Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Well, Mach, I searched HUDOC for "Battisti v. France" and "Battisti v. Italy" and for "Battisti" alone and for "Cesare Battisti" and came up with no matches.

Are you sure that this person applied to the ECtHR? Could the name be spelled differently?

ETA: There was no mention of the ECHR in the English language article. I skimmed over the paragraph headings of the Italian article and didn't see anything that looked like a reference to the ECHR.

ETA2: If the case was totally inadmissible, there may have been no record maintained in HUDOC.

ETA3: Source: Wikipedia
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in its December 2006 decision, rejected Battisti's claim that France's extradition decision was illegitimate. The Court considered that:

The applicant had patently been informed of the accusation against him and of the progress of the proceedings before the Italian courts, notwithstanding the fact that he had absconded. Furthermore, the applicant, who had deliberately chosen to remain on the run after escaping from prison, had received effective assistance during the proceedings from several lawyers specially appointed by him. Hence, the Italian and subsequently the French authorities had been entitled to conclude that the applicant had unequivocally waived his right to appear and be tried in person. The French authorities had therefore taken due account of all the circumstances of the case and of the Court’s case-law in granting the extradition request made by the Italian authorities: manifestly ill-founded.

I'm not sure what the claims were. The Wikipedia reference link was dead.
Apparently Battisti is in asylum in Brazil.

Battisti vs. France was the reference that I know.
Many sources in Italian report of the ECHR submission.

 

[Kaosium]

No, you're wrong.

Your explanation to your father would have been: "But... we were home all night". "Meredith has never been to my house". "They are trying to frame me" "Help!!!!!" "WTF!!!!!!!"

Besides: he didn't come up with an innocent explanation... he came up with a detailed, well thought-out humdinger of a lie.

Raffaele has a three digit IQ, what he did was come up with a theory in his diary to explain the inexplicable, as it says at the end of the passage (did you post that part?) it was the only possible explanation in his mind at the time. However being as it has the knife being in his hands, not Amanda's it's hardly suggestive of any actual knowledge of the knife being used in the murder and would have been worthless as an explanation anyway.

That's because it's just lab contamination which explains why they couldn't reproduce it, the knife didn't match the wounds, the knife tested negative for blood and Stefanoni and the prosecution wouldn't allow the raw data of the DNA work to be seen.

What do you think of his diary being seized by police and published when they won't even allow the defense to see the raw data of the DNA work which is routine over here?

 

[Numbers]

It is not evidence of "guilt" since it is not a crime to possess or buy drugs. I am not using innuendo, I am using public news sources.
Those sources do not suggest Knox had contacts with dealers, they report crime news.
Yet, news about officers under investigation comes from the same kind of sources Nobody here complained about my referring to Napoleoni and Zugarini just summarizing the content of news sources. You didn't start screaming that I was using innuendo, that I couldn't be sure that they were investigated since I didn't present evidence, trial papers etc.
Actually the weekly magazine Giallo did present an investigation paper. The Knox supporters had it before their eyes, they simply denied it.

Your statements are irrelevant character assassination.

One could likewise point out that Meredith Kercher was sleeping with a young man committing what would be a very serious crime in some states of the US:
growing marijuana plants and harvesting them. And she aided him in this by watering the plants. At least until she was brutally murdered and raped by a friend of her boyfriend.

Also Meredith and her English friends sometimes drank to excess; this may be considered a serious character flaw by some people. At one point production, transport, and sale of alcoholic beverages was against the US Constitution (18th Amendment), which showed that people in the US considered alcohol an extremely serious problem.

Now I actually believe that Meredith Kercher was a really good person, just as Amanda Knox is. I believe that you, Mach, are pursuing this character assassination as part of, or as a result of, the anti-Amanda publicity campaign pursued by the police and prosecution in their attempt to demonize her and assure the UNFAIRNESS of her trial. Your statements are unworthy.

 

[Desert Fox]

It is not evidence of "guilt" since it is not a crime to possess or buy drugs. I am not using innuendo, I am using public news sources.
Those sources do not suggest Knox had contacts with dealers, they report crime news.
Yet, news about officers under investigation comes from the same kind of sources Nobody here complained about my referring to Napoleoni and Zugarini just summarizing the content of news sources. You didn't start screaming that I was using innuendo, that I couldn't be sure that they were investigated since I didn't present evidence, trial papers etc.
Actually the weekly magazine Giallo did present an investigation paper. The Knox supporters had it before their eyes, they simply denied it.

There is a recent Skeptoid episode which talks about what one should look for in news items to see if they are valid or not. There is of course the source - something from the Daily Mail should be treated pretty skeptically. As well, one should look for how it is referenced. There are certain red flags. To be blunt, most of the pro guilt items immediately trigger red flags.

 

[Samson]

Your statements are irrelevant character assassination.

One could likewise point out that Meredith Kercher was sleeping with a young man committing what would be a very serious crime in some states of the US:
growing marijuana plants and harvesting them. And she aided him in this by watering the plants. At least until she was brutally murdered and raped by a friend of her boyfriend.Also Meredith and her English friends sometimes drank to excess; this may be considered a serious character flaw by some people. At one point production, transport, and sale of alcoholic beverages was against the US Constitution (18th Amendment), which showed that people in the US considered alcohol an extremely serious problem.

Now I actually believe that Meredith Kercher was a really good person, just as Amanda Knox is. I believe that you, Mach, are pursuing this character assassination as part of, or as a result of, the anti-Amanda publicity campaign pursued by the police and prosecution in their attempt to demonize her and assure the UNFAIRNESS of her trial. Your statements are unworthy.

Numbers, this a stark statement.
And true.
Take note

John Kercher
Arline Kercher
John Kercher junior
Stephanie Kercher
Lyle Kercher

If you read this forum, this post of Numbers should be etched in your minds.
It is almost but not too late for independent study.

They will never read this forum because the concensus conclusion is too unsettling.

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't build straw man: I am not interested in their being suitable or not suitable to serving the post as polce officers. This is up to a judge to decide.
What we are talking about is whether from this you can deduce evidence of a conspiracy theory about the framing of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito tha would make some sense.
I don't think there is any evidence and no relation between the being unift to a post of some officers, and evidence of the existence of the conspiracy picture agaisnt Knox and Sollecito that you want to believe.
That conspiracy theory is plain delusional and foolish, independently on whether Napoleoni and Zugarini are suspected of abuse of office.

There is plenty of evidence of a conspiracy and it doesn't depend at all on Napoleone having someone's car scratched and looking them up in the police data base. However, it is interesting that the head of the investigation should be so malicious. There are stories of her attending hearings and staring fixedly and malevolently at Amanda like an ugly sister in a pantomime. She also vented her feelings towards Amanda during the enquiry itself, before the 5th-6th. This is not the behaviour of a good professional but I don't need it to classify her as a stupid, dishonest moron. That emerges well enough from the principle facts of the case.

 

[MichaelB]

I can't believe the Polizia Scientifica clowns tried to attribute this luminol print to Raffaele.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...athmat-and-Luminol-Print-Analysis-Italian.pdf

 

[Samson]

It's got primate written all over it, and that narrows down the list of candidates considerably.

 

[Samson]

This case is a catastrophe for Raffaele Sollecito, his family, and Amanda Knox and her family. I have gathered that Raffaele's family have partially blamed Amanda for his misfortune, but I totally excuse and discount their blame. The fracture lines are created by the Prosecutor Mignini, his avuncular leaning back in his chair, as he mysteriously ascribes unpredictable behaviour to callow youth.
He is a convict in all similar jurisdictions.
He has in captivity 20 totally innocent ingenue while occupying a position of false authority.

Gimme Shelter.
Hitler believed in his cause while being a man that history will always ascribe unmitigated evil, yet Mignini is an order of magnitude worse.
He is unmitigated evil by any standard of decency.

 

[tsig]

This case is a catastrophe for Raffaele Sollecito, his family, and Amanda Knox and her family. I have gathered that Raffaele's family have partially blamed Amanda for his misfortune, but I totally excuse and discount their blame. The fracture lines are created by the Prosecutor Mignini, his avuncular leaning back in his chair, as he mysteriously ascribes unpredictable behaviour to callow youth.
He is a convict in all similar jurisdictions.
He has in captivity 20 totally innocent ingenue while occupying a position of false authority.

Gimme Shelter.
Hitler believed in his cause while being a man that history will always ascribe unmitigated evil, yet Mignini is an order of magnitude worse.He is unmitigated evil by any standard of decency.

He has killed more than six million Jews?

Wow what a cover up!

 

[Planigale]

But reasonable doubt cannot be deduced from a "comparison" between the number of physical evidence in one room of this and the other suspect. There is a ton of murder cases where there is not even a physical trace of a suspect in the murder room. As for Italy: the Erba massacre, the Scazzi murder, the Garlasco murder: there is no DNA or prints of perpetrators in the murder room at all in those cases. No forensic links the suspect to the murder room directly. But there are pending cases and convictions. No forensic findings about some specific context is not enough for having a reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, there is indeed physical evidence against Knox and Sollecito, there is a doublr DNA knife with a pattern of circumstantial evidence surrounding it, there is unexplained DNA finding on a bra clasp, there is the autopsy report, there is Knox's lamp and there is evidence of cleanup, all this in the murder room. But there is also massive evidence of the perpetrators on the murder scene inside the rest of the house: luminol prints, double DNA and luminol stains in Filomena's room, unaccounted for Knox's blood in small bathroom, bathmat print that matches SOllecito and not Guede, etc.

I am not familiar with these cases; was there extensive physical evidence that these crimes were committed by another individual who has been convicted of the crime, but cases are being pursued against others with no relationship to the perpetrator? Or are these cases where there is no direct physical evidence of any individual - if the latter then the cases are not comparable. The question is not can you commit a murder without leaving physical evidence of your presence, but if there is physical evidence that the crime has been committed by one individual how likely is it that two other individuals with no relationship to the perpetrator were participants in the absence of evidence of their presence at that time and place. I would argue that there is reasonable doubt.

None of the evidence you quote places Knox or Sollecito at the time and place of the crime. Evidence of their presence in the flat is irrelevant, their presence (unlike Guede's) is entirely legitimate and known. Therefore they have to be placed directly at the site of the crime.

Let us consider why the suspected semen sample was not tested. This would place the perpetrator at the place and time (there is an imprint of a shoe matching prints in blood giving a time fix). Yet it was not tested. The one person we know it cannot belong to is Knox, my suspicion is that is why it was not tested. The prosecution were not interested in the truth, just making a case against Knox.

The lamp does not place either Knox or Sollecito at the time and place of the crime. Knox did not lock her room, therefore anyone at anytime could have moved the lamp. The double DNA knife has significant issues 1) The covert entry of police to Sollecito's flat prior to its recovery raises concerns contamination 2) That the knife was unpackaged at the police station in non 'sterile' circumstances and repackaged in a box that had been laying around raises concerns of contamination 3) The processing in a laboratory not set up for LCN DNA typing, using non standard and unexplained deviations to protocol without published evidence of appropriate negative controls and lack of replication raises issues of contamination 4) There is evidence that most of the wounds are incompatible with the knife from Sollecito's so an assumption has to be made that two knives were used. So there is both doubt about the reliability of the DNA finding and the compatibility of the knife with the wounds. The autopsy report says nothing about who committed the crime. It does have evidence of time of death that would make it extremely unlikely that Sollecito and Knox could have committed the crime so the autopsy favours innocence. The bra hook DNA does not provide evidence of presence at the time and place of the crime. There is no time date on the DNA (unlike the blood stained handprint or suspected semen stain). We know there is DNA from others on the hook which presumably arrived at another time and place, there are again significant issues with collection and possible contamination, and that it was LCN DNA typing done in a laboratory not set up to do this technique. The evidence of the clean up is what? Even if there is some attempt at a clean up this says nothing about who did so. The bathmat foot print does not contain identifiable information. It was identified as being attributable to Sollecito (using the technique of the discredited Robbins incriminated in multiple miscarriages of justice) by the same people who identified the shoe prints as being attributable to Sollecito (subsequently down to be an error due to the incompetence of analysts). The foot print was identified as being incompatible with Sollecito and compatible with Guede by the same expert who correctly identified the shoe prints as being incompatible with Sollecito and compatible with Guede. Should we believe the opinion by those proven to be incompetent and error prone or the expert proven to be correct?

 

[MichaelB]

The bathmat print was originally attributed to Amanda. It's in the transcripts and I'm kicking myself for not writing down the witness and page number. Bongiorno was asking "why does it say Amanda and then in the next report Raffaele" and of course it was all just an innocent typo. Nothing to see here folks.

I think one of them probably said "umm we have no evidence against the other guy, what's his name? Lets say he made it not her"

 

[Samson]

He has killed more than six million Jews?

Wow what a cover up!

Why?
I kill one man because he is irredeemable, or 6 million because they are irredeemable, is there a substantive difference, when neither finding is agreed upon by a jury of peers?
You treetop dwellers must debate these matters.
You have an avatar from heaven.

 

[Samson]

I am not familiar with these cases; was there extensive physical evidence that these crimes were committed by another individual who has been convicted of the crime, but cases are being pursued against others with no relationship to the perpetrator? Or are these cases where there is no direct physical evidence of any individual - if the latter then the cases are not comparable. The question is not can you commit a murder without leaving physical evidence of your presence, but if there is physical evidence that the crime has been committed by one individual how likely is it that two other individuals with no relationship to the perpetrator were participants in the absence of evidence of their presence at that time and place. I would argue that there is reasonable doubt.

None of the evidence you quote places Knox or Sollecito at the time and place of the crime. Evidence of their presence in the flat is irrelevant, their presence (unlike Guede's) is entirely legitimate and known. Therefore they have to be placed directly at the site of the crime.

Let us consider why the suspected semen sample was not tested. This would place the perpetrator at the place and time (there is an imprint of a shoe matching prints in blood giving a time fix). Yet it was not tested. The one person we know it cannot belong to is Knox, my suspicion is that is why it was not tested. The prosecution were not interested in the truth, just making a case against Knox.

The lamp does not place either Knox or Sollecito at the time and place of the crime. Knox did not lock her room, therefore anyone at anytime could have moved the lamp. The double DNA knife has significant issues 1) The covert entry of police to Sollecito's flat prior to its recovery raises concerns contamination 2) That the knife was unpackaged at the police station in non 'sterile' circumstances and repackaged in a box that had been laying around raises concerns of contamination 3) The processing in a laboratory not set up for LCN DNA typing, using non standard and unexplained deviations to protocol without published evidence of appropriate negative controls and lack of replication raises issues of contamination 4) There is evidence that most of the wounds are incompatible with the knife from Sollecito's so an assumption has to be made that two knives were used. So there is both doubt about the reliability of the DNA finding and the compatibility of the knife with the wounds. The autopsy report says nothing about who committed the crime. It does have evidence of time of death that would make it extremely unlikely that Sollecito and Knox could have committed the crime so the autopsy favours innocence. The bra hook DNA does not provide evidence of presence at the time and place of the crime. There is no time date on the DNA (unlike the blood stained handprint or suspected semen stain). We know there is DNA from others on the hook which presumably arrived at another time and place, there are again significant issues with collection and possible contamination, and that it was LCN DNA typing done in a laboratory not set up to do this technique. The evidence of the clean up is what? Even if there is some attempt at a clean up this says nothing about who did so. The bathmat foot print does not contain identifiable information. It was identified as being attributable to Sollecito (using the technique of the discredited Robbins incriminated in multiple miscarriages of justice) by the same people who identified the shoe prints as being attributable to Sollecito (subsequently down to be an error due to the incompetence of analysts). The foot print was identified as being incompatible with Sollecito and compatible with Guede by the same expert who correctly identified the shoe prints as being incompatible with Sollecito and compatible with Guede. Should we believe the opinion by those proven to be incompetent and error prone or the expert proven to be correct?

Planigale, the Scazzi murder appeal is underway, go to IIP Scazzi, and European neigbour provides links. I hope Kaosium does not object that I say he declares to me that there is a certain case of incarceration of innocent mother and daughter.

 

[Desert Fox]

He has killed more than six million Jews?

Wow what a cover up!

At issue is which is worse, doing evil which you thing is good or doing evil for evils sake even if less actual people are harmed. In this case, I don't actually agree with Samson although I do understand the argument.

 

[Samson]

Now member here Stilicho posts this on PMF dot ORG, rather than here.

Secondly, in their pursuit of justice for the "wrongly accused", neither of them have ever publicly stated that they thought Guede was innocent or that Patrick may well have been guilty. Apart from AK's original statements, she has never wavered in her absolute faith in the Italian law enforcement, forensic laboratories, or justice system in releasing Patrick and imprisoning Guede. This has always bothered me about her fans but I actually did not expect her to place such extraordinary faith in a system and process that also convicted her of Meredith's murder

These people mimic Nencini who is planning to relieve Raffaele Sollecito of his life while
Nencini Stephanie Maresca Mignini Lyle John junior Mignini Stephanonie Napoleone, Commodi, Follain, Nadeau, Voght, plan to rear children grand children, and great grand children.

 

[Samson]

At issue is which is worse, doing evil which you thing is good or doing evil for evils sake even if less actual people are harmed. In this case, I don't actually agree with Samson although I do understand the argument.

I don't agree in principle.
But DF, you know that quantity is irrelevant when you are incarcerated for life for one murder.
It is certainly true that people will extrapolate from crime of passion to serial killer with incidence of two. Why not?
I can understand a reduced sentence for one killing.

But if we return to Mignini, he is the worst of serial offenders. He has obliterated the meaningful pursuit of "countless" lives, (we can count them if we are scholars), he is far worse than Hitler, who believed that his cause was just in pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number (utitlitarian). Mignini is concerned only for his career, and presumably the reputation of his wife, his children and his grand children.
This innocence project should have peripheral impact on these relatives, but ironically, no one gives a goddam.

 

[Diocletus]

You may be interested in knowing about the case of convicted murderer Cesare Battisti.

The convicted terrorist Cesare Battisti had fled to Brazil, where he was arrested, then later Brazil refused extradition to Italy as they granted him the status of political refugee. The Tribunal Federal decided that extradition should be rejected because Battisti's crime, as well as his trial, had a political nature.
It's worth pointing out the Brazilian Court and Government did not put in question that Battisti was guilty; the ground for refusing extradiction and granting political refugee status was that the crime committed by Battisti was politically motivated, and belonged to a peculiar political context, therefore at least partly his action might have been "legitimized" while the laws used to convict him were "too harsh" leading to eccessive punishment, possibly a "inhumane and degradating" punishment.
The Brazilan position, albeit not really acceptable by Western democracies, was not entirely devoid of merits. I don't think we can justify terrorism, but the idea tha other countries may feel uneasy about handing over those who may look like political fighters is understandable.

However, the Brazilian decision is of no interest to the point.
What's interesting, was the decision of Europe and the ECHR. Battisti had submitted a complaint for violation of right to fair trial fighting agaisnt Italy's extradition request to France. He submitted an appeal in June 2004, which was declared inadmissible in December 2006.

A couple of links in Italian and English about the Battisti trial:

http://www.carmillaonline.com/2009/01/30/il-caso-battisti-tutti-i-dubbi/#002924

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/01/batt-j12.html

A 2004 extradition case is of no use to us.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't agree in principle.
But DF, you know that quantity is irrelevant when you are incarcerated for life for one murder.
It is certainly true that people will extrapolate from crime of passion to serial killer with incidence of two. Why not?
I can understand a reduced sentence for one killing.

But if we return to Mignini, he is the worst of serial offenders. He has obliterated the meaningful pursuit of "countless" lives, (we can count them if we are scholars), he is far worse than Hitler, who believed that his cause was just in pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number (utitlitarian). Mignini is concerned only for his career, and presumably the reputation of his wife, his children and his grand children.
This innocence project should have peripheral impact on these relatives, but ironically, no one gives a goddam.

I don't really see any as better or worse. For why Amanda is being blamed for this though, one has to consider that different people may be using her for multiple reasons

For some, it might be to hide a flagging career and scandal.
Others it might be that they wanted to try to show that Italians are not to blame but foreigners (Americans) in their midst.
Yet others might not want to show the horrible problems with the legal system.

 

[Samson]

I don't really see any as better or worse. For why Amanda is being blamed for this though, one has to consider that different people may be using her for multiple reasons

For some, it might be to hide a flagging career and scandal.
Others it might be that they wanted to try to show that Italians are not to blame but foreigners (Americans) in their midst.
Yet others might not want to show the horrible problems with the legal system.

Duck rabbit. Two long ears or a long beak.
Historians will better declare a precedent, but alas, they have no true resemblance. Amanda and Raffaele are journeymen comets.
However, because this is the longest continuous blog in internet history, concensus will be certainly embraced. On that I stake the meaning of life.