Reflections on Snow, Crime, and Punishment

by Anne Bremner
Co-Authored by Bob Sims

Oh no, like salt on snow
I've been melted
Left alone on the side of the road
Is this where I am over
For your sake
Stuck between sleep and awake?

Having been snowbound for days here in wintry Seattle, my thoughts have drifted lately. But, still, I remain vigilant in my thinking about my cases, especially the ones involving missing persons and how inclement weather conditions sometimes affect the lack of crime.

I began pondering this when I started thinking about my clients Chuck and Judy Cox, and their missing daughter, Susan Cox Powell. More than two years ago Susan went missing when her husband Josh Powell supposedly took the couple's then 2- and 4-year-old sons camping in snowy Utah at midnight, browning marshmallows by campfire in the dead of winter.

Many speculate that Susan is out there in the snow, the snow that has melted and then fallen again and again over two long intervening winters. Others speculate she is alive and at some point has been kept secretly by Josh Powell and his father Steven Powell. But not many do. She is somewhere between sleep and awake.

Statistics show that snowy conditions reduce crime rates. This has been described in Dr. Emily Bloom's "The Ice Factor," where she wrote about how "snow slays crime."

And it is true. Crime declines during snowstorms. Is it the calming quiet that tames the beast in us? Or the inablity to get out and do things -- good or evil?"

It reminds me of what my psychiatrist father said when he was doing studies for Prozac, in the face of claims that Prozac made some people kill. My father said it just helped them get out of bed and they would've killed anyway.

"The first fall of snow is not an event, it is a magical event."

The thoughts of an icy, snowy death are unimaginable to me, like learning about those mountain climbers who died on Mt. Everest, as expressed so eloquently by Jon Krakauer in his book, "Into Thin Air."

It's almost akin to Titanic passengers drowning in the dark, icy North Atlantic waters long ago -- the same fate for some on the sinking cruise ship Costa Concordia off the Italian coast recently.

I believe Susan Powell didn't die in the snow, and the snow story just might turn out to be the Cox family's salvation. Almost everyone who has heard the story has scoffed and pointed toward her husband Josh Powell as a person of interest, for the very reason he has concocted this improbable tale.

"The future lies before you, like paths of pure white snow. Be careful how you tread, for every step is sown."

Crimes are not committed in snow.
In fact, such a claim makes me incredulous. As a prosecutor, I use the "footprints in the snow" analogy to describe circumstantial evidence.

When you retire to bed at night, the ground is covered with fresh and pristine snow, untouched. When you wake up in the morning, there are footprints in the snow, leading to your doorstep where the morning's newspaper is there. You didn't see the person deliver your newspaper directly, but circumstantial evidence tells you, via footprints in the snow, that someone indeed did.

Snow. Crime. Punishment. Help us find Susan Cox Powell.

Tweet

More Questions Than Answers –Justice Requires That Rebecca Zahau Case Be Reopened

by Anne Bremner

A woman screams for help at 11:30 p.m. in a 27-room historic mansion in Coronado, California; a 6-year-old child, Max Shacknai, has fallen two days earlier and is in critical condition; the millionaire boyfriend and father of the child, Jonah Shacknai,  and his girlfriend, Rebecca Zahau, have been consumed by the boy’s care and condition in the hospital.

Rebecca Zahau, the live-in girlfriend of Jonah Shacknai, who loved Max as her own, had had a wonderful career. But she gave it up to care for Jonah and his family and their homes. She was kind, athletic, generous to a fault, and beautiful. On the evening in question, Rebecca had gone to dinner with Jonah and his brother Adam. Adam had just flown in that day from Tennessee. Rebecca returned to the mansion, Adam to the mansion guesthouse, and Jonah reportedly to the hospital. Rebecca had a relatively uneventful telephone conversation with her sister Mary and then was never heard from again. The authorities maintain that she received a telephone call at 12:30 a.m. advising that young Max had tragically taken a turn for the worse. She purportedly retrieved that message at 12:50 a.m. Yet, the message was erased, and her phone records do not show any such incoming call at 12:30.

Adam Schacknai found Rebecca at 6:30 the next morning. She was hanging from a Juliette balcony off one of the mansion’s guestrooms. Her feet and hands were bound, she had abrasions, there was tape residue on her legs, and a turquoise women’s athletic shirt was wrapped around her neck three times and part of the shirt was used as a gag in her mouth. There was blood on her legs. The ropes used in the hanging were tied with expert knots to a bed in the room. Partial footprints were found on the balcony, including two footprints from a man’s boot. Written on a door in paint was the phrase “She save him, can you save her.” But the autopsy cites the language as “She saved him, can you save her. “

The family said Rebecca had never been depressed or suicidal (she had no history whatsoever of psychological or psychiatric disturbance or treatment), the note was not in her handwriting, and she did not know how to tie expert knots like that. And she would never have killed herself, because she loved her family so much and, because of her religious beliefs, did not allow, in any event, to do so in such a violent and appalling manner. There is no recorded suicide involving a woman with circumstances like this one. Women simply do not kill themselves this way. The authorities said it was possible that she could have killed herself this way. They illustrated it with a video demonstration of a woman binding her own hands. But they did not show a demonstration of the rest (binding her feet, gagging herself) could have been accomplished. It would have taken a contortionist – frankly, a Cirque De Soleil performing artist – to accomplish such a “suicide” feat.

Expert pathologists have confirmed that Rebecca died while on her back – not from or while hanging.  Lividity was fixed in her back, not in her legs or feet. Renowned pathologist Dr Cyril Wecht has reviewed the autopsy report and has concluded this is not a suicide and that she had blunt force trauma in four places on the top of her head, inconsistent with the fall and consistent with blows that could have rendered Rebecca unconscious. The bed that was tied to the rope did not drag across the carpet.  It was picked up and moved. Hair clumps and black gloves were found at the scene.  Rebecca screamed for help before getting any call (if indeed there was a call) about Max. Someone was seen lurking around the front door shortly before the screams. News helicopter footage showed the balcony French doors open and no rope on the balcony while Rebecca’s body lay naked on the lawn. Doctors Larry Kobilinsky and Maurice Godwin, both famed criminologists, have weighed in that this was not a suicide as have forensic psychiatrists and suicide experts. A polygraph was administered to Adam Shaknai, and the results were reported as inconclusive. No one else was polygraphed or fingerprinted. Phone journals from eight months prior were cited as being contemporaneous, and a witness said Rebecca was not training as much six months earlier. Her own trainer disputes this. 

After seven weeks of investigation, the case was closed. The investigation concluded, and Rebecca’s death was classified as a suicide. Still, so many questions remain. In fact, there are more questions than answers. We think the investigation should be reopened. What do you think? Doesn’t justice so require?

As disclosure, Anne Bremner represents Rebecca Zahua's family as they press authorities for a more thorough investigation into Rebecca's death. Click here to donate to the Rebecca Zahau Fund.

Tweet

My Truth and My Challenge – Amanda Knox

by Anne Bremner

The following piece was originally written in March, 2010, and still holds true today, as the Italian appeals court hears DNA evidence that may set Amanda Knox free.

One year after the murder of Meredith Kercher, a man has been convicted and two other suspects await trial. Public interest in the case remains strong, and the truth about what happened is emerging, gradually and inexorably. But the truth is not without staunch foes who are doing their best to keep it submerged beneath a sea of resentment. Recently, for example, La Nazione published an article quoting Rudy Guede’s lawyers Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile, who allegedly made the following comment:

“A request was made to move the trial to the United States. Maybe to an outdoor affair in Alabama, where there’s a tree with a noose ready to hang the negro whose turn it is.”

This statement is spectacular in malicious intent. It goes beyond slander and reaches the level of hate speech. And since I am the one who supposedly made this request, I should clarify the record.

I did not request, and would never request, that Italy yield jurisdiction over a criminal case arising within its borders. This erroneous allegation was made by the London Telegraph, and they formally retracted it the next day, but not before it was widely repeated. Italy is one of the world’s great democracies, with public institutions that befit that status. I have no doubt that the Italian court system will deliver justice in the end.

At the same time, this particular case has been managed by Perugia’s chief prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, in a way the public should know about. Somebody needs to challenge the bizarre conjecture through which Mignini and his associates have turned a straightforward murder into a fable with no precedent in the annals of crime.

And somebody needs to make the point, again and again until the world understands, that Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. The case against them is based on evidence so ambiguous and compromised it should have no place in a fair trial. But the prosecution has done a good job of using lies, distortions and innuendo to incite resentment and public prejudice against these innocent suspects, and that is why I am speaking out. No one is paying me to do so. I have practiced law for 25 years, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, and I recognize an outrage when I see one. This case is an outrage.

Someday the smoke will settle, the mirrors will be pulled away, and the public will see that. I’m going to stay involved until that day comes. And if people slander me along the way, I’ll take whatever steps are necessary to deal with it.

Tweet

Amanda Knox: Traveler’s Advisory

Mark Waterbury, guest blogger
and Anne Bremner 

NOTE: As this post goes to press, two important developments in the appeal of Amanda Knox’s wrongful conviction in Perugia, Italy, have taken place. A group of Italian legislators led by Rocco Girlanda has filed a petition with the president of Italy and the Italian justice ministry requesting an investigation into the conduct of Perugian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and others in Amanda’s trial. This important request for an investigation was read aloud before the Italian parliament.  

The second development involves a letter to the President of the United States and copied to all members of Congress that also requests an investigation, this time for failure by U.S. consular officials to fulfill their obligations to safeguard the rights of Amanda Knox under Italian law. We are co-signers of that letter, along with Michael Heavey and Thomas Wright. Details regarding these letters are being released through other outlets. The following article is intended to provide additional information in a less formal format.

Americans traveling abroad are subject to the laws of the nations they visit. Rights, that, in theory, U.S. citizens enjoy here at home do not apply. This poses problems of understanding due to language barriers and legal differences, even when the visited country has a sophisticated criminal justice system. Matters can be far more difficult in places like Iran or North Korea, where politics, religious zealotry, and corruption far outweigh any balance beam of justice. Yet, at least in those extreme cases you know where you stand--on quicksand, but with the hope that the State Department will apply pressure on the local dictator to secure your eventual release if you are wrongly imprisoned. 

As we’ve watched the unbelievable investigation, bizarre prosecution, and wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox in Perugia, Italy, we have seen a situation that is more complex and nuanced, resulting in a kind of legal limbo. The problem is that while Italy is an advanced western nation, a critical ally on many global issues, it is saddled with a justice system that looks good on paper but that is, at least in Perugia, a work in progress.

The presumption of innocence, for example, is enshrined in the Italian constitution. Knowledgeable observers say, however, “They don’t get it,” relegating this fundamental principle to an abstract irrelevance. The idea that guilt is something that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than conjectured as a possibility, is another newfangled thing that does not seem to have taken hold.   

Then there is the corruption and the lurid media environment.

From The Economist, June 10, 2010:

“…Italy is not like other countries. It is notoriously corrupt, so politics and justice overlap.”

“Something else to which Italians are largely oblivious is the routine trampling on the rights of suspects and others caught up in investigations. Information is selectively leaked to reporters before the accused come to trial, often creating a presumption of guilt that is difficult to reverse, whether in court or in the public mind. An example is the case of Amanda Knox, an American student, and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, who were convicted last year of the murder of Ms. Knox’s British flatmate.”

One of us (Mark) wrote this about the trial in his recent book, The Monster of Perugia: The Framing of Amanda Knox. The following is an excerpt from Chapter 12, “Gulliver’s Travel Warning”:

“Legendary traveler Lemuel Gulliver had the misfortune to be caught in a violent storm at sea. Driven far off his course, his ship sunk, his shipmates dead and his lifeboat gone, Gulliver swam and waded till he happened upon an unknown island. Safely removed from the terrible weather, Jonathan Swift’s famous character awoke to find that he was captive and at the mercy of a perfect storm of political intrigue among a very little people, the 6-inch-tall Lilliputians.

Amanda Knox had the misfortune of having her roommate murdered while she was living abroad. The tragedy that befell Meredith could just as easily have happened to Amanda--a thought that weighed heavily upon her in the days after the murder. Having escaped that terrible fate, Amanda found herself held captive and at the mercy of a perfect storm of third world justice, corruption, and personal interests, all deeply entrenched in what is theoretically a first-world nation.

The language and culture barriers between Gulliver and the Lilliputians were immense. There had been no known contacts between their worlds, after all. He tried speaking half a dozen languages to them and got nowhere. There was an unfathomable gulf to cross, and yet... Gulliver found ways to express his respect for his captors, who recognized and appreciated his mild disposition. Soon they were won over. They fed him, freed him, they got along with him, right up until he refused to slaughter their enemies from the neighboring island of Blefescu.

Amanda expressed her respect for her captors and her confidence in the Italian justice system. She has been a model prisoner. She was paraded through the streets when arrested, she had her picture displayed beside convicted mafia dons before she was charged, she was held in prison for a year before those charges were brought, she has been demonized in much of the Italian press, and she was wrongly convicted and sentenced to 26 years in prison. Score one for the Lilliputians.”

Amanda doesn’t seem to be blessed with Gulliver’s luck, so we thought we would check on the job the diplomats have done ensuring her right to fair treatment under Italian law by reviewing the cables that reported on the case by the United States Consul in Florence. The cables were conveniently revealed by the Wikileaks organization. We wondered how the information reported in those crucial cables compared with what had actually happened to Amanda.  

In theory, Amanda has the full support of the United States’ Department of State, which has the responsibility to ensure that American citizens’ rights under local law are respected. At least, that is what they say. In response to questions about what they were doing about Amanda’s ordeal in Perugia, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said, “…it is the responsibility of our consular officials to make sure that American citizens are treated fairly under local law.” That seems clear enough.

With all of that in mind, the following is the first cable sent, in December of 2008, more than a year after Amanda was arrested after an all night interrogation by a dozen polizia detectives operating in rotation, speaking in Italian, and without being allowed an attorney. That interrogation, it was claimed, was not recorded, in another violation of Italian law.

DEC 08

FM AMEMBASSY ROME

TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1244

INFO AMCONSUL FLORENCE

AMCONSUL MILAN

AMCONSUL NAPLES

SUBJECT:  ARREST UPDATE:  AMANDA KNOX

1. NAME: Knox, Amanda Marie

9. CHARGES: Participation in voluntary manslaughter with aggravating circumstances of cruelty (potential maximum sentence: life imprisonment; however, in Italy “life imprisonment” equates to 30 years) ; Participation in sexual assault (possible sentence: 5 – 10 years) ; Simulated robbery (possible sentence: 1 – 3 years) ; Slander (stemming from Ms. Knox’s accusation against Patrick Lumumba ; possible sentence: 6 – 20 years) ; Possession of weapons (possible sentence: up to 1 year) ; Aggravated theft (possible sentence: 3 – 10 years)

10. PLACE OF DETENTION : Capanne Penitentiary, Perugia, Italy

12. TRIAL/HEARING DATE:  January 16, 2009

That was the first cable sent after Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia in polizia vehicles with sirens blasting in a macabre kind of victory dance immediately after her arrest. It was after it was ruled that she could be held for a year in prison before being charged. It was after Amanda was relentlessly demonized by a rabid press, fed a continuous stream of news leaks, lies, and innuendos from the prosecution and polizia, much of them illegal, all of them consumed by a jury that was not sequestered or enjoined against discussions in any way.

This cable, like all the rest, is a simple list of the starkest, and ultimately least informative facts about the arrest and prosecution of Amanda Knox. It is as if a lynch mob dragged someone away in full view of everyone, and all that was reported back was “Suspect was apprehended.” No mention of the white hoods, torches, or the terrified, innocent victim. Amanda Knox was in the process of the most conspicuous public lynching in decades, and yet the report gives no hint whatsoever that it was anything but justice taking its course.     

But let’s look at more cables to be sure. Perhaps they were waiting for the actual trial to report back anything of substance. A month or so after the trial began the next cable was sent:

FEB 09

1….

9….

10….

12. TRIAL/HEARING DATE:  Trial is ongoing. Hearings take place every Friday and Saturday. The court plans to follow the same weekly hearing schedule in the foreseeable future.

Friday and Saturday… two days a week. That’s it. Bus schedules go into more detail.  The next cable, three months of blatant kangaroo court proceedings later:

MAY 09

SUBJECT: Arrest Update: Amcit Amanda Knox

12. TRIAL/HEARING DATE: Trial is ongoing.    Hearings take place every Friday and Saturday.   According to Ms. Knox’s attorney, the trial is being moved to an accelerated time-table and beginning June 4, hearings will be held three times a week, on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

18. ACCESS: ConOff and ConAsst visit Ms. Knox on May 14, 2009 at Le Capanne prison in Perugia, Italy.  

Note the numbers, mostly 12 or 18, denoting categories of information. There is no 1, 2, 3… in most of these particular cables, but only 10, 12, or 18. Apparently, 10 means “Where At,” 12 means, “Cursory description of the trial schedule,” and “18” means something like, “We had to skip a nice luncheon to go to some damned prison.”

It is a shame that only these few numbers were used. Diplomatic cables that briefly summarize the relentless destruction of an innocent life might benefit from using more categories. May we make a humble suggestion? How about assigning, say, 23 to “Defendant’s rights are being trampled beyond recognition,” and how about 42 for, “Prosecutor has been convicted of prosecutorial misconduct, but is still the prosecutor.” That would leave 36 to represent “Defendant has been relentlessly smeared by the world’s press,” and 78 for “The forensics were a travesty of pseudoscience.”

Three more cables follow, at roughly three-month intervals, in August, November, and December of 2009. They say nothing about the constant spread of misinformation by the prosecution, nothing about the fact that the prosecutor was under indictment for misconduct (convicted of same in January, 2010), nothing about the fact that the DNA evidence would never be admitted as evidence in any normal courtroom, and that the two star prosecution witnesses were drug addicts.   

One might argue, “So what?” Perhaps these reports are simple schedule documents, but here’s the thing. When asked about the trial after Amanda’s conviction in a December 7, 2009 briefing, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said “we haven’t received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed.”

I guess they weren’t paying attention. Adding insult to that injury, in response to a question that pointed out the tainted evidence, the non-sequestered jury, the problem prosecutor, Mr. Kelly asserted that “…Italy is a democratic country that has an established and transparent legal system.”

Which brings us back, full circle, to our opening point. If Amanda had been captured by a crazy prosecutor in North Korea, she might have had some support from State. In Italy, she has been on her own.

Here’s the takeaway lesson from all this: The next time you’re in a foreign country and a crazy, corrupt local prosecutor decides to make a career move by throwing you in prison for the rest of your life, you can count on your United States’ consul to dependably tick off the milestones as you rot in jail. 

Anne Bremner is a member of Friends of Amanda.

Tweet

Stigmatizing Mental Illness Ought to be a Crime

by Anne Bremner

Catherine Zeta Jones was outed by the National Enquirer for having sought treatment for bipolar disorder. Her response was swift, sure, and inspiring: “There is no need to suffer silently and there is no shame in seeking help.” She acknowledged that she had bipolar disorder stating, “This is a disorder that affects millions of people and I am one of them. ... If my revelation of having bipolar II has encouraged one person to seek help, then it is worth it.”


The stigmatization of the disease was responsible for the salacious interest and inquiry. The gracious and courageous response will serve to help remove the stigma for so many, including me--and maybe Charlie Sheen.

I found out I had bipolar disorder, a progressive disease that is both my greatest strength and my greatest weakness, when I was in my 20s. I had extra energy, didn’t need much sleep, and I thought I could charm and disarm judges, opposing counsel and juries. I could think on my feet at lightning speed. I had one speed: Go. I was omnipotent, winning, and death was not an option. I became anorexic, spent too much money, thought way too fast, made reckless decisions and had deep depressions. My life was a manic roller coaster. Sometimes it was great fun and was exhilarating. Often it was anything but.


Bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression, is known as the genius disease (many of us like to think). Mark Twain had it, as did Ludwig Von Beethoven, Winston Churchill, Ernest Hemingway, Teddy Roosevelt and Vincent Van Gogh. So does Ted Turner, Jane Pauley, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and, I suspect, Charlie Sheen.

It is a disease that is characterized by shifts in mood, thinking and behavior--mania on one pole and depression on the other. One in 45 people have it, which is more than six million people. And, 20 percent of the people who have it commit suicide. But once it is diagnosed, patients can go on to live normal, fulfilling lives if they manage their medication as prescribed. 

I was fortunate to get the help needed and have had a wonderful career and life, other than one notable exception: Like Catherine Zeta-Jones, I too was outed by the press. 

I had a life-changing manic episode after being involved in a car accident last year that caused $34,000 worth of damage to my vehicle. My assistant and best friend had just died from cancer. All the witnesses said I was one-hundred percent okay before my accident and one hundred-percent not okay after. Although I wasn't charged initially, the Seattle media went after my records and printed and broadcasted one story after another. I tried to get the media blocked from getting my records because of privacy issues relating to my bipolar disorder. No one knew except me.

I didn't want my records released because of the stigma of having the disease and because of crazy things I said and did while under the influence of a full-blown manic episode. The person in the police report was a person I didn't know. The local media hired big-gun lawyers and fought me every step of the way in my case. They were like piranhas. I felt enormous shame that I had failed to properly manage my medications, inviting my mania to revisit me. Nothing like this had ever happened to me before. In the aftermath, nearly one year later, it has brutalized me.

I released my records voluntarily during the court battle and disclosed I was bipolar. I was, for all intent and purpose, outed. The stigma and lack of understanding of the disease is why I fought for my privacy and resisted disclosure of my records. I ultimately had to reveal what I never, ever wanted to do. And with that came a barrage of anonymous, undocumented comments and blogs on the Internet. They have had a field day.

I have much in common with Charlie Sheen. He is being brutalized too. I wish the media could recognize mental illness and addiction issues for what they are and not showcase Charlie as the Wild Man From Borneo. He is sick. I disagree with the portrayal of Charlie in Newsweek's March 21 article titled "Charlie Sheen Is Winning." He isn't winning. He isn't a role model or someone to emulate, despite the ever-shifting mores of our instant pop culture. He is, simply, a manic depressive like me and like Catherine. He has exhibited the best and the worst of the disease. It can be fun. It can make you crazy. And it can kill you. Anyone with bipolar disorder knows that I am right.

What about Charlie? He needs help. There are a lot of us manic depressives out there who would be happy to help him. As my psychiatrist brother said when I asked him if I would lose clients if I went public with my disease, "yes, but your new ones will be far more interesting." Until Charlie Sheen gets the help he needs, nobody is winning.

We are here. And we are pretty interesting. Yet in some ways, his touring, tweeting and interviewing has eased the stigma as well, although in a far different way than Catherine Zeta-Jones’ statements and actions could. He has shown the fun, zany, contagious part of the disease. He has shown it's appealing fun madness. And we can't get enough of it.

Three stories. Three Manics. The stigma remains but may well change in our lifetimes. Catherine Zeta-Jones' grace and humility, Charlie's controversial Torpedo of Truth/Death is not an Option tour, and the local girl-gone-bad who only sees good ahead. We all work through this crazy disease in our own ways. We are all human. We are all one of you. 


For my part, I am going to do everything in my power to help reduce the stigma. I am not from Hollywood; I am just from little old Olympia, Washington. But in this arena, I hope I can help to make a difference too. Stigmatizing mental illness ought to be a crime.

Tweet

The Prosecutor's New Clothes and Amanda Knox

by Mark Waterbury, PhD., with Anne Bremner

We all remember the tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes, by Hans Christian Andersen. Charlatans convinced the vain Emperor that they could weave fabric so fine, so beautiful, that only an idiot or incompetent would fail to see it. Not wanting to admit that he couldn’t see the fabric himself, the Emperor bought a pricey outfit and paraded about before his people.

The people, not wanting to be thought of as idiots or incompetents, all praised his fine clothes. They outdid one another in describing the beauty of the fabric and how perfectly it all fit together.

It was left to a child to point out the obvious: The Emperor had no clothes. Once the child spoke, the floodgates opened and everyone could admit the truth that lay before their eyes all along.

Now, at the appeal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in their trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, we see prosecutor Giuliano Mignini’s absurd charade of guilt coming apart at the seams. The prosecutor, it seems, has no clothes either. Much of the unraveling took place in just the last week. First, a report from court-appointed independent experts who are reviewing the DNA profiling evidence on two items claimed to be critical by the prosecution, was leaked to Italian media.

The experts report that they have found nothing. No blood on a kitchen knife that the prosecution claimed was the murder weapon, not even between the blade and the handle where it would have surely been wicked up and trapped. Neither did they find enough DNA to profile. The finding that there is no DNA or blood anywhere on the knife marks the beginning of the end for that critical item of evidence.

That result was not a surprise. It was an ordinary kitchen knife that did not match the wounds, did not match an imprint left at the scene, no blood was found on it in the first round of tests with TMB, and the profiler system reported “too low” for DNA. But it had woven, like the Emperor’s invisible fabric, into apparently damning evidence with a breathtakingly simplistic line, “Amanda’s DNA on the handle, Meredith’s on the blade.” Only an idiot or incompetent could fail to see that that meant guilt.

When presented in court it was carried in its own glass case, under armed guard in a melodramatic show. It was scientific nonsense, and now everyone can see it. That knife had nothing to do with the crime. It was also the beginning of the end for the bra clasp that was literally kicked around on the floor by investigators for 47 days, dug out from under a throw rug, dropped back on the floor, then finally retrieved.

The prosecution had no physical evidence whatsoever that associated Raffaele with the crime. So, they sent a team back in after the 47 days to fetch some in the form of that clasp. We learned from that same leaked report that there is no DNA to be found on the clasp. It was claimed by the prosecution to have contamination-level DNA on it from an unknown number of sources, one of them possibly being Raffaele. But now, nothing can be found. Why? Because it seems, the clasp has been stored, for years, in a jar of liquid. Not only has any DNA long since rotted away, the clasp itself has actually rusted. Any competent forensic investigator knows that DNA samples must be kept dry or they will decompose.

This leaves us with a question similar to ones that seem to come up again and again in this case while analyzing the prosecution, their forensics experts, and the judges in the court of first instance. Were they really so incompetent as to not know this? Or could it be that the destruction of the clasp evidence was not a mistake? We may never know. All that is certain is that the clasp will go down as a kind of monument to bad evidence handling.

The prosecutor’s new clothes looked even shabbier when Monica Napoleoni, the head of the polizia unit in charge of the hotly disputed interrogations of both Raffaele and Amanda, failed to show up to testify in court. The astonished judge fined her 300 Euros. There was a recess while they tried to contact her, but she could not be found. Oops! Got the wrong day of the week? The prosecution said that they didn’t really need her after all, but she will be summoned nevertheless. It is not the first time.

Why is it that key witnesses for the prosecution seem to no longer want to appear in court? But it was the testimony of Antonio Curatollo, also known as Toto, a perpetually homeless heroin addict that most clearly laid bare the prosecutor’s new clothes. Toto had been hailed as a “Superwitness,” a role he had practice at playing since this was no less than his third appearance as a critical witness in a murder trial. The man doesn’t get around much, but a lot must go down within sight of his perch on the park bench where he lived.

Toto testified in the trial that he saw Amanda and Raffaele engaging in a heated discussion in the plaza near her home, hanging out for hours on the evening of the murder. This contradicted their alibis that they were at Raffaele’s apartment that night. There were deep problems with Toto’s testimony from the outset, but these had been papered over, and he had emerged as the single, solitary, prosecution eyewitness who the defendants were near the crime scene. He had testified that he was sure of the night and the time because people had costumes on, and there were buses taking people off to the discos.

Trouble is, the buses and costumes are recollections of Halloween night, the night before the murder took place. There were neither costumes nor buses on the night of the murder, November 1, All Saint’s Day, a more sober holiday.

In answer to a question from the presiding judge, Toto explained that although he was addicted to heroin at the time of the events, heroin was not a hallucinogen. He replied that he lived “at home” when asked about his residence, but home turned out to be Capanne prison, where he is serving a sentence for sale of Heroin. He was uncertain about what day Halloween falls on and professed not to know why he is in prison. He was clear about where he relieved himself, in the bushes near the plaza. An assistant prosecutor, Manuela Commodi, dismissed Toto’s multiple contradictions, saying that it doesn’t matter that he confused the night of the murder with Halloween, since we know where Amanda and Raffaele were on Halloween.

But the leaked report, the no-show, and the almost-childlike statements of a bewildered man have now spoken for all to hear, and revealed for all to see - the prosecutor has no case.

Tweet

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Perugia

by Anne Bremner

Given the continuing scrutiny of the forensic evidence in Amanda Knox's trial, I've asked my friend, Mark Waterbury, Ph.D, a member of The Friends of Amanda Knox, to give us his thoughts on the evidence. Most recently, Mark has authored and released a book, The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox, which is now available in Kindle (eBook) format on Amazon.com.

by Mark Waterbury
A funny thing happened on the way to Perugia.

In December, the court in Perugia, Italy, that is hearing the appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ruled that independent experts should review the DNA forensics work of the Polizia Scientifica. In particular, it asked the experts to take a fresh look at the only two items of evidence that the prosecution claims connect Amanda and Raffaele to the crime. Those items are highly contested by the defense because of the unique and irreproducible handling of the evidence, as well as the interpretation of testing results.

A review of the methods and interpretations has been a longstanding demand of the defenses.

The first item of evidence was a kitchen knife retrieved from Raffaele’s kitchen implements drawer. Although it does not match the knife wounds, does not match an imprint left on a pillow at the crime scene; and although it tested negative for blood with TMB and the DNA profiling systems reported “too low” as the test result, the prosecution’s forensics expert twisted the controls to blow up the noise at the bottom of the graph. Voila! In a DNA profiling lab with many samples of Meredith Kercher’s DNA, both before and after PCR amplification, a noise level trace appeared. This kind of contamination is not unusual at all.

The other item was Meredith Kercher’s bra clasp, which was cut or torn from her bra during the assault. The strap was spotted and photographed soon after but not retrieved until 47 days and unknown exposure later. At this point in the investigation, not one single shred of DNA evidence, or fingerprints, or footprints, or anything else connected these two defendants to the scene of the crime. That implies very strongly that these two defendants were innocent, and that the murder was committed by a third defendant, Rudy Guede, who has already been convicted. Guede left extensive traces at the crime scene, and even admits being present.

Instead of releasing Amanda and Raffaele in what I call a "hail Mary" clasp play in my book, The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox, the investigators went back in 47 days later specifically to retrieve that bra clasp. By remarkable coincidence and unbelievable luck, it showed a contamination level DNA of at least three people, and was compatible with the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito. It was also compatible with many, many, other people because it is a mixed DNA profile at trace levels.

The funny thing happened when these new experts appeared in the Perugia court and one of them asked if they could dismantle the knife handle to inspect the tang, the part of the blade that secures the knife to the handle. The defense had no problem with that, but the prosecution and the civil attorneys that side with the prosecution fought it tooth and nail.

The prosecution has claimed that this item is powerful evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Why should they be afraid to take a closer look at it? In fact, why didn’t they examine the insides of the knife handle long ago? If it was, in fact, used to commit a stabbing, blood certainly would have made it to the handle and some of it would wick up into the joint between the blade and the handle. Critical evidence would be preserved at that point. Yet, the prosecution never looked for it, and now doesn’t want it examined.

The appeals judge granted the independent experts the right to dismantle the knife, and we 'll now wait 90 days for their report.

Click to find more information about Mark Waterbury's book or Amanda Knox evidence.

Mark is a Ph.D. in materials science with 20 years of experience, including as a scientist for the Air Force, an engineer for a major engineering firm, and CTO for two companies. He's also developed a number of measurement techniques, holds several patents, and has worked on a wide range of scientific projects. Most recently, Mark started his own firm, Perception Development Co., which provides consulting services and development of a variety of new products and technologies.

Tweet

Tu be or not Tu be

by Anne Bremner

In the ever-evolving investigation into the death of Michael Jackson, there has been yet another bizarre twist: Dr. Conrad Murray has lodged his defense as suicide by Jackson. But there was another bizarre twist before of great note; the one-minute YouTube video released by Dr. Murray in August 2009, a sort of infomercial for the old PR tactic of answering the question you wish was asked. In this instance, a PR ploy that may well have backfired.

While YouTube is unquestionably an effective vehicle for producing and disseminating an unassailable statement, the public is not that easily duped. Evading cameras, microphones and probing questions--understandable. When that silence is broken by an obviously orchestrated statement such as Murray's, however, it is redolent of propaganda. Truth isn't delicate, fragile or easily shrouded. It can withstand being scrutinized, poked at, and examined from every angle. We, the public, have a healthy skepticism towards anything too slickly packaged. This is déjà vu all over again.

YouTube allows us to create our own entertainment, create instant celebrities--the piano playing cat, skateboarding bulldog, Snowball the disco cockatiel. It is a forum for raw footage of everything from natural disasters and amazing accidents, to horrifying incidents--the honor killing of a young woman by her own family, protests that turn into riots, or the abuse of power. It is predictable that such a powerful medium would mutate into an easily accessible marketing tool. 

Murray's tape, however, is a prima facia case of exploiting the medium, some would say, not well. The slickly produced video is out of place among the delightfully homespun wobbly, grainy, videos we find so endearing. The obvious splice in Murray's short video brings to mind (for those of us old enough to remember) the Nixonian 18-minute gap in the Watergate tapes. It raises our curiosity, prompting us to ask, "What was left out?"

Couldn't this man make it through a 60-second statement without requiring editing?

Disseminating information on YouTube is the cyber equivalent of a driving a top-speed funny car dragster--a short burst of excitement that requires the ability to maneuver a vehicle at lightening speed, and more importantly, bring it to a stop. As any lawyer who has represented a high-profile client will tell you, we spend far more time and effort keeping clients out of the public eye, flying under the radar. High publicity, sensational cases require meticulous handling, from the basics of keeping a client safe and safeguarding their privacy, to preserving their legal rights, staunching the flow of misinformation, and conducting independent investigation while responding to media, law enforcement and government inquiries.

While many lawyers utilize the advice and services of public relations professionals, there is a danger in confusing clever PR for skilled lawyering. In many cases, the lawyers and PR agents involved in a case early on will be replaced or dismissed as a case gathers steam and proceeds through the judicial system. One of the difficulties of taking on a client in those circumstances is undoing the damage that well-intentioned but detrimental PR may have already done--clients who have said too much, said the wrong thing, given the wrong impression. PR professionals can often have divergent purposes from defense lawyers. PR may concentrate on salvaging a career, public image, and even arranging paid appearances or book deals without an eye to how that may play out to a jury later.

As we often say, silence requires no PR. In this case, it may turn out that the evidence will exonerate Dr. Murray if it proves impossible to isolate, from a medically convoluted sequence of events, a single act that irrefutably lead to Jackson's death. Witnesses can and do lie, but evidence never does. In the certainty that evidence will exonerate, no words are necessary. The problem with self-serving statements is that they are often made by individuals whose credibility is already in dispute. I laughed at my 20-something neighbor's reaction to Murray's video. "The dude has passed the point where we're just gonna take his word for it. Dur," my neighbor said.

As the medium evolves, so will its implementation. I love it as a forum for all sorts of wacky, fascinating, shocking, inspiring and entertaining moments. As a lawyer, I would approach its use with great caution. Tu-be? Dancing Cats, singing dogs, surfing squirrels. The rest, at least for now, is not tu-be.

Now, Dr. Murray is presenting his defense in person. From the sublime to the ridiculous, the resulting disbelief may remain the same.

Tweet

Amanda Knox: 'I'll be home for Christmas, if only in my dreams'

by Anne Bremner

In the three years since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were arrested in the murder of Knox's British roommate, Meredith Kercher, public opinion appears to have swung in their favor in Italy and abroad. Crime novelist Doug Preston says this may have an effect on the appeals trial, which opened with a preliminary hearing this month. While Amanda didn't make it home for the holidays this year, she may be home for Christmas next year.

The shift in opinion began when the original prosecutor in the Knox/Sollecito case, Giuliano Mignini (photo right), was convicted of abuse of office and sentenced to 16 months in prison. Then, the original trial judge, Giancarlo Massei, issued his massive 427-page conclusion. At least here in America, many judicial experts were disturbed, if not shocked, by the sheer amount of unsupported surmise, conjecture, and speculation that formed the backbone of the opinion. The loquacious Massei speculated freely, without offering evidence, about such basic issues as motive, the murder weapon(s) used, how the murder was committed, and why.

Also during the past year, a range of American experts re-examined and/or commented on the forensic and DNA evidence, which was exactly the kind of independent examination that the original trial court had denied the defense. These experts include the notable FBI special agent Steve Moore, a DNA expert and former Air Force scientist Mark Waterbury, criminologists Paul Ciolino and Larry Kobilinsky, and forensic specialist Ron Hendry. All concluded that the evidence collection had been grossly incompetent and that the scientific analysis of that evidence was deeply flawed. The DNA experts said the DNA conclusions, crucial to the conviction, had been deliberately manipulated and did not meet even the most minimal international standards. None of these scientists had been hired by the Knox family or accepted fees for their work, making it hard to question their independence.

This past weekend, the Italian Courts ordered a complete independent review of the forensic evidence. This was a major victory for Amanda. It is a good sign that the names have been made known in advance of the January 22, 2011 trial date, which suggests a more open process this time around. It is important to maintain the spotlight, demanding professionalism and expecting that an unjust verdict will be overturned so all parties concerned may finally move on and an innocent young woman can put this nightmare behind her for good.

Criminalist Mark Waterbury explains that if the forensic review burrows down into identification details, alleles and profile correspondences, they are deliberately missing the point. Larger issues render that evidence meaningless. You can't just twist a knob and make a new machine, technique or protocol. The standards that were not met are not meaningless red tape, but, rather, necessary steps to produce valid results.

One can directly witness Italian criminologist Stefanoni using very poor sample acquisition techniques, yet she is the same person who claimed that she had never seen contamination in her lab. She also testified that she "only changed gloves after handling a specimen that was particularly contaminated with blood." Material transfer is a surface energy phenomenon. It does not require dripping liquids to happen. Pet a cat. I rest my case. Stefanoni betrays ignorance of the basic physics of materials that cause the most contamination and is not competent to claim that those physics do not apply to her.

This speaks directly to her further claims about the knife, that DNA could not possibly have come from contamination in a lab full of Meredith's DNA. No responsible researcher would make such a claim. Many of the details of her unique test have not yet been revealed, which further compromises the integrity of the results. Full disclosure of the DNA data files and procedures to both the reviewers and the defense is critical.

Will Knox and Sollecito be acquitted? Per Preston, nearly 50 percent of all Italian criminal convictions are overturned on appeal. Indeed, in Italy, so common are reversals, that you are not actually considered convicted until you’ve been convicted on appeal. This is the main reason Mignini has not lost his job as he continues to appeal his own sentence for abuse of office. He is still acting as a prosecutorial consultant in the Knox appeal, and he has been busy filing criminal slander charges against many of his critics in Italy and America.

Everything hinges on whether the appeals court will decide to retry the case or just re-examine certain parts. Sources in Italy say that the judiciary would like to find a way to convict Amanda on lesser charges, proclaim time served, and get her out of the country. That would save face for the powerful interests who convicted her in the first place, while getting rid of a thorn in the side of U.S.-Italian relations. Italians are deeply embarrassed at the bright light this case has shone on their criminal justice system. They are acutely aware of its shortcomings and have been trying to reform it for years, and they are not happy that its flaws are on display in this case, exposed to outside criticism.

Among the many "Friends of Amanda Knox" are prominent authors, judges, attorneys, scientists and law enforcement experts such as Doug Preston, Paul Ciolino, Michael Heavey, Tom Wright, Mark Waterbury, Bruce Fisher, Charlie Wilkes and myself. Our Christmas wish this year was granted as the court in Perugia embarked upon an ongoing examination and criticism of the forensic evidence in the Knox case. Even world-renowned forensic expert Dr. Cyril Wecht has offered his assistance to Amanda Knox as she continues her quest for vindication. John Douglas, the inventor of modern FBI criminal profiling methods, declares in the current issue of Maxim magazine that "Amanda Knox is innocent." Let's hope Amanda is granted her dream of justice and freedom--if not during this holiday season, then certainly sometime soon in the coming months.

Tweet