Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Prosecutors never just want to admit "I was wrong."

That prosecutor did admit error, at a point he was painted into a corner, and clearly he did eat humble pie. But this did not show the strength of a justice system, it showed the indefatigable power of science. Science has "exonerated" Knox, the judicial process lags.

 

[tsig]

tsig,

Let's listen to the recordings, and...wait, never mind.
EDT
BARBIE LATZA NADEAU:
"I think it depends how you define “abused.” If you mean to ask if she was flicked on the back of the head (which is a cultural norm here in schools and in criminal investigations), then yes, that very likely happened. If you mean to ask if she was abused in the way the American police have been caught on CCTV abusing detainees, then no, I do not think she was abused." Ms. Nadeau is no friend of Amanda's or Raffaele's, and her language is an attempt to minimize the actions of ILE. And yet she still basically accepts Amanda's account.

"It very likely happened"

I'd like something a little more substantial than speculation.

 

[Planigale]

It is theoretically possible, but it is not realistic, if you consider the principles of ECHR. The ECHR acknowledgest that the right to counsel can suffer delays or limitation for cautionary reasons that depend on the need to pretect the effectivness of investigation, since the effectiveness of investigation is a public interest which has a need to be protected as well as human rights, and human rights are supposed to pay a price (be "partly sacrified") when they come into conflict with other rights.
It is not easy to establish a point of balance between conflicting rights. For example, it won't be easy to tell how long a delay to access counsel would be "reasonable" (48 hours is not 5 days - and Italian law allows up to 5 days). So not all "delays" are the same. But it is certalily easy to tell that the answer won't be completely slanted on one side, it's not going to be the absolute extension of the rights of an individual in detriment to the collective interest. If that was the case, even cautionary custody wouldn't exist; cautionary custody is a law by which a legally innocent person is kept in jail for cautionary reasons. The liberties of individuals are restricted for reasons of public interest.



It's not because it facilitated the prosecution, it's because there was a cautionary need to safeguard the investigation from a risk of being polluted.
Your reasoning about the five days is baseless: Mignini delayed the right to counsel until the investigating judge hearing, so that the defendants would have a chance to be examined by the investigating judge before their testimonies may get "polluted" by each other.
We are talking about three defendants who were arrested at the same time while they were in the process of accusing each other about an extremely serious crime, with Knox even attempting to communicate threatning messages ("blood on hands"): this was obviously the specific and exceptional circumstance.

I have not heard this before, can anyone expand on these threatening messages made by Knox, to whom? When? What was said and in what language?

To be strictly correct whilst you say

"We are talking about three defendants who were arrested at the same time while they were in the process of accusing each other about an extremely serious crime,"

but
1) Knox never accused Sollecito of any crime.
2) Sollecito never accused Knox of any crime.
3) Sollecito never accused Lumumba of any crime.
4) Lumuba never accused Sollecito of any crime.
5) Lumumba never accused Knox of any crime.

So you exaggerate in saying they were accusing each other. The sole 'accusatory' statement was Knox saying that Lumumba may have killed MK, but she was doubtful about the accuracy of this.

Were they genuinely arrested at the same time? Were Knox and Sollecito detained without being arrested until Lumumba was arrested?

Since only one made an accusation about one other, they could not all three have been arrested whilst in the process of mutual accusation.

When it comes before the ECHR the court will expect the defendant (Italy) to stick to the truth, changing the story, any conflict or uncertainty even so long after the event could be interrupted as guilt. Certainly exaggerations such as you have just made to justify detention without access to counsel, so that are brought before a court without having had a chance for their counsel to explain what is happening, advise or prepare a defence will be looked on poorly.

You have literally just said the reason for detention without access to counsel, is so that the defendants would go to court with no prepared counsel or defence, resulting in their prolonged detention prior to trial. That in Italy compelling reason for refusal to permit counsel is to deprive the defendant of the opportunity to prepare a defence prior to court appearance.

I do not understand how the possible discussion between defence lawyers (particularly as at that point Sollecito was viewed as not having been a participant in the murder), something that is neither unethical nor illegal, interferes with the process of the police investigation. Interfering with the police investigation is a positive action such as destroying evidence or bribing witnesses, it is not a lawyer advising their client of their right to silence. It is not preventing the lawyer taking instructions from their client.

 

[Antony]

I do not understand how the possible discussion between defence lawyers (particularly as at that point Sollecito was viewed as not having been a participant in the murder), something that is neither unethical nor illegal, interferes with the process of the police investigation.

It does when the police "investigation" depends upon fixing the outcome of the trial without the defendants having recourse. Machiavelli's point is almost an explicit demonstration of the corrupt nature of Italian law (if, as he claims, police actions were lawful) and of this case in particular.

Interfering with the police investigation is a positive action such as destroying evidence or bribing witnesses, ...

Of course who was it who destroyed evidence in this case and obtained "witnesses" in dubious circumstances to support their case - at least one of which (Quintavalle) contradicted his original statements? Oh yes, it was the police and the prosecution.

 

[platonov]

Still not understanding the language are you Catnov/platnip
Try a little harder - it's not that difficult to understand. For Mr Sollecito really to have disavowed Ms Knox, he would have needed to have been making clear, non compelled statements without the application of police pressure and attempts to confuse him at a time when he was not tired and questioned unfairly.

Furthermore, for the disavowal to have any substance at all, Mr Sollecito would have been required not to have claimed shortly afterwards and from then on that he spent the entire night of the murder with Ms Knox at his flat - in other words, the police interrogation caused him to say what he otherwise would not.

Additionally, it might have helped your cause if at least one of the trial judges had not entered into the court record that Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox's account of their whereabouts on the night of the murder was the same - that they were together and not actually murdering anyone.

Do you get it now?

And do you get why it would have helped Mr Sollecito's position actually and really to disavow Ms Knox? Do you understand why he didn't do this?

Hey, what happened to It’s irrelevant

ps You do seem to be channelling LJ with this stuff.
He and Mary H used to accuse me of being a different poster on another board.

Is this fixation with PMF ? helpful or healthy?

 

[platonov]

No I’m not assuming anything. A poster here Charlie Wilkes claims Knox’s family gave him the case file.

What is your position? That Knox’s family gave certain of Amanda’s fans images of the naked corpse of the woman she murdered for further distribution but withheld or forbid publication of RS’s Nov 5th statement.

Is that it ? It might make some sense given the nature of the campaign and support base.

I'm sorry, but your comments make so little sense to me, compared to my understanding of the actual facts, that I see little sense in further discussion with you on this. A "yes it happened"/"no it didn't" discussion combined with your penchant for attributing individual comments of each poster on the pro-innocence side, as if we all are one person, makes discussion pointless.

I think you trying to make a connection between some people having seen the crime scene photos and the non-existance of any public copy of RS's statement to police is nonsensical, and most people will see it as such.

Have a nice day.

No what’s nonsensical is your denial of basic facts of the case – namely that on Nov5/6th RS withdrew her alibi and blamed AK for his earlier falsehood.
This was thrashed out on these boards years ago.

What’s apparently upsetting, and not just to you it seems, is my treatment of your ‘killer’ interesting point that ‘we’ haven’t seen the statement. Namely that Knox’s family (and hangers on) have released images of the naked body of the woman she murdered but withheld this statement.

Give her fans want they want and don’t confuse them with facts eh?

I guess we are done exploring.

 

[MichaelB]

No what’s nonsensical is your denial of basic facts of the case – namely that on Nov5/6th RS withdrew her alibi and blamed AK for his earlier falsehood.
This was thrashed out on these boards years ago.

What’s apparently upsetting, and not just to you it seems, is my treatment of your ‘killer’ interesting point that ‘we’ haven’t seen the statement. Namely that Knox’s family (and hangers on) have released images of the naked body of the woman she murdered but withheld this statement.

Give her fans want they want and don’t confuse them with facts eh?

I guess we are done exploring.

You seem absolutely obsessed about the photos. Where have the photos of the naked body been released?

 

[platonov]

Fair cop, guv

You seem absolutely obsessed about the photos. Where have the photos of the naked body been released?

Yea, you got me.
I’m part of a seedy group of middle aged males, fans of a sex killer, who obsess over photos of the naked corpse of the woman she killed.
All the while, oblivious to or in denial of the statement of her ‘boyfriend’ where he threw her under the bus.

 

[MichaelB]

Yea, you got me.
I’m part of a seedy group of middle aged males, fans of a sex killer, who obsess over photos of the naked corpse of the woman she killed.
All the while, oblivious to or in denial of the statement of her ‘boyfriend’ where he threw her under the bus.

You wrote:

Namely that Knox’s family (and hangers on) have released images of the naked body

Where have the photos been released?

 

[carbonjam72]

"It very likely happened"

I'd like something a little more substantial than speculation.

Why don't you credit Amanda's first hand account as truthful, when she has zero history of violence, lying, deception or aberrant behavior?

Whereas Italian police abuses are so well known and so widespread, and so thoroughly documented in this case.

You seem to have some sort of irrational bias against Knox. Only you know why.

Cue the snarky rejoinder, and please don't trouble yourself to reason out what you do think Amanda and Raf were doing that night, ie in Raf's apartment all night - because that would require you to actually think, and we know how exhausting that can be, don't we?

 

[carbonjam72]

I know where the burden of proof is.

It seems like a conversation at cross purposes.

In Italy, there may be a burden of proof in the context of calunnia, IIUC, on the defendants.

Yet in the echr, the burden of proof is in the context of human rights violations, IIUC, on the state - in this case Italy.

So really, different violations at issue (calunnia or human rights), different defendants (knox or Italy), different burdens of proof borne by which party, different court venue and procedures.

So clarity as to which we're specifically referring to would be helpful.

For the record, I don't think what the police did to Amanda is legal in Italy either, nor in the echr, as I believe the ECHR will find when it hears the case.

 

[platonov]

Join the dots ....

Where have the photos been released?

You seem absolutely obsessed about the photos and are completely ignoring the other side of the argument – the withholding of the statement (among other stuff)

They have been discussed on this thread in the last few months. Have a look if you are that interested.

 

[tsig]

Why don't you credit Amanda's first hand account as truthful, when she has zero history of violence, lying, deception or aberrant behavior?

Whereas Italian police abuses are so well known and so widespread, and so thoroughly documented in this case.

You seem to have some sort of irrational bias against Knox. Only you know why.
Cue the snarky rejoinder, and please don't trouble yourself to reason out what you do think Amanda and Raf were doing that night, ie in Raf's apartment all night - because that would require you to actually think, and we know how exhausting that can be, don't we?

I have a bias for the facts.

Why do you think I have to have a bias against Knox? It seems irrational to suppose I have some sort of bias against someone I have never met. Can't you conceive that someone could come to a different conclusion without hating Knox?

Once again we see a personal attack instead of addressing the post.

All I asked for was proof of the slapping instead I got the slapping.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I have a bias for the facts.

Why do you think I have to have a bias against Knox? It seems irrational to suppose I have some sort of bias against someone I have never met. Can't you conceive that someone could come to a different conclusion without hating Knox?

Once again we see a personal attack instead of addressing the post.

All I asked for was proof of the slapping instead I got the slapping.

-

There's no real evidence that Amanda is telling the truth, but since they didn't record the interrogation, there's no proof the cops are either. I guess then, it depends on your bias which side you believe. For me, I'd sure like to know what De Felice meant when he said, "she [Amanda] buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct"?

What exactly caused her to buckle:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/24505/I-heard-Meredith-scream-says-girl-in-student-sex-murder

“Lots of people came and went through her house and she was unfortunately at the crossroads when this group came together.” De Felice also confirmed the contents of the statements that had been published in Italian newspapers but refused to add any further detail.

He said that the three had continually changed their stories and that things “just didn’t add up.” He explained:”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in.
d

-
ETA: I've been interrogated by the cops before, so I can see the slap as possible, but it's a minor point really, because what concerns me the most is the part, "made an admission of facts that we knew to be correct". It sure looks to me like they coerced her (made her buckle) into admitting something ("facts") that "we knew were correct", because they obviously believed (at least to me anyway) that it was a fact that PL murdered Meredith, but that's just me.

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stallings and poor chromatographic technique

The Stallings case seems to have confirmation bias and a failure to use validated forensic methods. Based on your write-up, it appears no positive controls or ethylene glycol-spiked samples were run by the toxicology lab, and there was over-confidence in the misleading GC results. Their erroneous identification led to or supported the bias, which affected the other labs. The missing baby bottle is rather suggestive of some attempt to avoid the embarrassment of re-testing. Like the destruction of the DNA allegedly on the bra-clasp by improper storage in the present case.

Numbers,

One lab in effect hand-waived away the difference in retention times between the unknown and the standard of ethylene glycol, and the other lab did not even bother to run a standard. it is interesting that Dr. Shoemaker later sent normal plasma spiked with propionic acid to three laboratories and two of the three reported finding ethylene glycol.

I did not post the gas chromatogram of the spiked sample at my blog, because I was unsure about copyright issues. But when a spiked sample was later run, it was clear that the unknown was a separate peak from ethylene glycol.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A question of credibility

"It very likely happened"

I'd like something a little more substantial than speculation.

tsig,

Without a recording, it starts out as Ms. Knox's word against the police. Ms. Nadeau is broadly PG and clearly has no kind feelings toward Ms. Knox, yet she at the very least accepts Ms. Knox's account as plausible. Ms. Knox lied about the marijuana use in the house. The police lied about so many things that I wouldn't trust myself to name them all in one sitting. The lies, misdirection, and unethical behavior from ILE include the bleach receipts, the Harry Potter book, whether or not Ms. Knox's clothes were found, CCTV coverage, the supposed match between the bloody shoe print and Raffaele's shoes, and the red bathroom photo. I also have to wonder who was responsible for the false rumors about Raffaele. Anyone with a real bias for the truth would have to acknowledge that Dr. Giobbi's testimony that he heard Amanda scream is more consistent with a high pressure interrogation than the tea and crumpets version of the police (BTW, I don't think that Ms. Knox being struck was the worst part of the interrogation, as others have noted).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The prosecutor in the Stallings case

That prosecutor did admit error, at a point he was painted into a corner, and clearly he did eat humble pie. But this did not show the strength of a justice system, it showed the indefatigable power of science. Science has "exonerated" Knox, the judicial process lags.

I agree that to say the system worked is an exaggeration. Yet the prosecutor might have tried to hold onto this conviction, as many prosecutors do, by spinning some sort of yarn. Mr. McElroy was ultimately honest in that he did not do so. Mr. Mignini and Ms. Comodi could learn a thing or two.

 

[Bill Williams]

No what’s nonsensical is your denial of basic facts of the case – namely that on Nov5/6th RS withdrew her alibi and blamed AK for his earlier falsehood.
This was thrashed out on these boards years ago.

What’s apparently upsetting, and not just to you it seems, is my treatment of your ‘killer’ interesting point that ‘we’ haven’t seen the statement. Namely that Knox’s family (and hangers on) have released images of the naked body of the woman she murdered but withheld this statement.

Give her fans want they want and don’t confuse them with facts eh?

I guess we are done exploring.

Not acc. to Sollecito he didn't. Please read "Honor Bound". He said there that the police interrogators would not let him clarify the difference between Wed and Thurs night of the previous week.

It was the police who took this as him "withdrawing his alibi".

What is strange though is that you seem unaware of the guilter's dilemma. The guilter's dilemma is that Knox was supposed to have spontaneously and without warning suddenly blamed Lumumba; without Knox first being a suspect.

Yet, isn't pressuring Sollecito to remember the difference between Wed and Thurs night evidence that the cops right there right then suspected them? Isn't that why they called in Sollecito in the first place, to get him to surrender his Nike's.

The guilter's dilemma has never been addressed by the pro-guilt lobby.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think there may be another case (and relatively recent) with many similarities with the Knox / Sollecito case - David Camm trial.

Ex-Cop, his wife was murdered and two children. There was blood droplets on his t-shirt from his daughter which the claim was high velocity blood splatter. This has been argued recently that this is questionable at best.

First trial, part of the evidence tossed against him was a number of elicit affairs. He was quite a philander, I give them that. On appeal, overturned based on that evidence being prejudicial.

Second trial, there was a sweat shirt found in the initial investigation. Prosecution did not want to submit the DNA to the data base. When it was, it tied into a man who was an armed robber and has some strange sexual fetish with women. Prosecution did not drop case and the prosecutor accused Mr Camm of being a child molester with no evidence. As a result, the trial was also overturned on appeal due to being prejudicial.

Third trial, the prosecutor tried to use the person who the sweat shirt belonged to as a witness. Came across as pretty silly to me where an ex-cop will use a ex-criminal as an accomplice. Appeared to be coached as well to come up with a likely story. Parsimony indicates that it is most likely that the owner of the sweat shirt did it alone. Final trial did acquit Mr Camm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Camm

 

[Numbers]

Numbers,

One lab in effect hand-waived away the difference in retention times between the unknown and the standard of ethylene glycol, and the other lab did not even bother to run a standard. it is interesting that Dr. Shoemaker later sent normal plasma spiked with propionic acid to three laboratories and two of the three reported finding ethylene glycol.

I did not post the gas chromatogram of the spiked sample at my blog, because I was unsure about copyright issues. But when a spiked sample was later run, it was clear that the unknown was a separate peak from ethylene glycol.

Not to divert the thread to excess, but I may have misinterpreted some of your Wilmington write-up on the GC first run in the Stallings case.

From what you write in the quoted post, there was an ethylene glycol standard run at about the same time as the unknown, and there was a 30 s retention time difference. Did the lab maintain a record of ethylene glycol retention times to give them a statistical measure of how likely the 30s difference was due to chance? Is that how they decided there was no difference in the compositions of the unknown and the standard? Or did they "hand wave" = BS?

I ask this in part because, with help from a professional statistician, I once evaluated some not-really-validated QC tests with significant run-to-run variation (repeat tests on the same sample gave somewhat different results) that often was (probably) mistaken for a difference in quality.

A technique to use if there is undesirably high run-to-run random variation is to conduct a statistically significant number of tests on the same sample and rely on the mean as the QC indicator. But that is expensive in terms of time.