Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

The problem for the prosecution is if they split the case they have no case. If Sollecito turned round and said Knox was not with me that night. Who do they prosecute for the crime? They would have to drop Curatolo who said he saw them together - so would the prosecution suddenly say he was unreliable? Then there is the bra hook DNA, would they suddenly say that was contamination? The bloody bathmat footprint, would that suddenly become Guede's? The double DNA knife found at Sollecito's, would that DNA test become unreliable? Without that physical evidence what is there against Knox? There is more evidence against Sollecito than Knox. If Sollecito does not give Knox an alibi the Knox does not give him one. Actually i think this would be the best thing for Knox. Knox can turn round and say if I was not with Sollecito what has any of this evidence to do with me?

It's sad, and I'll just object for the record, to have to give any credence to these bogus corrupt convictions, the manifestly false manufactured case, evidence and tramp recycled witnesses, and the plainly irrational disingenuous excuses for rationals of convictions that has been offered.

Amanda and Raf will be exonerated, if and when they get a fair hearing on the merits, before rational honest jurors - and not until.

No change in evidence would dissuade the convicting judges. They aren't there to make a fair effort in reasoning the case out on the merits. Just corrupt arrogant thuggish simpletons, and the whole damn bunch belong in prison themselves.

But then, who would be left to protect the Italian citizenry from the mafia?

 

[Planigale]

Wow.

What ?

Here in 2014 they have won the case and are waiting for Cassation to sign off.
Whats happening where you are ?

Timelines indeed.

Well it seems to be only those who believe Knox is guilty (and not Sollecito? although one rarely hears them campaigning over the wrongful conviction of Sollecito), who go on about whether Sollecito has withdrawn or not an alibi for Knox. He has not but any withdrawal would favour Knox not Sollecito.

I am happy to argue they are both innocent. They remain legally innocent of murder until the conviction is finalised by the supreme court.

 

[Kauffer]

Barking dogs still barking

It was a very simple Q.

Did he provide her with an alib ???

If your answer is NO - just say so.

You may C&P this one .. NO .... if it makes it any easier

What? Didn't you read my post? It's all there - everything you asked and everything you need to understand this subject. Now...once again - do you think that Mr Sollecito's position is that Ms Knox went out that night? Do you have enough information now to answer that question?

 

[platonov]

Tachyons playing havoc with language circuts again.

Well it seems to be only those who believe Knox is guilty (and not Sollecito? although one rarely hears them campaigning over the wrongful conviction of Sollecito), who go on about whether Sollecito has withdrawn or not an alibi for Knox. He has not but any withdrawal would favour Knox not Sollecito.

I am happy to argue they are both innocent. They remain legally innocent of murder until the conviction is finalised by the supreme court.

Non sequitur or word salad ? Too close to call.


On this – take it up with Kauffer.
6 hrs ago he agreed with you – Now its a more fluid position apparently.
He didn’t but he did & it makes no difference anyway and and and something or other ....it's a secret.

 

[platonov]

This question is well asked of people who enjoy the gamesmanship of the alibis.If Vibio, griffinmill, Platonov etc can manage this with a one word answer, the discussion can make progress.

What alibis are these?

I'm aware AK claims RS as an alibi - thats one.

What others are you referring to ?
The downstairs guys ? Filomena ? Do tell.

 

[Wattson]

What alibis are these?

I'm aware AK claims RS as an alibi - thats one.

What others are you referring to ?
The downstairs guys ? Filomena ? Do tell.

Why don't you answer the question? Do you think Raffaele is guilty as charged?

 

[Kauffer]

Non sequitur or word salad ? Too close to call.


On this – take it up with Kauffer.
6 hrs ago he agreed with you – Now its a more fluid position apparently.
He didn’t but he did & it makes no difference anyway and and and something or other ....it's a secret.

Let me try and help you a bit more - back to basics - what do you think an alibi is? What does 'alibi witness' mean?

 

[Numbers]

Well it seems to be only those who believe Knox is guilty (and not Sollecito? although one rarely hears them campaigning over the wrongful conviction of Sollecito), who go on about whether Sollecito has withdrawn or not an alibi for Knox. He has not but any withdrawal would favour Knox not Sollecito.

I am happy to argue they are both innocent. They remain legally innocent of murder until the conviction is finalised by the supreme court.

The latest round in the guilter-meme of alibis provides the opportunity to reinforce what several posters, including Planigale, have stated.

1. Because Raffaele and Amanda are co-defendants, the legal value in the Italian courts of his alibi for her and her alibi for him is at best minimal; effectively, because of the false "evidence" offered by the prosecution, their mutual alibi must be supported by other evidence for credibility.

2. Therefore, whether or not Raffaele offers an alibi for Amanda, or Amanda for Raffaele, is not relevant within the "legal" frame-up that the prosecution has pushed into the Italian court system, and which much of that court system has willfully accepted.

3. Thus, the CSC in its forthcoming deliberations could declare Raffaele innocent (or not guilty) while holding Amanda guilty, only with some strong degree of embarrassment. [Of course, the Italian courts may not be adverse to international embarrassment or condemnation if it suits their domestic political agenda.]

After all, the prosecution's claims of

3.1) Raffaele's DNA being on the bra clasp [a misleading claim, since the presence of the DNA of several males shows the clasp is contaminated];

3.2) his footprint in blood being on the mat [clearly false]

must be given some innocent, non-probative explanation if Raffaele is to be declared not-guilty while Amanda is claimed to be guilty.

4. Therefore, it is more likely CSC will either find them both guilty, find them both not-guilty, or order yet another second level trial.

To repeat: An alibi provided by a co-defendant is of minimal relevance in the Italian court system.

ETA: It should also be emphasized that a defendant is NOT obligated to tell the truth in testimony in the Italian court system; there is no penalty for perjury for a testifying defendant. Therefore, the testimonial statements of a defendant in the Italian court system cannot by legal definition be considered by the judges, on face-value, as truthful.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Darkness Descending on Matteini hearing

First Magistrate’s hearing in front of Matteini (8 November 2007), p. 210, Darkness Descending (Paul Russell, Graham Johnson, Luciano Garofano).

“Judge Matteini said, ‘There are several points, Mr. Sollecito, that differ between your version of today and your version of events as related on the evening of 5 November just three days ago. Can you explain whether you were with Amanda Knox that evening or not?’
Now it was make-or-break time. Matteini had posed the million-dollar question. The one Mignini had been waiting for.
His pay-off was unexpected, effectively an explosive retraction of his initial confession.
Raffaele said, ‘I’m sorry I told you that crap about not being with Amanda. We were together that evening.’
…But now on the key point of the night in question, he was sticking to her like glue again. Backing her up… ‘I can confirm that I spent the night with Amanda Knox.’”


A Murder in Italy, page 198 (Candace Dempsey)

“Then the judge asked the Italian student what he did remember, prompting a long, dull discussion about the broken pipe under the sink, which he had showed Amanda, discussing with her the probable cause of the leak, a perennial problem in that flat. He also remembered eating dinner with her, watching a movie, working on his computer, getting tired, and going to sleep. Yes of course they slept together. He just couldn’t remember what time they did each action, because he’d been stoned, in a holiday mood, and not punching a time clock.”

 

[Numbers]

Look for what is important

The latest round in the guilter-meme of alibis provides the opportunity to reinforce what several posters, including Planigale, have stated.

1. Because Raffaele and Amanda are co-defendants, the legal value in the Italian courts of his alibi for her and her alibi for him is at best minimal; effectively, because of the false "evidence" offered by the prosecution, their mutual alibi must be supported by other evidence for credibility.

2. Therefore, whether or not Raffaele offers an alibi for Amanda, or Amanda for Raffaele, is not relevant within the "legal" frame-up that the prosecution has pushed into the Italian court system, and which much of that court system has willfully accepted.

3. Thus, the CSC in its forthcoming deliberations could declare Raffaele innocent (or not guilty) while holding Amanda guilty, only with some strong degree of embarrassment. [Of course, the Italian courts may not be adverse to international embarrassment or condemnation if it suits their domestic political agenda.]

After all, the prosecution's claims of

3.1) Raffaele's DNA being on the bra clasp [a misleading claim, since the presence of the DNA of several males shows the clasp is contaminated];

3.2) his footprint in blood being on the mat [clearly false]

must be given some innocent, non-probative explanation if Raffaele is to be declared not-guilty while Amanda is claimed to be guilty.

4. Therefore, it is more likely CSC will either find them both guilty, find them both not-guilty, or order yet another second level trial.

To repeat: An alibi provided by a co-defendant is of minimal relevance in the Italian court system.

ETA: It should also be emphasized that a defendant is NOT obligated to tell the truth in testimony in the Italian court system; there is no penalty for perjury for a testifying defendant. Therefore, the testimonial statements of a defendant in the Italian court system cannot by legal definition be considered by the judges, on face-value, as truthful.

The important points of the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito trials are not about alibis or even what specific false statements Amanda made or allegedly made during her interrogation and in the subsequent days in which she had no lawyer. What is ultimately important is the massive violation of defendant's rights by Italy through the action of its police, prosecutors, and courts. That is what will be judged by the European Court of Human Rights.

There are 163 ECHR cases (that I have been able to find by keyword search) in the HUDOC data base relating to the denial of a lawyer to a suspect or defendant. Many of these cases are similar to Amanda's and Raffaele's: the police isolate individuals in custody, deny them lawyers, do not inform them of the right to remain silent, and interrogate them under pressure (sometimes even under torture, especially in some of the eastern states of the Council of Europe). The issue of the interrogation and subsequent days without legal representation will be without doubt a primary issue in Amanda's application to the ECHR regarding her conviction for calunnia.

 

[tsig]

It was a very simple Q.

Did he provide her with an alib ???

If your answer is NO - just say so.

You may C&P this one .. NO .... if it makes it any easier

It's revealing that you are stuck on his words at trial. It's revealing because you don't seem to think it's meaningful that it belongs to the prosecutor first and foremost to demonstrate that Raffaele is not Amanda's alibi.

The way Mignini chose to deal with the issue of alibi was to charge him with the same crimes, save for calunnia. So what that Mignini now had to crowd four people into that small room and now have two, not just one, come out of a knife murder with no forensics pointing to them - not at the level they pointed to Rudy surely.

So this is the line in the sand for the pro-guilt lobby. Charge and convict Raffaele, and still be prepared to exonerate him if he only rats out Amanda. In court.

Sometimes it becomes crystal clear why they had to throw everything at Raffaele to get at Knox.

Lot's of words to evade the question.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The important points of the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito trials are not about alibis or even what specific false statements Amanda made or allegedly made during her interrogation and in the subsequent days in which she had no lawyer. What is ultimately important is the massive violation of defendant's rights by Italy through the action of its police, prosecutors, and courts. That is what will be judged by the European Court of Human Rights.

There are 163 ECHR cases (that I have been able to find by keyword search) in the HUDOC data base relating to the denial of a lawyer to a suspect or defendant. Many of these cases are similar to Amanda's and Raffaele's: the police isolate individuals in custody, deny them lawyers, do not inform them of the right to remain silent, and interrogate them under pressure (sometimes even under torture, especially in some of the eastern states of the Council of Europe). The issue of the interrogation and subsequent days without legal representation will be without doubt a primary issue in Amanda's application to the ECHR regarding her conviction for calunnia.

Gosh! If only it was as easy as searching a database of actual ECHR cases and predicting, the ECHR ruling of an unpublished ECHR application has legal merit.

Assuming the slander application actually passes the ECHR admissibility phase, do you really believe any branch of ECHR will hear this possible case prior to the scheduled date of Raffaele and Amanda’s third level hearing in Italy?

I understand your aspiration.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was a very simple Q.

Did he provide her with an alib ???

If your answer is NO - just say so.

You may C&P this one .. NO .... if it makes it any easier

It's revealing that you are stuck on his words at trial. It's revealing because you don't seem to think it's meaningful that it belongs to the prosecutor first and foremost to demonstrate that Raffaele is not Amanda's alibi.

The way Mignini chose to deal with the issue of alibi was to charge him with the same crimes, save for calunnia. So what that Mignini now had to crowd four people into that small room and now have two, not just one, come out of a knife murder with no forensics pointing to them - not at the level they pointed to Rudy surely.

So this is the line in the sand for the pro-guilt lobby. Charge and convict Raffaele, and still be prepared to exonerate him if he only rats out Amanda. In court.

Sometimes it becomes crystal clear why they had to throw everything at Raffaele to get at Knox.

Lot's of words to evade the question.

Ok, point taken (somewhat). But rather than debate it, here's the answer - even though it is crystal clear that they threw everything at Raffaele only as a means to get to Knox.

It's actually two questions.

1) Did he provide her with an alib ???

Yes. Through six months of solitary confinement, through three trials, and in his book, Raffaele has never wavered. Both he and Amanda are innocent. She was with him on the night of Nov 1/2.​

2) Did he provide her with an alib - at trial???

No. Not explicitly, because Raffaele took advantage of his right to remain silent at trial. This right includes that no significance, implication, or motive can be drawn for so doing.​

I believe platonov was intending to ask the second question, but both answers are above.

Now - maybe platonov (or yourself) can answer the question asked: do you believe that Raffaele is guilty? If so, what is the significant of Judge Nencini saying that Amanda had gone out without Raffaele?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Matteini Report on Raffaele's statement during the hearing

Sollecito testified before Matteini and Ricciarelli. On those occasions he did not provide an alibi to Amanda Knox. That one is his last position before a judicial organ.
Then, on December 22. 2007 he refused to answer the questions before Mignini.
He never testified in the trial.

Good Evening Everyone,

From a translation of the Matteini report: "Having clarified this point, it can be seen that Raffaele Sollecito stated during the review hearing that he spent the whole night between 1st and 2nd November with Amanda Knox, having returned to his home at about 20:00-20:30; that he had dinner with the girl; that he was aware of incoming messages on the girl’s phone; that he learned from her that she did not have to go to work at the Le Chic pub that evening, as had been communicated to her by an SMS sent to her cell phone; and that they had then gone to sleep together, waking in the morning after about 10:00 a.m., when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola to take a shower. During the same statements, he added that he did not remember whether Knox had left or not, but repeated that in any event he had not moved from the house, but had remained in front of the computer, and had received a phone call from his father at 23:00. Shortly afterwards he clarified that he did not remember whether he had actually received this phone call, or whether he had reported having received it to confirm his continued presence in the house." (highlighting mine)

Machiavelli's future answers should be judged with his past answers in mind.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Actually Mach there is a little more to say on this issue.

I know a lot of fun has been had with the groupies w.r.t the fact that subsequent to the GIP hearing of Nov 8 2007 [ where he hedged ] RS has never given AK an alibi.

However in legal terms it’s quite straightforward apparently.
As a result of the ‘motion’ [presumably the 2008 Supreme? Court submission] by the RS defence team & this was the point of the exercise apparently ....................
This wishy washy non-alibi was not usable in the trials. That was the whole point of the ‘action’ of RS’s defence team.

Legally he was never giving her an alibi and that was being made clear to the courts by his defence.

So all this talk of alibis is somewhat surreal.

You brought it up.

 

[Desert Fox]

The important points of the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito trials are not about alibis or even what specific false statements Amanda made or allegedly made during her interrogation and in the subsequent days in which she had no lawyer. What is ultimately important is the massive violation of defendant's rights by Italy through the action of its police, prosecutors, and courts. That is what will be judged by the European Court of Human Rights.

There are 163 ECHR cases (that I have been able to find by keyword search) in the HUDOC data base relating to the denial of a lawyer to a suspect or defendant. Many of these cases are similar to Amanda's and Raffaele's: the police isolate individuals in custody, deny them lawyers, do not inform them of the right to remain silent, and interrogate them under pressure (sometimes even under torture, especially in some of the eastern states of the Council of Europe). The issue of the interrogation and subsequent days without legal representation will be without doubt a primary issue in Amanda's application to the ECHR regarding her conviction for calunnia.

That is almost what Derrick Tice of the Norfolk Four had his conviction expunged for. He was questioned by the police. He was then give a polygraph. Afterwards, he requested a lawyer. However, fifteen minutes later Detective Glenn Ford began interrogating him again and got him to confess.

 

[Numbers]

ECtHR timing is not readily predictable

Gosh! If only it was as easy as searching a database of actual ECHR cases and predicting, the ECHR ruling of an unpublished ECHR application has legal merit.

Assuming the slander application actually passes the ECHR admissibility phase, do you really believe any branch of ECHR will hear this possible case prior to the scheduled date of Raffaele and Amanda’s third level hearing in Italy?
I understand your aspiration.

The timing of actions of the ECtHR is not readily predictable. They have a large volume of applications from the 47 states of the Council of Europe (and in particular, from Italy, Ukraine, Russia, and Turkey). There are only 47 judges (1 from each state) and, of course, a large staff of lawyers and others who assist them.

The actions of the CSC and the ECtHR are not bound together in any legal sense. Possibly the CSC would be influenced by an ECtHR action, but that is a supposition. The panel of judges of the CSC who will hear the case in March are not the same individuals who overturned the Hellmann acquittal and ordered the 2nd second-level trial (in the Nencini court). The judicial actions of this new CSC panel are also not readily predictable, IMO. One must await developments.

 

[Kauffer]

Nencini accepts Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox maintain alibis for each other

Good Evening Everyone,

From a translation of the Matteini report: "Having clarified this point, it can be seen that Raffaele Sollecito stated during the review hearing that he spent the whole night between 1st and 2nd November with Amanda Knox, having returned to his home at about 20:00-20:30; that he had dinner with the girl; that he was aware of incoming messages on the girl’s phone; that he learned from her that she did not have to go to work at the Le Chic pub that evening, as had been communicated to her by an SMS sent to her cell phone; and that they had then gone to sleep together, waking in the morning after about 10:00 a.m., when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola to take a shower. During the same statements, he added that he did not remember whether Knox had left or not, but repeated that in any event he had not moved from the house, but had remained in front of the computer, and had received a phone call from his father at 23:00. Shortly afterwards he clarified that he did not remember whether he had actually received this phone call, or whether he had reported having received it to confirm his continued presence in the house." (highlighting mine)

Machiavelli's future answers should be judged with his past answers in mind.

"...he (RS) has credited in spontaneous statements the notion that he was in her company from the night of 1st November 2007 until the morning of 2nd November 2007.

Raffaele Sollecito, moreover, mounted a defense at trial by which he seeks to objectively prove that he must have been at his home during the period within which the murder was committed and in his spontaneous statements he has never distanced himself from the statements of Amanda Marie Knox. In the last statement he made to this Court on 6 November 2013, he once again testified to his shared innocence with his co-defendant, saying:

[116](...) As I was saying ... at that particular time, the furthest thing from my mind was to be so cruel and disrespectful towards a human life. And it is for this reason that I would like to first of all make you realize how absurd these charges against me are. Us, even, to put it in the plural, against us. Because, at that point in my life, I was a week away from graduation and I had my life ahead of me. No. There’s no way. It is unreasonable to accuse me of such a thing without first having a basis (...). (p. 52 of the transcript of the hearing before the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, 6 November 2013)

The conclusion of this brief note is that, in the absence of defense assertions to the contrary on the part of Raffaele Sollecito and, moreover, noting the consistent spontaneous statements made by the defendant, who still places himself with Amanda Marie Knox between the evening of 1 November 2007 and the morning of 2 November 2007, the Court deems that it must consider the alibi provided by Amanda Marie Knox as the only version of events provided by the defendants and valid for both or, at least, not contradicted by either of them."

Nencini report Pages 130/131.

And a fat lot of good it has done either of them....as I was saying earlier.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Newspapers with Ms Knox's photo on the cover

Vibio commented in Continuation Thread 9: "'and has been glued to the press, and to the TV programs that have been devoted to it.'

I have too.

And let me repeat: Knox never became a media sensation in Italy."

At the end of this link, one can find a video clip from AP called "DV UK Student Killed." After we see the lights of and hear the sirens of the police cars that take away the three suspects on 6 November, there is a photo of Ms. Knox on the cover of a newspaper, and Rita Foley of the Associated Press used the plural, "newspapers." Here is a link to a previous comment of mine in response.

 

[Numbers]

Violating Miranda

That is almost what Derrick Tice of the Norfolk Four had his conviction expunged for. He was questioned by the police. He was then give a polygraph. Afterwards, he requested a lawyer. However, fifteen minutes later Detective Glenn Ford began interrogating him again and got him to confess.

Unfortunately, violation of the US Supreme Court's Miranda decision is not unknown. There are too many such cases in the US. Of course, the corrupt police who carry out such violations will disguise them as far as possible. That is one reason why video recording of interrogations from their first moment should be the law in every state.