Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

The Fourth option leads to....

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.

I am actually excited about the possibility of a United Sections panel hearing the case. But I know very little about how the United Sections would work, and when it would start, if it is chosen. IIUC, the United Sections panel has nine rather than five judges, and the judges come from several of the CSC sections, so that there is a broader base of judicial experience. The United Sections is intended to handle more complex cases. I believe because of the issues of forensic police not following international protocols for the DNA testing, a United Sections panel would be beneficial.

When the CSC panel meets on March 25, will they be a United Sections panel, or will their decision be to have the case heard by a United Sections panel at a future date?

However, even if there were a United Sections panel, wouldn't it be limited to eventually finalizing a CSC-generated verdict or ordering a new second-level trial based on, perhaps, a new understanding of the evidence?

 

[Numbers]

ECHR judges violations of rights; not for appeals

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.

Hi Mach,
I know you have a vast knowledge of all things legal, so let me point out a tiny little error in what you have written {highlighted above}:

"The ECHR does not overturn a sheer finding in the merits"

Well, I not at all clear what a "sheer" finding is, but I can assure you that the ECHR will definitely NOT be overturning any findings by any court.

It will be judging whether the pre-trial and trial procedures leading to Amanda Knox's conviction for calunnia were fair.

It will judge whether the Italian Republic violated the European Convention of Human Rights when its police agents interrogated Amanda without a lawyer present.

It will judge whether the Italian Republic violated the European Convention of Human Rights when two courts and the Corte Suprema di Cassazione convicted her of calunnia, which were false statements she made under a coercive interrogation conducted by Italian police who did not provide her with a lawyer.

We will see what the ECHR verdict will be.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm sure you do.

I don't. No matter.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

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.

Another hypocrisy from Machiavelli.

I would similarly ask you: "don't add your own interpretation and your word to my lines."

This is yet another of your double standards. You continually refashion and reframe what someone else says. Yet when someone points out the obvious meaning of what you say, you pull out meaningless maxims like above.

What I am pointing out is objective:you call Hellmann a criminal. You know the exact number of Euros it took to bribe him.

Yet you include him in the unanimity of the calunnia conviction, as if that should add to veracity and rightness of that wrongful conviction. Do you believe Hellmann is a criminal or don't you? Why would you add the voice of a known criminal to bolster a point of yours?

This is completely arbitrary on your part, and demonstrates in the most stark terms your confirmation bias.

Quit reinterpreting what I am saying to you. You are a hypocrite and your post demonstrates it.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am actually excited about the possibility of a United Sections panel hearing the case. But I know very little about how the United Sections would work, and when it would start, if it is chosen. IIUC, the United Sections panel has nine rather than five judges, and the judges come from several of the CSC sections, so that there is a broader base of judicial experience. The United Sections is intended to handle more complex cases. I believe because of the issues of forensic police not following international protocols for the DNA testing, a United Sections panel would be beneficial.

When the CSC panel meets on March 25, will they be a United Sections panel, or will their decision be to have the case heard by a United Sections panel at a future date?

However, even if there were a United Sections panel, wouldn't it be limited to eventually finalizing a CSC-generated verdict or ordering a new second-level trial based on, perhaps, a new understanding of the evidence?

I do not know the process. My assumption is that the March 25 meeting of Section 5 of Cassazione will make the decision as to whether or not to refer this to a United Sections panel.... but I could very well be wrong.

There has as of yet been no decision about the United Sections request from Sollecito - so who knows: maybe between now and March 25 someone in authority has the ability to call for a United Sections to meet on that date instead of Section 5.

Still - whatever subgroup constitutes a meeting of Cassazione, I am also assuming that all the options available to one is available to the other.

Anyone?

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli:

Please take two minutes of your time and watch the following YoutTube video. It is of Giuliano Mignini defending Rudy Guede at AK/RS's trial.

The question is: why does Rudy get a defender at AK/RS's trial, the Public Minister, but AK and RS can be virtually convicted at Rudy's trial(s) where they have no representation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01JL2QhuvxU

 

[carbonjam72]

I am actually excited about the possibility of a United Sections panel hearing the case. But I know very little about how the United Sections would work, and when it would start, if it is chosen. IIUC, the United Sections panel has nine rather than five judges, and the judges come from several of the CSC sections, so that there is a broader base of judicial experience. The United Sections is intended to handle more complex cases. I believe because of the issues of forensic police not following international protocols for the DNA testing, a United Sections panel would be beneficial.

When the CSC panel meets on March 25, will they be a United Sections panel, or will their decision be to have the case heard by a United Sections panel at a future date?
However, even if there were a United Sections panel, wouldn't it be limited to eventually finalizing a CSC-generated verdict or ordering a new second-level trial based on, perhaps, a new understanding of the evidence?

My understanding is that the section 5 panel will meet on MArch 25, 2015, and they will evaluate the case and determine whether a united sections panel is required to hear the case.

My hope is yes. Because of the issue of Guede not being cross examined and yet the SOLE source of the story about missing money. Also, the arbitrary decision by the previous cassation court that DNA contamination must be proven (contradicting international protocols), AND Curatolo MUST be believed (contradicting a lower court's evaluation of evidence which they're not supposed to do), and using Guede's trial outcomes as binding in Amanda's and Raf's case, when they had no participation, and the important points in evidence were never disputed (hence its not adversarial).

I saw this circumstance criticized because it meant that the cassation panel must take time to evaluate a case to refer to united sections, and then united sections must take time to AGAIN evaluate a case to rule on it.

That's all I got.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am actually excited about the possibility of a United Sections panel hearing the case. But I know very little about how the United Sections would work, and when it would start, if it is chosen. IIUC, the United Sections panel has nine rather than five judges, and the judges come from several of the CSC sections, so that there is a broader base of judicial experience. The United Sections is intended to handle more complex cases. I believe because of the issues of forensic police not following international protocols for the DNA testing, a United Sections panel would be beneficial.

When the CSC panel meets on March 25, will they be a United Sections panel, or will their decision be to have the case heard by a United Sections panel at a future date?

However, even if there were a United Sections panel, wouldn't it be limited to eventually finalizing a CSC-generated verdict or ordering a new second-level trial based on, perhaps, a new understanding of the evidence?

I'm afraid I can have very little faith in any level of the Italian judiciary to sort this sorry case out properly at this point.

Bear in mind that judges everywhere tend by nature to be reactionary and conservative, and that they have an inbuilt tendency to protect their colleagues and the system. That's true in pretty much every country to some extent, but it appears to be particularly highly prevalent in Italy.

And with that in mind, I am concerned that the judges of the Italian Supreme Court may already have an in-built predisposition to take the "path of least resistance" by rubber-stamping the Nencini verdict. After all, imagine the consequences of them overturning Nencini. Would they order yet another trial? And by overturning, they would effectively be saying the various courts got it wrong, then right, then wrong again, then right again! Whereas at least by confirming Nencini, they can present the system as fit for purpose apart from the "rogue" Hellmann court.

This is why I'm inclined to think that, barring very audacious and enlightened judges on the SC reviewing this case, the odds are firmly on the side of a confirmation of Nencini. I think it will take the intervention of an outside agency with no "skin in the game" to sort this horrible mess out. Maybe the ECHR and/or Italian legislators will one day force the Italian judiciary to realise how riddled with patronage, vested interests, self-preservation and fundamental structural/operational failings it is..........

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Firstly, that final paragraph is a true classic! Nobody disputes the "merits" that on 5/6 November 2007 Knox did indeed verbally, then in a signed statement, state that Lumumba had murdered Kercher. But the entire case rests upon how and why she came to make those statements. If the ECHR finds that her human rights were fundamentally breached in the process, then that would effectively invalidate the findings of fact.

And secondly, I'm utterly intrigued (and reduced to laughter...) by the notion that Hellmann's court might have ruled for guilt on the criminal slander either because a) even though Hellmann and Zanetti were corrupt and bribed, even they couldn't acquit on this charge (while doing so on the main murder charges, remember) for fear of the Supreme Court seeing though this acquittal as an act of corruption; or b) Hellmann and Zanetti wanted to acquit on this charge too, but were inconveniently outvoted by the lay judges.

(On that point (b) above, it raises one of the many failings of the Italian criminal justice system: the flawed nature of the construction of the fact-finding panel (the "jury"). It should be absolutely obvious that where you have a panel that has professional judges deliberating alongside members of the public, there must - almost automatically - be a large degree of conscious or subconscious direction of the lay judges by the professional judges. It would be fascinating to know of any cases in Italy where the two professional judges on the panel have both found for one verdict (whether guilty or not guilty), but the lay judges have all found for the opposite verdict and have thus outvoted the professional judges. I suspect that those sorts of outcomes might be.... shall we say.... rather difficult to find.....)

 

[Kauffer]

I'm afraid I can have very little faith in any level of the Italian judiciary to sort this sorry case out properly at this point.

Bear in mind that judges everywhere tend by nature to be reactionary and conservative, and that they have an inbuilt tendency to protect their colleagues and the system. That's true in pretty much every country to some extent, but it appears to be particularly highly prevalent in Italy.

And with that in mind, I am concerned that the judges of the Italian Supreme Court may already have an in-built predisposition to take the "path of least resistance" by rubber-stamping the Nencini verdict. After all, imagine the consequences of them overturning Nencini. Would they order yet another trial? And by overturning, they would effectively be saying the various courts got it wrong, then right, then wrong again, then right again! Whereas at least by confirming Nencini, they can present the system as fit for purpose apart from the "rogue" Hellmann court.

This is why I'm inclined to think that, barring very audacious and enlightened judges on the SC reviewing this case, the odds are firmly on the side of a confirmation of Nencini. I think it will take the intervention of an outside agency with no "skin in the game" to sort this horrible mess out. Maybe the ECHR and/or Italian legislators will one day force the Italian judiciary to realise how riddled with patronage, vested interests, self-preservation and fundamental structural/operational failings it is..........

I understand your feelings, however, the ISC could also acquit or order a new trial and justify an exoneration in a most self serving manner, saying perhaps: "In Italy we try the evidence very carefully and thoroughly. Also, no verdict is set in stone until final confirmation." The attention of the ECHR may well yet focus the minds of the learned justices.

 

[anglolawyer]

I understand your feelings, however, the ISC could also acquit or order a new trial and justify an exoneration in a most self serving manner, saying perhaps: "In Italy we try the evidence very carefully and thoroughly. Also, no verdict is set in stone until final confirmation." The attention of the ECHR may well yet focus the minds of the learned justices.

I agree with both you and LJ! Judges are at one and the same time conservative and capable of extraordinary feats of hypocrisy too. They will never say 'we is idiots' even when it is painfully obvious. I am, however, in LJ's corner on what will actually come to pass. I shall very happily eat my hat if wrong, and I am keeping the salt and pepper handy, but, sadly, I fear Italy has gone too far to back down now.

 

[Kauffer]

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
Snip snip

I'm no scientist, Randy, but I'm guessing the red paint won't dry as quickly as the blood you can't find, and therein may lie some truth.

Perhaps an interesting point to make in connection to your general thesis, is that one cannot actually rule much out absolutely. The probability that Elvis or Buddy Holly or Elvis and Buddy together killed Ms Kercher is not zero; firstly, they might not actually be dead. And so it will always be possible that someone other than Guede was involved - it's just not very likely.

I agree the downstairs apartment is relevant and interesting. However in the murder room there is no evidence of anyone other than Guede and Ms Kercher in the room at the time of the crime. You remember the dragon fly theory? It's this or something similar anyone who postulates an accomplice for Guede, must believe in. Where's all the missing evidence of a collaborator, Randy? It's a "mythtery".

There are unattributable fingerprints everywhere, including where you live.

Now, here's something right up your alley! Where's Rudy's knife? Where did he get rid of it? Using maps, imagination, cell tower information, precipitation records etc etc, what can you come up with? I genuinely believe your answers may be helpful.

PS. I am not an "old regular"

 

[Samson]

I agree with both you and LJ! Judges are at one and the same time conservative and capable of extraordinary feats of hypocrisy too. They will never say 'we is idiots' even when it is painfully obvious. I am, however, in LJ's corner on what will actually come to pass. I shall very happily eat my hat if wrong, and I am keeping the salt and pepper handy, but, sadly, I fear Italy has gone too far to back down now.

Which means that tragically Raffaele must go to jail? My belief in this possibility is suspended, yet night does follow day.
However, their fates have been jointly sealed thus far. Is it possible they will defer Raffaele's incarceration until Amanda's situation is resolved?
Machiavelli may be able to answer this.

 

[anglolawyer]

Which means that tragically Raffaele must go to jail? My belief in this possibility is suspended, yet night does follow day.
However, their fates have been jointly sealed thus far. Is it possible they will defer Raffaele's incarceration until Amanda's situation is resolved?
Machiavelli may be able to answer this.

From an extremely cynical point of view, it will be very good if Raffaele goes to jail. His being in jail would restore a sense of grim reality to this farce, which turns out to actually be about something - the liberty of two plainly innocent people. The gross injustice will stand out in sharper relief with one of them inside, as it does in the US with all the added drama of death row, last-minute stays of execution and what not.

 

[Samson]

From an extremely cynical point of view, it will be very good if Raffaele goes to jail. His being in jail would restore a sense of grim reality to this farce, which turns out to actually be about something - the liberty of two plainly innocent people. The gross injustice will stand out in sharper relief with one of them inside, as it does in the US with all the added drama of death row, last-minute stays of execution and what not.

Ah death row.
This case would benefit from a focus like that. Interesting to reflect on how utterly impossible it would be for the components of this case to involve the notion of capital punishment in the USA. It would be shredded before breakfast. Surely?

 

[Kauffer]

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.

An objective evaluation of whether or not Ms Knox's human rights were violated must take into account the following:

1) She was convicted for a statement made under close interrogation under suspicion of her knowledge of and/or participation in another crime, without the benefit of legal representation in a coercive environment occasioned by the lateness of the hour, the number of interrogators, the fact that she had in the four days leading up to this interrogation, already been interrogated for some 30 - 40 hours, excessive tiredness and in the presence of a translator who, acting, according to her, in the guise of a "mediator", interfered with the interrogation by introducing a personal story by way of influencing the conduct of Ms Knox's mind in order to "help" her remember things she might have "forgotten" and that therefore Ms Knox's statement may not have been voluntary.

2) The possibility that Ms Knox's statement, the police's conduct and the suspicion that Mr Lumumba was already under, are linked and that therefore, Ms Knox's statement may not have been voluntary.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

From an extremely cynical point of view, it will be very good if Raffaele goes to jail. His being in jail would restore a sense of grim reality to this farce, which turns out to actually be about something - the liberty of two plainly innocent people. The gross injustice will stand out in sharper relief with one of them inside, as it does in the US with all the added drama of death row, last-minute stays of execution and what not.

Interesting, do you believe Amanda will show solidarity with an imprisoned Raffaele and insist she goes to prison as well, that would certainly raise public awareness.

 

[anglolawyer]

Interesting, do you believe Amanda will show solidarity with an imprisoned Raffaele and insist she goes to prison as well, that would certainly raise public awareness.

No, I don't expect that. I am sure she will do what you and I would and try her hardest to remain out of the clutches of a corrupt and unlawful process. Good luck to her.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

What's amazing is how pro-guilt posters manage to assiduously circle around the elephant in the room, that being the clear evidence that the conviction of Knox and Sollecito was unsafe at best.

If you can't talk about the evidence, what's left to talk about? Hmm... how about remarking on how suspicious it is that daft pro-guilt nonsense gets rebutted so quickly... I mean, if there wasn't an international Masonic mafia conspiracy behind it all, you'd expect to wait a bit longer for the nonsense to get demolished. Forty, fifty minutes, definitely.

If someone posts utter tripe and it gets mocked effectively in under fifteen minutes, well, I think we all know what that means. Mafia masons at work. Nobody else types that fast.

 

[RWVBWL]

Suprise, suprise..

Now, here's something right up your alley! Where's Rudy's knife? Where did he get rid of it? Using maps, imagination, cell tower information, precipitation records etc etc, what can you come up with? I genuinely believe your answers may be helpful.

Hi Kaufer,
Since you are a new regular,
well here's some info that you might not know about:
Perugia Shock
Dec. 18.2007

Where the hell that knife comes from?

"The Scientifica inspection at Meredith's house is just over. I leave them chatting out of the house. After one month and a half since the crime occurred a knife was found in the underbrush around the house.
And who found it? The police? No, one from the smiling team.
Of course, they are the ones who want the weapon of the crime to be not Raffaele's knife.
And indeed, as soon as they entered the gate the lawyer went to find the knife and some blood stained hankies. How lucky...
By the way, it's just a round kitchen knife unable to make those cuts. But it's notable that they didn't search around the house previously.
They even didn't search the cliff, which is a natural spot to throw a weapon. I expected that cliff to be cleaned from bushes and searched by a squad of 100 climbers right after the crime. In my dreams. I know it's difficult, very difficult, but... I'd cost less than a single Dna test.
This morning they used a metal detector not in the ravine but through the bushes around the house. Yes, not on november 2nd, today."