Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

It's going to be hilarious when the ECHR rejects the case in the first round and this board concocts a new conspiracy theory to explain it.

 

[RWVBWL]

What does this have to do with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and the case against them? What outstanding question in the case against the already convicted Rudy Guede does this relate to? The mechanics of the movement of Guede in the course of killing Ms Kercher really don't interest me because they are not relevant to the question of the guilt or innocence of either the protagonist or the wrongfully convicted. If Guede was not the only person in the room when Ms Kercher was killed or indeed not the only other person in the flat, then show me some convincing physical evidence. The idea that more than one assailant is responsible and yet there is cast iron evidence only against one, is utterly preposterous. I am interested in the merits or otherwise of criminal convictions not in tangential matters.

Hi Kaufer,
Thanks for clearin' that up.
For a moment this Monday mornin' I thought you were havin'a bad day.

Myself, I am interested in a lot about this case,
so why don'tcha do yourself a favor, just put me on IGNORE, ok bro?
RW

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Bill Williams,
I read a post of yours, (I thought it was from Numbers) the other day which was discussing the fact that ILE did not test the outside of Meredith Kercher's bedroom door. Is this correct? I'm curious to read more when I have time...

 

[moije2]

The reasoning above is unacceptable, it's not an argument. A calunnia is a crime equivalent to stabbing a passer by, it's like let's say stabbing a police officer. You may say: had my lawyer been there, I wouldn't have stabbed that police officer. My attorney would have given counsel, he would have prevented me from doing so. That could even be true, but this is not an argument! You are not supposed to stab people, under any circumstance. You are not supposed to need that lawyer gives you counsel to prevent you from doing so, or to require that others respect your rights or the right procedure in order to refrain from stabbing officers.
You can't stab officers full stop.

There cannot be a "condition" on this, a depending on if this right or this procedure is respected, or a depending on if you have already the due technical counsel.
You can't link you refrain from committing a crime, to something like suspects rights, status, police conduct or procedures.

Now, you say the statements used to convict her for the charge of calunnia flow from the "nature of the charges she was suspected of", but this is just false. You seem to omit the fundamental element of the crime of calunnia, which is malice, and the nature of voluntary criminal behaviour in general which is the determination of free will. Actually, the statements for which she has been convicted do not "flow" down directly "from the nature of the charge for which she was investigated", they rather stem from Knox's decision and free will, this moment of her own decision being the crucial point. Unless a judge established that Knox - for some reason - had no faculty to understand and will in that moment, her calunnia conviction means the judges found that she made her statements because she decided to make them. They do not flow out from somewhre else.
The decision of Knox to place false evidence against an innocent, not "the nature of the crime", is the fundamental step that determines the conviction. This is why the statements are used for the conviction.

Mach, she didn't stab someone. That is "logic" which is unacceptable, and further is not an "argument". Totally invalid comparison.

Her statements clearly do evolve out of the very subject matter which is being investigated. These are statements which have been adjudicated as being done with free will, although that logic of the adjudication is questionable. I do accept that it has indeed been adjudicated as such. Not that I agree with it. But to separate the right to counsel, and importantly the purposes it serves, from the statements made after that right attached and say they are independent and unrelated violates completely the evaluation of the totality of the circumstances that even you required in arguments above.

This discussion is totally transparent and wouldn't be felt as a tiny bump in the road for a reviewing body such as the ECHR. Or anybody applying logic recognized as logic.

 

[moije2]

Machiavelli - each time you repeat this lie, someone needs to repeat that.....

Eight of the nine experts who Massei heard, said that a lone wolf scenario was very possible. I have no idea the ratio of guilter experts to innocentisti experts who believed this, but I wish you would stop passing on this lie: Actually, nobody among the innoocentisti is able to sort out the ludicrous contradictions of their lone wolf scenario.

Ludicrous contradictions? Prone to hyperbole? I would hope that even M should be slightly embarrassed by such remarks.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's going to be hilarious when the ECHR rejects the case in the first round and this board concocts a new conspiracy theory to explain it.

It is always possible that it will be rejected. . . .I have seen a number of wrongful convictions where higher courts rejected appeals. Does not however make it any less of a wrongful conviction.

 

[RWVBWL]

Most of us here believe Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent. We generally agree that the crime scene photos and evidence tell a clear story: Meredith was overpowered by an attacker (Guede) who grabbed her from behind, threw her to the floor after a brief struggle, and cut her throat with a knife held in his right hand. He then dragged her into the middle of the room and sexually assaulted her.

<snip>

Charlie Wilkes,
I'm having a problem with your scenario.
How long did this take? A few minutes?
I thought Guede was there for much longer...

Correct me if I'm wrong,
but wasn't the main neck wound the result from 3 consecutive stabs?

I wonder how did the person who stabbed her do so again and again at almost the same exact place? It's seems like Meredith did not move her head, turn her throat, twist her body, flail about, thrust upwards with her feet and legs to try and escape nor try to attack the killer at all -(or did she, grabbing at him, a hair strand found?) after he first buried that knife all the way to the hilt, removed it fully and stabbed her the 2nd and 3rd time. The guys knife work looks like what I'd imagine a "pro" could do, not someone killing a girl for the 1st time. Thanks to The Web, I've seen that main knife wound.

I recall reading an old blog called alternatetheories-perugiamurder.blogspot.com
which discussed much info that most newer folks here don't have a clue about.
The group of people who were LMT believed the murderer probably had military training,
and was left handed, not right. Guede's buddy, I'll call him.
Too bad it's not around anymore.

As there should be a lot of blood on Rudy,
how come there was not much of this blood, if any, on her blue jean pants button, her underwear, and when she was undressed and sexually assaulted, her legs, thighs and genitalia? Or was there blood found there?

 

[griffinmill]

It is always possible that it will be rejected. . . .I have seen a number of wrongful convictions where higher courts rejected appeals. Does not however make it any less of a wrongful conviction.

And it's nearly certain that this board will convince itself that the ECHR is as corrupt a legal body as Italy when the actual lawyers and judges who make it up agree that no violations ocurred.

 

[Desert Fox]

And it's nearly certain that this board will convince itself that the ECHR is as corrupt a legal body as Italy when the actual lawyers and judges who make it up agree that no violations ocurred.

In cases where convictions were not overturned when they should have been, I don't believe that the court system is corrupt. They do however make mistakes.

The Italian legal system does seem to be really screwy however.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

And it's nearly certain that this board will convince itself that the ECHR is as corrupt a legal body as Italy when the actual lawyers and judges who make it up agree that no violations ocurred.

-

Aren't you a member of "this board"?

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

We agree about this too. That has remained the case throughout

But, to be serious, there need not be clear evidence in order for a person to be suspected of a crime. In this country, the existence of clear evidence obliges the police to charge the suspect without any pussy footing about it. Second, your fall back position does not work. You have sought to maintain they were 'only' suspected of covering up or of some other lesser degree of involvement. Even if that were true, and given the content of the 1.45 and 5.45 documents it might be although I doubt it, they were still suspected of having something to do with the specific crime the police were investigating and were consequently entitled to legal assistance which, beyond any shadow of a doubt, would have transformed the course and conduct of this case utterly.

It doesn't seem that Mach understands the concept of the "fruit of the poisonous tree". If he did, he would understand that his dancing on this issue is absurd.

 

[Desert Fox]

It doesn't seem that Mach understands the concept of the "fruit of the poisonous tree". If he did, he would understand that his dancing on this issue is absurd.

The thing is that it is accepted as a ECHR argument and I strongly suspect that it is in Italian law as well.

 

[anglolawyer]

anglo,

The ECHR violation of Article 6.3c and thus leading to violation of Article 6.1 doesn't require, as far as I can tell, that a person be suspected of anything. Although, anyone being interrogated by police, in their custody, probably is suspected of something. But I think what counts is the interrogation/custody without counsel (lawyer), which usually produces a statement of a crime previously committed, but for the present case produces a statement which is the crime alleged.

Now, for the present case, if the police, having extracted the odd and false statements from Amanda and Raffaele, had realized that these statements are untrue and not probative, and everyone including AK and RS had gone home for a good night's sleep and the police had waited for the DNA and other forensic results, and went on to check them against "persons of interest" (using the newish US terminology) things would have been, presumably, different. But instead, they arrested Amanda and Raffaele and Patrick, and over the course of two trials, Amanda was convicted of calunnia - confirmed by the CSC. And the evidence of the calunnia, and the crime itself, is solely based on statements she made during the interrogation and the few days following, when she had no lawyer. [Please correct me if there is any error in that statement.] Thus arises the violation of Convention Article 6.1 resulting from violation of Article 6.3c.

Now suppose ECtHR judged in accordance with the last sentence above. Then, in a hypothetical retrial of Amanda for calunnia, her statements alleged to constitute calunnia would be inadmissible; there would be no crime and no evidence of a crime. Now, I believe a panel of judges composed of Mach-clones would still convict her of calunnia (because who really needs evidence?) but I don't think this would stand. More likely, I think the calunnia case would vanish.

I am insufficiently steeped in human rights law to have any weightier opinion than your own. We know from the case law that the notion of a fair trial incorporates the whole investigative process, including any interrogation before charge. Setting Mach's formalistic quibbles aside, it is abundantly clear she was a suspect when interrogated about the murder and should have been afforded access to a lawyer (and informed of the reasons for her arrest/detention - article 5.2). The question is whether the deprivation of that right taints the calumny conviction given that she wasn't suspected of that specific offence when she attended the Questura.

That seems to me to be a fact specific question which turns mainly on whose account of the proceedings one accepts and in turn on the extent to which she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But even on the facts that are not in dispute (i.e. as to the lateness and duration of the interrogation, her exhaustion following a week of assisting the police, the intensive nature of the questioning, attested by her audible screams and the other factors mentioned by Hellman when he perversely and wrongly convicted her) she is probably across the line.

 

[Samson]

"Clearly" my cojones. To conclude Comodi lied, you would need at least a consequential purpose for the alleged lie, you would also need to show the relevance of stating falsely about that time difference in that statement, and show how this hypothetical liecwould be relevant. You should also point out why, if the alleged lie was somehow relevant, the defence didn‘t object by correcting the information (maybe because they didn't like to point out that a 12.47 call did occur).



Prove it then. Maybe I should tell you, before, that the defence failed to prove it in courtroom.
The postal police wrote their briefing before any interrogation of Knox or Sollecito took place. And nobody proved they were wrong.



I said the police and prosecution had nothing to do with the publishing of the picture in a British tabloid, which the only thing that would matter when referring to a theory that the police "lied".
As for the release of the photos, what we know is there is no evidence that the "police" (meaning some individual) had anything to do with their release (and surely there is no reason to assume that the prosecution could have something to do with it). This because many parties could access the file. But even if there was evidence that one officer gave the pictures to a third party or sold the photos to the press agency (there isn‘t), this would be meaningless, since the British tabloid bought tge whole set from a press agency and decided alone on their initiative what to publish and write. You should acknowledge that this means the claim that the police "used" a bathroom picture for propaganda is false.



There is no point in this, even the FBI handbooks reports that whenevere there is a staging of a crime (burglary, rape) at a murder scene, the stager and murderer is the one leads the police to the discovery of the body.

Machiavelli:
I would like you to consider that Leila Schnepps was delighted to prove that Raffaele called the Carabinieri before the postal police arrived. She used multiple pathways to support this truth.

The reason she did this was possibly to demonstrate that people who believe in guilt are completely dispassionate when seeking the truth.

Therefore she can present as a serious analyst.

However, she also knows that this is completely unnecessary for the prosecution, and she becomes a trailblazer for truth seeking, while maintaining an impermeable guilt finding.

It is irrelevant and a sideshow for Massei and Nencini to propose this, yet they do so.
My contention is that a clever professional mathematician like Leila, will not discuss the break in, or the precise medical timing of gastric descent from the stomach that was curtailed when Meredith walked in on a very scary black intruder, because to do so, for a woman with real intellectual horsepower, would be to become an innocenti.

 

[Kauffer]

Hi Kaufer,
Thanks for clearin' that up.
For a moment this Monday mornin' I thought you were havin'a bad day.

Myself, I am interested in a lot about this case,
so why don'tcha do yourself a favor, just put me on IGNORE, ok bro?
RW

Why would I put you on ignore? You are princely entertainment. What's your latest theory? Something about the real murderer having military training? You have an active imagination and a talent for postulating the utterly improbable. But you too, for truth's sake need to confront the question of the absence of any physical evidence unquestionably connected to this murder of anyone other than Guede. And you could start in Ms Kercher's room.

Other than that, enjoy your surfin'.

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli:
I would like you to consider that Leila Schnepps was delighted to prove that Raffaele called the Carabinieri before the postal police arrived. She used multiple pathways to support this truth.

The reason she did this was possibly to demonstrate that people who believe in guilt are completely dispassionate when seeking the truth.

Therefore she can present as a serious analyst.

However, she also knows that this is completely unnecessary for the prosecution, and she becomes a trailblazer for truth seeking, while maintaining an impermeable guilt finding.

It is irrelevant and a sideshow for Massei and Nencini to propose this, yet they do so.
My contention is that a clever professional mathematician like Leila, will not discuss the break in, or the precise medical timing of gastric descent from the stomach that was curtailed when Meredith walked in on a very scary black intruder, because to do so, for a woman with real intellectual horsepower, would be to become an innocenti.

But, but . . . That kind of selective approach would open her a charges of disingenuousness, and academics hate that!

 

[carbonjam72]

anglo,

The ECHR violation of Article 6.3c and thus leading to violation of Article 6.1 doesn't require, as far as I can tell, that a person be suspected of anything. Although, anyone being interrogated by police, in their custody, probably is suspected of something. But I think what counts is the interrogation/custody without counsel (lawyer), which usually produces a statement of a crime previously committed, but for the present case produces a statement which is the crime alleged.

Now, for the present case, if the police, having extracted the odd and false statements from Amanda and Raffaele, had realized that these statements are untrue and not probative, and everyone including AK and RS had gone home for a good night's sleep and the police had waited for the DNA and other forensic results, and went on to check them against "persons of interest" (using the newish US terminology) things would have been, presumably, different. But instead, they arrested Amanda and Raffaele and Patrick, and over the course of two trials, Amanda was convicted of calunnia - confirmed by the CSC. And the evidence of the calunnia, and the crime itself, is solely based on statements she made during the interrogation and the few days following, when she had no lawyer. [Please correct me if there is any error in that statement.] Thus arises the violation of Convention Article 6.1 resulting from violation of Article 6.3c.

Now suppose ECtHR judged in accordance with the last sentence above. Then, in a hypothetical retrial of Amanda for calunnia, her statements alleged to constitute calunnia would be inadmissible; there would be no crime and no evidence of a crime. Now, I believe a panel of judges composed of Mach-clones would still convict her of calunnia (because who really needs evidence?) but I don't think this would stand. More likely, I think the calunnia case would vanish.

It's also relevant in the fact that the civil case for Lumumba was heard at the same time, in front of the same judges, as the criminal cases.

And that Mignini's tactic for holding the trials together, was to have the judges hear of Amanda's "confession" which had been barred from the murder trial, evading the spirit if not the letter of the ISC barring the statements use against Amanda at trial for murder.

(Just occurred to me I'm not clear on this: Was the statement used as the basis for calumnia barred for use in the murder case, but the basis for the criminal calumnia charge?)
I don't understand why a statement deemed inadmissible in a murder case, somehow becomes usable in a civil calumnia case (or criminal calumnia case), but certainly its introduction before the same judicial panel that was not supposed to consider it is inherently unfair.
Entangling the civil and criminal cases, the calumnia and murder charges, makes a flow chart look like a gnarly bush of roots and causes.

How could the ECHR ever hope to untangle ONLY the calumnia conviction, without also undoing the validity of the murder convictions?
As we see Mignini bobbing, weaving, and maneuvering the laws, charges, procedures, to basically defeat the protections that are supposed to be in place to protect the right to a fair trial. we see the desire to win overwhelming the logic of the practitioners.

I recall phrases from Number's ECHR quotes along the lines, that 'rights must be respected in fact, not merely as a theoretical possibility'.

It would strike me as astoundingly cruel for ECHR not to reach beyond the narrow issue of the Calumnia conviction, and fully address the ISC's arbitrary, unfair, manifestly illogical and biased rejection of Judge Hellman's acquittal - a few pages down in the same motivation report.

 

[Diocletus]

It's going to be hilarious when the ECHR rejects the case in the first round and this board concocts a new conspiracy theory to explain it.

I guess that could happen. But the application seems to be getting quite long in the tooth.

My guess is that this is either a category III or IV application, suggesting some degree of relatively expedited review (especially for category III). I'll bet that only a small percentage of category III applications dating back to 2013 remain pending as mere applications at this point. Although it's possible that nothing has happened yet, it seems more probable that something has happened.

If the application is ultimately admitted (and for all we know, it has been), the probability that Knox will win seems quite high--most of the reviewed Art. 6 cases result in a finding of a violation.

 

[Numbers]

It's also relevant in the fact that the civil case for Lumumba was heard at the same time, in front of the same judges, as the criminal cases.

And that Mignini's tactic for holding the trials together, was to have the judges hear of Amanda's "confession" which had been barred from the murder trial, evading the spirit if not the letter of the ISC barring the statements use against Amanda at trial for murder.

(Just occurred to me I'm not clear on this: Was the statement used as the basis for calumnia barred for use in the murder case, but the basis for the criminal calumnia charge?)
I don't understand why a statement deemed inadmissible in a murder case, somehow becomes usable in a civil calumnia case (or criminal calumnia case), but certainly its introduction before the same judicial panel that was not supposed to consider it is inherently unfair.
Entangling the civil and criminal cases, the calumnia and murder charges, makes a flow chart look like a gnarly bush of roots and causes.

How could the ECHR ever hope to untangle ONLY the calumnia conviction, without also undoing the validity of the murder convictions?
As we see Mignini bobbing, weaving, and maneuvering the laws, charges, procedures, to basically defeat the protections that are supposed to be in place to protect the right to a fair trial. we see the desire to win overwhelming the logic of the practitioners.

I recall phrases from Number's ECHR quotes along the lines, that 'rights must be respected in fact, not merely as a theoretical possibility'.

It would strike me as astoundingly cruel for ECHR not to reach beyond the narrow issue of the Calumnia conviction, and fully address the ISC's arbitrary, unfair, manifestly illogical and biased rejection of Judge Hellman's acquittal - a few pages down in the same motivation report.

{bolded, italized emphasis added above}

1. You raise a point that I don't believe has been addressed. How does the calunnia charge - as a criminal offense - survive, since apparently the CSC did not allow at least some of Amanda's statements from Nov. 5/6, 2007 to be used? I recall one statement was not to be used against her or anyone else, and the other could be used against her but not against anyone else, but I haven't seen any written translation of a court document on this. It would be informative to see the documentation, which apparently was a CSC ruling.

2. I believe you are correct about the unfairness of using Amanda's statements in the civil cases held before the same panel of judges that are hearing the murder/rape trial. According to the Convention (ECHR), the ECtHR can't consider what is happening in the murder/rape trial since that trial is not finalized. Depending what happens at the March 25, 2015 CSC hearing, the murder/rape trial will either be finalized with a conviction (Nencini motivation), an acquittal (Hellmann motivation restored, Nencini quashed), or a third second-level trial scheduled (as far as I understand Italian law).

3. For your last point, based on the ECHR, the ECtHR can't consider CSC's rejection of the Hellmann acquittal until the murder/rape trial is finalized, because it's tied into the ongoing trial. The CSC potentially could overthrow the previous CSC ruling.

 

[Kauffer]

I guess that could happen. But the application seems to be getting quite long in the tooth.

My guess is that this is either a category III or IV application, suggesting some degree of relatively expedited review (especially for category III). I'll bet that only a small percentage of category III applications dating back to 2013 remain pending as mere applications at this point. Although it's possible that nothing has happened yet, it seems more probable that something has happened.

If the application is ultimately admitted (and for all we know, it has been), the probability that Knox will win seems quite high--most of the reviewed Art. 6 cases result in a finding of a violation.

My guess would be Category 4 based on the published guidance, but it might creep up to a 3. There are very good reasons why the court should want to admit this application before the ISC meets as has been discussed before, even if it is not examined on the merits until later. The court has discretion.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Priority_policy_ENG.pdf