Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Just realized Rudy didn't know he needed the keys to get out

Here's some info from Frank Sfarzo about the fingerprints:
Perugia Shock
Thursday, April 23, 2009
DISTURBING PRESENCES
Those Mysterious Fingerprints in the House

How many fingerprints would you expect to find in a house inhabited by 4 women and just visited by some (more or less friendly) guests?
If you think that 97 is a low number you are wrong. The professionals of fingerprints, heard today, defined 97 a very high number for the cottage.

Fingerprints buster Antonino Francaviglia explained that we have a high probability not to leave a print on a surface when we touch it. A fingerprint is made of pressed sweat. If our fingers are too dry (when, for instance, we have just washed our hands, or we washed dishes without gloves, or we have taken a shower) they wouldn't leave any print, they would likely cancel a previous print. If we have enough sweat but we twist our fingers at the end of the contact with the surface we wouldn't leave any readable print. If we touch a surface not smooth or hard enough we wouldn't leave any print.

There are two ways to detect latent fingerprints. Warming super glue (cyanoacrylate) until a closed room is fulfilled with its fumes, or proceeding locally with magnetic powder.
The cyanoacrylate was used in Meredith's room and in the little toilet. In the rest of the house they applied the powder where they thought there should be fingerprints.
Scientific police have the technician who makes the prints visible, the one who takes pictures of them, the one who chooses the readable ones (those that have at least 16 points at a fair distance) and the one who looks for matches comparing them with the suspects fingerprints or with the database.

At the end 108 pictures were taken, each one containing one to three signs. It would be too long to say what was found where. Also there's a bit of confusion with full or partial fingerprints or stains but at the end we may say that of these signs 97 could be said to be fingerprints. 47 belonged to Meredith Kercher, 17 to Rudy Guede, 5 to Raffaele Sollecito, 5 to Filomena Romanelli, 5 to Laura Mezzetti, 4 to Giacomo Silenzi, 1 to Amanda Knox, 13 were not attributed to anyone.

The experts were not surprised at all that there weren't fingerprints, for instance, on Amanda's guitar or on the knives lying on the kitchen sink. They explained that if you wash the cutlery and then you dry it with a dish cloth you don't leave any fingerprint (for not to speak if you use washing gloves).
Scientific police were not surprised at all that there was only one Amanda's fingerprint in the whole house. On a glass there were 3 signs, one of them was recognized as Amanda's fingerprint. The other 2 signs, unreadable, must be the other fingers she used to grab the glass.We thought, for instance, that Meredith's cellphones were submerged with fingerprints since the many people who touched them before knowing they were so important. And instead only two prints were found on them and one inside one of them.
Now that we know that is so difficult to leave fingerprints, that it's so easy to cancel them, and that there were so many of them we can hardly maintain that a clean-up was performed, even just in the kitchen. The lack of Amanda's fingerprints can be more likely explained with the fact that she wasn't there the night of the crime and that when she came back she didn't have occasion to leave fingerprints having taken a shower and having not touched the right surfaces in the right way.
If we then start to finally consider those 13 unattributed fingerprints, together with the unknown DNA detected, and the other clues that we have seen (two male people running) we understand again that the scenario could be really different from the depicted one and insisting on Amanda and Raffaele maybe had the effect of misleading the investigation from the right direction.

At least some of these appear to be unattributed because they are smudgy.

Frank takes a little jump in logic to connect unattributed fingerprints to the "other clues that we have seen (two male people running)".

btw, what evidence of two males running? Is that our dear half-crazy half-deaf Nara?

I think Frank isn't clear in regard to the question I asked about smudgy vs readable, so it seems like we just don't know the answer at this time.

Except that if it could have pointed to anyone else, one would think the defense might have used it.

Not fair for me to pussyfoot here, I don't believe there was anyone but Guede involved. Simple burglary, in Rudy's usual way, unexpectedly gone bad when Meredith came home.

But Rudy's bloody footsteps going from the door back into the room to get Meredith's keys, suggests he killed her before he knew he needed the keys to get out the front door, Unless he just forgot in the heat of things.

 

[Kauffer]

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."

I think you can do better than that Randy. Mr Sollecito's lawyer got his servants to look for it without success. But, you, tracking Guede's possible movements from the murder to the Lana house and onwards, could come up with some alternative grid references for us. Which way do you think he went?

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

Two wrongs do not make a right. . . .Why give the Italian court system two sacrificial victims to their ego?

 

[Desert Fox]

At least some of these appear to be unattributed because they are smudgy.

Frank takes a little jump in logic to connect unattributed fingerprints to the "other clues that we have seen (two male people running)".

btw, what evidence of two males running? Is that our dear half-crazy half-deaf Nara?

I think Frank isn't clear in regard to the question I asked about smudgy vs readable, so it seems like we just don't know the answer at this time.

Except that if it could have pointed to anyone else, one would think the defense might have used it.

Not fair for me to pussyfoot here, I don't believe there was anyone but Guede involved. Simple burglary, in Rudy's usual way, unexpectedly gone bad when Meredith came home.

But Rudy's bloody footsteps going from the door back into the room to get Meredith's keys, suggests he killed her before he knew he needed the keys to get out the front door, Unless he just forgot in the heat of things.

If he had been with an accomplice(s), would not the first thing he do is open up the door for them to come in as well?

 

[Numbers]

Kick the can down the road

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.

I think that there is a marginally greater probability that the CSC March 25 hearing will eventually lead to a new trial, and not to an immediate finalization of any verdict. And I think that is because the judges will not want to commit to a final decision that might endanger their status or reputation. They might, if there are enough rationalists on the Section 5 panel, order a United Sections panel to examine the case first, and then that panel will order a new trial after fixing some issues about evaluation of evidence and presumption of innocence. But postponing a final decision ("kicking the can down the road") may be more comfortable for the judges.

Again, this is all speculation on my part, but it is firmly based on near-total ignorance, wild guesses, and years of watching the US Congress operate. And my view is strictly about probabilities, because even the US Congress sometimes does something like pass a bill.

ETA: The parallel to the Congress may be more than jocular. It too has parties, formally two, that are nearly equal in voting power, and since opposed in many ways, wind up delaying decisions except in cases of urgency or common interest.

 

[Machiavelli]

This needs to be continually bumped, or pegged to Machiavelli.

Machiavelli is openly admitting that Knox did not have a translator that night of the interrogation, but someone intent on softening her up.

Please remember, Machiavelli/Yummi is one of the chief purvayors of the pro-guilt lobby. And even he admits what Donnino did wrong. The only difference, is that he does not see it as wrong.

ETA - Machiavelli has now given conflicting testimony. Doninno says that Amanda did not want to talk, yet Mignini says she does. Donnino says that this unwillingness to talk needed to be met with "mediation" so as to get her to implicate herself. Yet, Mignini says Amanda freely and without coercion needed to talk, to "rid herself of a burden."

1. I didn't give any testimony. I was not there. I point out reports and evidence, don't give testimony. Correct yourself and stop trying to twist the words of others.

2. Donnino implied Amanda appeared as she was reluctant to telll something she knew. This does not conflict at all with Mignini's report. In fact they are talking about two different events, at two different times. Donnino talks about the initial moments of Amanda's interrogation (20:40-01:45), Mignini arrived at the Questura after 2am when the interrogation was alredy over and she had already "talked".

3. It is obvious that Knox had an interpreter, not a translator. A translator is a different job. Translation and communication are two different tasks.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

No, it wouldn't.
The merits of finding that the calunnia was a malicious choice on the part of Knox, and possible violations by the police, are two tracks of finding that will remain separate.
They can't depend one from the other.
A matter of findings of facts in the merits can only derive from some other findings of facts; it cannot be deduced from points of law or procedure.
Even if the police breaches your rights (a point of law), you are not allowed to decide to "react" to this by baring a knife and stab someone.

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.

I am not.

(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.....)

Actually, I am told they do exist. They are not that difficult to find. But it is difficult to see them survive at the Cassazione.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

By the way, it is FALSE that AK/RS had no representation at the Guede's trial.

In fact, they were fully represented. By now, people should know this.

 

[Kauffer]

1. I didn't give any testimony. I was not there. I point out reports and evidence, don't give testimony. Correct yourself and stop trying to twist the words of others.

2. Donnino implied Amanda appeared as she was reluctant to telll something she knew. This does not conflict at all with Mignini's report. In fact they are talking about two different events, at two different times. Donnino talks about the initial moments of Amanda's interrogation (20:40-01:45), Mignini arrived at the Questura after 2am when the interrogation was alredy over and she had already "talked".

3. It is obvious that Knox had an interpreter, not a translator. A translator is a different job. Translation and communication are two different tasks.

And mediation is a third. Where is it mentioned as a procedural requirement that a "mediator" should be appointed? Donnino states that she believed her role should be one of mediator. Her conduct that night, whether by intention or by accident was coercive.

 

[Machiavelli]

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. (...)

Of course. I was expressing myself hastilly, in fact I was thinking about how to word the final line of my post but I had to cut it quickly some way. What I meant to say derives from the context of the topic: the topic was that we were talking about how the ECHR could not have an argument based on protection from self incriminating statements released by a suspect. The point is that this would be a point of law, and it is unrelated from the fact of committing a calunnia, finding someone guilty of calunnia, which is a point of fact finding.

The calunnia is not a self-incriminating statement. It is a voluntary and malicious criminal action. Whether an action takes place and whether or not is is voluntary and malicious, is not somethign that can be deduced from points of law or fairness of trial. It can only be deduced from facts.

Yes the ECHR cannot perform findings of facts at all.
But here what I mean that even if the ECHR hypothetically finds that the calunnia proceedings were unfair, this could not realistically change the course of facts findings, not even of possible future courts. It could not affect directly the findings of facts; all the previous courts had found Knox guilty of calunnia based on assessments and findings in the merits, not depending from point of law and procedures that could be possibly affected by ECHR rulings. They did not deduce the calunnia from, for example, "self incriminating statements released by a suspect", they deduced it from what they believed were factual elements indicating that a calunnia was committed, that it was voluntary and malicious, independently from whether Knox was being treated fairly or not.

 

[Machiavelli]

And mediation is a third. Where is it mentioned as a procedural requirement that a "mediator" should be appointed? Donnino states that she believed her role should be one of mediator. Her conduct that night, whether by intention or by accident was coercive.

An Interpreter has the task of "language facilitator" and "language mediator". This was Donnino's task. These are any interpreter's tasks. It's a most normal job.

There is absolutely nothing coercive in being a mediator.

 

[Kauffer]

No, it wouldn't.
The merits of finding that the calunnia was a malicious choice on the part of Knox, and possible violations by the police, are two tracks of finding that will remain separate.
They can't depend one from the other.
A matter of findings of facts in the merits can only derive from some other findings of facts; it cannot be deduced from points of law or procedure.
Even if the police breaches your rights (a point of law), you are not allowed to decide to "react" to this by baring a knife and stab someone.



I am not.



Actually, I am told they do exist. They are not that difficult to find. But it is difficult to see them survive at the Cassazione.

If the ECHR construed from the weight of evidence that Ms Knox's statement was not voluntary, that the trial was unfair, then she will be entitled to relief. Your construction is ludicrous. Following your logic, the Italian police could beat a "witness" half to death, torture and maim and freely admit they had done this, but that a calunia extracted from the "witness" at the time is prosecutable and convictable and the safeness of such a conviction is protected, entirely ring fenced from the process which produced it.

You are arguing that there is no link between cause and effect. It is nonsense. You are denying the possibility that someone can be made to act against their own free will.

In this case, the existence of the crime itself cannot survive an adverse ECHR ruling against Italy and there are mechanisms in place for it to be effectively struck out within the processes and procedures of your country. The executive branch can pardon her if necessary, without hindrance from the judiciary.

 

[Diocletus]

An Interpreter has the task of "language facilitator" and "language mediator". This was Donnino's task. These are any interpreter's tasks. It's a most normal job.

There is absolutely nothing coercive in being a mediator.

Really? Well, according to the court that convicted of callunnia in the second instance (affirmed by the supreme court), this "interpreter"

did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories

 

[MDDVS]

So, suggesting to a person that she was suffering from amnesia from a traumatic experience is just a normal action for an interpreter.

Ok.

 

[Diocletus]

By the way, it is FALSE that AK/RS had no representation at the Guede's trial.

In fact, they were fully represented. By now, people should know this.

They had lawyers there, but they couldn't introduce evidence outside of the prosecutor's dossier, didn't have the same incentives to litigate (their clients weren't on trial), and didn't have the same appeal rights.

They were supposed to be tried in their own trial, not some other guy's.

 

[Kauffer]

An Interpreter has the task of "language facilitator" and "language mediator". This was Donnino's task. These are any interpreter's tasks. It's a most normal job.

There is absolutely nothing coercive in being a mediator.

Rubbish. This is not about language - making Ms Knox's freely given answers to questions asked by the police understandable by the police, nor the police understandable by her. It's about Donnino behaving in a manner which can reasonably be expected to have influenced what Ms Knox said. It was about "helping" her to remember. When we try to help people remember, we can, either deliberately or inadvertently facilitate the creation of false memories, particularly in stressful situations. Ms Knox questioned the "verity" of what she had said very soon after she said it.

 

[Desert Fox]

An Interpreter has the task of "language facilitator" and "language mediator". This was Donnino's task. These are any interpreter's tasks. It's a most normal job.

There is absolutely nothing coercive in being a mediator.

Really? Well, according to the court that convicted of callunnia in the second instance (affirmed by the supreme court), this "interpreter"

did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories

Telling somebody that they may be confused in their memories or that maybe they blacked out should be off the table in police interviews. It is too easy to create false memories using such methods.

 

[Vibio]

A reality check for the Americans: concerning your own country... just so you know...

Not only are interrogations not legally required to be recorded in the majority of jurisdictions in the US, there is this too:

"The right to a competent interpreter for anyone who does not understand the language of the court (especially for the accused in a criminal trial) is usually considered a fundamental rule of justice. Therefore, this right is often guaranteed in national constitutions, declarations of rights, fundamental laws establishing the justice system or by precedents set by the highest courts. However, it is not a constitutionally required procedure (in the United States) that a certified interpreter be present at police interrogation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_interpretation

 

[Desert Fox]

A reality check for the Americans: concerning your own country... just so you know...

Not only are interrogations not legally required to be recorded in the majority of jurisdictions in the US, there is this too:

"The right to a competent interpreter for anyone who does not understand the language of the court (especially for the accused in a criminal trial) is usually considered a fundamental rule of justice. Therefore, this right is often guaranteed in national constitutions, declarations of rights, fundamental laws establishing the justice system or by precedents set by the highest courts. However, it is not a constitutionally required procedure (in the United States) that a certified interpreter be present at police interrogation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_interpretation

Read it, learn it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.

 

[Machiavelli]

Rubbish. This is not about language - making Ms Knox's freely given answers to questions asked by the police understandable by the police, nor the police understandable by her. It's about Donnino behaving in a manner which can reasonably be expected to have influenced what Ms Knox said. It was about "helping" her to remember. When we try to help people remember, we can, either deliberately or inadvertently facilitate the creation of false memories, particularly in stressful situations. Ms Knox questioned the "verity" of what she had said very soon after she said it.

The police hires also cultural mediators and psychologists mediators, their activity is also absolutely normal. There are people paid to help overcoming cultural religious or social obstacles or psychological obstacles of informants which may hinder their cooperation. This is everyday work.