Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

New English translation of Maria Dramis.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Testimony-of-Maria-Ilaria-Dramis.pdf

This is what the Supreme Court said about this utterly useless witness.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/second-level-revision-of-the-time-of-death/

But Meredith was dead hours ago. Until some gastroentoroligists weigh in these discussions are treading water.

 

[Desert Fox]

New English translation of Maria Dramis.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Testimony-of-Maria-Ilaria-Dramis.pdf

This is what the Supreme Court said about this utterly useless witness.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/second-level-revision-of-the-time-of-death/

But Meredith was dead hours ago. Until some gastroentoroligists weigh in these discussions are treading water.

Even if there was not gastric evidence, I would not trust the testimony of somebody a year after the crime. Even assuming she actually heard something and not completely fabricated (note that I am not saying lying but the mind can create false memories), how can we be sure that she even has the right day?

 

[Kauffer]

They lock her up because she's already been caught out on several lies about her alibi, and that her alibi isn't being corroborated by RS.

They accept her accusation, but they don't necessarily believe it.

But combined with RS taking away her alibi, and her accusation of Lumumba, they now believe she is chargeable with murder even if they eventually find she was innocent.

Seems like textbook police procedure to me. Especially since they didn't question her once they took her in.

As an edit: I doubt they thought, at that time, she committed the murder herself. Only that she was there, and based on her statement could have had a larger role in what was a developing investigation. Naturally, they didn't ever think that her statements told them they had all the suspects they needed.

This is nonsense. Ask yourself: what did the police believe at the point they started questioning her? Why is she being given statements to sign without a lawyer? Why doesn't she see a lawyer at any time during the night? Which textbook do you think all this comes from?

 

[LondonJohn]

New English translation of Maria Dramis.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Testimony-of-Maria-Ilaria-Dramis.pdf

This is what the Supreme Court said about this utterly useless witness.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/second-level-revision-of-the-time-of-death/

In addition to the obvious failings in timing reliability, I also have to chuckle (with attendant amazement) at this part (my bolding):

"...she noticed running steps beneath her window such as she had never heard before"

What on Earth can that even mean?! Does it mean she had never heard the sound of running steps beneath her window ever before? Or does it mean that the particular sound of running steps that she says she heard on the night of 1st November 2007 were different from any previous sounds of running steps she'd ever heard before?!

Here again is a textbook example of someone who has applied a huge dose of ex post facto rationalisation to her "recollection". Unreliable. Next!

 

[Samson]

In addition to the obvious failings in timing reliability, I also have to chuckle (with attendant amazement) at this part (my bolding):

"...she noticed running steps beneath her window such as she had never heard before" What on Earth can that even mean?! Does it mean she had never heard the sound of running steps beneath her window ever before? Or does it mean that the particular sound of running steps that she says she heard on the night of 1st November 2007 were different from any previous sounds of running steps she'd ever heard before?!

Here again is a textbook example of someone who has applied a huge dose of ex post facto rationalisation to her "recollection". Unreliable. Next!

In fairness this case has reawakened my sense of cultural difference where the prosaic becomes, say, exotic. If nothing else, the time we hope is not totally wasted leads to some wry reflections on poetic licence.

 

[anglolawyer]

In addition to the obvious failings in timing reliability, I also have to chuckle (with attendant amazement) at this part (my bolding):

"...she noticed running steps beneath her window such as she had never heard before"

What on Earth can that even mean?! Does it mean she had never heard the sound of running steps beneath her window ever before? Or does it mean that the particular sound of running steps that she says she heard on the night of 1st November 2007 were different from any previous sounds of running steps she'd ever heard before?!

Here again is a textbook example of someone who has applied a huge dose of ex post facto rationalisation to her "recollection". Unreliable. Next!

It's of a piece with the ISC's stunning observation that Curatolo made his dock ID 'not once, but twice' as if we should all stand back and gasp in amazement at such profundity. Truly, the emperor has no clothes.

 

[Kauffer]

Here again is a textbook example of someone who has applied a huge dose of ex post facto rationalisation to her "recollection". Unreliable. Next!

A capacity for ex post facto rationalisation is an integral part of the thinking in this case. It's a law enforcement meme.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Haven't been keeping up with this case in a while.

Am I correct in understanding that they were both found guilty again, and once again it was based on no good evidence but rather just the same old combination of stupidity, superstition, belief inertia, saving face, inability to admit prior wrongness, appeal to popular belief, etc.?

 

[lonepinealex]

Haven't been keeping up with this case in a while.

Am I correct in understanding that they were both found guilty again, and once again it was based on no good evidence but rather just the same old combination of stupidity, superstition, belief inertia, saving face, inability to admit prior wrongness, appeal to popular belief, etc.?

Yep.

 

[anglolawyer]

Haven't been keeping up with this case in a while.

Am I correct in understanding that they were both found guilty again, and once again it was based on no good evidence but rather just the same old combination of stupidity, superstition, belief inertia, saving face, inability to admit prior wrongness, appeal to popular belief, etc.?

No. You are dead wrong. It was much worse than that. And if you think I'm kidding, I'm not.

 

[Samson]

No. You are dead wrong. It was much worse than that. And if you think I'm kidding, I'm not.

More particularly, it is a thief of time for ordinary sceptics.

 

[Kauffer]

If this happened, this claim of duress:
1) should be raised within the trial proceedings (not at the ECHR for the first time); also this should be done at the initial stage of the investigation, not just later at the trial (see ECHR Blaj vs. Romania)
2) should be substantiated (Dvorsky vs. Coratia);

You will see below that your claim as to the facts in Blaj and your interpretation is simply wrong!

"98. Lastly, the Court emphasises that the applicant did not allege, before either the domestic courts or this Court, that he had given his initial statements under duress (contrast Salduz, cited above, § 17)." (Blaj v Romania)

Kindly give a better cite to Dvorsky.

 

[carbonjam72]

Seriously Stupid, or even serious at all?

It's of a piece with the ISC's stunning observation that Curatolo made his dock ID 'not once, but twice' as if we should all stand back and gasp in amazement at such profundity. Truly, the emperor has no clothes.

But there was also the political maneuver to raise the spectre of an investigation of the case in parliament by the politician Girlanda(?)

Judge Hellman said (in a CBS News article shortly after the new conviction I think) as soon as the acquittal became politicized, he knew it would be overturned.

Girlanda was from Burlesconi's party, and hoped to use the case to bash the judiciary, to help in their defense of Burlesconi, no?

So is Chieffi's opinion legitimately foolish? Or is it the product of self-preservation, by reversing the acquittal, it would forestall or obliviate any immediate politically motivated inquiry into the judiciary/prosecution's role in the case.

Of course, Chieffi is also a noted 9-11 truther, and has contributed his significant skills for obfuscation towards that fine endeavor, so who knows how much of a crazy, incompetent, cranky lunatic he really is?

(And in addition to insisting Curatolo must be believed, Chieffi also insisted that Guede's fast track trial findings must be considered binding on this case. - denying the ECHR/ITALIAN constitution guaranteed opportunity to contest the charges at trial - and confront an accuser)

And for the record, Pretty sure that some of the ECHR cases that Numbers posted showed that - a court (in this case cassation) cannot over-rule a lower court's assessment of the evidence including the credibility of a witness, unless they are;

1. empowered by law to review the evidence (which cassation is not)
2. Actually review the evidence (in this case hear the witness - which neither cassation nor Nencini did, because Curatolo had moved on to that great shooting gallery in the sky).

ETA - and we musn't forget that it is Chieffi who has decided that contamination must be proved, and once again, the fruits of science somehow turn sour at the Italian border. A land where geologists are criminals, and tight jeans are a fool proof deterrent to rape.

 

[Diocletus]

Just to reiterate, this verbiage of the law is about self incrimination. AK never self incriminted herself, so I don't see how it applies.

You should tell Mignini that, because here's what he wrote in the arrest warrant on November 6:

KNOX, in the deposition of this date, finally confessed to the criminal action perpetrated against Kercher; the defendant, in fact, testified as having met with Patrick, as was communicated in the message found in the memory of her cell phone operating in Perugia, the message of 8:35PM, responding to a message from DIYA arrived at 8:18PM, identified thanks to the analysis of the cell phone traffic relative to the number in use by KNOX.

Anyway, under ECHR usage, an "incriminating statement" is anything used to convict the defendant, and those statements were used to convict Knox of both callunnia and murder.

 

[Diocletus]

There is no evidence of coercive interrogation.

You mean except for her note, dated November 6, where she states that the police hit her. Also, all of her testimony about mistreatment. And, of course, there's also this:

[the interrogation was of] obsessive length. . . , carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who . . . did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories . . .

Actually, there is no evidence of interrogation at all. She released her statement to Mignini who acted as a notery, without being interrogated, and she wrote hand written statements containing false testimony.

What the hell kind of prosecutor sits there and acts like a notary, when there is a raping murderer on the loose! I mean, obviously, the cops didn't get enough out of her to justify an arrest, because they didn't rush out and arrest Lumumba after the 1:45 session. Mignini would have been derelict if he had just sat there and made notes.

 

[griffinmill]

griffin,

You have just contradicted yourself.

ETA: Quoted from griffinmill, post #4984:
"Sure. But AK didn't incriminate herself. She falsely accused another person of rape and murder. By extension, she further identified herself as a witness to this crime."

In your previous post (4984, 4985), you stated that Amanda Knox's accusation of Patrick Lumumba was not a statement incriminating her.

Now you state (2nd bolded/highlighted text) that her accusation of Lumumba was one of the things that made the police believe that she was chargeable with murder. That means that the accusation incriminated her. Therefore, according to Italian law, not only should she have been provided with a lawyer at that point, but her incriminating statement made without a lawyer should not have been admissible.

According to ECHR case-law (Salduz v Turkey and many other cases), a statement made by a person under interrogation without a lawyer may not be used to convict them. This continues to be true under Ibrahim et al. v UK; for three of the applicants, the statements in their "safety interviews" were not used as evidence at trial, while for the fourth, he actually used the statements he made in the "safety interview" for his defense, which allowed them to be used for his conviction.

At that point, she ischargeable as accessory to murder. If, in the course of investigation, they determine she innocently brought Lumumba over to the cottage, as she claimed, and he subsequently killed Meredith of his own volition, then the accessory to murder charges get dropped. She might have some explaining to do as to why she never mentioned it, but that's beside the point. As the Italian authorities demonstrated in this very case with Lumumba, they let innocent people go when the evidence exonerates them.

 

[Diocletus]

At that point, she ischargeable as accessory to murder. If, in the course of investigation, they determine she innocently brought Lumumba over to the cottage, as she claimed, and he subsequently killed Meredith of his own volition, then the accessory to murder charges get dropped. She might have some explaining to do as to why she never mentioned it, but that's beside the point. As the Italian authorities demonstrated in this very case with Lumumba, they let innocent people go when the evidence exonerates them.

Good, then do we all agree that at least as soon as, and in part because of, the statements the she orally made that underlie the 1:45 written statement, she was (at a minimum) suspected of being an accessory and possibly a conspirator in the murder?

 

[Kauffer]

At that point, she ischargeable as accessory to murder. If, in the course of investigation, they determine she innocently brought Lumumba over to the cottage, as she claimed, and he subsequently killed Meredith of his own volition, then the accessory to murder charges get dropped. She might have some explaining to do as to why she never mentioned it, but that's beside the point. As the Italian authorities demonstrated in this very case with Lumumba, they let innocent people go when the evidence exonerates them.

She wasn't charged as an "accessory". She didn't bring Lumumba over to the cottage and he didn't kill Ms Kercher. So, which part of Ms Knox's statement do you still believe?

The police did a great job getting to the truth with this "witness", didn't they? Nothing she said turned out to have any value whatsoever as evidence at the murder trial.

The lack of any evidence against her in Ms Kercher's room does exonerate her.
Nobody on the pro guilt side can explain it. It's too much of a problem even for Vibio who leaves Ms Knox in the kitchen.

 

[Diocletus]

She wasn't charged as an "accessory". She didn't bring Lumumba over to the cottage and he didn't kill Ms Kercher. So, which part of Ms Knox's statement do you still believe?

He believes the part about her bringing some black guy over to the cottage to kill Kercher, and being there when it happened. Any part that's not true is criminal obstruction.

 

[carbonjam72]

I just wish Platonov would stop shoehorning racist elements into his arguments (but I'm not holding my breath of course....). This is not about ethnicity. The belief that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted (and are very likely wholly innocent) while Guede is rightfully convicted (and was factually involved) has nothing whatsoever to do with the relative skin colour of those three people. The belief would still hold whether Knox was south Asian, Sollecito was Inuit and Guede was white.

Of course, to suggest that a belief in Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal/innocence (and a concurrent belief in Guede's guilt) is merely motivated by latent racism is a lot more than lazy and uninformed - it's also pretty disgusting. We should expect no better from certain commentators though, I'm afraid.

I think the allegation of racism is another facet of the way the Italians and the guilters who mimic godhead mignini, seem to project their own fears about themselves onto Amanda Knox, who could not be further in reality from their sick fantasies.

It's the police who abused Patrick, and then slotted in Rudy Guede, one black man for another, without questioning their original idiotic theories.

It's the judges and Mignini who couldn't imagine the idea of showering "two days in a row!", but they accuse Amanda of being unhygienic.

It's Mignini who is obsessed with satanic sects and orgies, but he spins his crazy theories in every direction, and attacks anyone who disputes him.

It's Mignini who is the narcissist, the sadist, the psychotic who lives in two worlds not knowing which is real and which is invented.

It is the Italains who behaved barbarically against Ms Knox, and incompetently allowed Rudy Guede to remain free to kill Ms Kercher.

Ms Kercher's death, and the tragedy of wrongful imprisonment for four years, are the fault, 100% of the Mignini and that amateur theater they call a system of justice.

But they had judge Hellman, so they're not all bad. BUt the whole judiciary and that court of cassation that reversed Hellman, needs to be fumigated, to clean out the fascist holdovers, and throw all that corrupt scum in prison where they belong.