Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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.

In particular, the ECtHR does not act as an appeal court that automatically can quash a national (domestic) court ruling. A ruling from the ECtHR is enforced by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, working with the governments - not the courts - of respondent states. And it is the government of a respondent state that must develop a plan to redress the individual and, if necessary, general violations of rights that an ECtHR judgment may detail. The Committee of Ministers provides a supervisory role toward this plan. It is important to note that the Council of Europe is not a sovereign state, but a kind of confederation bound by a treaty, formally The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, better known as the European Convention on Human Rights.

ETA: I emphasize that the respondent state must develop a plan to redress its violations and carry out the plan under the Committee of Ministers; this is a solemn obligation of the treaty. A violation of this obligation by the state would be taken to the ECtHR by the Committee of Ministers.

One can see there are no Council of Europe organizations such as "Federal Marshalls" or "Federal Army" to ensure compliance with ECtHR judgments.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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 If only it was as easy as searching a database of actual ECHR cases and predicting, the ECHR ruling of an unpublished ECHR application has legal merit.

Gosh! If only it was so easy as making up implausible claims that nobody ever made, and then ridiculing them.

I think the point is that the ECHR has form for finding against state abuse in very similar forms to those displayed in the Kercher case, so the pro-guilt mantra that the ECHR case does not have a leg to stand on is purely wishful thinking with no basis either in law or in the track record of the ECHR.

I don't know how the case will turn out. However I also don't think anyone who isn't driving a specific, partisan agenda based on either ignorance or dollar signs in their eyes would seriously claim that Knox and Sollecito don't have a case to make.

 

[Kauffer]

The alibis - in Massei and Hellmann

Both the Massei court and the Hellman court also note and accept the existence of mutual alibis provided by Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. All three trial courts accept they were together between the evening of 1st November and the morning of the 2nd November.

"A relationship, therefore, which had sprouted between Amanda and Raffaele recently enough but especially intensely during the immediately succeeding days, a fews days, in fact hardly any, because the tragedy that followed occurred barely a week after their first meeting. On the afternoon and in the evening and night of November 1, 2007, Amanda and Raffaele were together.
The obligations of one or the other would have separated them, even if only for a little while, but events completely independent of their choices kept them together, almost as if making an attempt on their freedom and putting them to the test"

Massei report Page 64

"As has already been recalled in summarizing the motivation of the ruling under appeal, the Corte di Assise of first level has held the alibi offered by the defendants (having remained together for the entire night at Raffaele Sollecito’s house, where they had also dined) to be not only unproven, but even certainly false, and has considered this to be serious evidence of guilt, since — according to that Court — there can be no reason for offering a false alibi other than awareness of one’s own guilt."

Hellmann report Page 123

 

[Desert Fox]

In particular, the ECtHR does not act as an appeal court that automatically can quash a national (domestic) court ruling. A ruling from the ECtHR is enforced by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, working with the governments - not the courts - of respondent states. And it is the government of a respondent state that must develop a plan to redress the individual and, if necessary, general violations of rights that an ECtHR judgment may detail. The Committee of Ministers provides a supervisory role toward this plan. It is important to note that the Council of Europe is not a sovereign state, but a kind of confederation bound by a treaty, formally The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, better known as the European Convention on Human Rights.

ETA: I emphasize that the respondent state must develop a plan to redress its violations and carry out the plan under the Committee of Ministers; this is a solemn obligation of the treaty. A violation of this obligation by the state would be taken to the ECtHR by the Committee of Ministers.

One can see there are no Council of Europe organizations such as "Federal Marshalls" or "Federal Army" to ensure compliance with ECtHR judgments.

Let us assume that Italy convicts Amanda and requests extradition.
Let us assume that the US refuses. Also, let us assume that the ECHR sees the case and finds that they did violate the defendant's civil rights.
What does that do you European arrest warrants for her?

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

Not as if video recording is very hard these days. Even in 2007 though, digital recording of an interrogation was easy enough that there is no excuse. It is also suppose to be mandatory by Italian law.

 

[Numbers]

Let us assume that Italy convicts Amanda and requests extradition.
Let us assume that the US refuses. Also, let us assume that the ECHR sees the case and finds that they did violate the defendant's civil rights.
What does that do you European arrest warrants for her?

Your question, what is the status of European Arrest Warrants (EAW) after an ECtHR judgment, is an interesting one. I used my favorite legal text, Wikipedia, for information on this topic.

From what I read, there is no direct effect or cancellation of a EAW as a result of an ECtHR ruling. Only the respondent state can cancel the EAW. I would not advise an innocent person not in Europe going there if an EAW against them was in place.

Here is some background information from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period.

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.[1] It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more in prison. Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long.

The introduction of the EAW system was intended to increase the speed and ease of extradition throughout EU countries by removing the political and administrative phases of decision-making which had characterised the previous system of extradition in Europe, and converting the process into a system run entirely by the judiciary. Since it was first implemented in 2004 the use of the EAW has steadily risen. Member state country evaluation reports suggest that the number of EAWs issued has increased from approximately 3,000 in 2004 to 13,500 in 2008.
.......
Under the Framework Decision the executing judicial authority must refuse to surrender the requested person if:

The alleged offence come under the jurisdiction of the courts of the executing state and is the subject of an amnesty there,
The requested person has been acquitted in a member state of the European Union of an offence in respect of the same acts as contained in the arrest warrant, or was convicted of that offence and has served the sentence imposed (if any) for that offence, or
The requested person is below the age of criminal responsibility in the executing state.
......
In 2006, 20 of the then 25 member states included text which was based on at least one of these provisions or which explicitly referred to the European Convention on Human Rights, in their domestic implementing legislation. The others took the view that the rights exist independently from the Framework Decision.[13]

Fair Trials International (FTI), the London-based human rights non-governmental organisation, claims to have highlighted a number of cases which demonstrate that the European Arrest Warrant system is causing serious injustice and jeopardising the right to a fair trial. In particular, FTI allege that:

European Arrest Warrants have been issued many years after the alleged offence was committed.
Once warrants have been issued there is no effective way of removing them, even after extradition has been refused.
They have been used to send people to another EU member state to serve a prison sentence resulting from an unfair trial.
Warrants have been used to force a person to face trial when the charges are based on evidence obtained by police brutality.
Sometimes people surrendered under an Arrest Warrant have to spend months or even years in detention before they can appear in court to establish their innocence.

 

[Desert Fox]

I hope the US refuses extradition if it comes to it and I believe there is plenty of reasons to refuse it. Still, she may be stuck in the United States.
Kind of sad because a large part of her education was in languages.

 

[Bill Williams]

Both the Massei court and the Hellman court also note and accept the existence of mutual alibis provided by Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. All three trial courts accept they were together between the evening of 1st November and the morning of the 2nd November.

"A relationship, therefore, which had sprouted between Amanda and Raffaele recently enough but especially intensely during the immediately succeeding days, a fews days, in fact hardly any, because the tragedy that followed occurred barely a week after their first meeting. On the afternoon and in the evening and night of November 1, 2007, Amanda and Raffaele were together.
The obligations of one or the other would have separated them, even if only for a little while, but events completely independent of their choices kept them together, almost as if making an attempt on their freedom and putting them to the test"

Massei report Page 64

"As has already been recalled in summarizing the motivation of the ruling under appeal, the Corte di Assise of first level has held the alibi offered by the defendants (having remained together for the entire night at Raffaele Sollecito’s house, where they had also dined) to be not only unproven, but even certainly false, and has considered this to be serious evidence of guilt, since — according to that Court — there can be no reason for offering a false alibi other than awareness of one’s own guilt."

Hellmann report Page 123

Even Nencini's motivations report implies heavily that they were together from 9:30 pm (Nov 1) until "around 12:30 am (Nov 2)", given that Nencini says that no third party can vouch for their assumed mutual alibi.

Nencini introduces the concept of, "the information provided by Amanda Knox (the so-called alibi) is trustworthy or not," mainly to address the issue of time of death.

In conclusion, it can be satisfactorily proven that Meredith Kercher was attacked and murdered within a time frame between 9:00 pm on 1 November 2007 and 00:10:31 on 2 November 2007 and that this is the time frame that will be referred to when discussing the alibi furnished by Amanda Knox for both the accused.​

First off, Nencini shows himself a better jurist than griffinmill in this forum.... Nencini has a long section on page 94 of his decision why ANYTHING Sollecito said is inadmissibe at trial, because he selected his right not to speak (other than spontaneously) at trial:

For this reason, it would be highly illogical and, more to the point, contrary to law, for such procedural conduct to result in the opposite of what was intended, namely in the usability of the evidence.

It follows that the questioning of Raffaele Sollecito at his arraignment before the G.I.P. of the Court of Perugia at 1:14 pm on 8 November 2007 with the assistance of his then [95] legal counsel, Mr. Tiziano Tedeschi of the Bari bar, must be considered unusable in this case.​

Then quite incredibly, Nencini ventures into the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements as Knox attempted to herself construct an "alibi".

But that "alibi" acc. to Nencini, is found in the her memoriale written in prison for the nuns and the e-mail home.

In the diaries written by Amanda Marie Knox in prison, and subsequently obtained as evidence, she wrote of a meeting held in jail with a nun, and of a short interview with her. As a result, the events of the night of 1-2 November 2007 became clear to her, enabling her to put together a final version, which we will shortly report in full. In effect, she intended to credit, through the diaries, the idea that the encounter in prison with the nun finally “tore through” the veil of forgetfulness about that night, allowing her ideas to become clearer and providing the final “alibi”......

...........the fact is that the key points Amanda Marie Knox’s “alibi” had, very clearly, already been included in the email sent to multiple recipients. This dates it to before the meeting with the nun in prison.​

Then Nencini quotes in full in the next half-dozen pages, Knox's trial testimony from 2009, when Nencini says Knox is constructing hers (and Raffaele's) alibi. And he says they are essentially the same alibi... "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."

 

[Strozzi]

Not as if video recording is very hard these days. Even in 2007 though, digital recording of an interrogation was easy enough that there is no excuse. It is also suppose to be mandatory by Italian law.

I want to underscore what Desert Fox addressed regarding digital recording of the interrogation.

• The interrogation rooms where RS and AK were being interrogated in November 2007 had built-in recording systems.
• A large group of detectives, senior inspectors, police supervisors, and the police chief were at the station, on duty, that night for the planned interrogations.
• Other police station conversations and cell phone conversations of RS and AK had been deliberately recorded in the preceding days.
• During RS' interrogation a police officer threatened to beat RS bloody if he tried to help AK as they heard AK's screams coming from the other interrogation room down the hall. In making that threat, the police officer leaned over and whispered it into RS's ear - an obvious indication that the police officer believed conversations in the interrogation room were being recorded or were likely being recorded.

 

[Strozzi]

I hope the US refuses extradition if it comes to it and I believe there is plenty of reasons to refuse it. Still, she may be stuck in the United States.
Kind of sad because a large part of her education was in languages.

These are factors (hardship) that should be considered when awarding AK financial compensation from Italy for denial of due process, false conviction, and wrongful imprisonment.

 

[Numbers]

For those interested, here is another class in the Remedial ECHR Case Law Course.

How about what rock'n'roll radio DJs would call a Golden Oldie.....

And it's a relevant case in several ways:
1) It relates to a person convicted on the basis of statements from someone who legally refuses to be cross-examined
2) It deals with apparent conflicts between several of a nation's laws
3) It deals with conflict between a nation's laws and the ECHR
4) It mentions unfavorably how a nation's courts defy the ECHR

CASE OF LUCÀ v. ITALY 33354/96 27/02/2001 {excerpts; emphasis added}

8. The applicant, who was born in 1955, is currently detained in Cosenza Prison.

9. On 25 October 1992 N. and C. were arrested by carabinieri from Roccella Jonica (Reggio di Calabria) and found to be in possession of cocaine.

10. On 25 and 26 October 1992 N. was questioned, initially by the carabinieri, and subsequently by the Locri public prosecutor (Reggio di Calabria). He said that he had obtained part of the drugs from C. for his own use; the remainder belonged solely to C. He added that on the day of their arrest, C. had accompanied him to certain people’s homes to try to buy drugs. After the evening meal they had gone to the applicant’s home. The applicant had said that he was prepared to supply them with five hundred grams of cocaine to be delivered a few days later, as he was not willing to accept deferred payment and could not go out after 8 p.m. to get the drugs.

11. N. was questioned by the carabinieri as someone who was helping them with their inquiries (“persona che puó riferire circostanze utili ai fini delle indagini”), not as an accused. For that reason, he was not assisted by a lawyer. However, the Locri public prosecutor subsequently decided that N. should be regarded as a “suspect” (“indagato”), and therefore questioned him in that capacity.

12. By an order of 12 February 1993 the Locri investigating judge committed the applicant, C. and two other suspects, Mr A. and Mr T., for trial before Locri Criminal Court for drug trafficking. A. was also accused of unlawful possession of an offensive weapon. Separate proceedings were instituted against N. for possession of drugs.

13. At the hearing on 17 July 1993, N. was called to give evidence as a person accused in connected proceedings (“imputato in procedimento connesso”). However, he chose to remain silent as he was entitled to do by virtue of Article 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter, “the CCP”).

...

THE LAW

I. alleged violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention

31. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair and alleged that he had been convicted on the basis of statements made to the public prosecutor, without being given an opportunity to examine the maker of the statements, N., or to have him examined. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:

“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...

...

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

...

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him ...

...”

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

46. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

47. The applicant said that his conviction and imprisonment had been unjust. He had thereby been prevented from working and his private and family life had suffered. He alleged that as a result of the violation of the Convention he had sustained substantial pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which he put at 500,000,000 Italian lire (ITL).

48. The Court finds no causal link between the violation of Article 6 of the Convention and the pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant. The Court cannot speculate on what the outcome of the proceedings would have been if they had complied with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). Consequently, it dismisses the applicant’s claims under this head (see Cöeme and Others v. Belgium [GC], nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 155, ECHR 2000-VII).

On the other hand, it finds that the applicant sustained some non-pecuniary damage, which cannot be compensated for simply by a finding of a violation. Ruling on an equitable basis, in accordance with Article 41 of the Convention, the Court decides to award the sum of ITL 15,000,000.

...
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention;

2. Holds by six votes to one

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, ITL 15,000,000 (fifteen million Italian lire) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ITL 3,000,000 (three million Italian lire) for costs and expenses;

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide the source.

 

[RWVBWL]

Run Rudy, Run!

griffinmill:

Since you seem sure the convictions are correct, you know the following.

1. Amanda was there, Raffaele was there and Rudy was there.
2. You know all three are certain of the presence and involvement of the other two.
3. You know that Amanda knows that Raffaele is being questioned by police in another room, and you also know that she has no idea what he is saying, unless they have agreed on a story.
4. If they have agreed on a story they have agreed to blame Patrick, otherwise she has no idea what he is saying.
5. You know that in fact he never mentioned Patrick because you know the police would use this as evidence as they did with Amanda.

Therefore you know that Amanda and Raffaele had no agreed story.
Therefore when Amanda names Patrick, she can expect Raffaele to be naming Rudy, absent an agreed story.

How is she advancing her cause by naming someone in one room that she knows was not there, and she knows for sure Raffaele is not incriminating?

In fact when she names Patrick she knows she is lying, and that the lies will be immediately exposed, because Raffaele is either telling the truth or a different set of lies , and definitely not corroborating her lies, because as I just proved, they went to the questura with no agreed story.

I can't believe how dumb some people can be not to figure this out instantly.

Sorry for the ungainly bolding.
I look forward to you dissembling my logic.

Amanda and Raff probably knew it, the cops never even suspected Rudy.
There never seems to be any mention of anyone seeing Rudy interviewed at The Questura.

I can just see Amanda sitting in prison with her fingers crossed, thinking to herself, Run Rudy, Run!!!
after sending the stupid cops on a wild goose chase by deliberately naming Patrick Lumumba as the murderer.

I mean ya gotta protect the unemployed with no girlfriend black guy,
not your own new boyfriend who is graduating in 2 weeks, right?
Maybe their love wasn't that strong, hmmm, but wait a sec,
didn't Raff even pick out a perfume and buy a sandalwood scent for Amanda to wear?

Amanda and Raff musta liked each other a lot,
willing to take years in prison just to have a four some after 1 week of dating,
and not turn on the other guy...


I still can't get over ILE substitution of 1 black guy for another,
while keeping the original theory Group Sex game Gone Wrong.

So strange to not see Amanda or Raff gang up on Rudy
and never spill the intimate details of what happened and place the blame ALL on Rudy.
Instead, let's just sit in prison.
Run Rudy, Run...

 

[Samson]

Amanda and Raff probably knew it, the cops never even suspected Rudy.
There never seems to be any mention of anyone seeing Rudy interviewed at The Questura.

I can just see Amanda sitting in prison with her fingers crossed,
after sending the stupid cops on a wild goose chase by deliberately naming Patrick Lumumba as the murderer, thinking to herself, Run Rudy, Run!!!

I mean ya gotta protect the unemployed with no girlfriend black guy,
not your own new boyfriend who is graduating in 2 weeks, right?
Didn't Raff even pick and buy sandalwood perfume for Amanda to wear?
Amanda and Raff musta liked each other a lot...


I still can't get over ILE substitution of 1 black guy for another,
while keeping the original theory Group Sex game Gone Wrong.

So strange to not see Amanda or Raff gang up on Rudy
and never spill the intimate details of what happened and place the blame ALL on Rudy.

Good to hear from you RW, I am in the camp that is convinced the case is dissembled by a logical path through all known transcriptions, skype calls, statements declarations and court testimony. I love Biscotti saying there is no one to name.

 

[RWVBWL]

About that hair...

Greetings everyone,
Over at 2 Pro-Guilt sites,
folks have been discussing hair recently.

As I to am interested in this, I'd like to post a snippet written by a guy named Jack:
Can you also confirm you were aware that Guede had black hair. From photos of Nov 2, 2007, Knox had blonde hair and Sollecito had chestnut to light chestnut hair. Meredith Kercher had chestnut to reddish chestnut hair. 93 hairs were found and analyzed. Seven of these were either animal hair or fibers. The remaining 86 hairs were, per the SAL report, all human. Seven of these hairs were black in color. Of the seven, six were short (4 cm or less) and one was long. Of the six short black hairs, four were found on the duvet covering Ms. Kercher, one was found on her mattress cover, and one was found on a sponge (containing fourteen other hairs) at Sollecito’s apartment. It is very likely these short black hairs were Guede’s, and if so, how is it one of his hairs get on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment?

Similarly, 21 blonde hairs were found, ranging from 4 cm to 20 cm. Of these, fifteen were found at Sollecito’s apartment, either on a sponge in the kitchen, or on a sweater. The other six were found at the cottage, with three being found on the duvet, one found inside the small bathroom sink, one found on a mop, one found on Ms. Kercher’s purse and one found on Ms. Kercher’s mattress cover.

Assuming the blonde hairs were Knox’s hair, it is difficult to imagine how they might wind up on Ms. Kercher’s purse and mattress cover.

There were four light chestnut hairs found. One, measuring 9 cm, was found on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment. The other three light chestnut hairs were found on Ms. Kercher’s bra (2 cm), sweat jacket (7.5 cm) and the towel found under Ms. Kercher’s body (20 cm).

35 chestnut colored hairs were found, ranging from 1.5 to 30 cm in length. The vast majority were in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom. Two chestnut colored hairs (5 cm and 8 cm) were on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s house. It should be noted that three chestnut colored hairs yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA, measuring 15, 18 and 23 cms.

So even from the hair evidence, it seems that hair having Knox and Sollecito’s color were on Ms. Kercher’s more intimate objects, while Guede’s and Ms. Kercher’s hair apparently were on a sponge in the kitchen at Sollecito’s apartment. In other words, an object used in a clean-up, and in a room that also had five luminol revealed samples.

Even the hair evidence points to Guede, Sollecito and Knox having acted together in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

* * *

I have to ask, Hey Jack,
where is mention in your post of the blonde hair found in Meredith's upraised hand.
You know, the 1 that Ergon posted on your board?
What about the 1 blonde hair found upon examination of Miss Kercher's genitalia,
as B. Nadeau wrote of in "Angel Face"?


I for 1 do not assume that any blonde hair found in Meredith's bedroom is from Amanda,
unless it can be proven so.

So prove it.

 

[Samson]

Smoking guns.

When a friend of a friend of Meredith writes this, all English people should protest. They should dissociate themselves from this classic hoax.

As Judge Nencini says, the evidence has to be considered wholly. There is no smoking gun in this complex case
Read more: http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/1...pdate-foxy-knoxy-conviction.htm#ixzz3KFMXL9pt

 

[Desert Fox]

I want to underscore what Desert Fox addressed regarding digital recording of the interrogation.

• The interrogation rooms where RS and AK were being interrogated in November 2007 had built-in recording systems.
• A large group of detectives, senior inspectors, police supervisors, and the police chief were at the station, on duty, that night for the planned interrogations.
• Other police station conversations and cell phone conversations of RS and AK had been deliberately recorded in the preceding days.
• During RS' interrogation a police officer threatened to beat RS bloody if he tried to help AK as they heard AK's screams coming from the other interrogation room down the hall. In making that threat, the police officer leaned over and whispered it into RS's ear - an obvious indication that the police officer believed conversations in the interrogation room were being recorded or were likely being recorded.

You tag team interview somebody and you just happen to forget to record it when it is required by your laws. . . .That should be enough for an acquittal right there even if she was guilty.

 

[Vibio]

"The interrogation rooms where RS and AK were being interrogated in November 2007 had built-in recording systems."

Please cite a link to this info.

-------------------------

"You tag team interview somebody and you just happen to forget to record it when it is required by your laws. . . ."

Please cite where it is said that Italy required taped interrogations in 2007.

----------------------------

Does anyone here have any idea of how many US states required taped interrogations in 2007?

 

[Samson]

"The interrogation rooms where RS and AK were being interrogated in November 2007 had built-in recording systems."

Please cite a link to this info.

-------------------------

"You tag team interview somebody and you just happen to forget to record it when it is required by your laws. . . ."

Please cite where it is said that Italy required taped interrogations in 2007.

----------------------------

Does anyone here have any idea of how many US states required taped interrogations in 2007?

Vibio, two questions
1. Do you believe Raffaele is guilty of killing Meredith?
2. When Amanda named Lumumba, would she expect Raffaele to be naming Lumumba in a different interrogation room, or be telling a different pack of lies that would mean she should have brought her tooth brush?

 

[platonov]

Both the Massei court and the Hellman court also note and accept the existence of mutual alibis provided by Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. All three trial courts accept they were together between the evening of 1st November and the morning of the 2nd November.

"A relationship, therefore, which had sprouted between Amanda and Raffaele recently enough but especially intensely during the immediately succeeding days, a fews days, in fact hardly any, because the tragedy that followed occurred barely a week after their first meeting. On the afternoon and in the evening and night of November 1, 2007, Amanda and Raffaele were together.
The obligations of one or the other would have separated them, even if only for a little while, but events completely independent of their choices kept them together, almost as if making an attempt on their freedom and putting them to the test"

Massei report Page 64

"As has already been recalled in summarizing the motivation of the ruling under appeal, the Corte di Assise of first level has held the alibi offered by the defendants (having remained together for the entire night at Raffaele Sollecito’s house, where they had also dined) to be not only unproven, but even certainly false, and has considered this to be serious evidence of guilt, since — according to that Court — there can be no reason for offering a false alibi other than awareness of one’s own guilt."

Hellmann report Page 123

Earlier you asked me to explain what an alibi was. Perhaps I should have.

In any case a judge, Massei, finding that they were together on the evening of the 1st committing a murder together does not an alibi make!
Does this really need explaining?

What you think Hellmann restating this adds to your argument is a mystery but one I can live with.

 

[Kauffer]

Questura

It's not just the audio and video recordings of that evening that are missing. And I agree with LondonJohn that such official recording may have deliberately been left out. But that wouldn't prevent individuals from making their own CYA recordings.

There is also the contemporaneous written recording of Amanda's interrogation for which we have oral testimony concerning it's existence. Where are the written notes from that evening?

Well, why do you think the tapes are not available? We have hours and hours of recordings from interview sessions and from phone taps from the time before the interrogations of the 5th/6th November when Ms Knox 'wasn't a suspect' and afterwards - nothing incriminating. Fast forward to the interrogations leading to the arrests and astonishingly, there is nothing available on tape, despite these interrogations being planned, according to Giobbi. Is this not the teensiest bit suspicious? Could the police have something to hide, do you FEEL? How difficult would it have been to press the record button at the highly modern questura? How expensive would it have been? What would be better evidence to place before a court - these recordings or an 82,000 euro cartoon, do you FEEL?

"The interrogation rooms where RS and AK were being interrogated in November 2007 had built-in recording systems."

Please cite a link to this info.

-------------------------

"You tag team interview somebody and you just happen to forget to record it when it is required by your laws. . . ."

Please cite where it is said that Italy required taped interrogations in 2007.

----------------------------

Does anyone here have any idea of how many US states required taped interrogations in 2007?

People here try to help you understand this case, they really do. But you do not seem able to process what you are given, answer the questions you are asked or pose many relevant questions yourself. Why don't you ask the questura what facilities they have? - here you go: http://questure.poliziadistato.it/Perugia
You claim to be an Italian speaker - if that's true, do a bit of digging. Try to falsify your own thesis - that's a good way to discover what's true and what's not.

But I have lost count of the number of times you have been challenged to fit your theory of the crime to the evidence; apparently you think, as per Mignini's speculation, Ms Knox was in the kitchen, but Guede was not alone in the bedroom with Ms Kercher??

Also you seemed to believe that Ms Knox had confessed to being involved in the murder - are you clear now that it never happened?