Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

I thought the March 2015 is a hearing date, not a deadline for a decision? Also, the 5th section cassation panel still has to decide whether the case is sufficiently complex to warrant a 'united sections' hearing, no? My guess is that if ECHR has accepted the case, then Italy (and the judiciary) would surely know about it, and passing the case off to a 'united sections' panel would be an easy out for them, and far more likely than a simple ISC panel decision.

I also agree with your logic about the judiciary preference to ditching the case themselves, rather than having someone else take away their pet case to prevent them from inflicting further torture. The Italians have behaved like malicious children in this case, unlikely to improve later in life.

I find the guilter mentality to be nothing short of monstrous. Ignorance, malice, and career ambition. ECHR provides for addressing the behavior of bad actors such as Mignini, Stef, and others in this case. Once Amanda and Raf have ben exonerated, the Counsel of Ministers can chase all Mignini's scoundrels around the Umbrian Hills until they've all been accounted for.

Yes, I think you may be right - I haven't found a confirmation but the assumptions seem to be that 15th March is the start not the end. Vogt actually mentions the 25th, but I think that's incorrect. So, the United Sections referral would indeed appear to be a likely part of the process, as you speculate. I would still expect the ECHR to rule before 15th March. The mere act of ruling, if our analysis is correct, will head off a crisis.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The ECHR will doubtless be aware of the March 15th ISC ruling deadline. I would be very surprised if it does not admit the calunia case and admit it before the ISC rules. That would be the most important contribution to justice. It is inconceivable that the murder convictions could be sustained within that context.

If the case is admitted, ISC will be able to predict, as the judgements revealed here by Numbers and others so clearly demonstrate, that the court will destroy the already sustained conviction of Ms Knox. And the aspect of the case that will be the biggest bombshell is the one you refer to - the use of coerced statements as the basis for further charges.

One of the great keys to understanding human affairs is an appreciation of the powerful instinct for self preservation everybody has. A beating by the ECHR takes power away from the judiciary and puts it into the hands of the executive. My limited understanding of Italian judicial matters tells me that they will most assuredly not welcome that! The implications for the fate of subsequently confirmed murder convictions would be very clear indeed.

Weird, your post for me at least, perfectly illustrates why the ECHR will not provide a ruling on the slander case, assuming it becomes a case before 25th March third level hearing.

Anyway, time will tell.

ETA: From my perspective your posts is describing exactly what ECHR cannot do, which is to affect an ongoing judicial process in a member state.

 

[Desert Fox]

Weird, your post for me at least, perfectly illustrates why the ECHR will not provide a ruling on the slander case, assuming it becomes a case before 25th March third level hearing.

Anyway, time will tell.

There was an issue a few years ago where the chiropractic association of England was going to try to sue a prominent UK skeptic when he effectively said that chiropractic was bunk. UK slander laws are nuts (I guess every country has some sort of nuts part of their laws) and if he lost in the UK, he planned to bring the case to the ECHR where the issue looked much more likely to be ruled in his favor.

For background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCA_v._Singh

The issue here is that the slander is being in effect used against the defense so they cannot argue a proper defense.

 

[Kauffer]

Weird, your post for me at least, perfectly illustrates why the ECHR will not provide a ruling on the slander case, assuming it becomes a case before 25th March third level hearing.

Anyway, time will tell.

ETA: From my perspective your posts is describing exactly what ECHR cannot do, which is to affect an ongoing judicial process in a member state.

I think there is a misunderstanding. The ECHR cannot rule on cases where the appellant has not exhausted her pursuit of remedies within the system of the alleged offending country. You are correct on this point. However, in connection with calunia, Ms Knox has exhausted this pursuit and so the ECHR is free to rule.

What some of us are saying is that if the ECHR merely admit her case, we can infer from clear case law that they will subsequently rule in her favour. Additionally, because some of the evidence used in connection with the calunia case was used in the murder case, it is possible to infer from this, but not only this, that a future application to the ECHR on that charge would also be successful. Thus, some of us speculate that if the calunia case is admitted, both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito will effectively have won, with only time left to play out.

PS. I should add, which probably goes to the nub of your post, that I believe the European Court will be fully appreciative of the overall situation and wish to head off what they may be minded to regard as an ongoing miscarriage of justice which would quickly become an outrageous calamity if the ISC confirms the guilty verdicts in the spring and moves to imprison Mr Sollecito. The easiest way to do this is to admit the calunia case prior to ISC deleberation on the murder conviction - and indeed, the other, lesser charges. It would be very strong signalling and of course, within the proper exercising of its powers.

 

[carbonjam72]

Calumnia and murder charges are Inextricably intertwined.

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK
Weird, your post for me at least, perfectly illustrates why the ECHR will not provide a ruling on the slander case, assuming it becomes a case before 25th March third level hearing.

Anyway, time will tell.

ETA: From my perspective your posts is describing exactly what ECHR cannot do, which is to affect an ongoing judicial process in a member state.

I think there is a misunderstanding. The ECHR cannot rule on cases where the appellant has not exhausted her pursuit of remedies within the system of the alleged offending country. You are correct on this point. However, in connection with calunia, Ms Knox has exhausted this pursuit and so the ECHR is free to rule.

What some of us are saying is that if the ECHR merely admit her case, we can infer from clear case law that they will subsequently rule in her favour. Additionally, because some of the evidence used in connection with the calunia case was used in the murder case, it is possible to infer from this, but not only this, that a future application to the ECHR on that charge would also be successful. Thus, some of us speculate that if the calunia case is admitted, both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito will effectively have won, with only time left to play out.

CoulsdonUK,
I agree with Kauffer's description here. The ECHR can address the calumnia conviction. But as the calumnia conviction has been used to support, and was in fact the only evidence claimed against Ms knox at the time of her arrest. And has played so central a role in the murder charges and the deliberate character assassination in the press, that invalidating the conviction and the means by which it was obtained, cannot help but have a beneficial influence in the remaining trial processes.

As the rejection of Hellman's acquittal was delivered along with the ISC affirmation of the calumnia conviction in the same judicial opinion, ECHR could easily address the issues as inextextricable, which they really are.

The ECHR could address the rejection of court appointed independent experts, and the over-ruling of witness credibility by Hellman, as an irrational, arbitrary and unwarranted intrusion into the judicial function of the lower court, and a case where cassation clearly exceeded its mandate to only review procedure and law, and not evaluate evidence..

Do you realize there are still ignorant people who maintain that Ms Knox's coerced statements were calculated intentional lies by Ms Knox intended to deflect the investigation away from herself because she knew she was guilty, rather than he product of exhaustion, psychological torture, manipulation and mental collapse? How can the ECHR provide restitution for the quantity and extremity of such false and malicious perception among an admittedly less informed section of the public?

Technically, I think you're right. In theory the charges might be addressed only as the processes are completed.But ECHR can step in sooner, they do have that authority and latitude to act as the posted cases have shown. And there is an urgency to act as well, so as to prevent the imminent injustice of a wrongful conviction leading to Raf's imprisonment, and the unjustified looting of his inheritance.

Surely such wantonly criminal conduct as the intentional theft of Raf's inheritance based on a knowingly false and wrongful prosecution cannot be allowed to occur in broad daylight before the whole of the civilized world?

So have a little faith CoulsdonUK, justice may yet win out over the vile lies of the mad prosecutor of Perugia. (Italy just reversed their decision against 6 scientists for failing to predict an earthquake, there's still hope they can reverse this one too, even without ECHR to encourage them).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The police station had the capability

And is this unusual? In NYC (or the many other places audio recording is not required in interrogations) you are telling me rooms, prisons and telephones are not bugged as part of an investigation?

Vibio,

The point that I was attempting to establish was whether or not the police had the capability of recording the interrogations of 5-6 November. Mignini had the capability in his office, and the officers could bug the waiting room. Case closed.

With respect to the general question "should interrogations be recorded?" my answer (and I suspect the answer that most others here would give is "yes." It protects the suspects, and it also protects honest police officers.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

been there, did that with respect to Matteini

Why don't you quote the actual papers from Matteini's hearing, instead of rebounce the ball on second hand reports?

Mach,

I also quoted the translation of Matteini's report. It validated the description in Murder in Italy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Other notable scientists

.
Dr Hampikian, Conti and Vechiotti, Professor Budowle? Homework or treatment?

Kauffer,

And besides Peter Gill, there are Virkler and Lednev, who coauthored a 2009 review on presumptive and confirmatory testing of body fluids in the journal Forensic Science International. Professor Lednev served on a White House subcommittee on forensics. And there is also Dan Krane, who coauthored a textbook on bioinformatics and runs his own DNA profiling company.

 

[NancyS]

This is slightly off topic, but was thinking that many people here would enjoy this

http://serialpodcast.org/season-one/7/the-opposite-of-the-prosecution

I've just been listening to episode 7, which has made me think of this case. They interviewed a defence lawyer, who argued that she can often tell that someone is innocent, because their statements will be vague and contradictory and they will often be able to give no clear account of their actions at the time of the murder - mainly because it just wasn't something they ever thought they would have been questioned about and made no effort to remember. If guilty, they will have a much clearer account. It's all very interesting

 

[Kauffer]

Vibio,

The point that I was attempting to establish was whether or not the police had the capability of recording the interrogations of 5-6 November. Mignini had the capability in his office, and the officers could bug the waiting room. Case closed.

With respect to the general question "should interrogations be recorded?" my answer (and I suspect the answer that most others here would give is "yes." It protects the suspects, and it also protects honest police officers.

I would go even further - all police officers should wear constant recording devices - body cameras, which cannot be turned off manually by the officer. I would make it a serious disciplinary offence not to wear such enabled devices on duty.

Every report I have read about pilot programmes in connection with these devices clearly demonstrates that both police officer and citizen with whom contact is made, behave better. It is now a mandatory requirement in some jurisdictions. I am also aware that dash cam evidence has proved useful in establishing or alternatively refuting, the testimony of police officers and suspects.

 

[Dan O.]

There are the bra clasp, a female shoe print (or foot print, not sure which) a knife print matching the kitchen knife, her lamp and a highly suspicious absence of her fingerprints. That's plenty.

Don't forget the duvet covering the body, something only a Muslim female roommate would do?

 

[Bill Williams]

There are the bra clasp, a female shoe print (or foot print, not sure which) a knife print matching the kitchen knife, her lamp and a highly suspicious absence of her fingerprints. That's plenty.

In the guilter lexicon this is known as "all the other evidence". Personally I think the lamp is their best bet. No one has even shown why the lamp is anything other than incriminating.

<ducking, running.>

 

[Kauffer]

Illumination

In the guilter lexicon this is known as "all the other evidence". Personally I think the lamp is their best bet. No one has even shown why the lamp is anything other than incriminating.

<ducking, running.>

Ms Knox's lamp is quite possibly the most bizarre piece of "incriminating" evidence I have ever come across. It is apparently evidence of a search carried out by Ms Knox for the purpose of executing an impossible clean up of both visible and invisible evidence, (brought into the room, where there was already a lamp), which the judge agrees did not happen but is still relevant - somehow??? People like this believe in unicorns and monsters under the stairs don't they?

The lamp is seen in crime scene photographs in different places - the police and CSIs were obviously responsible for moving it in the first place.

 

[Bill Williams]

In the guilter lexicon this is known as "all the other evidence". Personally I think the lamp is their best bet. No one has even shown why the lamp is anything other than incriminating.

<ducking, running.>

Ms Knox's lamp is quite possibly the most bizarre piece of "incriminating" evidence I have ever come across. It is apparently evidence of a search carried out by Ms Knox for the purpose of executing an impossible clean up of both visible and invisible evidence, (brought into the room, where there was already a lamp), which the judge agrees did not happen but is still relevant - somehow??? People like this believe in unicorns and monsters under the stairs don't they?

The lamp is seen in crime scene photographs in different places - the police and CSIs were obviously responsible for moving it in the first place.

But other than that, you have to admit the lamp is still pretty incriminating.

Then again, they had also solved this crime on behavioural clues alone.... the eating of pizza, the hip-swivels, and the crying when going into the cottage (where her friend had just been murdered).

There is, indeed, "all the other evidence".

 

[Bill Williams]

The Kercher murder case in Perugia in 2007, and the subsequent trials, have attempted to redefine the nature and role of DNA forensics, and DNA evidence in Italian trials.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fgene.2013.00177/full

Before the pro-guilt lobby gets all in a snit about the authors (Carla Vecchiotti* and Silvia Zoppis - Laboratory of Forensic Genetics, Section of Legal Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopaedics, University of Rome “Sapienza”, Rome, Italy)....

...... they must admit this is out there ready to be peer reviewed. Maybe one of those peers is Machiavelli....

One thing the pro-guilt lobby will not do is address the content within.

(This was written before the Florence trial began.)

In Italy, the Kercher case has defined a new way of conceiving of and addressing the scientific evidence in the context of a criminal trial (Montagna, 2012): the scientific and, subsequently, legal quality of the investigations performed at the crime scene depends on the compliance with internationally standardized procedures. There is now a better awareness of the importance to follow correct crime scene procedures in order to minimize the risk of contamination and, subsequently, the loss of reliability of any results obtained. Another element that has emerged during this debate is the increased awareness, in the international scientific community, of the need to develop structured reasoning models. These should assist in the evaluation of propositions according to which the suspect is or is not one of the persons who contributed to a particular mixed biological trace, in particular in the context of LT-LCN (including additional phenomena such as drop-in, drop-out, etc.). Finally, it is worth recalling a key principle of the Italian criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence: a defendant can only be declared guilty if the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes for which he is being prosecuted. If a single doubt remains, even the slightest, the defendant must be acquitted. Judges who convict in the absence of strong, unambiguous and consistent evidence violate the law (Grosso, 2011).​

See also: Montagna, M. (2012). L'assassinio di Meredith Kercher - Anatomia del Processo di Perugia. Collana: Oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Kercher murder case in Perugia in 2007, and the subsequent trials, have attempted to redefine the nature and role of DNA forensics, and DNA evidence in Italian trials.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fgene.2013.00177/full

Before the pro-guilt lobby gets all in a snit about the authors (Carla Vecchiotti* and Silvia Zoppis - Laboratory of Forensic Genetics, Section of Legal Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopaedics, University of Rome “Sapienza”, Rome, Italy)....

...... they must admit this is out there ready to be peer reviewed. Maybe one of those peers is Machiavelli....

One thing the pro-guilt lobby will not do is address the content within.

(This was written before the Florence trial began.)

​

See also: Montagna, M. (2012). L'assassinio di Meredith Kercher - Anatomia del Processo di Perugia. Collana: Oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio.

This is of course totally fair and accurate, and it exactly reflects the views of the wider scientific community regarding the disgustingly inept forensics in this case.

And I nearly spat out my tea when you wrote the bit about possible peer-reviewers of this work! After all, in order to qualify as a peer, one must possess proper scientific knowledge, a scientific way of thinking, and a desire to get to the truth without any prior agenda......

 

[tsig]

CoulsdonUK,
I agree with Kauffer's description here. The ECHR can address the calumnia conviction. But as the calumnia conviction has been used to support, and was in fact the only evidence claimed against Ms knox at the time of her arrest. And has played so central a role in the murder charges and the deliberate character assassination in the press, that invalidating the conviction and the means by which it was obtained, cannot help but have a beneficial influence in the remaining trial processes.

As the rejection of Hellman's acquittal was delivered along with the ISC affirmation of the calumnia conviction in the same judicial opinion, ECHR could easily address the issues as inextextricable, which they really are.

The ECHR could address the rejection of court appointed independent experts, and the over-ruling of witness credibility by Hellman, as an irrational, arbitrary and unwarranted intrusion into the judicial function of the lower court, and a case where cassation clearly exceeded its mandate to only review procedure and law, and not evaluate evidence..

Do you realize there are still ignorant people who maintain that Ms Knox's coerced statements were calculated intentional lies by Ms Knox intended to deflect the investigation away from herself because she knew she was guilty, rather than he product of exhaustion, psychological torture, manipulation and mental collapse? How can the ECHR provide restitution for the quantity and extremity of such false and malicious perception among an admittedly less informed section of the public?

Technically, I think you're right. In theory the charges might be addressed only as the processes are completed.But ECHR can step in sooner, they do have that authority and latitude to act as the posted cases have shown. And there is an urgency to act as well, so as to prevent the imminent injustice of a wrongful conviction leading to Raf's imprisonment, and the unjustified looting of his inheritance.

Surely such wantonly criminal conduct as the intentional theft of Raf's inheritance based on a knowingly false and wrongful prosecution cannot be allowed to occur in broad daylight before the whole of the civilized world?

So have a little faith CoulsdonUK, justice may yet win out over the vile lies of the mad prosecutor of Perugia. (Italy just reversed their decision against 6 scientists for failing to predict an earthquake, there's still hope they can reverse this one too, even without ECHR to encourage them).

I think she lied because she did lie.

None of the apologetic I've seen make those statements of hers go away.

She is a convicted liar.

 

[Kauffer]

This is of course totally fair and accurate, and it exactly reflects the views of the wider scientific community regarding the disgustingly inept forensics in this case.

And I nearly spat out my tea when you wrote the bit about possible peer-reviewers of this work! After all, in order to qualify as a peer, one must possess proper scientific knowledge, a scientific way of thinking, and a desire to get to the truth without any prior agenda......

Interestingly, David Balding reviewed it.

 

[Kauffer]

I think she lied because she did lie.

None of the apologetic I've seen make those statements of hers go away.

She is a convicted liar.

As usual from these people, clear concise well argued points.

"I THINK SHE LIED BECAUSE SHE DID LIE" - is what tsig wrote! Do you know I'm starting to waiver because of this - it's so persuasive!

 

[LondonJohn]

I would go even further - all police officers should wear constant recording devices - body cameras, which cannot be turned off manually by the officer. I would make it a serious disciplinary offence not to wear such enabled devices on duty.

Every report I have read about pilot programmes in connection with these devices clearly demonstrates that both police officer and citizen with whom contact is made, behave better. It is now a mandatory requirement in some jurisdictions. I am also aware that dash cam evidence has proved useful in establishing or alternatively refuting, the testimony of police officers and suspects.

I agree. Many forces in England are now trialling body cameras, with extremely encouraging results.

In my opinion this all boils down to whether senior police officers, judges and legislators are willing to accept that jobbing police officers cannot sometimes resist the temptation to commit misconduct to get results. It's naive, idealistic and utterly wrong to hold onto the notion that the police always play scrupulously fair, and that it's only the "baddies" who play dirty. In practice, it's been long proven that some - not many perhaps - police officers in any society are willing to act either individually or even collectively in unlawful or illegal ways. Sometimes they do so in the (misguided) honest belief that the end justifies the means, but sometimes they truly do "cook up" a case against a suspect (whether to achieve targets, cover up for earlier bad decisions, or myriad other reasons).

Therefore the use of technology to keep police officers honest (even if they feel tempted to commit misconduct, their knowledge that the technology will likely catch them in the act is usually enough to quash that temptation) should not only be encouraged - it should be mandated wherever it's economically viable. As I mentioned before, the UK is perhaps one of the more enlightened societies in this regard, having mandated electronic recording of suspect interviews back in 1984, and most patrol cars have cameras facing forward and into the rear seats. Body cameras for officers on foot is another evolution in the same vein. In addition, as you point out, the use of this sort of technology appears to have the added benefit of moderating and improving the behaviour of the public with whom the police come into contact, so it really can be seen as a win-win.