Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Dumbell cope in the room can have their marching orders, but I believe Mignini, Napoleone and Zugarini at a minimum, absolutely knew that Amanda and Raf were innocent, and just wanted to pressure a confession, because fundamentally they are amoral thugs. None of these mistakes are honest.

Cops can be pretty dumb. . . . .
Using the Norfolk Four case, Omar Ballard was arrested soon after the murder for sexual assault within blocks of the rape and murder of Michelle Moore Bosko yet he was not considered a suspect until he wrote an angry love letter to a woman confessing to the crime.

 

[Numbers]

Italy will say she was not asked about the crimes of Mr X, that they never heard his name before and that she was the one who brought his name up. When examining her before Massei, Mignini asked why she never mentioned Patrick at any time during all the questioning (correct answer: because he was not relevant on her understanding of what had happened). The fact he asked this proves she never mentioned him which further proves they didn't ask her about him before the night of the 5th-6th. Since we know they bugged Le Chic before this, we can infer they were playing a game and closing in on their GUT in which he was the black guy they were looking for and, confirmation bias being what it is, her failure to mention him proved she was covering for him.

But, given all that, how will she prove they brought his name up? It's not my understanding of her evidence that she says in so many words that they did.

They showed her the text message she sent to Patrick.
What transpired then?
Where is the interrogation record?
What does it state?

Who has the burden of proof? And in which court - domestic Italian or ECtHR?
If the court is the ECtHR, and there is no interrogation record, only Amanda's statements - demonstrably false regarding Patrick and later repudiated by her, what inferences, if any, would the ECtHR draw?

 

[Kauffer]

They showed her the text message she sent to Patrick.
What transpired then?
Where is the interrogation record?
What does it state?

Who has the burden of proof? And in which court - domestic Italian or ECtHR?
If the court is the ECtHR, and there is no interrogation record, only Amanda's statements - demonstrably false regarding Patrick and later repudiated by her, what inferences, if any, would the ECtHR draw?

The question is were her human rights violated in the course not just of the trial but in the interrogations. There is a pattern of evidence that demonstrates this. The ECHR is entitled to draw inferences. One of them is that Lumumba was already a suspect.

 

[Bill Williams]

But, given all that, how will she prove they brought his name up? It's not my understanding of her evidence that she says in so many words that they did.

They showed her the text message she sent to Patrick.
What transpired then?
Where is the interrogation record?
What does it state?

Who has the burden of proof? And in which court - domestic Italian or ECtHR?
If the court is the ECtHR, and there is no interrogation record, only Amanda's statements - demonstrably false regarding Patrick and later repudiated by her, what inferences, if any, would the ECtHR draw?

Are they going to rely on evidence that, basically, she is coerced to give against herself?

I know Machiavelli is not the beacon of rationale thought here, but even Machiavelli describes Donnino's role as helping Knox with things the PLE says she's supposed to remember, but does not.

That's the import of the question: who first drew attention to Lumumba's SMS text? If it was Ficarra saying, "who's this?" then that is Ficarra bringing Lumumba into the room.

Also, Numbers asks the next relevant questions:

Where is the interrogation record?
What does it state?​

The last question: is the memorandum evidence against Knox? It shouldn't be. Machiavelli wants to build an iron wall between the calunnia and the murder on this point alone. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

The question - will ECHR see it that way?

ETA - and as carbonjam72 points out, the "let's meet" interpretation of the SMS message can only be a result of both coerced-leading, and incompetent translation.

(carbonjam72 - It's pretty leading, that at first they won't accept the truth of where she was and who was there, and THEN flash a message from Patrick that they can conveniently construe as "let's meet'.)

 

[Numbers]

The question is were her human rights violated in the course not just of the trial but in the interrogations. There is a pattern of evidence that demonstrates this. The ECHR is entitled to draw inferences. One of them is that Lumumba was already a suspect.

The ECtHR could ask for the police records relating to the case, including the wire tap information. Other information of interest may be the police assignment logs - who was assigned to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation and when. The slander cases filed against Amanda and against her parents by the police or Mignini are also significant; I believe the police complaint lists 12 police complainants.

The question of when DNA results were available to the police compared to the interrogation timing may also be brought up, as well as the relationship of the interrogation timing to the arrival of Amanda's mother.

 

[Kauffer]

The ECtHR could ask for the police records relating to the case, including the wire tap information. Other information of interest may be the police assignment logs - who was assigned to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation and when. The slander cases filed against Amanda and against her parents by the police or Mignini are also significant; I believe the police complaint lists 12 police complainants.

The question of when DNA results were available to the police compared to the interrogation timing may also be brought up, as well as the relationship of the interrogation timing to the arrival of Amanda's mother.

Now this, I think is on the money! What else do we know about Lumumba's status with the police as of the evening of the 5th? What knowledge do we have of police planning before the 5th, for the 5th. Are the police complainant names available? Is there not also testimony of contemporaneous note taking?

 

[carbonjam72]

The ECtHR could ask for the police records relating to the case, including the wire tap information. Other information of interest may be the police assignment logs - who was assigned to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation and when. The slander cases filed against Amanda and against her parents by the police or Mignini are also significant; I believe the police complaint lists 12 police complainants.

The question of when DNA results were available to the police compared to the interrogation timing may also be brought up, as well as the relationship of the interrogation timing to the arrival of Amanda's mother.

How about the original DNA electronic files regrading the DNA testing on the knife, and maybe the bra clasp?

Or even the downstairs DNA profiles, why not get everything?

Could ECHR require Stefanoni to finally cough up the goods?

If so, I predict Stef will never turn over the electronic files. To do so, would show that the evidence never had any validity.

Not an expert, but my guess is that the negative controls would show contamination. (And if the negative controls show it profile, it would be similar to what Stef claims she found on the knife, in the groove that no one else could see, but Stef could see because of her magical lighting style.

Could ECHR also require testing of the sperm stain, and the broken glass from the allegedly staged break-in, or the white powder from the outside wall found in Filomena's room, or require the damaged computers be sent out for independent analysis?

 

[Bill Williams]

My understanding is that her statements were judged usable for the purpose of proving calumny but not murder. There is a translation of the relevant CS ruling somewhere.

This is my understanding as well. It is the reason, IMO, that Mignini continued with the calunnia, with Lumumba's obvious cooperation and financial benefit.

Remember, the quirk of Italian law is that the memorandums of 1:45 am and 5:45 am were not "admissible" as far as the murder charges were concerned....

..... but because the same panel hears both the murder and calunnia concurrently at the same trial, they same panel which adjudicates the murder charges also hears the calunnia evidence because they are also simultaneously adjudicating the calunnia charge.

It then belongs to the realm of the psychology of individual panel members - popular and professional judges - to be able to separate those two things out. Could you do it? Could I? Could Machiavelli?

Also, since calunnia's sentence has this "aggravating" circumstance portion, the panel members necessarily have to mix things up... all the while being trusted to separate them .... I'm confused.

 

[Kauffer]

How about the original DNA electronic files regrading the DNA testing on the knife, and maybe the bra clasp?

Or even the downstairs DNA profiles, why not get everything?

Could ECHR require Stefanoni to finally cough up the goods?

If so, I predict Stef will never turn over the electronic files. To do so, would show that the evidence never had any validity.

Not an expert, but my guess is that the negative controls would show contamination. (And if the negative controls show it profile, it would be similar to what Stef claims she found on the knife, in the groove that no one else could see, but Stef could see because of her magical lighting style.

Could ECHR also require testing of the sperm stain, and the broken glass from the allegedly staged break-in, or the white powder from the outside wall found in Filomena's room, or require the damaged computers be sent out for independent analysis?

This all relates to the murder charge, I feel, so not within the remit of the court at this time. I do not believe the court can order testing in any case. But it can infer from a refusal to admit evidence into trial that there was no equality of arms.

 

[Bill Williams]

The ECtHR could ask for the police records relating to the case, including the wire tap information. Other information of interest may be the police assignment logs - who was assigned to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation and when. The slander cases filed against Amanda and against her parents by the police or Mignini are also significant; I believe the police complaint lists 12 police complainants.

The question of when DNA results were available to the police compared to the interrogation timing may also be brought up, as well as the relationship of the interrogation timing to the arrival of Amanda's mother.

Does the ECHR either have the capacity or the interest in, really, doing what amounts to a full re-investigation?

 

[Numbers]

This all relates to the murder charge, I feel, so not within the remit of the court at this time. I do not believe the court can order testing in any case. But it can infer from a refusal to admit evidence into trial that there was no equality of arms.

Yes, the EDF and so on are all related to the murder/rape trials and not to the calunnia trial and conviction. But they could (would?) be at issue if the CSC finalizes a conviction for the murder/rape.

I believe that ECtHR could order testing done on the purported semen stain, but would not do so, or need to, in order to reach its judgment. The ECtHR is not competent (not authorized to) find any person guilty or not guilty, or assign blame to individuals for rights violations. It only judges the States of the Council of Europe; it does not judge the applicants, although it judges their claims (that is, decides whether they are admissible or not, and evaluates their merits compared to what the respondent State asserts).

 

[Numbers]

Does the ECHR either have the capacity or the interest in, really, doing what amounts to a full re-investigation?

Good question. Perhaps the reason so many of the ECtHR cases take so long to reach judgment is the time required for the Court and its staff to wade through all the documents they consider necessary to evaluate.

For the calunnia, they would, I think, focus on understanding the pre-trial investigation and the trials. It is possible that the ECtHR could evaluate the pre-trial investigation as simply the interrogation without lawyer, point out the case law such as Salduz v Turkey applies, and judge that Italy violated Convention Article 6.3c in conjunction with Article 6.1. No big investigation by ECtHR required in that scenario.

ETA: However, the investigation/trial that ECtHR conducts is adversarial (although by exchange of documents). So it must ask questions of Italy regarding the applicant's allegations, send the responses on the applicant's lawyer, and then evaluate Italy's and the applicant's responses. And there may be a few rounds of this exchange.

 

[carbonjam72]

Good question. Perhaps the reason so many of the ECtHR cases take so long to reach judgment is the time required for the Court and its staff to wade through all the documents they consider necessary to evaluate.

For the calunnia, they would, I think, focus on understanding the pre-trial investigation and the trials. It is possible that the ECtHR could evaluate the pre-trial investigation as simply the interrogation without lawyer, point out the case law such as Salduz v Turkey applies, and judge that Italy violated Convention Article 6.3c in conjunction with Article 6.1. No big investigation by ECtHR required in that scenario.

ETA: However, the investigation/trial that ECtHR conducts is adversarial (although by exchange of documents). So it must ask questions of Italy regarding the applicant's allegations, send the responses on the applicant's lawyer, and then evaluate Italy's and the applicant's responses. And there may be a few rounds of this exchange.

Do those docs become public when they are issued, or does ECHR wait until releasing a judgement to open the case file to the public?

 

[Numbers]

Do those docs become public when they are issued, or does ECHR wait until releasing a judgement to open the case file to the public?

That's a very good question and I don't have an answer. I don't know whether or not the ECtHR case files are ever public; I don't think there is a way to look them up on HUDOC. Some of the documents may be quoted or summarized, in part, in a judgment. Certainly, the contents or substance of documents are mentioned or discussed in a judgment if relevant. Some of the documents they use are trial transcripts, indictments, and judicial opinions or other reasonings (in Italy, called "motivations"), as well as medical reports, reports of NGOs and UN or other international agencies, which are, except for the medical reports, public documents.

Within a judgment, the ECtHR lists the claims or arguments of both sides - applicant and then respondent state - in sequence, followed by their investigative results and opinion or judgment. They strive for a balanced approach.

 

[Numbers]

How about the original DNA electronic files regrading the DNA testing on the knife, and maybe the bra clasp?

Or even the downstairs DNA profiles, why not get everything?

Could ECHR require Stefanoni to finally cough up the goods?

If so, I predict Stef will never turn over the electronic files. To do so, would show that the evidence never had any validity.

Not an expert, but my guess is that the negative controls would show contamination. (And if the negative controls show it profile, it would be similar to what Stef claims she found on the knife, in the groove that no one else could see, but Stef could see because of her magical lighting style.

Could ECHR also require testing of the sperm stain, and the broken glass from the allegedly staged break-in, or the white powder from the outside wall found in Filomena's room, or require the damaged computers be sent out for independent analysis?

Your questions are all good. In theory, the ECtHR could ask for all sorts of testing and the respondent State would be obligated to follow through or be found in violation of the Convention. But the ECtHR generally doesn't need to do any of these things. They are NOT trying to solve a murder/rape case or determine the guilt of any individual, or even whether some individual state agent violated the rights of a person.

The responsibility and mandate of the ECtHR when an individual applicant makes claims against a respondent State, and ECtHR decides that the application is in whole or part admissible, is to judge whether or not that respondent State has violated the Convention. So, for example, if the police have failed to carry out certain tests, or a court has not treated the defense the same way as the prosecution, those are potential signs of the violation of rights. What the results of the tests might have been or what would have happened in terms of the verdict if the defense and prosecution had been treated the same is not really what the ECtHR is trying to get at. Whether or not a defendant had a fair trial, which includes pre-trial investigation, is what it judges - for Article 6 (unfair trial) claims.

ETA: If there is a finding of an Article 6 violation, one part of the "restoration of integrity" of the victim may be a retrial or rehearing. But this is done by the respondent State, if requested by the victim, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Some states, such as Albania, have been slow or uncooperative in arranging such retrials in certain cases.

 

[carbonjam72]

Your questions are all good. In theory, the ECtHR could ask for all sorts of testing and the respondent State would be obligated to follow through or be found in violation of the Convention. But the ECtHR generally doesn't need to do any of these things. They are NOT trying to solve a murder/rape case or determine the guilt of any individual, or even whether some individual state agent violated the rights of a person.

The responsibility and mandate of the ECtHR when an individual applicant makes claims against a respondent State, and ECtHR decides that the application is in whole or part admissible, is to judge whether or not that respondent State has violated the Convention. So, for example, if the police have failed to carry out certain tests, or a court has not treated the defense the same way as the prosecution, those are potential signs of the violation of rights. What the results of the tests might have been or what would have happened in terms of the verdict if the defense and prosecution had been treated the same is not really what the ECtHR is trying to get at. Whether or not a defendant had a fair trial, which includes pre-trial investigation, is what it judges - for Article 6 (unfair trial) claims.

ETA: If there is a finding of an Article 6 violation, one part of the "restoration of integrity" of the victim may be a retrial or rehearing. But this is done by the respondent State, if requested by the victim, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Some states, such as Albania, have been slow or uncooperative in arranging such retrials in certain cases.

If requested by the victim? As opposed to what? Just saying, "nah, that's ok. I'll just serve an unjustified sentence".

 

[acbytesla]

Didn’t the police contact Raffaele that night and asked him to come in to clarify previous statements, if they were both suspects why not contact Amanda as well?

They didn't need to. They knew Amanda was staying at Raffaele's and they knew that she would come alone. It's also well known that their intention that evening was to have both of them there anyway.

 

[Numbers]

If requested by the victim? As opposed to what? Just saying, "nah, that's ok. I'll just serve an unjustified sentence".

There are many different situations encountered in the ECtHR case law.
Some are persons who admit that they are guilty but have been unfairly treated or abused - and they are seeking compensation or acknowledgement.

In some cases, even though the trial or pre-trial investigation was unfair, there is strong evidence of guilt.

In other cases, convicted persons may be factually innocent but have already served all or most of their sentence - the ECtHR process can take many years. They may want their record cleared and financial compensation.

Interestingly, I read some of the history of the ECtHR in one partially disagreeing concurring opinion. The original intent when the Court was being established (circa 1950) was for it to be an international appeal court. That is, it could overrule (reverse) any top national court. But the Ifalian delegate to the founding convention objected to that, and the other nations agreed not to reduce their sovereignty by creating a supranational appeal court.

ETA: At any rate, the ECtHR does not itself have the authority to order a retrial. It can suggest it. The Committee of Ministers can use diplomatic pressure to urge a retrial. And the victim may request a retrial. But apparently only the respondent State can grant the retrial.
ETA2: The respondent State almost always eventually does what the ECtHR suggests. Exceptions are probably rare.

 

[Planigale]

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?

Maybe irrelevant. When surgeons cut with a scalpel, they cut pulling out not pushing in. The neck wound was wider than a stab (as I understand it). The mistake is to assume it needs to be a second stab in to widen the wound, if the knife was sharp, then having stabbed in as the knife comes out (especially if there is struggling) the wound can be broadened.

I suspect most persons with military training are not trained to use a knife (excluding the Ghurkas) unless special forces, if they were special forces I suspect they would not need a knife to subdue a small woman.

i commend you on continuing to challenge the current preconceptions, your views are always worth taking seriously. I do not feel that I have to agree with you. i had wondered whether the argument that Guede had an accomplice was valid. I do not think that it can be excluded, but I remain of the view that the simplest solution is that Guede alone committed the murder. Unlike Mach I do not think we have to have evidence of every step he took to accept this hypothesis, and i have not come across any evidence to disprove this hypothesis.

 

[Desert Fox]

Maybe irrelevant. When surgeons cut with a scalpel, they cut pulling out not pushing in. The neck wound was wider than a stab (as I understand it). The mistake is to assume it needs to be a second stab in to widen the wound, if the knife was sharp, then having stabbed in as the knife comes out (especially if there is struggling) the wound can be broadened.

I suspect most persons with military training are not trained to use a knife (excluding the Ghurkas) unless special forces, if they were special forces I suspect they would not need a knife to subdue a small woman.

i commend you on continuing to challenge the current preconceptions, your views are always worth taking seriously. I do not feel that I have to agree with you. i had wondered whether the argument that Guede had an accomplice was valid. I do not think that it can be excluded, but I remain of the view that the simplest solution is that Guede alone committed the murder. Unlike Mach I do not think we have to have evidence of every step he took to accept this hypothesis, and i have not come across any evidence to disprove this hypothesis.

My position is very similar to your in that I d not rule out another attacker although I consider it unlikely. I think that being able to track somebody in every step they took is unrealistic as well.

One item is that I think Guede would have turned on anybody else involved in the murder if there was anybody else with him. It seems to be a pretty common thing among such perpetrators. When he was on Skype from Germany, I would have expected something to come out.