Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

No wrongful convictions or corruption in the Antipodes then?

Yeah, Arthur Allan Thomas, Lindy Chamberlain, Teina Pora, and 50/50 on David Bain. But only 25 million souls, to your 500 million, (western style). There should be 60 or 70 dead ringer cock ups trans atlantic in this 40 year period.
This one is the best ever because it is already solved, with a killer in jail.

 

[carbonjam72]

Came across an earlier reaction to the trailer for "Face of An Angel", which made me think the film would be a piece of junk. (article published 2/7/14, by Tim Appelo, not sure where)

Posting here mostly for Bill W, who has been less skeptical of this film and the intentions of the director Winterbottom.

Here's the headline and a quote;

Amanda Knox Author Blasts 'Salacious' Trailer for 'Face of An Angel': "I'm Shocked".

Michael Winterbottom's new film The Face of an Angel, loosely based on Barbie Latza Nadeau's book on the Amanda Knox case, Angel Face, is drawing fire from Candace Dempsey, whose competing book Murder in Italy is far more sympathetic to Knox. Reacting to the movie's trailer, unveiled this week at Berlin's European Film Market, Dempsey calls the film "an invasion of Amanda's life."

snip

and,

Winterbottom told THR, "We are certainly not going to be saying ’This person is innocent, or that person is guilty.' But we will be asking, ‘Is this system of justice fair?'" The trailer begins with the words, "A Journey Beyond the Truth.""I'm shocked that BBC Films would help fund a movie so prejudicial," Dempsey tells THR."“So much for fairness and neutrality. They are running a salacious trailer, complete with sex on the train -- which, if it happened, was before the murder.
"Winterbottom wants to have it both ways," says Dempsey. "The film's not about Amanda, but it is about Amanda. It's not about guilt or innocence, but it makes Amanda look at guilty as possible."In the trailer, one character says, "She had sex with some random guy she met on a train," and Bruhl's character replies, "None of that makes her a killer."

But Dempsey notes that 22 seconds into the trailer, after a gory murder scene, the Knox-inspired character flashes a lurid, deranged look as a character (apparently the prosecutor) calls her "sexual, dominant." Says Dempsey, "Tell me this actress isn't trying to look crazy, or that Winterbottom isn't doing a Fatal Attraction on Amanda. He couldn't have picked a nastier pic. The trailer is like a bad Saturday Night Live skit. Clueless Yanks, exceptional Brits, phony Italian accents, slut shaming, pervy shots of young girls, whore/Madonna framing and salacious gossip dressed up as fact. The Lolita-faced 'Amanda' looks guilty in every frame. At 20, she 'dominates' in bed. The British victim, who was also sexually active, is shown as 'quiet,' nun-like. Amanda was actually a U.S. honor student but she dared to like sex. And we all know that sex is a gateway crime to murder.""I'm a fan of Winterbottom's films, especially A Mighty Heart," Dempsey says, "but if he didn't think Amanda was guilty, then what was his fascination with Angel Face: The True Story of a Student Killer?" After the 2011 reversal of Knox's conviction, Nadeau's book got a new subtitle, Sex, Murder and the Inside Story of Amanda Knox.
"Why would Winterbottom dress two young actors in Amanda and [her also-convicted then-boyfriend) Raffaele Sollecito's exact clothes," asks Dempsey, "and have them lurk around the murder house, looking grim and suspicious?" Winterbottom told The Independent, "The closest any of the main characters in the film are to the real case is the journalist covering the story."

And...

"It is hilarious to see reporters who made money on ‘Foxy Knoxy’ -- the caricature they created -- be recast as heroic truth-seekers horrified by the media circus and focused on the victim --if only," says Dempsey. "Not only were the colpevolisti (pro-guilt) journalists obsessed with Amanda and her family, but too often they typed up whatever nasty rumors police and prosecutors were putting out. Even the Times of London sometimes did that. Meanwhile, the bullying prosecutor Giuliano Mignini sued countless reporters for criticizing him. Those reporters are the true heroes."One reporter Mignini lashed out at is Douglas Preston, author of the 2013 Knox book Trial By Fury, who also wrote The Monster of Florence, about an unsolved serial killing that inspired the book and film Hannibal. George Clooney has been attached to film rights for Preston's story.
"Mignini, the chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, was also the prosecutor in the Monster case," writes Preston, who earned Mignini's wrath by dissenting from Mignini's belief that the Florence murders were done by an ancient sex cult – similar to the motive he ascribed to Amanda Knox. "He is quick to suspect Satanism," writes Nadeau.
"[Mignini] then did to me what he would do to Amanda a year later," writes Preston. "He hauled me in for an interrogation with no attorney or interpreter present, accused me of being an accessory to murder, among other heinous crimes, and demanded I confess. He threw Mario Spezi [Preston's coauthor] into prison and accused him of being the Monster of Florence. (Later the charges against us were dropped and Mignini was investigated for abuse of office.

"The Italian Supreme Court backed off the Satanic sex game theory as Amanda Knox’s motive for
"The Italian Supreme Court backed off the Satanic sex game theory as Amanda Knox’s motive for murder," says Dempsey, "and now they’ve got a comical new motive: that an unflushed toilet caused the crime." The new theory is that arguments over bathroom hygiene provoked a fatal dispute. "If women
killed over unflushed toilets, do you know how many dead husbands there would be?" asks Dempsey.
"You have to remember, this is the same court that said a woman couldn't be raped because her jeans were too tight," says Dempsey. In 1999, Rome's Supreme Court of Appeals overturned a rape case, noting that ''jeans cannot be removed easily and certainly it is impossible to pull them off if the victim is

"Some people find it hard to accept that two completely innocent people could linger for so long under a cloud of suspicion, or that the criminal-justice system of a civilized European country could manufacture guilt out of thin air," writes Preston in The Forgotten Killer: Rudy Guede, published on Jan. 27, which details the case that Guede, also convicted of Kercher's killing, was the sole killer. Guede, who cooperated with authorities, could be out of jail this year, while Knox’s and Sollecito's cases may drag on for years.
Preston's book quotes Guede in a 2007 Skype call he says was monitored by Perugian police: "Amanda has nothing to do with it... She wasn't there."
Dempsey says her book's option by Sony, which would have paid in the low six figures, has lapsed, but the book is in its third printing.

Dempsey's views are from only the trailer, but the nature of the trailer is that it sells what the movie has to offer. These skunks knew what they were doing, and it stinks.

 

[RWVBWL]

I am appalled by the neglect of American medical specialists that can quickly close this case. The autopsy is unchallenged, so where are the American doctors that can declare the stomach contents incongruous with any prosecutorial theory of a TOD beyond the timing of the first hand witness 9 20 pm.
What is going on?
This is completely unbelievable.

Did either of the defendants bring up the gastric evidence in any of the trials or in their appeals?

Hi Samson, Lonepinealex, and others,
Reading Old Perugia Shock,
it appears that Raffaele was arguing with the Italian Supreme Court back in April of 2008,
many, many months before The Massei Trial even began,
that Meredith died right after 9:00pm, because of, as you put it, gastric evidence.
But the SC knows what time it was when Meredith died.

Read the post I mention in the link below:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100807000317/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html

(There is also a question+answer session with Amanda + the SC also, right below)

Friday, April 25, 2008
Raffaele: Q and A with the Supreme Court

<snip>
Raffaele:
The time of my telephone conversation with my father, which I said took place at 23 pm but which instead was at 20:40 pm, has no significance whatsoever since we don't know the time of death. The time of death has been indicated by the pathologist as 23 pm, but it depends totally on the time at which Meredith had dinner, and someone said the dinner was at 18 pm. So the time of death could be moved back to 21 pm, which is right after the Popovic witness came to see me. And she found me at home and not about to go out.

Supreme Court:
The time of death is between 22 and 23 on November 1, 2007.

 

[Diocletus]

I follow the threads with morbid fascination.
Statistics always interest me, and in fact one American senator equals one NZ Prime minister.

Well, this discussion seems to be ongoing over there. Breezy Hugo thinks that Senator Cantwell is a nobody, but poster MisterPink actually seems to have a clue how things work in the real world, i.e., US Senators are very powerful people in their spheres: they basically appoint their judges and US attorneys, they have the ear of the President and by extension the Sec. of State and ambassadors, they are heavy hitters in party politics, etc.

Basically, if a US Senator decides that she doesn't want one of her constituents extradited, it would pose a very substantial obstacle to extradition on a number of levels. There are innumerable tools that a Senator could use to impact the process on both a public and private level. Cantwell has signaled frustration with the fairness of the Italian proceedings against Knox.

The extradition treaty presupposes that extradition questions will be resolved on a political (as well as legal) level, because the executive branch is given final say over extraditions. For that matter, I think that we can also say the extradition treaty assumes that requesting states will approach the process with clean hands, meaning that in the process of convicting a person they won't violate their own international treaty obligations and/or the human rights of the defendant.

Thus, if the ECHR rules in favor of Knox at any step in the process, Cantwell won't even have to do any heavy lifting. Even if the ECtHR hasn't ruled, or somehow has ruled in Italy's favor (which would be rather astonishing given recent ECtHR precedent), we could see a Cantwell-initiated inquiry into the Italian process, which at very least could put an extradition process into suspended animation until the ECtHR does rule or finally rules. For these reasons, and because there are hopefully people in Italy way smarter than Popper, it remains a possibility that there will never be an extradition request due to the potential resulting embarrassment to Italy.

Oh, and lest we forget:

2009

I am saddened by the verdict and I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial. The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty. Italian jurors were not sequestered and were allowed to view highly negative news coverage about Ms. Knox. Other flaws in the Italian justice system on display in this case included the harsh treatment of Ms. Knox following her arrest; negligent handling of evidence by investigators; and pending charges of misconduct against one of the prosecutors stemming from another murder trial.

I am in contact with the U.S. Ambassador to Italy and have been since the time of Ms. Knox’s arrest. I will be conveying my concerns to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I have also been in touch with the Embassy of Italy in Washington, DC.

2014

I am very concerned and disappointed by this verdict,” said Cantwell. “I am confident there will be an appeal to closely re-examine today’s decision. It is very troubling that Amanda and her family have had to endure this process for so many years. I will continue to closely monitor this case as it moves forward through the Italian legal system.

Oh my.

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, this discussion seems to be ongoing over there. Breezy Hugo thinks that Senator Cantwell is a nobody, but poster MisterPink actually seems to have a clue how things work in the real world, i.e., US Senators are very powerful people in their spheres: they basically appoint their judges and US attorneys, they have the ear of the President and by extension the Sec. of State and ambassadors, they are heavy hitters in party politics, etc.

Basically, if a US Senator decides that she doesn't want one of her constituents extradited, it would pose a very substantial obstacle to extradition on a number of levels. There are innumerable tools that a Senator could use to impact the process on both a public and private level. Cantwell has signaled frustration with the fairness of the Italian proceedings against Knox.

The extradition treaty presupposes that extradition questions will be resolved on a political (as well as legal) level, because the executive branch is given final say over extraditions. For that matter, I think that we can also say the extradition treaty assumes that requesting states will approach the process with clean hands, meaning that in the process of convicting a person they won't violate their own international treaty obligations and/or the human rights of the defendant.

Thus, if the ECHR rules in favor of Knox at any step in the process, Cantwell won't even have to do any heavy lifting. Even if the ECtHR hasn't ruled, or somehow has ruled in Italy's favor (which would be rather astonishing given recent ECtHR precedent), we could see a Cantwell-initiated inquiry into the Italian process, which at very least could put an extradition process into suspended animation until the ECtHR does rule or finally rules. For these reasons, and because there are hopefully people in Italy way smarter than Popper, it remains a possibility that there will never be an extradition request due to the potential resulting embarrassment to Italy.

Oh, and lest we forget:

2009



2014



Oh my.

Referred to as the 'doctrine of unclean hands', no country would ever say that out loud to another country, but what is done is more important than what is said.

I still think the ISC will annul the convictions, I can't believe they really want Raf in prison. They taken 4 years in prison already, and terrified them for 3 more.

The ECHR on the calumnia charge, and a call for a untied sessions hearing at cassation are up next.

 

[Samson]

Well, this discussion seems to be ongoing over there. Breezy Hugo thinks that Senator Cantwell is a nobody, but poster MisterPink actually seems to have a clue how things work in the real world, i.e., US Senators are very powerful people in their spheres: they basically appoint their judges and US attorneys, they have the ear of the President and by extension the Sec. of State and ambassadors, they are heavy hitters in party politics, etc.

Basically, if a US Senator decides that she doesn't want one of her constituents extradited, it would pose a very substantial obstacle to extradition on a number of levels. There are innumerable tools that a Senator could use to impact the process on both a public and private level. Cantwell has signaled frustration with the fairness of the Italian proceedings against Knox.

The extradition treaty presupposes that extradition questions will be resolved on a political (as well as legal) level, because the executive branch is given final say over extraditions. For that matter, I think that we can also say the extradition treaty assumes that requesting states will approach the process with clean hands, meaning that in the process of convicting a person they won't violate their own international treaty obligations and/or the human rights of the defendant.

Thus, if the ECHR rules in favor of Knox at any step in the process, Cantwell won't even have to do any heavy lifting. Even if the ECtHR hasn't ruled, or somehow has ruled in Italy's favor (which would be rather astonishing given recent ECtHR precedent), we could see a Cantwell-initiated inquiry into the Italian process, which at very least could put an extradition process into suspended animation until the ECtHR does rule or finally rules. For these reasons, and because there are hopefully people in Italy way smarter than Popper, it remains a possibility that there will never be an extradition request due to the potential resulting embarrassment to Italy.

Oh, and lest we forget:

2009



2014



Oh my.

Like everything, evidence, character, Amanda the good vs Amanda the bad, this debate is conducted according to party lines.
Extradition a formality at PMF bar Mr Pink.
Extradition will never happen, here and IIP.

 

[Diocletus]

Like everything, evidence, character, Amanda the good vs Amanda the bad, this debate is conducted according to party lines.
Extradition a formality at PMF bar Mr Pink.
Extradition will never happen, here and IIP.

I think that extradition will not happen if the ECtHR rules against Italy in either of the two ECtHR appeals (the pending one and the one that will follow a final conviction, if that occurs).

If the ECtHR does not rule against Italy, then I think that extradition is a possibility, but the process could turn out to drawn out and very painful for Italy. There is no guaranty that such an extradition would occur, but it might. There are many factors that would come into play, some known and some not yet knowable.

 

[MDDVS]

Anyone knows in what stage the process is in the ECHR?

 

[Diocletus]

Anyone knows in what stage the process is in the ECHR?

They are considering whether to take jurisdiction of Knox's appeal concerning the ass-kicking the cops gave her during interrogation.

If they take jurisdiction, then they are going to end up deciding that the cops violated her rights and none of the statements that she made prior to having access to counsel can be used against her. That will blow out the callunnia conviction, and ultimately the derivative murder conviction. Then, if the Italians want, they can do a retrial, except at that point we'll be 10 or 15 years down the road and it will be too late.

 

[Samson]

I think that extradition will not happen if the ECtHR rules against Italy in either of the two ECtHR appeals (the pending one and the one that will follow a final conviction, if that occurs).

If the ECtHR does not rule against Italy, then I think that extradition is a possibility, but the process could turn out to drawn out and very painful for Italy. There is no guaranty that such an extradition would occur, but it might. There are many factors that would come into play, some known and some not yet knowable.

I know only that I consider extradition a nil prospect.
I am pretty sure the guilters know this too, but must wax hearty (though what vicarious pleasure do they achieve?)
But then I read their garbage and am forced to conclude that some must be so dumb to believe the impossible.
Yes, Popper is articulate but a quintessential fundamentalist. He would happily behead to support the faith.

 

[Desert Fox]

I have a side question. . . . .
Is there anything that can be so it is less of "US vs Europe" in this issue?

 

[Diocletus]

I have a side question. . . . .
Is there anything that can be so it is less of "US vs Europe" in this issue?

Sure. The ECtHR can take the case and then it will just be Europe vs. Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

I know only that I consider extradition a nil prospect.
I am pretty sure the guilters know this too, but must wax hearty (though what vicarious pleasure do they achieve?)
But then I read their garbage and am forced to conclude that some must be so dumb to believe the impossible.
Yes, Popper is articulate but a quintessential fundamentalist. He would happily behead to support the faith.

I wish I knew that extradition was a "nil request". Some people consider it to be pro forma request Samson and usually it is. But there is nothing "pro forma" about this case.

 

[Samson]

I wish I knew that extradition was a "nil request". Some people consider it to be pro forma request Samson and usually it is. But there is nothing "pro forma" about this case.

The date for the next hearing has been set for March 25th, which leaves plenty of time for putting a summary before the public, but so far it is a scatter gun approach. I fear that unless a serious public figure other than Donald Trump picks it up, another swathe of people will say there must be something in the charges for the case to persist.

Interestingly, this is a powerful theme from PMF. Just today, this was posted,

I can't comment on whether it may or may not convince casual readers, but it's a manifestly silly piece of writing that wouldn't have a hope of convincing anyone with the power to make a difference in the case. Its starting premise that the Italian courts presumed guilt rather than innocence is so obviously wrong that it's hard to know where to start to challenge it. Does the writer think the courts always do that? Or only in this case?

And that second question brings in the second weakness in the argument,which is based on the theory that the police systematically fudged, falsified, invented and/or suppressed evidence in an ongoing murder investigation for the sole purpose of railroadingb two innocent but well-connected young people, despite the fact that they also caught and convicted the real killer. Why on earth would they do that?

Sadly the above is a complete capitulation to a false authority. It's an old chestnut, but they did the same to Galileo.

 

[Desert Fox]

On the second point, it is not for us to speculate fudged the evidence. It is simply that we can see the screwed up nature of the evidence.

That leads to the first point, that is that the evidence does not appear to be enough to convict and appears to support that AK/RS are both innocent of the charges. By default, they seem to have to have started from a presumption of guilt.

 

[kwill]

Its starting premise that the Italian courts presumed guilt rather than innocence is so obviously wrong that it's hard to know where to start to challenge it. Does the writer think the courts always do that? Or only in this case?

And that second question brings in the second weakness in the argument,which is based on the theory that the police systematically fudged, falsified, invented and/or suppressed evidence in an ongoing murder investigation for the sole purpose of railroadingb two innocent but well-connected young people, despite the fact that they also caught and convicted the real killer. Why on earth would they do that? [/I]

How I wish these reputedly articulate spokespeople for the loony idea of guilt would engage in an argument once in a while instead of calling to one another inside their echo chamber.

What frightens them so badly about this heavily moderated and very safe website?

 

[acbytesla]

The date for the next hearing has been set for March 25th, which leaves plenty of time for putting a summary before the public, but so far it is a scatter gun approach. I fear that unless a serious public figure other than Donald Trump picks it up, another swathe of people will say there must be something in the charges for the case to persist.

Interestingly, this is a powerful theme from PMF. Just today, this was posted,

I can't comment on whether it may or may not convince casual readers, but it's a manifestly silly piece of writing that wouldn't have a hope of convincing anyone with the power to make a difference in the case. Its starting premise that the Italian courts presumed guilt rather than innocence is so obviously wrong that it's hard to know where to start to challenge it. Does the writer think the courts always do that? Or only in this case?

And that second question brings in the second weakness in the argument,which is based on the theory that the police systematically fudged, falsified, invented and/or suppressed evidence in an ongoing murder investigation for the sole purpose of railroadingb two innocent but well-connected young people, despite the fact that they also caught and convicted the real killer. Why on earth would they do that?

Sadly the above is a complete capitulation to a false authority. It's an old chestnut, but they did the same to Galileo.

I'm reminded of the line from Beijing about the protests in Hong Kong. They called the protests "illegal". Which basically means that any challenge to authority is wrong and therefore illegal.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Anyone knows in what stage the process is in the ECHR?

I believe each application goes through an assessment process where it is decided whether it will be heard by ECHR, don’t know whether Amanda’s slander case has passed this stage yet, I guess not otherwise those in the know would have said.

 

[Diocletus]

I believe each application goes through an assessment process where it is decided whether it will be heard by ECHR, don’t know whether Amanda’s slander case has passed this stage yet, I guess not otherwise those in the know would have said.

Not necessarily. The whole thing seems quite hush.

The only reason that we know about the admissibility of Berlusconi's application is because his lawyer announced it. If Amanda's lawyers decline to do so, then I'm not sure when anything will be known.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings everyone,
Reading around the WWW,
I just found this article written by Amanda herself:
What It Feels Like to Be Wrongly Accused
I spent four years in an Italian prison for a crime I didn’t commit. And I am not alone.
Oct 1, 2014
By Amanda Knox

<snip>

So what does it feel like?

When you’re accused of a horrific act you didn’t do, you inevitably experience shock, disorientation, confusion. There’s tension above your right eyebrow and below your right nostril that sometimes triggers both to twitch uncontrollably, making you self-conscious about looking people in the face. There’s a pinpoint knot that spasms between your shoulder blades, behind your heart, making it hard to sit still. There’s pressure that squeezes your temples and tingles on the edges of your eyeballs, making it hard to concentrate.

“There is always this thought: How can you reconcile with significant parts of society that abused your trust, your rights, your innocence—then tried to justify that abuse?” You sometimes feel dizzy, dazed, disoriented, forgetful, disconnected from your own body. You wake up drained, your whole body weighed down by a lethargy you can’t shake off. You feel a sometimes dragging, sometimes crushing weight. You’ll be tense from your ears to your lower abdomen, struggling to swallow, struggling to breathe.

Read more in the link below:
http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-...feels-like-to-be-wrongly-accused-october-2014



Thanks for the link, Sarah at IIP!
And congrats to Amanda for graduating from the University of Washington...
RW