Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Bonus Question on the staged break-in:

Isn't the contention now actually that the rock was thrown from the inside at the outside facing glass of the window opened inwards with the internal shutter behind it, thus permitting both the embedded shard, and glass spraying into the room after rebounding off the shutter. I don't agree with it, but I think that's what they argue.

I think you have this one right Kauffer, bizarre as it seems.

Though this seems discredited, IIRC, by the dent in the wood frame where the rock struck the window frame, and also by the glass shard embedded from the outside into the shutter (cue Samson, he loves this bit).

Also, the glass could have been tested to see which way the glass shattered, which would have proved which direction the glass (hence the rock) were traveling. (of course the prosecution wouldn't allow that test).

Here's a bonus question, and I say it shows Mignini's consciousness of his own guilt as he fabricates evidence:

Firstly, imagine going outside to get a rock, then running upstairs to throw it into the room? Why do that?

Q: BUT, Even if they (Mignini et als) wanted to claim a "staged break-in", couldn't they have claimed that AK/RS had thrown the rock FROM outside?

A: NO, they could not. Because that would allow the defense to simply claim the same evidence was left by Rudy Guede. Mignini has to claim the evidence proves in some way that the break-in is staged, to put distance between the false break-in story, and the true genuine break-in story, otherwise its not effective in framing the defendants.

 

[Numbers]

Here is what a 48 year old native Italian has to offer this forum.

on the calunnia ... now Machiavelli/Yummi has been trying to explain a very simple point, that the right to lawyer [that she did not have as she was not a suspect for calunnia before she made the calunnia, also because when she made it nobody knew it was a calunnia] is certainly not a shield against her full responsibility for that crime. It is elementary, a no brainer.

Yummi made a great example, that of the stabbing vs the calunnia. If she had stabbed someone instead of committing a calunnia vs someone it would be exactly the same. Calunnia crime was proven and we have now a final judgement and prison sentence, is a voluntary crime committed with malicious intent, a very serious matter. The fact a person may have had right to a lawyer (which she did not) does not authorise her or him to stab another person and certainly does not make the attacker innocent of such crime with the argument that if a lawyer had been there she / he would not have done it. By the way, calunnia was a criminal action carried out over several days, in statements, writings etc. deliberate and malicious and may have harsher penalties than a stabbing.

They do not get it, as I said too stupid and ignorant for my taste ... or they get it but are too biased to admit.

If stupid, they will soon be disappointed by ECHR and rest their case, if only pretending [we must assume they may be pretending as the stupidity level for not getting the above point is uniquely high] they will not be and the ECHR will become their next enemy to fight with idle propaganda.

They should change the name of the forum from International Skeptics to International Stupidest.

{1} Obviously none of them has any idea of what the ECHR really does, its principles and its real life cases, none has written a recourse to ECHR or seriously studied ECHR jurisprudence or history. {2} Similarly, they have no idea of the great history, independence and prestige of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of Rome or of the fact codified law was practiced for 13 centuries in that same city more than 2,500 years before the US even existed, one of the reasons why they enjoy the rule of law in their countries today instead of living in a tribal society. On second thought, I wonder if they would not prefer that, their attitude vs this case can be safely defined as tribalism.

Like Lewis Caroll he writes good English, but the former intentionally writes nonsense, Popper does it because he has been captured by the great Italian hoax.
I tried to respond to his posts on PMF, but they were never posted. When this repeatedly happened, I emailed four members including him. Two responded with great politeness, but one complained, and I was immediately banned.
Popper did not respond.
Popper, stabbing someone is unequivocally a crime unless in self defence in a knife fight. Agreeing with the police that their proposition may be correct, in this case that Lumuba was at the scene, is a lesser offence, especially outside Italy.

Why not join this forum and help Yummi out?

Responding to posters directly might help you refine your arguments.

{Highlighting and numbers added to the quote.}

1. The wonderful irony of this statement is that, as in all of the guilter postings I have seen to date, there is no actual quotation from the Convention or ECHR case-law. The overall quote from this guilter is merely an ad homin against those he/she disagrees with. No legal issue showing how ECHR would rule is brought forward. The stabbing analogy is absurd; what is at question is, as pointed out by Samson, a statement elicited during a police interrogation.

2. A bit of Italian nationalism on display, along with some anti-American sentiment. There is no mention in the quote about that former hero of (some of) the Italians, Benito Mussolini, and the authoritarian system he and his followers introduced. Also missing is the difference between the law and what is and was practiced in Italy. And to be fair and complete, the difference between law and practice can be observed in some cases in other countries, including the US.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

testable hypotheses with respect to the glass

wannaknow,

No one even tested Massei's conjecture, whereas Sgt. Pasquali did test the hypothesis favored by the defense. If the glass were broken as Massei conjectured, the momentum of the rock and the position of the window relative to the room would both be different from the situation where the rock were thrown from the outside. Therefore, the distribution of glass would be different in the two situations. Given that the glass distribution was consistent with the defense's hypothesis, how can anyone contend that it is also consistent with a different hypothesis?

Apart from these arguments, the prosecution's hypothesis is that the pair would have to be deliberately breaking a window at night with a dead body in the apartment. That would take a person of supernatural calm and composure. If someone actually possessed this degree of mental toughness, they wouldn't crumble in the face of a good cop/bad cop routine. JMO.

 

[Planigale]

Do you mean the 23 second Pasquali video found on youtube (maybe there is a longer/better version of it ?). The Pasquali video show indeed that the glass fell inside. But does it also show that no glass fell outside ?


It is not that easy.

a) a person who threw the rock from within may have deliberatedly placed shards of glass on Filomenas rag

b) a person who faked the break in may have thrown the stone from the outside

The lack of glass outside may, of course, be due to the outside shutters being closed, while a person from within threw the stone.

Greetings

Of course any sufficiently advanced simulation may be indistinguishable from the real thing. So a fake break in may have involved Guede breaking the window with a stone thrown from outside then climbing in (so he the distributes the glass correctly). I think redistributing the glass fragments (in gloved hands as no finger prints were left), is unlikely, not only would it need to be very thorough, but would leave whoever did it with glass fragments on their shoes and clothes. None of which were found on Sollecito or Knox, but of course Guede's clothes were never recovered.

 

[carbonjam72]

Of course any sufficiently advanced simulation may be indistinguishable from the real thing. So a fake break in may have involved Guede breaking the window with a stone thrown from outside then climbing in (so he the distributes the glass correctly). I think redistributing the glass fragments (in gloved hands as no finger prints were left), is unlikely, not only would it need to be very thorough, but would leave whoever did it with glass fragments on their shoes and clothes. None of which were found on Sollecito or Knox, but of course Guede's clothes were never recovered.

I think Hellman also accepted the defense argument that a glass fragment in Rudy's shoe in the footprints in blood, are an indication that the break-in occurred before the assault/murder.

 

[Numbers]

A commentary on Italian law compared to US and other systems:

http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art315.htm

Italian Law and You - Welcome to the Jungle!
by Amanda Sorensen

{excerpt}

Certain governing principles, though very real, don't influence everyday life very much. In the United States, a nation established by free-thinking men of the Enlightenment, individual rights are believed to derive from God (or from human nature itself), while in socialist Italy they are "given" to citizens by the state, much as they were granted to subjects by the grace of past popes and kings. A subtle matter, to be sure, and not one that keeps most Italians awake at night. But concepts such as this one serve to explain the entire point of view of Italian law, and particularly its civil and penal codes.

Amazingly, considering Italy's supposed conformity to European Union law, a number of Fascist-era statutes (some relating to matters such as freedom of speech) are still on the books....

 

[Samson]

Do you mean the 23 second Pasquali video found on youtube (maybe there is a longer/better version of it ?). The Pasquali video show indeed that the glass fell inside. But does it also show that no glass fell outside ?


It is not that easy.

a) a person who threw the rock from within may have deliberatedly placed shards of glass on Filomenas rag

b) a person who faked the break in may have thrown the stone from the outsideThe lack of glass outside may, of course, be due to the outside shutters being closed, while a person from within threw the stone.

Greetings

Why?
They had killed someone and the body was inside if they were staging.
Without a sensible answer to that, it is safe to limit the discussion to a rock being thrown from outside before a corpse was inside, or a quiet staging from inside.
Incidentally, was Amanda certain no boy was asleep downstairs?
Eta I see Chris covered the outside throw conundrum with more detail.

 

[Desert Fox]

If I was to stage the scene, I would have simply left the door unlocked. Maybe Meredeth forgot and got surprised that way.

 

[Kauffer]

Candice says Raffaele went to the police station at 21:40. There should at least be a hard number from Raffaele's phone records for when he was called. Amanda had already been kicked out to the elevator lobby, settled in to begin studying, got up to stretch and called Filomena when they approached her to begin questioning at 22:39. The judges report says Raffaele signed the first summary at 22:40.

I do not think the highlighted part is right. (Or is there a police source you have which says this?)

Her interrogation began when Ficarra went out into the hall to confront Knox with perhaps the only bona fide "lie" on record - the soft-drug use in the cottage, particularly the lies all of Meredith's friends, including Knox, told about Meredith's drug use. (Is this not correct?)

Also, did Ficarra not want to go through Knox's mobile one last time - and did not the outgoing SMS from Knox to Lumumba draw Ficarra's attention before Napoleoni came in to say that Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi?

I'm not sure if this timeline interferes with your over all reasoning - but to a reasonable person it would look like Knox was suspected of something at least by the time Napoleoni comes in..... or at least when Napoleoni wants to know why Sollecito is protecting "that cow".

This could very well be a time-honoured police tactic of "divide and conquer" with no particular suspicion in mind. It has been known that cops will accuse even distant-witnesses of everything but the JFK killing just to rattle them and to see where it goes.

A fishing trip. But at the very least they more than likely suspected Knox of something, even it is is the sentiment that, "Knox knows something she's not telling us," which persists to this day. That one persists even in some who don't think either she or Raffaele did anything in relation to the murder - but are hiding something nonetheless.

As an aside, John Follain has a puzzling remark about Mignini in, "A Death in Italy." Perhaps someone can look it up, but it goes something like reporting that when Mignini saw Amanda with her lawyers, he regretted that now the truth will never be known.

The whole thing is puzzling. The thing which is puzzling is that until the appearance before Matteini, Raffaele never really got an answer to: "What's this got to do with me?"

Does Dan's post help? I think there's more stuff in the published records. What would be good to see are the police admin records. All these people need to get paid, the Rome cops accommodated, time sheets, requisitions etc etc. I think the evening was well planned, yet slightly derailed by Ms Knox arriving unexpectedly with Mr Sollecito, when they would have preferred to get her later after they'd worked him over.

 

[Samson]

If I was to stage the scene, I would have simply left the door unlocked. Maybe Meredeth forgot and got surprised that way.

Unfortunately the ready answer is there was not the usual intermediate position of latched but unlocked, so another finger stuck in the dyke.

 

[Dan O.]

Does Dan's post help? I think there's more stuff in the published records. What would be good to see are the police admin records. All these people need to get paid, the Rome cops accommodated, time sheets, requisitions etc etc. I think the evening was well planned, yet slightly derailed by Ms Knox arriving unexpectedly with Mr Sollecito, when they would have preferred to get her later after they'd worked him over.

They had to know that Amanda would be tagging along. Scolding her for comming may have been planned to put her off guard. Alternatively, it may have been just to put some distance between her and Raffaele so if he started making a fuss she wouldn't get spooked or catch on to what was happening and run off. I recall reading that one of the officers was actually tasked with insuring that Amanda didn't get away.

Does anyone really think the Perugia cops were so dumb not to understand that Amanda had just been evicted from her home and had nowhere else to go but to tag along with her boyfriend.

 

[Kauffer]

If I was to stage the scene, I would have simply left the door unlocked. Maybe Meredeth forgot and got surprised that way.

You see I find this very interesting. I might have done what you suggest or I might have staged a terrace entry. But we're not burglars. The whole point of Guede's modus operandi it seems, is that the rock breaking the window is designed to call attention to what he's doing IF THERE IS SOMEONE TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT. If there is and they do, he scarpers; if there isn't, he knows he's safe to carry on. His only weakness then is someone coming back home and he had had to face that problem before - successfully, by brandishing his knife and escaping. Not this time.

 

[LondonJohn]

I do not think the highlighted part is right. (Or is there a police source you have which says this?)

Her interrogation began when Ficarra went out into the hall to confront Knox with perhaps the only bona fide "lie" on record - the soft-drug use in the cottage, particularly the lies all of Meredith's friends, including Knox, told about Meredith's drug use. (Is this not correct?)

Also, did Ficarra not want to go through Knox's mobile one last time - and did not the outgoing SMS from Knox to Lumumba draw Ficarra's attention before Napoleoni came in to say that Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi?

I'm not sure if this timeline interferes with your over all reasoning - but to a reasonable person it would look like Knox was suspected of something at least by the time Napoleoni comes in..... or at least when Napoleoni wants to know why Sollecito is protecting "that cow".

This could very well be a time-honoured police tactic of "divide and conquer" with no particular suspicion in mind. It has been known that cops will accuse even distant-witnesses of everything but the JFK killing just to rattle them and to see where it goes.

A fishing trip. But at the very least they more than likely suspected Knox of something, even it is is the sentiment that, "Knox knows something she's not telling us," which persists to this day. That one persists even in some who don't think either she or Raffaele did anything in relation to the murder - but are hiding something nonetheless.

As has been said here, it's an inarguable slam-dunk that Knox should have been cautioned and provided with access to legal counsel in between her oral "confession/accusation" and her reading and signing of the 1.45am written statement.

But I also think there's more than enough evidence for the ECHR to correctly conclude that Knox was being treated as a de facto suspect (of some form of criminal act) well before she made even the oral "confession/accusation". As evidence of that I would introduce the court records, which show via testimony (from Donnino and others) that Knox - prior to her oral "confession/accusation" - had it very strongly put to her that she had met with Lumumba on the night of the murder and had gone with him to the cottage. At the very least, this entirely implies that the police suspected Knox of seeking to pervert the course of justice, and at the most, they suspected Knox of direct involvement in the murder. I would also, of course, introduce De Felice's infamous statement about Knox "buckling" and telling them what they already knew to be correct.

In other words, I think there's more than enough evidence to demonstrate conclusively that Knox was indeed being considered a suspect of a criminal act - whether that act was perverting justice or murder - not long after she entered that interrogation room on the night of 5th/6th November 2007, and certainly well before she "buckled" and made the "confession/accusation". I think it's also fair to conclude that Knox was deliberately being held back from an official classification of "suspect", precisely in order to enable the police to elicit a confession outside the presence of a lawyer and without the requirement to electronically record the interrogation.

Lastly, one final word on Knox's presence in the police HQ that night. Some pro-guilt commentators try to argue that Knox wasn't even ordered to come in for questioning, so how could it be that she was a suspect (etc)? But set aside that, we have Giobbi's declaration that Knox was always going to be interrogated that night, plus the other statement that they needed to "get" Knox before her mother arrived the following morning, in order to prevent Knox from leaving with her mother and going back to the US.

I believe - as I've written before - that the situation can be properly reconciled by considering that the original police/PM plan was to "break" Sollecito first (i.e. get him to abandon Knox's alibi), and then to go to Sollecito's apartment with all lights and sirens to grab Knox with maximum fanfare and public presence (and to then "break" Knox in turn). And if that was the strategy, then of course the police only told Sollecito to come in at first. However, when Knox turned up alongside him, the police were forced to modify their plan and abandon the public fanfare arrest of Knox, Of course, as it turned out, the heavies were indeed used later on in the brutal snatching of Lumumba (complete with racial and physical abuse). But the underlying plan was always to interrogate Knox that night - she just came into the police HQ earlier than they had envisaged.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O's wiki is a wealth of information which he has put countless hours into accumulating and organizing. I know not many people have helped him when he has asked for help. I once offered but it was above my head (I am old and technically challenged.)

We truly owe much gratitude to Dan O for that website.

Is it still active? Can someone please post the link?

Thanks in advance!

I've been thinking of shutting it down because nobody is bothering to contribute.


It doesn't take much. Pick some little detail you are interested in and search the known documents for everything that can be found about it. Or, scan a document set for every mention of a date or time to try and find events that aren't already in one of the timelines. Or, if you read something in a post that you didn't know already, dig up the source and add or extend the entry.

This wiki isn't ment to be a polished encyclopedia like the two fakes, it's just a raw repository of information. That means you don't need writing skills and if you can't get your information formatted to look pretty, don't worry about it. Someone else can come through and clean it up later if needed.

 

[Numbers]

As has been said here, it's an inarguable slam-dunk that Knox should have been cautioned and provided with access to legal counsel in between her oral "confession/accusation" and her reading and signing of the 1.45am written statement.

But I also think there's more than enough evidence for the ECHR to correctly conclude that Knox was being treated as a de facto suspect (of some form of criminal act) well before she made even the oral "confession/accusation". As evidence of that I would introduce the court records, which show via testimony (from Donnino and others) that Knox - prior to her oral "confession/accusation" - had it very strongly put to her that she had met with Lumumba on the night of the murder and had gone with him to the cottage. At the very least, this entirely implies that the police suspected Knox of seeking to pervert the course of justice, and at the most, they suspected Knox of direct involvement in the murder. I would also, of course, introduce De Felice's infamous statement about Knox "buckling" and telling them what they already knew to be correct.

In other words, I think there's more than enough evidence to demonstrate conclusively that Knox was indeed being considered a suspect of a criminal act - whether that act was perverting justice or murder - not long after she entered that interrogation room on the night of 5th/6th November 2007, and certainly well before she "buckled" and made the "confession/accusation". I think it's also fair to conclude that Knox was deliberately being held back from an official classification of "suspect", precisely in order to enable the police to elicit a confession outside the presence of a lawyer and without the requirement to electronically record the interrogation.

Lastly, one final word on Knox's presence in the police HQ that night. Some pro-guilt commentators try to argue that Knox wasn't even ordered to come in for questioning, so how could it be that she was a suspect (etc)? But set aside that, we have Giobbi's declaration that Knox was always going to be interrogated that night, plus the other statement that they needed to "get" Knox before her mother arrived the following morning, in order to prevent Knox from leaving with her mother and going back to the US.

I believe - as I've written before - that the situation can be properly reconciled by considering that the original police/PM plan was to "break" Sollecito first (i.e. get him to abandon Knox's alibi), and then to go to Sollecito's apartment with all lights and sirens to grab Knox with maximum fanfare and public presence (and to then "break" Knox in turn). And if that was the strategy, then of course the police only told Sollecito to come in at first. However, when Knox turned up alongside him, the police were forced to modify their plan and abandon the public fanfare arrest of Knox, Of course, as it turned out, the heavies were indeed used later on in the brutal snatching of Lumumba (complete with racial and physical abuse). But the underlying plan was always to interrogate Knox that night - she just came into the police HQ earlier than they had envisaged.

I agree that Knox was at the police station as a suspect - although she had not been notified of that. And the police relied either on her following Sollecito to the station - because she feared to be alone, and his apartment was where she was staying since her flat was closed as a crime scene - or they expected to pick her up at his apartment had he come in alone.

The planning and structuring of the police interrogation for the night of Nov. 5/6, the court testimony of Giobbi, and the police statement that they intended to pick up Knox before her mother arrived on Nov. 6, all show that Knox and Sollecito were suspects.

The point at which Knox or Sollecito should have been warned and provided with lawyers was at the beginning of the interrogation questioning. Note also that Knox's "voluntary" statements and writings while in police custody without a lawyer are not useable as evidence to convict her of calunnia or anything. Here, once again, is a quote from the CoE/ECHR Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb):

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).

[emphasis added]

 

[Machiavelli]

{Highlighting and numbers added to the quote.}

1. The wonderful irony of this statement is that, as in all of the guilter postings I have seen to date, there is no actual quotation from the Convention or ECHR case-law. The overall quote from this guilter is merely an ad homin against those he/she disagrees with. No legal issue showing how ECHR would rule is brought forward. The stabbing analogy is absurd; what is at question is, as pointed out by Samson, a statement elicited during a police interrogation.

2. A bit of Italian nationalism on display, along with some anti-American sentiment. There is no mention in the quote about that former hero of (some of) the Italians, Benito Mussolini, and the authoritarian system he and his followers introduced. Also missing is the difference between the law and what is and was practiced in Italy. And to be fair and complete, the difference between law and practice can be observed in some cases in other countries, including the US.

My feeling is with Popper about the self-evident nature of the issue shown by the stabbing example.
As for specific citations of case examples, one thing to be noted is that I did point to an example: Luciano Aviello. I mentioned twice this example and it has been overlooked or removed from the view of the 'innocentisti' on this forum.
Yes it is not an ECHR quote, but rather should point out to your attention the self-evident nature of the issue. What Popper says is not - in my opinion - to be interpreted as an "ad hominem" but rather it is pointing out that the 'innocentisti' mistake is on a too basic level; your argument is wrong on an elementary principle, it's too elementary to be found in a ECHR ruling: the reason why you don't find it in the archives may be not because calunnia cases got hidden behind technicalities, but just because a complaint like the one you present won't reach that level, as potential "applicants" would simply refrain from attempt a submission at the ECHR or submissions would be declared inadmissible.
It would be ridiculous to claim that prosecuting someone for calunnia is unjust because the calunnia was committed while the person was in custody without a lawyer.
The argumentation "this crime wouldn't have happened if this condition was not created", like "because his/her lawyer would have suggested not to do that", is something that does not belong to the landscape of human rights. Almost every criminal action could be justified if this principle was valid: most crimes were committed because there was some situation, some feeling of necessity which cornered or pushed or incited or tempted a person into committing the crime. But this not a justification. You can't say this wouldn't have happened if this other person (like the police) did not do this or did that and this. There is no legal place for this argument.

A side note: in fact I also do not belive any nationalism on the part of Popper; I take his observation as a matter of facts: the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled in a very clear direction. In fact all courts had rejected the defensive claims about the alleged non-usability of Knox's statements. They lost their recourse at the High Court and lost multiple times on all levels: statements are usable.
As for nationalism, just to be more accurate on the point, we are not just Italians: we are Europeans, maybe I would say we (talking about people like myself and Popper) are Europeans above all. The ECHR belongs to us (and not to the United States). Incidentally it happened that Italian lawyers and judges contributed to shape a major part of the ECHR itself, as well as other judicial institutions in the world. But an expectation that the ECHR would rule in contrast to the Italian Cassazione on an elementary principle of law, may be just not something realistic. And this is something just self-evident to most. This is what Popper says, what I understand. Or do you think the ECHR would say Luciano Aviello is being tried unfarily because he was in custody not assisted by a lawyer while he was committing his calunnia? Would that be a realistic ECHR ruling?

 

[toto]

I suppose the issue is whether it was a crime, or just a confused and wholly useless statement made under pressure for various reasons. I suppose it doesn't help that Hellman gave his judgement on this, but maybe there are things he said which undermine the legitimacy of that judgement?

 

[Machiavelli]

I suppose the issue is whether it was a crime, or just a confused and wholly useless statement made under pressure for various reasons. I suppose it doesn't help that Hellman gave his judgement on this, but maybe there are things he said which undermine the legitimacy of that judgement?

Maybe there are things he said that undermine the legitimacy of his judgement, but I guess that the things I think about whant I think to his illegitimacy, are not exactly the same that the 'innocentisti' think. But on the other hand, we should not forget also that the Hellmann-Zanetti court was an appeals court, I mean the Hellmann instance is an appeal not a trial. The proceedings for the charge of calunnia are based on the Massei ruling and end with the Cassazione finding. Almost everything in the Hellmann ruling was annulled, including partly the calunnia finding, namely the part in which Hellmann motivetes why the calunnia may have been not connected to the murder.
The Cassazione blasts this part of the Hellmann motivation and accepts the Galati reasons on this. In fact, this is one of the main points in the Cassazione annullment ruling.
So I think it's very incorrect to say the Cassazione accepts what Hellmann has to say about the calunnia, especially about the way Hellmann seeks alternative motives for the calunnia. The Cassazione explicitly points out that alleged (pay attention: not proven) just alleged, yet possible, "inquisitory eccesses" by the police, they are not a valid alternative explanation. This argument is not good to explain this calunnia - it is "manifestly illogical" - based on facts from the trial papers.

 

[Machiavelli]

According to Stefano Buratti, Lumumba's phone was already bugged before the interrogations on the 5th. Seems like the police "were already focussed" on him, to me. So we have this, we have Giobbi's order for them to be taken, we have prolific bugging of phones, we have a pre interrogation police preparation meeting, we have a pre interrogation surreptitious examination of Mr Sollecito's computer and we have Ms Knox's interrogation starting immediately after she loses (according to the police), her alibi, and all this, contextually, late at night following 3 days of intensive questioning. And then there is de Felice's widely reported comments, which you can't refute because you can't find a source.

I'd say we've got pretty strong grounds to conclude that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were suspects, don't you?

If you were they, when would you have asked for a lawyer?

So now look at the treatment of suspect Lumumba - seized in the early hours, no lawyer, held in isolation, subject to the lies of a fake witness found by the police and the twisted erroneous logic of Matteini, who didn't have the wit to say, "Look, fellas. How difficult can it be to work out if the pub was open or closed? Go and find out! Go and check with the power company to see if the lights were on etc etc. " She's supposed to be in charge of the investigation after all.

Buratti does not say Lumumba's phone was bugged before the 5th.

He says Lumumba's pub was bugged. Not to record Lumumba; it was bugged to record Knox (who used to work there). It was an "environmental interception".

 

[Samson]

Maybe there are things he said that undermine the legitimacy of his judgement, but I guess that the things I think about whant I think to his illegitimacy, are not exactly the same that the 'innocentisti' think. But on the other hand, we should not forget also that the Hellmann-Zanetti court was an appeals court, I mean the Hellmann instance is an appeal not a trial. The proceedings for the charge of calunnia are based on the Massei ruling and end with the Cassazione finding. Almost everything in the Hellmann ruling was annulled, including partly the calunnia finding, namely the part in which Hellmann motivetes why the calunnia may have been not connected to the murder.
The Cassazione blasts this part of the Hellmann motivation and accepts the Galati reasons on this. In fact, this is one of the main points in the Cassazione annullment ruling.
So I think it's very incorrect to say the Cassazione accepts what Hellmann has to say about the calunnia, especially about the way Hellmann seeks alternative motives for the calunnia. The Cassazione explicitly points out that alleged (pay attention: not proven) just alleged, yet possible, "inquisitory eccesses" by the police, they are not a valid alternative explanation. This argument is not good to explain this calunnia - it is "manifestly illogical" - based on facts from the trial papers.

A couple of points.

I must repeat it is unfortunate that Popper can post on a site dedicated to the destruction of Knox and Sollecito, who have been declared innocent by three high court judges, with no direct right of reply by anyone on this site he frankly ridicules. Some avoid those sites on principle, but I don't because they are orchestrating effective campaigns of lies and misinformation on twitter, aiming to persuade media figures who don't do their own research, of the obligation of the US to extradite Knox. This is profoundly disturbing when considering extradition is a political process, thus potentially influenced by public opinion.

Hellmann, in declaring the only thing we know is Meredith was murdered, announced a new trial, not an appeal hearing. The legal definitions became redundant with this opening statement by the judge.