood Watchman?

Speaking just after George Zimmerman's acquittal, one of his defence lawyers, Don West, stated the following:

"I'm thrilled that this jury kept the tragedy from becoming a travesty."

Was he right? Well, yes. Under American law (more specifically, the law of Florida), there really was no case for Zimmerman to answer to. If he had been convicted of murder, or indeed the lesser charge of manslaughter, that would have made a mockery of the legal system, of the laws under which the trial should be conducted.

Yes, then. But also no. No by a long shot.

Why? Why might the George Zimmerman case nevertheless be considered a travesty?

Well, not because of the trial as such. It was conducted relatively swiftly and yet fully. Not because any great mistakes were made, although it might be argued that the prosecution's case was, well, half-hearted at best. And most certainly not because of racial tensions, which may play a great part in the way many feel about the case but which had no real impact on the legal proceedings.

It was, nevertheless, a travesty because of one simple reason: the law sucks.

There, I've said it. Bluntly, as Don West might have himself. The law sucks. It is the law, not anything else, that has made a mockery of this case, that has turned a tragedy into a travesty.

Whichever way you wish to look at this, George Zimmerman was a wannabe cop. He was a neighbourhood volunteer, whatever that means. He was driving around in his car. He was carrying a gun. He saw Trayvon Martin, whom he immediately, if for unclear reasons, identified as an "asshole" and "a punk".

He got out of his car, and - against the advice of the police, whom he called - followed Martin. They got into an altercation. It is unclear who initiated this; it is unclear who had the upper hand in the fight that ensued, although that may well have been Martin. In any case, at one point Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Martin at point blank range.

In short, Zimmerman killed Martin. In doing so, he may well have started out with the best of intentions (something that I would tend to basically believe). But if so, those intentions had the worst possible outcome.

That is the case. Now, given this, what would a reasonable person assume?

He or she, surely, would first assume that Zimmerman had killed Martin after having decided to go after him because, for incomprehensible reasons, he considered Martin a "suspect". He or she would realise that Zimmerman had no true - no objectifiable - justification for this at all. Again, I don't know quite what a "neighbourhood volunteer" is, but I do know that being one does not grant anyone specific powers or authority. And whilst I very seriously doubt Martin was sweetest kid in all the world, I also know that, at the time, he was not engaged in any activity even remotely suspicious; the kid was just walking home.

Secondly, a reasonable person would surely have to accept that the altercation which ensued must be, initially at least, the result of Zimmerman's actions, and not Martin's. One might perhaps change one's assumption in this regard if there was convincing evidence to contradict this, but barring such evidence, the assumption stands: the fight that ensued between the two was initiated (or should I say instigated?) by Zimmerman, who, I repeat, had no objective justification for this whatsoever.

Thirdly,  a reasonable person would take into consideration a number of  additional facts which, whilst in themselves not conclusive, nevertheless present a fuller picture. The most important of these is that whilst Zimmerman carried a gun, Martin was unarmed; he had no weapon of any kind.

What, then, is the basic conclusion any reasonable person would have to draw from this? Surely it must be that, prima facie (that is, barring evidence to the contrary) Zimmerman unlawfully - illegally - killed Martin. Surely it must be that Zimmerman committed a crime.

Could that be different? Well, of course it could. It could and would be different if, specifically, it turned out that Zimmerman did not, in fact, accost or attempt to accost Martin - if, in fact, it was Martin who turned on Zimmerman once Zimmerman had gotten out of his car. Did that happen? Well, that's the point. I don't know - in fact, no-one knows. 

And we don't know because Zimmerman himself never truly attempted to prove his version of events; his defence never got sufficiently close to this issue. They certainly presented evidence - rather a lot of evidence, in fact - to establish "reasonable doubt" - whereby they in effect established that there was a possibility that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman - but they offered no real proof of this at all.   

Why not? Well, because they didn't have to. In America - certainly in Florida - you don't have to justify shooting someone. In fact, the opposite applies: the prosecution has to prove that the shooting is unlawful. And that includes refuting any claim of self-defence, once such a claim is made.

So the burden of proof is squarely on the prosecution. Not only do they have to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that their suspect actually murdered someone, but they also have to prove - again, beyond a reasonable doubt - that the suspect did not act in self-defence, once that claim is made. And it is the second part of this burden which is highly problematic, as this case shows.

Let me exaggerate just a bit. In Florida, I can go out and shoot my neighbour any day of the week. I can have a row with my girlfriend and shoot her, too. I can go out and shoot George Zimmerman, just because he happened to go out and shoot Trayvon Martin. And I can do all these things and still have a very good chance of not being prosecuted, if, that is, I can reasonably claim self defence, and if it turns out that the prosecution cannot disprove the veracity of that claim. And the prosecution, in a great many cases, will not be able to do that, since, after all, the only people potentially capable of providing the necessary evidence in this regard has just been shot. By me.

In other words, as long as there are no witnesses, I may well be fine. I may have murdered a few people, but I get away scot free.

So what does all this mean? Well, it means that, in this case, it's not the circumstances. It's not the media. And it's not race, either. It's just the law. And, yes, it does very much seem as if the law sucks. And, yes, it does very much seem as if the law is, in such cases, a travesty.

After the trial four of the six jurors released a statement. "The death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts," they said, "but in the end we did what the law required us to do."

Indeed.

9. The Meredith Kercher Case - Going Once, Going Twice (The Story of Undoubled Jeopardy)

It's no song and dance, you know.

Some words on what has gradually become a something of a topic in this case. 

Could Knox (and, if he were not there already, Sollecito) be extradited to Italy if the trial ends in the definite conviction of both?

My simple answer to this would be: why on earth not? I suppose, as often happens in high profile cases, there might well be complications due to political reasons, but I see no legal barriers here at all.

Let's focus for the moment on Knox. The Sollecito question, too, might at one point or another arise, but to answer that question, one would have to know where he would be staying when any extradition request is made. Since we don't know that, it's basically useless to ask the question in the first place.

In the case of Knox, though, it's safe to assume that she'll remain in Seattle (or at least the USA) for the time being.

So: what about extradition between the USA and Italy?

Well, as by now just about everyone knows, there is an extradition treaty in place between the USA and Italy. In sets out in which cases extradition will or will not be granted when one country (that is, in the terminology of the Treaty, the "Requesting Party") asks for the extradition of a person by the other country (the "Requested Party", as the treaty states).

So, if Italy were to request the extradition of Knox by the USA, Italy would be the Requesting Party; the USA would be the Requested Party. Simple, no?

Okay. Now let's look at what the treaty says.

Firstly, in Article 1, the general rule is given. It's this:

"Obligation to Extradite

The Contracting Parties agree to extradite to each other, pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, persons whom the authorities of the Requesting Party have charged with or found guilty of an extraditable offense."

If Knox were found guilty of murder (or of being the accessory to murder) that would clearly be "an extraditable offense". Article 2 deals with this; an extraditable offence is an offence "punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty".

So, Article 1 would essentially mandate the USA to extradite Knox, if Italy requested her extradition.

What else does the Treaty say? Well, for example, Article 5 prohibits extradition when the request is made for "political or military" offences. This clearly does not apply here. Article 8 states that extradition will not be granted if the offence has become barred by lapse of time. Again, that does not apply. There are, looking through the Treaty in general, various rules that deal with such issues, and indeed various rules that deal with the question of how an extradition request should be made by the Requesting Party or dealt with by the Requested Party. None of these, however, have any impact on the possibility of the extradition of Knox in this case.

So what might nevertheless bar the USA from extraditing Knox? Well, the only provision in the Treaty that might seem to be of any real import would be Article 6, which states:

"Non Bis in Idem

Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested."

There is, however, a simple reason why this provision doesn't offer Knox any solace. It's this:  Knox has not been "convicted, acquitted or pardoned" by any state in the USA; neither has she already served her sentence anywhere in the USA. (Remember, the USA is the Requested Party.)

And that's basically it: on the basis of the Treaty, there are no impediments to extraditing Knox, if she were to be definitely convicted in Italy. None at all.

Of course, things are never quite that simple, and one might wish to argue that extradition would nevertheless be barred for different reasons.

There are two that I can think of. The first is a little far-fetched, and deals with the idea that Knox was somehow "tortured" by the Italian police. The idea would imply that her conviction was arrived at by evidence gained through the use of torture, and that therefore that evidence would not be permissible by international (or US) laws, thereby making the conviction itself unsound.

I must admit that I have no idea at all how Knox could seriously try and make such an argument. I realise that she has claimed that she made statements after having been pressurised by the police, and indeed after one of the police officers slapped her on the back of her head, but besides the simple fact that the police have denied this adamantly (and that, even if true, the accusations hardly amount to "torture" in the first place),  it would seem that these accusations have, at most, a bearing on her conviction of "calunnia" (calumny; that is, of her false accusations of Patrick Lumumba) and not on the murder trial itself. This is an argument that holds no legal merit, I would say.

The second argument returns to the "double jeopardy" notion. The Treaty might, as explained above, not bar extradition for this reason, but perhaps international laws - or those of the USA -  might.

Do they?

Well, international laws certainly don't. Italy, like most European nations, has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, and to Protocol 7 of that Conventions. Here's what's in Protocol 7:

"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

The key word here is "finally". Any extradition request made by Italy will only be made if Knox has been "finally" convicted in Italy. The process - that is, her trial - is ongoing, and will reach an ending only after the appeal court in Florence (and, perhaps, the Court of Cassation) has dealt with the case. Only once this has happened will any conviction be final. In the meantime, she may have been acquitted by the Appeal Court in Perugia, but, as is very clear indeed, that acquittal is hardly "final' (and neither, one might add, is her earlier conviction by the original court).

In other words, an extradition request by Italy would be fine under European law. And indeed, it would not be barred by any other international law statute or treaty, since - simply put - there are none.*

What about the (federal) law of the USA? Well, the only possible obstacle might conceivably be the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that ".... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .".

I do not, however, see this as being any obstacle for an extradition of Knox. To put it simply, Knox hasn't been put in jeopardy "twice"; she's been in jeopardy once, in a process which, according to Italian law, takes up several stages. "Twice", in other words, is "finally", as expressed by the European Convention. They're the same thing.

Is there a simpler way of looking at the above? Yes, if you don't mind a more formal and legal approach. The Court of Cassation annulled the Appeal Court's acquittals. Therefore, those acquittals no longer exist. For that very simply reason alone, there can be no double jeopardy issues. 

In closing, two points. 

Firstly, the fact that the notion of double jeopardy is not an American invention. In fact, it was developed by the Romans.

Secondly, the question of whether anyone should care deeply about whether Knox or Sollecito actually serve their sentences. If convicted, I daresay there are reasons why they should be imprisoned for a considerable amount of time. However, even if that does not happen, I would suspect that, in many ways, their lives would be shattered anyway.  

__________

* Well, there's the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of course. Does that help? No. Article 14 of the Convention states that "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." Again, that dastardly word "finally".

8. The Meredith Kercher Case - Preliminary Thoughts on the Court of Cassation's Ruling

Once more: the Court of Cassation

Yesterday, the Court of Cassation published its ruling in this case.

Like many others, I can't read Italian, so I'll be awaiting a proper translation of the ruling with bated breath.

What I can do, is use a few online tools to at least get an approximation of what the Court of Cassation (which I'll also refer to afterwards as "the Court" ) has said. Bear in mind that this is very much an approximation, though. Caveats apply!

The Basics

So, what seems to be the case?

Well, first and foremost, the Court of Cassation has clearly decided on a broad annulment of the Appeal Court's ruling. This is, very roughly put, what the court concludes, after some 74 pages of deliberations:

"In conclusion, the contested judgment should be set aside for multiple reasons, given the incomplete, contradictory and manifestly illogicial reasoning that has been mentioned above. The new appeal court must therefore, using its broadest powers of discretion, remedy the critical aspects of argumentation, employing a comprehensive examination and unifying clues, by which means the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, since in the overall assessment each clue is added and integrates with others. The outcome of this assessment will be crucial not only to determine the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but possibly also to delineate the subjective position of those who acted along with Guede in the face of the range of hypothetical situations, ranging from an agreement to participate in a death, to the involvement of the young Englishwoman in a sexual game that went out of control."*

In my series Back To The Drawing Board (see Part Six, especially), I pointed out that the Court effectively had two options: it could either annul the Appeal Court's decision more or less in its entirety, or it could target specific parts of that court's ruling. At the time, I was inclined to assume that the Court of Cassation would go for the former option, and that's exactly what it has done.

Very little of the Appeal Court's verdict has been left unscathed after the Court's rather comprehensive criticism; what little there is left of that court's verdict cannot amount to even the most summary substantiation of Knox's or Sollecito's innocence (or, to put it a bit more precisely: it cannot begin to set aside the original court's verdict of guilt). More or less everything will have to be dealt with again by the appeal court in Florence; and that court will have to do things very differently to the way the Appeal Court of Perugia handled the matter.

Secondly, the Court of Cassation has followed a line of reasoning which seems, to me, quite logical, but which has been contested by some of those posting comments here. It's this: in order to judge all the various pieces of evidence, one has to look at all these pieces as they relate together. One just cannot attempt to evaluate each piece separately. The Court of Cassation seems to be quite clear on this, as might be expected.

Various points

Given these broad points, various specific issues can be addressed. Again, though, caution should be employed; I, for one, would really appreciate a good translation.

A. The Break-In

The Court of Cassation clearly seems to feel that the break-in was in all likelihood staged and that it cannot have been Rudy who staged it.

Having said that, however, it should be noted that the Court of Cassation does not actually decide the matter once and for all. Instead, it strikes down the arguments raised by the Appeal Court, whilst at the same time pointing to the original court's deliberations; deliberations which have, in the Court's view, clearly not been dealt with sufficiently by the Appeal Court. Because of this, there would still seem to be a window of opportunity for those who feel that there was an actual break-in (or that Rudy staged it). Such possibilities have, however, become quite slim. After all, the Appeal Court's arguments were effectively the same as the  defence's arguments. If these are, in the Court of Cassation's view, inadequate, what other arguments could there be?

In this regard, I again draw attention to the fact that the trial against Rudy Guede also went to the Court of Cassation and that, at the time, the Court already stated (in slightly oblique terms) that a burglary had been staged. The Court has clearly not changed its mind since then; in fact, in yesterday's ruling, it quotes the earlier remarks it made in the case against Guede. (See Back To The Drawing Board, Part One, for some more information on this.)

B. The DNA evidence with regard to the knife and the bra-clasp

Here, the Court of Cassation's ruling may seem a trifle odd.

Firstly, the Court seems to have no problem with the fact that the Appeal Court appointed new experts to examine the DNA evidence. Those of you who read the prosecution's cassation appeal (the Galati request) will know that the prosecution complained against the appointment; however, the Court of Cassation does not agree with that particular complaint.

Nevertheless, the Court clearly has a problem with the fact (or should I say: assumption?) that the experts, once having been assigned their task, at some point abandoned carrying it out fully.  In the Court of Cassation's view, this was not in their remit, and the Appeal Court acted unacceptably by allowing them to do so.

The question which this immediately raises is this: did the experts actually stop? Where they somehow halfway through their task and did they then just quit?

Well, in one sense, perhaps. As can be recalled, they found a new sample on the so called double-DNA knife which had not been tested yet. Nevertheless, they decided not to conduct the test, because they believed that such a test would have to be conducted by "experimental" methods and that the results of such a test would be inherently unreliable. 

If this is what the Court is referring to (and if this is all that it is referring to), I agree with the Court. I believe the new sample should have been tested at the time. If, on the other hand, the Court is also referring to some other lack of "completion" on the experts' part, I wouldn't quite know what that might be. (I have always understood the situation to be relatively simple when it comes to the tests that had already been conducted by the Scientific Police: these tests cannot be repeated in any way, simply because there's no material left to conduct them on. If that is the case, I cannot see what else the experts could have done.)

Now that is the first aspect of the Court of Cassation's ruling that seems, at first glance, to be a little strange. The second is this: where is the court's ruling on the (un)reliability of the tests carried out by the Scientific Police?

Let's assume, for a moment, that a new test is carried out by experts appointed by the court in Florence and that the outcome is inconclusive. What then? Surely in such a case the question would have to be: are the tests that were already carried out by the Scientific Police reliable or not? Nevertheless, the Court of Cassation does not really deal with this matter at all. Indeed, the only observation the Court makes in this regard is that the Appeal Court insufficiently took into account various remarks made by the experts of the prosecution and the Kercher family (profs. Novelli and  Torricelli). I'm sure that, in part, this is due to the actual task the Court has (to deal, in short, with the law, and not with facts); in part, however, it might also be a deliberate choice. The Court may well have felt that the new test should be conducted first, and that any further discussion (with regard to, especially, Low Copy Number testing or the standards to which such testing has to adhere) would be dealt with best after the test had been done.

What this effectively means, however, is that the Court of Cassation gives no ruling on the actual issues surrounding the testing done by the Scientific Police. All this is left to the court in Florence.

In addition to the points already mentioned, the Court of Cassation also deals with the possibility of contamination. Here the Court is much more forceful, and its deliberations seem similar to those it gave with regard to the break-in. Simply put, the Court has decided that, given the prosecution's explanation of the processes used, it was up to the defence to provide further evidence that contamination was a real possibility. The defence has, however, not done so. In other words, the Court has struck down the defence's arguments, whilst still leaving them a certain opportunity to advance new considerations. The question again has to be asked, though: what new arguments might the defence actually have?

C. The mixed DNA samples (the Luminol traces)

Mixed DNA samples were found in the small bathroom (used by Knox and Kercher) and at two other places in the apartment: in Romanelli's room and in the corridor.

The two mixed traces in Romanelli's room and in the corridor were found after the application of Luminol, a substance used to identify presumptive blood stains.

Now, the discussion with regard to these two traces is a complicated one, but it goes straight to the heart of the matter. If one were to believe that these two traces clearly show that Knox, in her bare feet (feet still slightly bloodied with Kercher's blood) left the traces, well then, they would present compelling evidence of Knox's guilt. If, alternatively, one were to believe that the traces might well be innocuous, they would present no real evidence at all. 

So what does the Court of Cassation say on this? Well, it seems that the Court has said very little at all. If I can understand the Court's reasoning, it seems to feel that the traces were in all likelihood blood traces since they were revealed by Luminol ("as the Luminol showed traces of blood and it is not really conceivable that Knox had had her feet smeared with the blood of the victim on previous occasions", the Court states at one point). That, however, would seem to be a rather odd remark to make, for various reasons. For one thing, it's a factual remark; for another, it might well be wrong.    

Does this matter? Ultimately, no, not really. Rightly or wrongly, the Court has struck down the Appeal Court's decision in this matter as well, and as a result, the Luminol traces will have to be dealt with again by the court in Florence. I don't think that court will in any way be hampered by what the Court of Cassation has said. Nevertheless, the Court's  remarks here are a little puzzling.

D. The Time of Death

In Part Five of the series Back To The Drawing Board, I briefly discussed the Appeal Court's deliberations when it came to the time of death. I said it was forensically impossible to establish at what precise moment this occurred, and that to try and establish the issue, other factors must be taken into account. On the basis of these other factors, I also said that, "in any case it is clearly absurd to state, as the Appeal Court does, that Kercher was "certainly" dead by 10.13 pm".

The Court of Cassation takes the same line of reasoning. Once more - and this is the third time - the Court refutes all the arguments brought forth by the defence (and accepted by the Appeal Court). Once more,  it is unclear what the defence might actually bring forth during a new appeal hearing to change the situation.

(As an aside, I point out that the prosecution must be able to ascertain that the murder took place at 11.00 o'clock at night (or later) for their reconstruction to make sense, whilst the defence have to pinpoint the time of death at 9.30 or thereabouts for the idea of Guede as lone killer to be feasible.)

E. Other aspects

I will not deal with the other aspects of the case in any detail. A few remarks should suffice, for the moment.

Firstly, a general remark is that when it comes to all these other aspects, the Court of Cassation has basically sided with the prosecution's cassation appeal, and struck down the Appeal Court's verdict accordingly. This includes the Appeal Court's deliberations on the various witnesses, its approach to the fact that a separate trial was already conducted against Rudy Guede (culminating in the Court of Cassation's own ruling of 2011), and the way the Appeal Court handled Knox's behaviour after the murder (including her accusations against Patrick Lumumba).

A more specific remark concerns the rulings given in the trial against Rudy Guede. Many seem to feel that the Court of Cassation itself already ruled in that trial that the murder of Kercher was committed, not by Guede alone, but also by Knox and Sollecito. That is not, however, the case, as the Court itself again points out in yesterday's ruling.  It is clearly true that the lower courts in the Guede trial assumed that Guede acted with others, specifically Knox and Sollecito, and that the Court of Cassation accepted this (factual) reasoning at the time; that is not, however, quite the same thing.  

Closing thoughts

In closing, the following.

I generally agree with the Court of Cassation's basic approach. It seems logical: if the Court of Appeal's verdict doesn't make sense, get rid of as much of it as you can.

However, it's also clear that the Court has shied away from making any real (material) decisions on any of the outstanding issues; it hasn't really settled anything once and for all. What this means is that the court in Florence will effectively have to handle the entire case once more. 

In at least three instances, however, the Court's reasoning seems to leave the defence little room to manoeuvre. These are the issue of the break-in, the DNA contamination, and the time of death. When it comes to the break-in in particular, it does rather seem the defence prospects are slim indeed. And it should be remembered that this is a crucial point of the case.

In other instances, I find, however, the Court's deliberations a little vague. These would include the DNA evidence and (especially) the Luminol samples. When it comes to such aspects, just about anything might happen in Florence.

Finally, to clear up a point that may cause some confusion, the defence will not be able to "lodge a new appeal" or anything of the sort. The result of the Court of Cassation's ruling is that the appeal already lodged by the defence (with the Appeal Court in Perugia) will have to be dealt with again by the new appeal court in Florence. When I say that the defence does not have all too much room for manoeuvring, I am taking this into consideration.

 _____

* This is not a proper translation, I'm afraid. It's my assessment of the court's  closing remarks, using Google's translation service. I have, quite deliberately, "mistranslated" one word: replacing "demonstrate" with "determine". 

7. The Meredith Kercher Case - Doing the Math

Earlier this year, authors Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez published their book Math on Trial.

In it, they discuss a number of cases where, they allege, mathematical errors were made in court. One of the cases discussed is the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The authors explain that, in this case, the Appeal Court's decision to not re-test the DNA evidence found on the so-called double-DNA knife was flawed. In an article in the New York Times, they summed up their position as follows:

"One of the major pieces of evidence was a knife collected from Mr. Sollecito’s apartment, which according to a forensic scientist contained a tiny trace of DNA from the victim. Even though the identification of the DNA sample with Ms. Kercher seemed clear, there was too little genetic material to obtain a fully reliable result — at least back in 2007.

By the time Ms. Knox’s appeal was decided in 2011, however, techniques had advanced sufficiently to make a retest of the knife possible, and the prosecution asked the judge to have one done. But he refused. His reasoning? If the scientific community recognizes that a test on so small a sample cannot establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt, he explained, then neither could a second test on an even smaller sample.

Whatever concerns the judge might have had regarding the reliability of DNA tests, he demonstrated a clear mathematical fallacy: assuming that repeating the test could tell us nothing about the reliability of the original results. In fact, doing a test twice and obtaining the same result would tell us something about the likely accuracy of the first result. Getting the same result after a third test would give yet more credence to the original finding."

Is this criticism fair? Did the Appeal Court flunk its math exam?

Well, to my mind the answer to this is yes and no. The Appeal Court ultimately did err in its assessment of probabilities, but, ironically, it did not err in the way the Schneps and Colmez seem to think.

Why is this? Well, for a very simply reason: the authors misrepresent the Appeal Court's reasoning. After all, when it comes to the question of whether a new test should be preformed, this is what the Appeal Court actually said:

"In fact, (the prosecution) argued that systems currently exist able to analyse such low quantities, albeit still at a developmental stage. This Court holds, however, that it is precisely the fact they are still under development, in practice in an experimental phase, which precludes us from basing a belief in guilt on the results obtained with the application of such systems: the Judge can do no else but base his or her opinions on the technical systems and established scientific knowledge from a particular time period – the period in which s/he is called to judge – and not on others still in an experimental phase. This, once again, to reach a decision of guilty beyond any reasonable doubt."

So what does this mean? Well, the Appeal Court is definitely not saying "the first test yielded an inconclusive result; the second test would yield another inclusive result, so let's not do the new test". What the court is saying, is that any new test (regardless of the outcome) would be irrelevant, simply because such a new test would have to be carried out by "systems" that are "still in development" and "experimental" and, therefore, inherently untrustworthy.

Schneps and Colmez seem to think that this a case where you could have had two single results, both of which might be quite acceptable, but both of which, when considered singularly, are inconclusive. They seem to think that the Appeal Court made the basic error of not considering that two such results might well prove to be much more relevant when taken together. However, that is clearly not what the Appeal Court has done.

So much, then, for Schneps's and Colmez's argument. They have simply misrepresented the Appeal Court's reasoning and, based on that misrepresentation, erroneously assumed the court made some sort of mathematical error.

The question remains, though - did the Appeal Court do its math properly? I would say not.

Why?

Well, Schneps and Colmez are right in one thing. The Appeal Court does seem to have muddled its understanding of the law of probabilities. However, what's in question is not the probability of just one or two DNA tests leading to a reliable result with regard to the knife; instead, it's the probability of the entire case. That is: of all the bits and pieces that, when fitted together, drew the original court to its conclusion that that Knox and Sollecito must be guilty.

What the Appeal Court has done is that it looks at all these bits and pieces separately. It then rejects them all. Not because they could not possibly lead to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but rather because, seen singularly, they do not lead to that inevitable conclusion. And, the Appeal Court then reasons that, since there is not one single bit of evidence that would, in itself, prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, all the various bits and pieces taken together wouldn't either.

Now this is a clear error, and it can be simply demonstrated.

Let's look at this from a simple mathematical point of view and assume that there are various aspects of the case which could point to guilt and which might not, and let's assume that each aspect has a 50% to 50% ratio between the two.

For example: the break-in. There's a 50% chance it was real; there's a 50% chance it was staged. Kercher's DNA on the knife? A 50% chance it was there; a 50% chance it wasn't.

Now let's sum up a number of the most important factors, two of which I've just mentioned. Here's a somewhat simplified list:


                                                Guilty                                      Innocent
Break-in                                    50%                                          50%
DNA knife                                 50%                                          50%
DNA bra clasp                          50%                                          50%
Luminol traces                          50%                                          50%
Footprint on mat                       50%                                          50%
DNA traces bathroom               50%                                          50%

Total                                          50%                                          50%

From this simple list, anyone would assume that there's a 50% chance that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, and a 50% chance that they are innocent. So that would clearly implicate that they should be cleared in court; the Appeal Court correctly acquitted them, right?

Well, not so. The thing is, of all these various factors, there is really only one that must be taken into consideration when assuming guilt. That's the break-in. As I've stated earlier, there is no way in which Knox and Sollecito might be guilty if the break-in actually occurred. To put it another way, if the apartment was actually broken into, one must assume their innocence.

Such an assumption need not in any way be made when it comes to any of the other factors, however. The assumption that Kercher's DNA was on not the knife, for example, does not in any way lead to conclusion that Knox and Sollecito must be innocent. The same applies to the DNA found on the bra clasp; the same applies to the Luminol traces, etc.

Conversely, if any of these factors did indeed conclusively point to Knox's or Sollecito's involvement, any single factor would be sufficient to establish their guilt. If, for example, it must be assumed that Sollecito's footprint was found on the mat in the small bathroom, it must be assumed that Knox and Sollecito are indeed guilty.

So let's do the math. Are Knox and Sollecito guilty? Well, there's a 50% startling chance. Does that get any lower? No; none of the factors mentioned in my list can decrease that. Can it get any higher? Certainly: if the chances of their innocence decrease, the chances of their guilt rise proportionally.

Are they innocent? Well, again you start with a 50% chance. Does that get any lower? Oh, yes. You start out with the break-in, which is where your initial 50% comes from. But next you'd have to assume that Kercher's DNA is not on the knife. So that's another 50%. You're left with 50% x 50% = 25%. Then you move to the bra clasp. Another 50%. That makes 12,5%. You move on through the remaining factors, and end up with a rather stunning 0,78% chance of them being innocent. Yes, that's right: less than 1%. Conversely, there's a higher than 99% chance that they're guilty.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not seriously suggesting that you could settle the whole case by simply doing a few sums. What I am suggesting, though, is that there is a basic error in the Appeal Court's reasoning.  

The error is very simple. You can't look at this case and say that there's not a single piece of evidence that necessarily leads to Knox's and Sollecito's guilt, and then leave it at that. You have to look at all the pieces of evidence, and you have to look at all those pieces together. If you do, the picture becomes quite different, and it simply becomes rather difficult to assume their innocence. 

Can that assumption still be made? Yes, I would say it can. Just not in the way in which the Appeal Court has attempted it. Its logic isn't very sound, and neither is its math.
   

6. The Meredith Kercher Case - Back to the Drawing Board (Part Six)

Meredith Kercher

Introduction

In the earlier parts of this series, I talked about the Appeal Court's verdict and discussed some aspects which may have fallen foul of the Court of Cassation's judgement.

But I've not yet really given a summary of what the current situation is, or what to make of it.

I'll do so here.

What do we know?

Well, we know the Court of Cassation has quashed the Appeal Court's acquittals. We know that it didn't do so just because there may have been a few mild irregularities in that verdict; the Appeal Court must, in the Court of Cassation's mind, have erred to such an extent as to make its decision - the acquittals - suspect.

As such, we know that the Appeal Court's verdict cannot stand and that at least certain crucial aspects of the case will have to be retried.

But we do not know what those aspects will be, and we do not know what the outcome of the new appeal will be, either.

All this will become a little clearer once the Court of Cassation reveals its substantiation. We will know if, for example, if the Court of Cassation felt that the Appeal Court's ruling was wrong on so many counts that, effectively, the entire appeal will have to handled all over again. Or we know that, conversely, the Court of Cassation has limited its objections to the Appeal Court's ruling to certain specific issues, and will direct a new appeal court to examine those issues only.

What do I think?

In the earlier parts of this series, I looked at various parts of the Appeal Court's decision in some detail. But now, having done so, I think that it's perhaps wise to first examine the general approach the Appeal Court has taken in this manner.

If you remember, the original court's take on the case seems to me to be, all told, logical. That court looked at the evidence, weighed it, and then proceeded to give a detailed picture of what must have occurred. One might well disagree with the outcome, or indeed with the details of the reasoning involved, but the approach as such makes sense.

The Appeal Court, however, handles the matter quite differently. It doesn't set out to try and explain what happened; it simply sets out to examine each singular part of the original court's verdict and then to dismiss it. At times, it is fairly successful in doing so, and at others, not so much. All the while though, it refuses to look at the overall picture.

To my mind, this is ultimately one of the major failings of the appeal ruling.

Consider these simple facts. The murder may have been committed by Guede, Knox and Sollecito together. Or it may have been committed by Guede alone. Given the facts in this particular case, those are the only realistic two options. In one way or another, any court will have to decide between these two.

The original court, as stated, makes a clear choice: all three committed the murder. The Appeal Court, however, does not. It clears Knox and Sollecito, but in doing so, it leaves quite a few questions outstanding which would need to be answered if one were to assume Guede were the sole perpetrator. 

Take, for example, the break-in. It need not have been staged, the Appeal Court asserts; but it then stops short of stating that all the evidence provided must have pointed to an actual break-in committed by Guede.

This seems a singularly strange and unconvincing way to determine the outcome of the case (*). Okay, let's say the break-in needn't be staged by Knox and Sollecito; let's assume it might have been Guede acting on his own. But what then? As I pointed out in Part One of this series, this notion would imply that Guede broke in just before Kercher herself returned to the apartment - but what on earth happened then? How it it possible that Guede, the opportunistic burglar, so suddenly turned into the sexually aggressive murderer?  How did he, and indeed Kercher as well, act? How did Guede manage to kill her? How did he manage to leave just a single bloody footprint on the bathroom mat and then a trail of bloody shoeprints exiting the apartment? How did he do all this and leave the apartment in such a state that, the very next morning, Knox arrived and didn't realise anything of real importance was amiss? 

The Appeal Court, in its reasoning, addresses none of these issues. It simply refuses to look much further beyond its conclusion that the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is insufficient. And, indeed, the Appeal Court, in one instance at least, also seems to simply ignore the facts presented to it. After all, in the original trial, the court looked at some length at the state of Kercher's body and the many wounds inflicted upon her, only to conclude that it must be assumed that more than one person attacked Kercher. This would seem to be a crucial observation, but it is one that the Appeal Court has decided not to dwell on at all.

So, in general, it seems the Appeal Court has only done half the work it should have done in reaching its acquittals. It clears Knox and Sollecito, but in doing so, its half-hearted acceptance that Guede must  must have committed the murder on his own remains insufficiently substantiated. And in this particular case - where there really are only these two options - that just doesn't seem to suffice. It seems to be the wrong approach; and it seems, more particularly, singularly inconclusive.

Because of this, I would think it very possible that the Court of Cassation would have decided that the entire Appeal Court ruling is, essentially, flawed. And that would lead to the conclusion that it must have quashed the ruling almost in its entirety. There might well still be certain aspects of the appeal ruling which escape this sanction - the witness testimonies spring to mind - but by and large, we're talking about an annulment across the board.

If this were to be the case, the appeal court that will handle the appeal (that is, the appeal court in Florence) will presumably have a fairly open schedule to work with. It will have to reach clearer and more decisive conclusions if it were to determine that Guede was the sole perpetrator, but would, in essence, be free to decide what those conclusions could be.

What if, alternatively, the Court of Cassation focused on various specific aspects of the case and dealt with them piecemeal, as I have done in the earlier parts of this series? Well, in that case, I think it would be logical to focus on a number of major issues, and I would suspect those issues to be the following:

• the break-in, as mentioned above (and as discussed in Part One of this series);
• the DNA evidence with regard to the double-DNA knife and, in particular, the question if the experts appointed by the Appeal Court have by acceptable means truly established that the results from the DNA testing should be disregarded (see Part Two of the series);
• the question of whether the mixed DNA traces discovered by the use of Luminol should be attributed to any activity involved with the crime or whether the causes of these traces are innocuous (see Part Four of the series).

If the Court of Cassation has taken this piecemeal approach, it will undoubtedly hand down various more or less detailed instructions to the appeal court in Florence for dealing with each matter. For example, when it comes to the double-DNA knife, it could instruct the appeal court to conduct a new DNA test, or to specifically determine whether or not the result arrived at can, in this case, be considered reliable, regardless of any general rules or recommendations by the "scientific community".

My own feeling is that the Court of Cassation will have chosen the first, and rather more holistic, option. It seems the fairest - and, indeed, the easiest - course of action. It also allows the Court of Cassation to stick to its own rules: don't deal with the facts, just deal with the law. If, as might well be possible, the Court of Cassation feels that the Appeal Court's decision as a whole is "manifestly illogical" (**), it will have struck down that decision more or less in its entirety.  

Back to the Drawing Board

In my original series, The Trial in Perugia, I attempted to give an overview of the case and the way the original court had looked at it. 

Back then, I gave the following synopsis of the original court's ruling:

A. Rudy Guede is guilty of the murder;
B. Guede did not act alone;
C. the only possible accomplices of Guede are Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito;
D. that Knox and Sollecito are culpable of the murder is corroborated by the forensic evidence available;
E. and it is also corroborated by the fact that their stories don’t seem to be logical and do not constitute convincing alibis.
 
So, has anything really changed since then? Actually, no. The Appeal Court has, most assuredly, knocked some possible holes in the original court's reasoning, but it hasn't really changed the overall picture. That picture remains the same.

So what are we left with? After two complex court cases, I think it might well be, simply put, the break-in.

After all, when you think about this case what is the one, single most extraordinary aspect? Is it the DNA evidence, all the commotion surrounding the double-DNA knife? No, not really. Is it Sollecito's possible footprint on the bathroom mat? Again, no. Is it the wounds on Kercher's body, which seem to indicate more than one assailant? Again, no.

The single most extraordinary aspect of this case is, to my mind, the question of whether the break-in was staged or not. This is far and away the most intriguing and beguiling part of the entire story, and the way one looks at it determines the outcome of the entire case. If, as I stated earlier, one believes that the break-in actually occured, it is very hard to imagine that Knox and Sollecito are, indeed, guilty. If, alternatively, one believes that the break-in was staged, it becomes almost impossible to believe they are innnocent.

So, I end where I began, a few years ago; I end with the break-in. Personally, I find it very difficult to see how it might have really happened; I find it difficult to see how it could have been anything else but staged. Nothing the Appeal Court has said has dissuaded me from this point of view; to be frank, the Appeal Court has offered no real new insights into this matter at all. And I am left with the original court's decision: the break-in was staged. With that thought, and the inevitable conclusion it leads to: Knox and Sollecito might well be guilty.

Two closing remarks

In closing, a first remark to make is this. I am sure that anyone absolutely convinced of the innocence of Knox and Sollecito may at times have found some of the things I wrote surprising and perhaps quite contrary to what  they themselves hold true.

Bear in mind, though, that both my series (The Trial in Perugia and Back To The Drawing Board) are based on the verdicts given and the legal arguments they contain. They are not based on other considerations (and, let's face it, there are many other such considerations to be found). In particular, I have not and will not address the question as to how on earth a young girl from the US or a young man from Italy would suddenly decide to commit a horrible crime with a man they barely knew. That is certainly a fair question, but it is not one that I feel in any way equipped to answer.

The second remark is a simple one: in all of this, let's not forget Meredith Kercher.

____________

*  For a more mathematical approach, see my follow-up post, Doing the Math.

** The Italian criminal code allows for the cassation of earlier verdicts in cases where that earlier verdict contains "manifest illogicality of the judgment reasoning" (Article 606, Criminal Procedure Code).