Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

A summary lesson for the Remedial ECHR Law course. Part 1.
This is material I've posted before and I still don't remember! It's from:
Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb) (c) 2014 Council of Europe/ECHR
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf

3. The concept of a “criminal charge” has an “autonomous” meaning, independent of the categorisations employed by the national legal systems of the member States (Adolf v. Austria, § 30).

4. The concept of “charge” has to be understood within the meaning of the Convention. It may thus be defined as “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”, a definition that also corresponds to the test whether “the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected” (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, §§ 42 and 46, and Eckle v. Germany, § 73). The Court has also held that a person in police custody who was required to swear an oath before being questioned as a witness was already the subject of a “criminal charge” and had the right to remain silent (Brusco v. France, §§ 46-50).

25. As regards the pre-trial stage (inquiry, investigation), the Court considers criminal proceedings as a whole. Therefore, some requirements of Article 6, such as the reasonable-time requirement or the right of defence, may also be relevant at this stage of proceedings in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with them (Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, § 36). Although investigating judges do not determine a “criminal charge”, the steps taken by them have a direct influence on the conduct and fairness of the subsequent proceedings, including the actual trial. Accordingly, Article 6 § 1 may be held to be applicable to the investigation procedure conducted by an investigating judge, although some of the procedural safeguards envisaged by Article 6 § 1 might not apply (Vera Fernández-Huidobro v. Spain, §§ 108-114).

103. It is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and defence. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. In addition Article 6 § 1 requires that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused (Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 60).

104. In a criminal trial, Article 6 § 1 usually overlaps with the defence rights under Article 6 § 3, such as the right to question witnesses.

 

[Numbers]

A summary lesson for the Remedial ECHR Law course. Part 2.
This is material I've posted before and I still don't remember! It's from:
Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb) (c) 2014 Council of Europe/ECHR
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Gu...iminal_ENG.pdf

120. Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself (Funke v. France, § 44; see also O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 45; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 60). Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities these immunities contribute to avoiding miscarriages of justice and to securing the aims of Article 6 (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).

121. The right not to incriminate oneself applies to criminal proceedings in respect of all types of criminal offences, from the most simple to the most complex (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 74).

122. The right to remain silent applies from the point at which the suspect is questioned by the police (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).

123. The right not to incriminate oneself presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without recourse to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 68; see also Bykov v. Russia [GC], § 92).

124. However, the privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the accused through recourse to compulsory powers but which has an existence independent of the will of the suspect, such as documents acquired pursuant to a warrant, breath, blood and urine samples, and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA testing (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 69; see also O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC] § 47).

125. Early access to a lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination. In order for the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 to remain sufficiently “practical and effective”, access to a lawyer should, as a rule, be provided from the first time a suspect is questioned by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (Salduz v. Turkey [GC], §§ 54-55).

126. Persons in police custody enjoy both the right not to incriminate themselves and to remain silent and the right to be assisted by a lawyer whenever they are questioned. These rights are quite distinct: a waiver of one of them does not entail a waiver of the other. Nevertheless, these rights are complementary, since persons in police custody must a fortiori be granted the assistance of a lawyer when they have not previously been informed by the authorities of their right to remain silent (Navone and Others v. Monaco, § 74; Brusco v. France, § 54). The importance of informing a suspect of the right to remain silent is such that, even where a person willingly agrees to give statements to the police after being informed that his words may be used in evidence against him, this cannot be regarded as a fully informed choice if he has not been expressly notified of his right to remain silent and if his decision has been taken without the assistance of counsel (Navone and Others v. Monaco, § 74; Stojkovic v. France and Belgium, § 54).

127. The right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination serve in principle to protect the freedom of a suspect to choose whether to speak or to remain silent when questioned by the police. Such freedom of choice is effectively undermined in a case in which the suspect has elected to remain silent during questioning and the authorities use subterfuge to elicit confessions or other statements of an incriminatory nature from the suspect which they were unable to obtain during such questioning (in this particular case, a confession made to a police informer sharing the applicant’s cell), and where the confessions or statements thereby obtained are adduced in evidence at trial (Allan v. the United Kingdom, § 50).

136. In determining whether the proceedings as a whole were fair, regard must also be had to whether the rights of the defence have been respected. In particular, it must be examined whether the applicant was given an opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and to oppose its use. In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, as must the circumstances in which it was obtained and whether these circumstances cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy. While no problem of fairness necessarily arises where the evidence obtained was unsupported by other material, it may be noted that where the evidence is very strong and there is no risk of its being unreliable, the need for supporting evidence is correspondingly weaker (Bykov v. Russia [GC], § 89; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], § 96). In this connection, the Court also attaches weight to whether the evidence in question was or was not decisive for the outcome of the criminal proceedings (Gäfgen v. Germany).

138. However, particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (Jalloh v. Germany [GC], §§ 99 and 105; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, § 63).

139. Therefore, the use in criminal proceedings of statements obtained as a result of a violation of Article 3 – irrespective of the classification of the treatment as torture, inhuman or degrading treatment – renders the proceedings as a whole automatically unfair, in breach of Article 6 (El Haski v. Belgium; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], § 166). This also holds true for the use of real evidence obtained as a direct result of acts of torture (Jalloh v. Germany [GC], § 105; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], § 167). The admission of such evidence obtained as a result of an act classified as inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3, but falling short of torture, will only breach Article 6, however, if it has been shown that the breach of Article 3 had a bearing on the outcome of the proceedings against the defendant, that is, had an impact on his or her conviction or sentence (El Haski v. Belgium, § 85; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], § 178).

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

Plus what's with Rudy's story about being on a date? Why only evidence of Rudy there?

Rudy's explaining his own presence, and incorporating lies to tell a tale in the event the evidence reflects what he did.

If you want to hypothesize about someone outside the room where Meredith was killed, or better still, outside the house, that at least seems less contradicted by Guede's past history as a lone burglar (unless you think he had accomplices in the past as well).

I'm open to the argument of co-conspirators, so long as they were not physically involved in the actual murder - because the evidence that is there - like a single set of foot prints in blood - and only evidence of Rudy Guede's DNA in any reliable and consistent pattern, I am convinced excludes anyone one else from being there.

Speculation is fine, but there has to be some basis I would say before it can be said to have some plausibility.

RBWL, I'm also a fan of your research and eagle eye on the evidence. But would you mind answering that question I've been asking you in regard to unattributed prints: Are they unattributed because they're smudgy and unreadable; OR, are they unattributed because they are clear, but don't match any of the known people for whom samples have been collected? Seems like it would make a big difference in how well supported your theory is of more perps, no?

 

[Machiavelli]

The question is whether Amanda's statements could be said to be voluntary and intentional, or were they coerced and the result of an intentionally induced mental confusion imposed by the police on both Amanda and Raf.

I maintain no reasonable person could believe that Amanda's statements were voluntary and intentional. She was a victim, not a criminal. And remains so.

Mach, in your story, you seem to ignore the culpability of the police in the matter. Now why is that?

There is actually no question, as for the courts. Her statements were found to be voluntary and intentional. They were also repeated.
(By the way, she also admitted herself that some of the false statements - namely her hand written notes - were voluntary; and they are a calunnia).

A side note: also the statement about remembering blood Raffaele's hands, would be a calunnia if Raffaele was innocent. No calunnia charge was filed on this since the prosecution believed the memory was probably true, and that Sollecito was implicated. But if - hypothetically - he was innocent, the memory would be interpreted as maliciously placing innocent against an innocent (certainly nobody coerced Knox into writing down false memories of blood on hands in the context of a murder investigation, in papers which she declared having written voluntarily). That would be a calunnia equivalent to the false accusation of Lumumba.

The bottom line is that Knox was found guilty of having committed a malicious crime. She was found guilty by all courts, at all stages, including the Hellmann-Zanetti court.
There was simply no judge who ever thought she could be innocent of that.

I agree with all those judges on this point, that no reasonable person could entertain the idea that Knox could be innocent of calunnia.

Whatever the pro-Knoxes think, the judicial records are unanimous on this, and realistically it will hard to challenge the merit of this finding at any other stage. You may not realistically hope that the ECHR changes this record.

 

[Bill Williams]

The bottom line is that Knox was found guilty of having committed a malicious crime. She was found guilty by all courts, at all stages, including the Hellmann-Zanetti court. There was simply no judge who ever thought she could be innocent of that.

This is the height of hypocrisy.

Machiavelli - you need to account for why someone who you claim committed a crime, namely Judge Hellmann, should be trusted in this conviction.

Yet you let it slide off our keyboard as if you thought Hellmann had some redeeming virtues.

How much did you say Judge Hellmann was paid by the Masons to acquit Knox and Sollecito? Di the Masons deduct some Euros because of the conviction for calunnia?

This is you are your most hypocritical.

 

[Magister]

amended post

Some of us here have believed in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele from the beginning.

It is quite clear that Guede was given favourable treatment by the prosecution.

What has since become apparent is that there may be more to what happened that night than has so far been disclosed.*

RWVBL has spent much time over the years looking into this.
Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock and LMT were invaluable sources of information
especially in the early days.
Both came to doubt that Guede stabbed Meredith.
If events are found to have been different then there is a real chance of an official inquiry and justice finally for Meredith and complete exoneration for Amanda and Raffaele.
Not to mention prison sentences for Mignini and certain members of the police.
And perhaps a major overhaul of the Italian justice system.
*
1. 4 of the 13 unidentified prints upstairs were found in Meredith's room
-according to Frank Sfarzo these were all clear prints.
2. Human blood was found in the downstairs apartment amidst a scene of disarray.
- Bongiorno held up a copy of a blood report in the courtroom in January.
- if this blood belonged to Meredith or Guede we would expect to have heard by now.
- the only prints/swabs taken were from the girls upstairs, Raffaele , Giacomo Silenzi and Guede.
3. A dark coloured car was seen parked inside the driveway of the cottage that night by the tow truck driver.
-some question if this car belonged to the friends of the couple with the broken down car.
4. Guede mentioned a white car with 2 occupants, engine running, outside in the road - was this ever investigated?
5. Kokomani's phone pinged in the area at 8.01 pm
6. Antonio Aviello , accused of the murder by his brother, and apparently never investigated, was never seen again in Perugia and later reported dead. Both were mafiosi.
7. Oceania8 on Perugia Shock reported that her son had talked about Guede's menacing looking Italian friend who also disappeared from Perugia right after the murder.
8. Guede was beaten up in prison by 2 inmates (and did not fight back)
-was this to make sure he kept silent? Omerta.
9. This was a particularly brutal murder - yet Guede had no history of violence; he was not a loner, having a number of friends and acquaintances.
He rightly stands guilty at least of accessory to murder, and of sexual assault and failure to summon help.
10. But it is not impossible for someone wearing gloves to have stabbed Meredith by holding her from behind without leaving much, if any forensic evidence.
11. The cottage was situated in an area where drug deals were known to take place.
- Perugia at that time was the gateway to the north for the drugs trade controlled by elements of the Italian and Albanian mafia.
12. Meredith's attempted phonecall home at 8.55 pm might indicate something other than a failed connection.

For 6 years we were led to believe it was cats blood downstairs.

We have all seen the videos of the forensic goons in action so why should we be certain that there is no evidence of anyone other than Guede in Meredith's room
- when they have actually found unidentified prints.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

I'd suggest that perhaps the Achilles Heel of this great analysis you've done, is that right now this is not a "by the numbers" case.

By "by the numbers", one would think that "Beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply, or ""presumption of innocence to the defendant" would apply. No less than Cassazione in Italy has signaled that all those things are now reversed - for instance, the defence now has to prove contamination: rather than international DNA-gathering protocols be shown tohave been followed.

All the CHR analysis stuff is great - I fear that you, Numbers, have done probably 10x by yourself than any bureacrat within the ECHR process will do....

..... unless there is political motivation for them to do it.

In fact, there may be political pressure on them NOT to do the kind of in depth stuff as you have done - much like the political pressure on Cassazione in March 2013 and on the Nencini court in Jan 2104 was too great to provide justice to these wrongfully condemned people.

No matter WHAT happens at Cassazione in March 2015 or at the ECHR - by now positions are hardened. Sure enough there will be someone arguing that there had been political interference, no matter what Cassazione does.

Judge Hellmann says that the party of the PMs is strong - and implies they have a lot to lose politically if this case goes against them.

Machiavelli implies that there is a Masonic conspiracy to corrupt Italian jurisprudence.

Someone is going to be a sad puppy come March. What makes ECHR any different?

 

[Machiavelli]

This is the height of hypocrisy.

Machiavelli - you need to account for why someone who you claim committed a crime, namely Judge Hellmann, should be trusted in this conviction.

Yet you let it slide off our keyboard as if you thought Hellmann had some redeeming virtues.

How much did you say Judge Hellmann was paid by the Masons to acquit Knox and Sollecito? Di the Masons deduct some Euros because of the conviction for calunnia?

This is you are your most hypocritical.

No, no, no. Please don't add your own interpretation and your word to my lines. I am not talking about "trust" here. (And please don't try to falsely infer what I "think" of Hellmann).

I am talking about an objective assessment about chances that the ECHR could change this course.
You are facing an unanimous set of judgements in the merits, "guilt" of a malicious crime.
This is objective.

Hellmann-Zanetti did not overturn the calunnia, not because they were honest but maybe for other reasons, like maybe because it would have been unreasonable to do it (without calling the Cassazione's axe on their verdict) or maybe because the lay judges voted for guilt. The mechanism behind whatever it is is of no interest. Whatever we think about it, this was not the topic.

The ECHR does not overturn a sheer finding in the merits, all courts and the Cassazione rejected the defence recourses, and no other court would realistically come to a different conclusion in the merits.

 

[griffinmill]

Some of us here have believed in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele from the beginning.

It is quite clear that Guede was given favourable treatment by the prosecution.

What has since become apparent is that there may be more to what happened that night than has so far been disclosed.*

RWVBL has spent much time over the years looking into this.
Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock and LMT were invaluable sources of information
especially in the early days.
Both came to doubt that Guede stabbed Meredith.
If events are found to have been different then there is a real chance of an official inquiry and justice finally for Meredith and complete exoneration for Amanda and Raffaele.
Not to mention prison sentences for Mignini and certain members of the police.
And perhaps a major overhaul of the Italian justice system.
*
1. 4 of the 13 unidentified prints upstairs were found in Meredith's room
-according to Frank Sfarzo these were all clear prints.
2. Human blood was found in the downstairs apartment amidst a scene of disarray.
- Bongiorno held up a copy of a blood report in the courtroom in January.
- if this blood belonged to Meredith or Guede we would expect to have heard by now.
- the only prints/swabs taken were from the girls upstairs, Raffaele , Giacomo Silenzi and Guede.
3. A dark coloured car was seen parked inside the driveway of the cottage that night by the tow truck driver.
-some question if this car belonged to the friends of the couple with the broken down car.
4. Guede mentioned a white car with 2 occupants, engine running, outside in the road - was this ever investigated?
5. Kokomani's phone pinged in the area at 8.01 pm
6. Antonio Aviello , accused of the murder by his brother, and apparently never investigated, was never seen again in Perugia and later reported dead. Both were mafiosi.
7. Oceania8 on Perugia Shock reported that her son had talked about Guede's menacing looking Italian friend who also disappeared from Perugia right after the murder.
8. Guede was beaten up in prison by 2 inmates (and did not fight back)
-was this to make sure he kept silent? Omerta.
9. This was a particularly brutal murder - yet Guede had no history of violence; he was not a loner, having a number of friends and acquaintances.
He rightly stands guilty at least of accessory to murder, and of sexual assault and failure to summon help.
10. But it is not impossible for someone wearing gloves to have stabbed Meredith by holding her from behind without leaving much, if any forensic evidence.
11. The cottage was situated in an area where drug deals were known to take place.
- Perugia at that time was the gateway to the north for the drugs trade controlled by elements of the Italian and Albanian mafia.
12. Meredith's attempted phonecall home at 8.55 pm might indicate something other than a failed connection.

For 6 years we were led to believe it was cats blood downstairs.

We have all seen the videos of the forensic goons in action so why should we be certain that there is no evidence of anyone other than Guede in Meredith's room
- when they have actually found unidentified prints.

Fascinating. I love the way some of the CTers have figured out someone besides Guede was at the crime scene, but can't seem to figure out it was AK/RS.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Someone is going to be a sad puppy come March. What makes ECHR any different?

So, finally, you are bracing for defeat and make yourself ready to push a narrative of political conspiracy...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Fascinating. I love the way some of the CTers have figured out someone besides Guede was at the crime scene, but can't seem to figure out it was AK/RS.

There's kind of a problem with timing. The computer evidence puts them at home when the murder happened.

Although you do bring up a fascinating issue, which is the question of how the committed guilters who still believe in multiple attackers can't seem to even briefly entertain the idea that their imaginary accomplice might have been Kokomani or some third party known to Guede and Kokomani. Given the flimsiness of the evidence putting Sollecito at the scene (one totally discredited DNA trace allegedly found on a thoroughly contaminated bra clasp) and the evidence putting Amanda at the scene (zip, nada, zilch, nothing), it really is a bit of a worry.

My view is that the lone wolf theory explains all the evidence parsimoniously and that adding an accomplice with no specific evidence to support them is multiplying entities beyond necessity. However if you really want multiple attackers, how exactly do you rule out more likely accomplices? Guede probably knew all sorts of criminal types who would be far more plausible accomplices to a housebreaking than Knox and Sollecito.

 

[RWVBWL]

For my new friend.

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'.

Oh gosh Kaufer,
You are sooo late to the game,
most everything we talk about has been discussed over and over again.

For your info, a few people did a blog website on this murder we discuss and dug up a lot of info on Perugia, it crime and drug problems, Mafia +Red Brigades info, and went in-depth with very informative posts about this murder we discuss. There was even a post about a student followed home during the day by a druggie who stabbed her in the neck in broad daylight as she reached her flat, I shared the link here 4 years ago, wish I could find the video clip again....

Too bad you missed the site,
it's been down since Amanda and Raff were set free.

These folks were the ones who had made mention that after studying the knife wounds to Miss Kercher's throat, that the guy who did stab her was left handed and possibly had some kinda military training in the past.
It is definitely not a new theory, you just were not around back when Raff and Amanda were in prison, well not here on the ol' JREF, as far as I know. But so what, right?

I have an active imagination?
OK. Cool.
It must be from my life experiences.

Ever been in a real good, bloody fistfight Kaufer?
I have. Blood, blood, blood.

I feel that the person who stabbed Miss Kercher should have had a lot of blood on his hands.

Where's the blood on the bed where the knife handle was laid?
Go put some blood or red paint on your hands and take off your blue jeans and underwear,
maybe you'll see what I mean when I ask questions.

Miss Kercher should have blood on her legs and genitalia if she was raped right after being stabbed horribly so in her neck, + again, and again.


Unless the person washed up 1st or got all the blood off by using a towel or other clothing.
Or wore gloves.Or was not Rudy Guede.
Or was raped before she was stabbed.

You seem to be very knowlegable about what we discuss, heck for a newcomer,
I gotta wonder if you aren't just an old regular posting under an alias,
for I've heard that some do this, but who cares, right?

So tell me,
who left the bloody handprint on the wall above Meredith's bed?
Whose seminal fluid is that?

I tried to point out, in a subtle way,
that we don't really know what happened in Miss Kercher's
bedroom.

What do I mean?
You can't even tell me if Meredith was stabbed from the front or from behind.

I'm sure either Raff or Amanda's forensic expert,
(who surely cost a pretty penny to hire, who must have examined the crime scene videos and photographs of her body and her autopsy report very well,)
is simply wrong in their finding of what they consider fact.

For 1 stated she was stabbed from the front,
1 said she was stabbed from behind.


If your sister was raped and murdered,
wouldn't you want answers to these questions.

Who left the 13 unattributed fingerprints in the house.
They are not smudges, they passed the test and were confirmed as fingerprints, according to PS.
But they were not ID'd.*
Who cares, right?

And now what about the downstairs scene?
It seems that we've learned that it might have much more to do in the scenario than most here thought.
How do you fit this into your own timeline and theory of what happened?

Hey Kaufer,
maybe what I write of might point to someone other than Rudy being there too, but hey, we'll never know, for didn't PM Comodi say that they decide what evidence to release. They seem to do things a little bit different in Italy. So what, right?

Sorry if I don't feel a need to drink everything from the Pro-Innocence Kool-Aid, for to me, some things just don't add up. And I like to keep an open mind and read others thoughts and theories, and hear of pro-guilt opinions also.

Heck,
even Frank Sfarzo has his doubts if Rudy was the dude who stabbed Meredith.
Read ALL of Perugia Shock, you'll learn a few things, Kaufer.
But hey, who cares...
RW


(*) - Hiya Carbonjam72,
I posted that passage from Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock some pages back.
Here's a direct link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10347527&postcount=3005

Re-read it, friend,
the 13 unattributed fingerprints passed the tests and are considered fingerprints, they are not smudges, but prints.
But they were never ID'd, from what I know. This bothers me.
I'd like to know more, are they from the same person?
13 different people?
I'm curious...

 

[griffinmill]

There's kind of a problem with timing. The computer evidence puts them at home when the murder happened.

Although you do bring up a fascinating issue, which is the question of how the committed guilters who still believe in multiple attackers can't seem to even briefly entertain the idea that their imaginary accomplice might have been Kokomani or some third party known to Guede and Kokomani. Given the flimsiness of the evidence putting Sollecito at the scene (one totally discredited DNA trace allegedly found on a thoroughly contaminated bra clasp) and the evidence putting Amanda at the scene (zip, nada, zilch, nothing), it really is a bit of a worry.

My view is that the lone wolf theory explains all the evidence parsimoniously and that adding an accomplice with no specific evidence to support them is multiplying entities beyond necessity. However if you really want multiple attackers, how exactly do you rule out more likely accomplices? Guede probably knew all sorts of criminal types who would be far more plausible accomplices to a housebreaking than Knox and Sollecito.

Amazing how quickly these rebuttals pop up as soon as the FOA narrative is questioned.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Magister,
nice post, glad to see you back here!

7. Oceania8 on Perugia Shock reported that her son had talked about Guede's menacing looking Italian friend who also disappeared from Perugia right after the murder.

For some of the newcomers,
Oceania8 (aka 88) is a woman from New Zealand who joined forums and posted online after this murder, to let interested folks know that her son was studying in Perugia at the time and personally knew Rudy Guede.

Rudy even makes mention of the New Zealand guys in his March 2008 interrogation with PM Mignini.

From what I recall,
Oceania8's son made mention of a dangerous,
very scary dude that Rudy hung around with.

Here's something I found I had saved from years ago,
sorry I deleted a lot of my links and folders after Amanda and Raff were set free, man, I had some good stuff in my files. And too bad Steve Huff's True Crime weblog is not available anymore, from which spun off PMF.


From Skeptical Bystander at PMF:
You should ask Oceania 8, who early on began talking up the idea of Rudy's "accomplice", the guy who "got away" and who Rudy is "afraid of". As far as I can tell, this story is loosely based on O8's son's relationship with Rudy and other townies. O's son was a student in Perugia. According to O, he and his housemates were picked up for questioning by police four days after Meredith Kercher's murder. I don't think anyone except for O8, Chris Mellas and vested interests in the Railroad Job From Hell theory really give this idea much credence.

The only thing I find interesting is that O8 is tacitly admitting that the Lone Wolf theory has never had prima facie plausibility. It was necessary to find an accomplice. So much the better if he has vanished since the crime.

 

[griffinmill]

Hi Magister,
nice post, glad to see you back here!




For some of the newcomers,
Oceania8 (aka 88) is a woman from New Zealand who joined forums and posted online after this murder, to let interested folks know that her son was studying in Perugia at the time and personally knew Rudy Guede.

Rudy even makes mention of the New Zealand guys in his March 2008 interrogation with PM Mignini.

From what I recall,
Oceania8's son made mention of a dangerous,
very scary dude that Rudy hung around with.

Here's something I found I had saved from years ago,
sorry I deleted a lot of my links and folders after Amanda and Raff were set free, man, I had some good stuff in my files. And too bad Steve Huff's True Crime weblog is not available anymore, from which spun off PMF.


From Skeptical Bystander at PMF:
You should ask Oceania 8, who early on began talking up the idea of Rudy's "accomplice", the guy who "got away" and who Rudy is "afraid of". As far as I can tell, this story is loosely based on O8's son's relationship with Rudy and other townies. O's son was a student in Perugia. According to O, he and his housemates were picked up for questioning by police four days after Meredith Kercher's murder. I don't think anyone except for O8, Chris Mellas and vested interests in the Railroad Job From Hell theory really give this idea much credence.

The only thing I find interesting is that O8 is tacitly admitting that the Lone Wolf theory has never had prima facie plausibility. It was necessary to find an accomplice. So much the better if he has vanished since the crime.

Popcorn time. Can't wait for the end of this breakthrough.

 

[Numbers]

Huh?

I'd suggest that perhaps the Achilles Heel of this great analysis you've done, is that right now this is not a "by the numbers" case.

By "by the numbers", one would think that "Beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply, or ""presumption of innocence to the defendant" would apply. No less than Cassazione in Italy has signaled that all those things are now reversed - for instance, the defence now has to prove contamination: rather than international DNA-gathering protocols be shown tohave been followed.

All the CHR analysis stuff is great - I fear that you, Numbers, have done probably 10x by yourself than any bureacrat within the ECHR process will do....

..... unless there is political motivation for them to do it.

In fact, there may be political pressure on them NOT to do the kind of in depth stuff as you have done - much like the political pressure on Cassazione in March 2013 and on the Nencini court in Jan 2104 was too great to provide justice to these wrongfully condemned people.

No matter WHAT happens at Cassazione in March 2015 or at the ECHR - by now positions are hardened. Sure enough there will be someone arguing that there had been political interference, no matter what Cassazione does.

Judge Hellmann says that the party of the PMs is strong - and implies they have a lot to lose politically if this case goes against them.

Machiavelli implies that there is a Masonic conspiracy to corrupt Italian jurisprudence.

Someone is going to be a sad puppy come March. What makes ECHR any different?

If I understand correctly - and I am learning about Italian law as we go along in this case - CSC will make one of three choices in its hearing March 25, 2015 (and I don't know how long it will take them to decide):

1. Finalize the Nencini conviction;
2. Quash the Nencini conviction and finalize (reinstate) the Hellmann acquittal;
3. Order a new second-level trial.

I really have no idea which of these choices CSC will make. You seem to believe CSC will finalize Nencini, but remember that it was a different panel of CSC judges who quashed the Hellmann acquittal and ordered the Nencini trial.

I think it is likely that the CSC will order a new (third) second-level trial. My reasons are based on near-total ignorance and guess work:
1. A new trial will be a compromise between the competing judicial parties.
2. A new trial is likely to keep the main part of the case away from the ECHR for several years. This may allow time for some of the judges to safely retire before their egregiously abusive judicial actions become clear to the citizens of Italy.
3. Some of the more rational judges may be aware of some of the defects in the Nencini motivation.
4. Some of the less rational judges do not want to accept an acquittal, especially from the rationalist Hellmann court.
5. Continuing cases for as long as possible and avoiding finalizing decisions for as long as possible are traditional Italian judicial techniques.
6. Continuing cases and overloading the judicial docket may be viewed as beneficial to the careers and finances of those in the judiciary and legal professions. (There must be some reason that Italy has one of the worst problems with unreasonably long trials among the Council of Europe States.)

Now for the ECHR. It is composed of one judge - carefully chosen in terms of seniority, ability, and relative objectivity - from each of the 47 Council of Europe States. They serve nine-year terms and cannot be reselected. From what I have learned so far, they seem to produce objective judgments. My concern about the ECHR is the tremendous backlog of cases that limits the ability of the Court to move quickly. There is a priority system - victims of frank torture (medically significant injuries), "disappeared," and fatalities of State action are near the top of the list, while those who have been more mildly abused and unfairly tried are more in the middle. So I am awaiting developments.

 

[Bill Williams]

If I understand correctly - and I am learning about Italian law as we go along in this case - CSC will make one of three choices in its hearing March 25, 2015 (and I don't know how long it will take them to decide):

1. Finalize the Nencini conviction;
2. Quash the Nencini conviction and finalize (reinstate) the Hellmann acquittal;
3. Order a new second-level trial.

I really have no idea which of these choices CSC will make. You seem to believe CSC will finalize Nencini, but remember that it was a different panel of CSC judges who quashed the Hellmann acquittal and ordered the Nencini trial.

The fourth option is to order a United Sections decision on this case.

Strictly speaking, Cassazione can also simply impose a verdict different from any of the lower courts. I have no clue, really,how often this is done, but IIRC Cassazione has this authority.

 

[Bill Williams]

There's kind of a problem with timing. The computer evidence puts them at home when the murder happened.

Although you do bring up a fascinating issue, which is the question of how the committed guilters who still believe in multiple attackers can't seem to even briefly entertain the idea that their imaginary accomplice might have been Kokomani or some third party known to Guede and Kokomani. Given the flimsiness of the evidence putting Sollecito at the scene (one totally discredited DNA trace allegedly found on a thoroughly contaminated bra clasp) and the evidence putting Amanda at the scene (zip, nada, zilch, nothing), it really is a bit of a worry.

My view is that the lone wolf theory explains all the evidence parsimoniously and that adding an accomplice with no specific evidence to support them is multiplying entities beyond necessity. However if you really want multiple attackers, how exactly do you rule out more likely accomplices? Guede probably knew all sorts of criminal types who would be far more plausible accomplices to a housebreaking than Knox and Sollecito.

Amazing how quickly these rebuttals pop up as soon as the FOA narrative is questioned.

griffinmill - I do not know what you mean by your reply.

 

[griffinmill]

griffinmill - I do not know what you mean by your reply.

I'm sure you do.

 

[RWVBWL]

Popcorn time. Can't wait for the end of this breakthrough.

Hi Griffinmill,
How are ya!?!
Pro-Guilt in the house, yea, look out...

Hey Griffinmill,
here's a FYI for ya:
I found another website with lots of info, and a pro-guilt slant:
http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=81

Heck,
check out this topic:
Rudy Guede is innocent
http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=4636


Man,
I've gotta make some popcorn,
(shine that, the honey graham Oh's ceral, dry, sounds fine right now, as I gotta lil' buzz),
and have a read of this, it's gotta be good, right?!?

Much better than that old Oceania stuff, whose son personally knew Rudy Guede.
Hey, I wonder if he thinks "Poor Rudy" is innocent?

What'dya think, Griffinmill?
Is Rudy Guede innocent?