Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Hiya CarbonJam72,
I tried to download and view your file,
it was taking too long on my slow connection.

But this has to be the image you have in mind, right?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9308[/qimg]

I can see Rudy's "af" in it.
And I'm not even high or trippin'...
I don't think that Meredith was tryin' to say "Raff-a-ele", "Raff-a-ele", "Raff-a-ele".

Meredith was probably tryin to say "aw ****", "aw ****", "aw ****"...

My opinion only,
Gotta run, see ya,
RW

Yup, that's it. Sorry about that. i was hoping just to find a clean photo by itself, but it's all mixed in with the zip file on the MMK.com link.

Anyhow, when you're back from surfing or other beach activities, do let me know about whether you're bothered by unreadable prints, or clear prints not attributed to known persons.

 

[Dan O.]

...
Today for example,
I still wonder about the details of a finding that I became better aware of.
Why are there a strangers fingerprints on a womans underwear drawer?
We're talking about a rape and murder.
Laura's fingerprints are there, but someone elses too.
Whose?

How do you know isn't Laura's handyman boyfriend that spent the night two weeks earlier? Or maybe it isn't even a fingerprint because Laura pushed the drawer closed with her bare foot one evening.

The only bit that bothers me about the unattributed finger prints is the the investigators hardly lifted a finger to attribute them. It's like they already decided who the perps were and only looked for confirmation. If they weren't going to acquire the prints of all known visitors to the cottage to exclude the innocent, why were they even dusting for prints?

 

[Dan O.]

On Amanda's clothing closet doors?

But we know who this print was attributed to. And remember that the prosecution speculated that Amanda must have wiped away all the prints in her room as a coverup after the murder so this print must have been left after the cleanup after the murder. The only question is: What was this person doing wandering around in the cottage at that time? One would think she would have an incentive to stay in her own room.

 

[Desert Fox]

But we know who this print was attributed to. And remember that the prosecution speculated that Amanda must have wiped away all the prints in her room as a coverup after the murder so this print must have been left after the cleanup after the murder. The only question is: What was this person doing wandering around in the cottage at that time? One would think she would have an incentive to stay in her own room.

A quote from Amanda
"Speculation convicts us, evidence acquits us"

 

[RWVBWL]

Computers

Greetings y'all,
I'm back, havin' fun ya might say diggin' around for some thing I wanna post.

But as I do so, I come across some things worth posting.
Here's something for you who are into The Computers, from Perugia Shock:
<snip>
After a Hotmail check, it was time for Raffaele to go back to work on his thesis.
He searched for "automatically defined functions", which resulted a Columbia University page. You can enjoy it, if you wish. It wasn't really what he was looking for. He bounced from that page to make the same search, but for images. Resulting this and a few others. Then a new google search, "lisp programmazione genetica" which brought him into this Wikipedia page, and similar others.

I know what you may be thinking. No, don't even think about that: with this genetic stuff he wasn't trying to inform himself about DNA.
We are talking computer programming here, just, genetics inspired.

After that, indeed, Raffaele writes to his professor: Salve professore, ho finito di scrivere la parte centrale della tesi e ho cambiato la formattazione delle pagine... Etc.
The professor answers: Non sono quando leggerò questa parte, forse nel week-end. Ne riparliamo martedì.... etc.
The professor wanted to to talk next Tuesday about the thesis.
But things went differently.
* * *

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100806....blogspot.com/2009/09/amanda-raffaele-dj.html

So check this out:
Have a look at what Raff was doing on his computer,
if you click on the link above, find the passage I quoted, the bolded words are then colored, click them + it will take you to what Sfarzo did years ago showing where Raff's mind was at the time...


Here's another direct link to another Computer story from the same month, Sept. 2009.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100806...09/computer-places-knox-and-sollecito-at.html

Both of these links also have some of the comments for view, an interesting read...

 

[Numbers]

Here is another case from the ECtHR, which I will summarize very briefly.

CASE OF SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE 16404/03 19/02/2009

The applicant was already in custody for a kidnapping and murder in which he had confessed to the kidnapping and had shown knowledge of that case not known by police.

He was then apparently "encouraged" (or coerced) to confess to another murder. He made a detailed confession without presence of a lawyer in which all the elements he stated were actually already known to police. He retracted this confession at trial. He was convicted. The ECtHR found that the lack of a lawyer and the denial of the right to remain silent were clear violations of the Convention. The congruence of the confession to only the facts known by police indicated to the ECtHR that the applicant was merely repeating information provided by the police. The finding was: Violation of Articles 6.1 with 6.3c of the Convention. "The Court notes that where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation."

ETA: Here is a case where a person guilty of one crime was "framed" for another crime (by means of official misconduct).

 

[Numbers]

Here's another case, also from the Ukraine {highlighting emphasis added}:

CASE OF LEONID LAZARENKO v. UKRAINE 22313/04 28/10/2010

....the Court notes that the applicant confessed to L.'s murder in the course of his questioning and the reconstruction of the crime, held over several days following his arrest in the absence of a lawyer. Although he later retracted this confession, the trial courts relied on it as grounds for their finding of his guilt. It is to be underlined that the extent to which the applicant's initial confession affected his conviction is of no importance. That it irretrievably prejudiced the right of defence is presumed once it is established that it had some bearing on the conviction. While not being the sole basis for the applicant's conviction in the present case, the impugned confession undoubtedly influenced it and was relied on by the courts. It is not for the Court to speculate on what the applicant's reaction or his lawyer's advice would have been had he had access to a lawyer at the initial stage of the proceedings. It considers that, in view of the circumstances, both the safeguards envisaged by the national legislation and the guarantee of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention required that the applicant should have the benefit of the assistance of a lawyer from the very first stage of police questioning. This did not happen. Moreover, the early restrictions on the applicant's defence right, although having been pointed out by him in the appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court (see paragraph 19 above) and amounting under the domestic criminal procedural legislation to a gross violation calling for a quashing of the verdict (see paragraph 33 above), were ignored by the domestic courts. Nor could this deficiency be remedied by the subsequent legal assistance provided to the applicant, or by the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings (see Salduz, cited above, § 58, and Płonka v. Poland, no. 20310/02, §§ 39-41, 31 March 2009).

ETA: ECtHR found a violation of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c.

 

[Numbers]

Yet another case, relevant because there were two acquittals followed by a final conviction, with no new evidence, and questions about the reasonings for the conviction:

CASE OF VETRENKO v. MOLDOVA 36552/02 18/05/2010

....Even though the extent to which the {domestic} courts should give reasons may vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case, a failure to deal with a serious argument or a manifestly arbitrary manner of doing so is incompatible with the notion of a fair trial.

.... in the absence of any new evidence mentioned in the courts' judgments, they convicted the applicant in the second round of proceedings, disregarding circumstances which had earlier led to his acquittal (see Salov, cited above, § 91). Therefore, the domestic courts did not give sufficient reasons for their judgments.

59. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

....The Court also considers that where, as in the instant case, an individual has been convicted following proceedings that have entailed breaches of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, a retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation....

 

[anglolawyer]

My read of the Sollecito defence appeal to Cassazione (albeit through Google translate) shows no reference to this as an appeal point.

What defence appeal to Cassazione are you talking about? The prosecution appealed. There was no need for the defence to be challenging Hellman's finding that the clasp was worthless.

 

[anglolawyer]

Great cases, Numbers.

 

[Numbers]

What defence appeal to Cassazione are you talking about? The prosecution appealed. There was no need for the defence to be challenging Hellman's finding that the clasp was worthless.

There was
1) a defense counter against the prosecution appeal to CSC against Hellmann's acquittal and
2) a defense appeal to CSC against Nencini's conviction.

Does Bill mean #2? or maybe #1? Or both?

 

[anglolawyer]

There was
1) a defense counter against the prosecution appeal to CSC against Hellmann's acquittal and
2) a defense appeal to CSC against Nencini's conviction.

Does Bill mean #2? or maybe #1? Or both?

1) would not have said anything about re-testing 165B
2) I have not seen the translation, if there is one, but would not expect it to contain a request for testing anything.

 

[Bill Williams]

What defence appeal to Cassazione are you talking about? The prosecution appealed. There was no need for the defence to be challenging Hellman's finding that the clasp was worthless.

There was
1) a defense counter against the prosecution appeal to CSC against Hellmann's acquittal and
2) a defense appeal to CSC against Nencini's conviction.

Does Bill mean #2? or maybe #1? Or both?

I am talking about the appeal document from Raffaele (Bongiorno) to Cassation in 2014, as a result of the Nencini conviction.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RICORSO_SOLLECITO_9.6.2014.pdf

The point at issue was Nencini remarking rather snarkily (sarcasticly)in his 2014 motivations report the reason he denied a "retesting" request from the Sollecito defence. He said:

So, unless one has to consider the legal experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and the consultants of the parties as being incompetent professionals for neglecting genetic traces useful for the further examinations requested of them by the Judge - and this would then cast doubt on the reliability of every scientific statement made by them in the trial – this Court must conclude that it is objectively impossible to repeat the examination because a piece of evidence is not properly conserved and the material necessary for performing the examination cannot be extracted;​

The issue is: did the Sollecito defence team request a "retesting" of the clasp, or simply a reevaluation of both Stefanoni's and Vecchiotti's work?

I turned to Sollecito's 2014 appeal to Cassation to see if they covered this and could clarify. Not so. Not with Google translate, that is.

It is still incredible for Nencini to make reference to a stunning episode of incompetence by Stefanoni, to take a shot at Vecchiotti. And then make no deliberation on the "professionalism" of Stefanoni.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am talking about the appeal document from Raffaele (Bongiorno) to Cassation in 2014, as a result of the Nencini conviction.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RICORSO_SOLLECITO_9.6.2014.pdf

The point at issue was Nencini remarking rather snarkily (sarcasticly)in his 2014 motivations report the reason he denied a "retesting" request from the Sollecito defence. He said:

​

The issue is: did the Sollecito defence team request a "retesting" of the clasp, or simply a reevaluation of both Stefanoni's and Vecchiotti's work?

I turned to Sollecito's 2014 appeal to Cassation to see if they covered this and could clarify. Not so. Not with Google translate, that is.

It is still incredible for Nencini to make reference to a stunning episode of incompetence by Stefanoni, to take a shot at Vecchiotti. And then make no deliberation on the "professionalism" of Stefanoni.

What you would be looking for in that case is an attack on Nencini's refusal to accede to defence requests generally. I don't envy you trying to make sense of the gobbledegook using google translate. It's already unintelligible before it's fed in.

 

[Bill Williams]

1) would not have said anything about re-testing 165B
2) I have not seen the translation, if there is one, but would not expect it to contain a request for testing anything.

Why not? Especially if what the Sollecito team had asked for in Sept 2013 at the beginning of the Nencini trial was a full reevaluation of the status of the bra-clasp's DNA analysis.

What's clear is that:

- The Sollecito team requested something to do with the bra-clasp.
- Nencini denied to motion.
- in the motivations report, Nencini sarcastically said something to the effect: how can you re-test something that's been destroyed
- The Sollecito appeal to Cassation to prepare for March 2015 doesn't seem to make a big deal of this.​

 

[Bill Williams]

What you would be looking for in that case is an attack on Nencini's refusal to accede to defence requests generally. I don't envy you trying to make sense of the gobbledegook using google translate. It's already unintelligible before it's fed in.

Now YOU are being sarcastic! Let me guess..... you don't have much respect for Nencini either as a judge or as an author.

Go ahead, confess it. It's good for the soul.

 

[anglolawyer]

Why not? Especially if what the Sollecito team had asked for in Sept 2013 at the beginning of the Nencini trial was a full reevaluation of the status of the bra-clasp's DNA analysis.

What's clear is that:

- The Sollecito team requested something to do with the bra-clasp.
- Nencini denied to motion.
- in the motivations report, Nencini sarcastically said something to the effect: how can you re-test something that's been destroyed
- The Sollecito appeal to Cassation to prepare for March 2015 doesn't seem to make a big deal of this.​

Why not? Because it's an appeal to Cassazione. That court is not the place to ask for re-testing. The appropriate ground of appeal would be to attack Nencini's refusal to order re-testing (e.g. 165B) or new testing (e.g. audio-metric test of Nara's place)

Now YOU are being sarcastic! Let me guess..... you don't have much respect for Nencini as a judge or as an author.

Go ahead, confess it. It's good for the soul.

Actually, I was referring to Raffaele's appeal and making the possibly unfair assumption that it was tarted up in the same sort of lingo Galati used. All these Italian documents read badly IMO. They are too long, over-complicated, pseudo-intellectual, specious and pretentious. Apart from that, they're fine.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually, I was referring to Raffaele's appeal and making the possibly unfair assumption that it was tarted up in the same sort of lingo Galati used. All these Italian documents read badly IMO. They are too long, over-complicated, pseudo-intellectual, specious and pretentious. Apart from that, they're fine.

Exactly! Reading them puts me in mind of the kid at school who's desperate to show how well-read and clever he is by using incongruously high-flown language, or a newspaper columnist of the sort that is regularly lampooned in "Private Eye".

It all smacks to me of a judicial system that's trapped in a worrying need to demonstrate its "higher competence". In many ways it's not dissimilar to the way the "crack" forensics teams talked the talk by donning the white bunny suits and earnestly demonstrating their actions to camera, while actually riding roughshod over pretty much all the basic protocols of crime scene examination and evidence gathering.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Something posted on IIP bears bringing over here, I think. It's an extended quote from former Italian judge Edoardo Mori (my bolding):

A judge can be wrong his entire life without anybody saying anything about it. The determination of eventual fault runs through three instances and with this subdivision the body corporate has displayed a bedeviled ability. The result is a renunciation to any accountability and responsibility. The judge of the trial court does not feel certain? Does not matter, he nevertheless condemns, in case of doubt his colleague of second instance will adjust it. For prosecutors you absolutely need legal requirements culpability and accountability. But hawks will not pick out hawks' eyes, not in Italy. In Germany this is a serious offence called “perversion of justice”, perversion of the course of justice perpetrated by the judge.

Meanwhile you cannot even rely anymore on DNA- investigations; you only have to look at the ridicules figure the investigators demonstrated in the murder case of Meredith Kercher.

The police system, the treatment of the accused and the relations between the Prosecution and the Judges are backward in 1930. The police forces consider all accused as criminals, the citizens are treated like doormats and often interrogations degenerate in violence. The Prosecutor plays police commissioner instead of ensuring the rights of the accused being respected. And the investigating judge feels the obligation to promote the action of the prosecutor.

The consultants and experts provide the prosecutor the appointed answers and pieces of evidence. To confirm his preconceived theories. The prosecutors don’t tolerate questioning experts, they want them to blindly volunteer for supporting the charges. And because the experts know that they have to satisfy the prosecutors to have work they accommodate themselves.


Now apparently this is a translation from a book published in German written by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi, so one must consider the source as well as the accuracy of the translation. But if Mori did indeed say these words (or something sufficiently similar), then they are a pretty powerful - and credible - observation of just how unfit for purpose is the present Italian criminal justice system.

Mori here appears to bolster the view held by many of us that there are fundamental structural flaws in the system. Judges and prosecutors are far too close, and judges still appear to instinctively believe that prosecutors are bringing a "fair", disinterested prosecution. Because of this, judges appear to accept the prosecution argument as the kicking-off point, and that unless the defence can comprehensively demolish the prosecution case, then conviction is more-or-less assured. The rights of suspects are routinely ignored or denied, whether during the investigation phase or the trial process. And "experts" will always be available to support the prosecutor, regardless of the objective credibility of that support (though in fairness this is to some extent a problem everywhere). And judges are pretty much unaccountable, with a politicised cabal of patronage and self-support.

I believe we've seen very obvious manifestations of all of these factors in the Knox/Sollecito trials.

 

[Numbers]

Great cases, Numbers.

Here's an encore from Moldova.
CASE OF GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA 7170/02 08/04/2008

The applicant is a policeman's (G's) widow. The policeman had objected to certain actions in his department, which he called illegal brutality. The policeman and some colleagues were accused of murdering the head of the local station, their boss. They were placed under a kind of administrative detention, with no access to lawyers, and copiously confessed. Then they were arrested on criminal charges and brought to trial. At trial, they convinced the court that
their confessions had been coerced and had strong evidence of an alibi. They demonstrated that there had been a large number of irregularities and illegalities in the investigation. They were acquitted. However, the prosecution appealed and a new trial began. However, G and his son were assassinated by gunfire. Under Moldovan law, the trial against G as well as his surviving colleagues continued. All were convicted on the appeal, and this conviction was upheld and finalized at cassation.

The widow had the right to apply to ECtHR based on Moldovan law. The Court found a violation of Article 6.1 of the Convention:

114. The Court concludes that while accepting as “decisive evidence” (see paragraph 75 above) the self-incriminating statements made by the accused, the domestic courts chose simply to remain silent with regard to a number of serious violations of the law noted by the lower court and to certain fundamental issues, such as the fact that the accused had an alibi for the presumed time of the murder. The Court could not find any explanation for such omission in the courts’ decisions and neither did the Government provide any clarification in this respect.

115. In the light of the above observations and taking into account the proceedings as a whole, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons for convicting G. and thus did not satisfy the requirements of fairness as required by Article 6 of the Convention.