Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Coulsdon,

It may be more difficult to track down the outcomes. You could try looking at the Committee of Ministers site on the Council of Europe collection of sites.

The responsibility for any retrials rests with the respondent State under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. I believe in many cases there is no issue with the State working to appropriately restore a person whose rights have been violated; by belief, I mean I don't know for sure.

In my spot checking, I found that the Committee of Ministers had very serious complaints about Albania not proceeding in a timely way to retry certain individuals who had been subjected to unfair trials. The CoM and the EoC don't have a police force or a military to enforce the Convention, so I presume that negotiation, discussion, verbal shaming, and nagging (collectively "jaw-boning" in the US) may be important tools.

But what happens to Raffaelle's inheritance in the meantime? While Italy is getting straightened out by ECHR, will the Kerchers be allowed to steal it? I think that's what CoulsdonUK is getting at, no?

 

[carbonjam72]

Didn't Patrick's bar remain closed after he was arrested? Who would have been keeping it open?

Maybe they thought someone might leave a message?

"Hi, remember about last night..."

Of course, even the informational value of a fortuitous voice message could be scuttled by speaking in mafia code, as I understand happens quite frequently in Italy.

I have no idea, Numbers. I don't even believe the police and Mignini didn't know or at least suspect that Rudy Guede might have been involved from day 1 of the crime scene - whom they helped get released from Milan police just five days earlier and were familiar with his Perugia burglaries (according to Napoleone's testimony).

But you make a good point about who would open Patrick's bar, or whether it would be open after his arrest. But there were other employees, no? And did Patrick's bar close immediately after his arrest (probably yes, right, it wouldn't make a nice image to go drinking at the pub of a murderer)?

Also, authorized taps may have already been in place, and remained in place after Patrick's arrest, but that means the taps were in place before Nov/5/6, indications they were all in fact suspects and an investigation of them as suspects was already underway.

 

[Vibio]

Notice not only that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects, they were suspects from DAY 2, which I interpret as Nov. 3, 2007 (Meredith's body having been discovered on DAY 1 = Nov. 2, 2007).

Reconcile the above testimony with Amanda and Raffaele not being warned to get lawyers when Raffaele (and Amanda, in effect) were called to the police station on the night of Nov. 5, 2007.

I'm sure that poster Mach will come up with some alternative translation and/or interpretation, which he/she will explain in 1000 words or more.

The Knoxians. Continually proven wrong.

Buratti uses the word "indagati": "Gli indagati di allora quindi a partire dal giorno 2..."

http://www.wordreference.com/iten/indagato

And Buratti does not say that that Lumumba's phone was bugged prior to Nov. 5th.

 

[Bill Williams]

In fact they didn't know who he was. They only knew that Knox used to work at "Le Chic" on some evenings, they wanted to capture who she met, who she talked to and what she said.



Obviously what attracted their attention was the Italian statement "Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata!" (translation: "We will meet later. Have fun!") on the murder evening, since she testified that she didn't meet with anyone.

Of course everyone in the English speaking world understands "See you later" as basically "goodbye (and probably see you sometime in the future)"

.... which brings us full circle to Machiavelli's own definition of what a translator/interpreter does within the Italian legal process - they are quite allowed to help get a suspect talking when they are silent, or help the suspect with their memories when confused....

.... rather than simply communicating to the police that the person wishes to remain silent, or is in fact confused.

What the police needed was an interpreter, someone who would correct the police if they went off on "See you later" (albeit expressed literally in Italian, by a novice Italian speaker) if the police were rendering it with an incorrect meaning.

Machiavelli is describing the virtual roadmap of how the interrogation went off the rails. And upthread, if i can find the quote, Machiavelliimplies this was Donnino's job - to confirm what the police were suspecting.

Maybe it was Donnino who buckled and told the cops what they already knew?

 

[Kauffer]

The Knoxians. Continually proven wrong.

Buratti uses the word "indagati": "Gli indagati di allora quindi a partire dal giorno 2..."

http://www.wordreference.com/iten/indagato

And Buratti does not say that that Lumumba's phone was bugged prior to Nov. 5th.

Not this then? :

"Indagato in English
suspect, being under suspicion, suspected of a crime or offense suspect, one who is suspected of a crime or offense investigate, inquire into, inquire, ferret"

http://translation.babylon.com/italian/indagato/

Well, if he wasn't bugged before the 5th, then when? He was in prison from the 6th to the 20th when he was swapped out for Guede as a suspect.

PS. It's actually part of Italian CCP. This from wiki:

"The indagato (the person who is suspected to have committed the crime)[9"

 

[Dan O.]

Didn't Patrick's bar remain closed after he was arrested? Who would have been keeping it open?

Patrick's bar remained closed long after he was released as I recall. He eventually reopened the bar but the customers wouldn't return. This would probably be clarified in Patrick's testimony.

 

[Machiavelli]

-


-

Yes you tried to show that all of these probably guilty perceptions are facts, but they were all equally rebutted with a probably innocent perception, which you haven't shown to be less true than your own perceptions, in my opinion,

d

-

Sorry, that scientific articles found that luminol is far more sensitive and nor specific than TMB and that all TMB tests are indirect, is a perception?
Footprint measurements, things like these are perceptions? What Buratti actually stated is a perception?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Sorry, that scientific articles found that luminol is far more sensitive and nor specific than TMB and that all TMB tests are indirect, is a perception?
Footprint measurements, things like these are perceptions? What Buratti actually stated is a perception?

-

Yes.

You ignore the lack of DNA in many of those luminol hot spots, or you try to explain it away with a probably guilty explanation (perception) that it was diluted blood, when the equally probably innocent explanation (perception), that it wasn't blood at all, could also be true.

I find it difficult to believe you can get accurate measurements from a fuzzy bathmat,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

I can't believe the logical trap that Machiavelli has created for himself with this. Doesn't he recognize that Patrick was arrested on the 6th and there would be no purpose in bugging him after he was arrested.

Buratti doesn't state that Lumumba's phone was bugged before Nov 5th.
Thus, attributing this to Buratti's words is a false claim.
The rest is supposition and speculation, which may be or be not correct, but doesn't change the fact that the 'innocentisti' made a false claim, and all they should do is admit their claim is false.
They may have their opinions and guesses,but the first step should be keep opinions separate from facts.

 

[Numbers]

The Knoxians. Continually proven wrong.

Buratti uses the word "indagati": "Gli indagati di allora quindi a partire dal giorno 2..."

http://www.wordreference.com/iten/indagato

And Buratti does not say that that Lumumba's phone was bugged prior to Nov. 5th.

The word "indagti" is translated as "suspects" by Google translate.
"Indagto" and "indagta" are translated as "investigated".

ETA: Google translate (Note the difference in "suspect":
Suspected person = indagato
Suspect something = sospetto qualcosa

The Italian speakers helping us here at ISF are not neutral persons.
Google is neutral; it's a computer.
I suggest extreme caution in the use of non-neutral interpreters. Ask Amanda Knox what can happen.

Here's Google translate for English "evening":

Translations of evening
noun

la sera evening, night, even, eventide, vesper

la serata evening, party, soiree

il vespro vespers, evening

Note that "serata" has first meaning evening, second meaning party or soiree.

Similarly, in English, we say "Good night" but we also say:

"I went to the first night of the new performance." {Which may not have started at night; "night" denotes an occasion.}

"With the onset of dictatorship, night fell over the country." {Use of "night" as an analogy for a "gloomy" or "dark" or "evil" period.}

So what our non-neutral Italian translators are doing is finding one of the several meanings of Italian words and selecting a meaning that is relatively unfavorable or biased toward their desire to frame guilt. This is the very heart of bias. We should all appreciate that this unfair interpretation is one small part of the mistreatment that Amanda was subjected to on the night of Nov. 5/6, 2007.

 

[Kauffer]

Buratti doesn't state that Lumumba's phone was bugged before Nov 5th.
Thus, attributing this to Buratti's words is a false claim.
The rest is supposition and speculation, which may be or be not correct, but doesn't change the fact that the 'innocentisti' made a false claim, and all they should do is admit their claim is false.
They may have their opinions and guesses,but the first step should be keep opinions separate from facts.

Really? How do you translate this?:

"Gli indagati di allora quindi a partire dal giorno
2, a partire dal giorno 2 a seguire con gli sviluppi dell’attività investigativa mano a mano venivano autorizzate le intercettazioni telefoniche."

It would appear Buratti is saying after this passage that Lumumba was in the first group of people bugged. But of course, he must have been because he was arrested on the morning of the 6th.

 

[Kaosium]

I can't believe the logical trap that Machiavelli has created for himself with this. Doesn't he recognize that Patrick was arrested on the 6th and there would be no purpose in bugging him after he was arrested.

There is a purpose in bugging him after he was released: to acquire information that could be used to ensure he continued to cooperate to the benefit of police and prosecutor and to the detriment of Amanda. Patrick's behavior after leaving police custody is damned strange and within the parameters of someone being blackmailed.

 

[Numbers]

Duplicate deleted.

 

[Numbers]

Patrick's bar remained closed long after he was released as I recall. He eventually reopened the bar but the customers wouldn't return. This would probably be clarified in Patrick's testimony.

Patrick's bar was closed on Nov. 6, 2007 since he was arrested that morning.
It remained closed when he was jailed for about 2 weeks. It remained closed after that for a long time. There was no one else operating the bar. There was therefore no one in the bar. There was no one to bug.

The bug was on Patrick's phone. It was on from some early date, soon after the discovery of Meredith's body. This is Bugatti's testimony.

Amanda and Raffaele were suspects from Nov. 3, 2007. Their phones were bugged. This is Bugatti's testimony.

 

[Numbers]

There is a purpose in bugging him after he was released: to acquire information that could be used to ensure he continued to cooperate to the benefit of police and prosecutor and to the detriment of Amanda. Patrick's behavior after leaving police custody is damned strange and within the parameters of someone being blackmailed.

Patrick's behavior can be explained in part as a reaction to the mistreatment he received from the police. As you are probably aware, he eventually left Italy and settled with his wife elsewhere in Europe (Poland, IIRC).

 

[Kauffer]

Patrick's bar was closed on Nov. 6, 2007 since he was arrested that morning.
It remained closed when he was jailed for about 2 weeks. It remained closed after that for a long time. There was no one else operating the bar. There was therefore no one in the bar. There was no one to bug.

The bug was on Patrick's phone. It was on from some early date, soon after the discovery of Meredith's body. This is Bugatti's testimony.

Amanda and Raffaele were suspects from Nov. 3, 2007. Their phones were bugged. This is Bugatti's testimony.

Yes, seems pretty clear to me unless we have completely mis understood. Happy to be corrected on any of these points by the Italian speakers.

 

[Numbers]

The Knoxians. Continually proven wrong.

Buratti uses the word "indagati": "Gli indagati di allora quindi a partire dal giorno 2..."

http://www.wordreference.com/iten/indagato

And Buratti does not say that that Lumumba's phone was bugged prior to Nov. 5th.

Since "indigati" can mean "suspects", "to investigate", "to ferret out", our Italian translators here can tell us that "indigati" in this sentence is referring to "ferrets", the animals.

ETA: Looking at the cite (wordreference), what Vibio has done is to use "indigati" as a verb. As a noun, it means "suspected person"="suspect " in English. Note in English there is also "suspect (v)" meaning to have an opinion of questioning (an observation, allegation, etc.).

 

[Numbers]

Buratti doesn't state that Lumumba's phone was bugged before Nov 5th.
Thus, attributing this to Buratti's words is a false claim.
The rest is supposition and speculation, which may be or be not correct, but doesn't change the fact that the 'innocentisti' made a false claim, and all they should do is admit their claim is false.
They may have their opinions and guesses,but the first step should be keep opinions separate from facts.

Mach,
Do you have any ECHR citations to support your claims about how ECHR would consider Amanda Knox's application against Italy regarding her conviction for calunnia?

 

[Kauffer]

Since "indigati" can mean "suspects", "to investigate", "to ferret out", our Italian translators here can tell us that "indigati" in this sentence is referring to "ferrets", the animals.

I have very limited skills here but isn't "indagato" simply the singular of "indagati"? Or is one male and the other female?

 

[Machiavelli]

-

Yes.

You ignore the lack of DNA in those luminol hot spots, or you try to explain it away with a probably guilty explanation (perception) that it was diluted blood, when the equally probably innocent explanation that it wasn't blood at all could also be true.

I find it difficult to believe you can get accurate measurements from a fuzzy bathmat,

-

You can perfectly see there are facts cited, not just perceptions. Literature findings are facts. You may draw different inferences from them, but we are talking about facts and inferences not about perceptions.
Measurements on bathmat: those exist, they are facts. They may be wrong, but you would need to show what the correct ones are. While instead the assumption that measurements are unreliable is an ex post consideration. First you have data. Then you say : "these data don't matter, it's impossible to measure a fuzzy mat..." etc. Yet, those data exist, the consideration comes subsequently. I bet the data wouldn't appear so unreliable to many pro-Knoxes if they matched Guede.
Luminol prints: there is actually no probable innocent alternative. Given that an alternative would consist in indicating what something is, not what is not. "it is not blood" is not an alternative, "not blood" is not a substance. This is not the only problem: there is also no indication about what event may have caused the prints, and why the analogy with the prints in diluted blood on the bathmat. And the "lack of confirmation" of blood, no DNA on some prints, may be equated to lack of DNA from Guede in the bathroom where he supposedly washed his hands, while having cuts on his finger. Doesn't this "point away" from Guede I you follow the same logic?