Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

First, a comment on conspiracy theory. The better term would be "team effort" in which there are a number of good team players (Matteini, Massei, Chieffi, and Nencini, for example) and some who are not (Hellmann, for example). The team players don't need to sit around a table and plan a conspiracy; there is a case file they rely on, they know the problems such as the false statements, and they make rulings to minimize to zero any accountability of the authorities.

Second, regarding the internet and tabloid crowd, there are different motives and characteristics among these people.

The family of the victim may be under the influence of the initial briefings they received from the prosecution, and can't believe that this information was untrue. This is not uncommon in cases of wrongful accusation. Furthermore, one may suspect a kind of resentment, based on the apparent randomness of this crime. That is, Rudy Guede would most likely have attacked - raped and murdered - the first woman to return to the cottage while he was there. It happened to be Meredith Kercher, while Amanda Knox was staying with Raffaele Sollecito. Otherwise these two young women were rather similar, typical college students. So Amanda is a survivor in a sense, and to some, that may generate a kind of resentment.
Then there may be those close in spirit or practice to the police and prosecution who feel the need to defend those individuals and institutions fervently. We see that here in at least one poster.
Another group are the authoritarians and haters. A witch has been identified, and they feel a need to participate in a witch hunt and burning. Their online behavior fulfills some need to practice a kind of verbal sadism as expressed in "trollism". Some of this verbal sadism is expressed by those who proclaim on dubious grounds that Rudy Guede was not the murderer/rapist, even though his DNA was detected in Ms. Kercher's vagina and on her clothes and purse, while his footprints in her blood were found in the cottage. And these authoritarians and haters may enjoy banding together with their peers. Some of these individuals may appear simply nuts to the "rational" people.

And the tabloids will write whatever is likely to increase circulation and thus increase revenue, within the limit of getting caught in terms of defamation lawsuits.

Numbers, you are on an incredible roll here with these posts. I think you're just hitting the nail on the head with each one.

Can I guess if that one poster's handle starts with the letter, "M"?

And the comment about resentment over Amanda surviving, that to me is what the Kerchers experience and actions are really all about. They blame Amanda because it wasn't her instead of their daughter.

AND, the ten million euros in unjustified fraudulent ransom masquerading as civil claims that Maresca has finagled, doesn't hurt the cause of wrongful conviction the Kerchers have so unmercifully pursued. Utterly reprehensible. Condolences for their loss, but their behavior has been and continues to be appalling.

 

[Kauffer]

You don't think the arrest of the wrong guy and obvious signs of a coercive interrogation should have tipped them off? There's also the fact that Amanda Knox doesn't have the right plumbing to even have committed the crime, and the obvious ridiculous theory of the crime. As for maresca, he is their agent and acting on their behalf. He has done as much as anybody to thwart full disclosure in this case, and they are responsible for that, notwithstanding their letter to the court falsely claiming to be interested in the truth.

From my perspective, what the Kerchers have done to Knox and Sollecito is the moral equivalent of what guilters think that Knox did to lumumba, except Knox was coerced and the Kerchers are using their bully pulpit of being the victim's family to achieve their wrongful aims

Diocletus is tough, but fair. The Kerchers have behaved disingenuously and rather foolishly if (and I take them at their word), they really wanted the truth. They have been badly advised. The tragedy of it is that there will have been (and still are) world class experts who could have explained the scientific evidence to them personally and that the lack of disclosure is damning.

They should have used their position at trial to make a real nuisance of themselves in the search for truth - rather than the concoction of "judicial truth".

I find myself in self-reprimanding territory too, because I cannot get away from the belief that the incentive of substantial money damages has played a part in the development of their conduct and as a distraction.

I say all this as a Brit, who feels their loss as a tribal member, so to speak.

 

[Bill Williams]

Diocletus is tough, but fair. The Kerchers have behaved disingenuously and rather foolishly if (and I take them at their word), they really wanted the truth. They have been badly advised. The tragedy of it is that there will have been (and still are) world class experts who could have explained the scientific evidence to them personally and that the lack of disclosure is damning.

They should have used their position at trial to make a real nuisance of themselves in the search for truth - rather than the concoction of "judicial truth".

I find myself in self-reprimanding territory too, because I cannot get away from the belief that the incentive of substantial money damages has played a part in the development of their conduct and as a distraction.

I say all this as a Brit, who feels their loss as a tribal member, so to speak.

I lived in Britain for a length of time, and was constantly amazed at the tribal sensibilities of the place.

For me, Steve Moore nailed it in his piece on what wrongful convictions do to the original victims of the crime.

 

[Diocletus]

The issue at Amanda's interrogation was the spontaneity of the declarations, not their coerced nature.

Thus: the guilter dilemma, which no one who adheres to the pro-guilt lobby ever addresses.

Bill--you've been had by Machiavelli. Spontaneity is irrelevant. It's just an Italian weasel word that they employ to suggest that someone waived their right to counsel/right to remain silent. Whether this was done spontaneously is not really relevant. The test requires a knowing and intentional waiver, which usually means a waiver under advice of counsel.

The application of the concept of spontaneity is illegal as applied by the Italian courts in this case.

 

[Numbers]

My own encounters with lawyers left me with the distinct feeling of how helpless a client is, really, in the face of their knowledge and expertise. The highlighted part above is perhaps the only thing I'll grant you, it is completely inexcusable how Maresca has done exactly as you say....

..... but for every time a lawyer says that they are there only to take direction from you, they are also the ones who set out the "lay of the land." ("Oh, don't worry about that, it's just a formality.")

On another matter - and this is a repeat: the issue with the interrogation was not necessarily its coercive nature - for pete's sake, what ISN'T coercive about a flippin' interrogation? The whole point of an interrogation is to get someone to say what they don't want to say; and in many jurisdictions it is not illegal for the interrogators to lie and threaten to achieve the goal - confession.

​

One has to laugh at the description of "lying, trickery" as being non-coercive.

Besides, the issue is NOT the coercive nature of how a confession is obtained; because all that means (typically) is that, then, the confession cannot be used to achieve a conviction. In the meantime, though, it allows the cops to assemble all sorts of other evidence which follows, which is not "an apple from the poisoned tree".

The issue at Amanda's interrogation was the spontaneity of the declarations, not their coerced nature.

Thus: the guilter dilemma, which no one who adheres to the pro-guilt lobby ever addresses.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Whose issue?

Italian law considers a false statement presented to a judicial authority as a result of threat or violence an illegal act: CP 377-bis.

Italian law requires that a suspect under interrogation have a lawyer (IIUC - don't know the CPP). Amanda and Raffaele were both suspects. For example, in Honor Bound, Raffaele states he was ordered to empty his pockets during the interrogation. Would a witness be ordered to empty his pockets, or a suspect?

And if you look at ECHR case-law, suspects (and pretend witnesses) must be provided lawyers from the first interrogation, unless there are compelling reasons not to provide a lawyer (example of compelling reason: safety interview of a presumed terrorist about location of explosives).

Italian human rights law, according to the Convention, is the stronger (more protective of human rights) of its domestic law or the ECHR case-law. (Convention Art. 17, Art. 53)

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill--you've been had by Machiavelli. Spontaneity is irrelevant. It's just an Italian weasel word that they employ to suggest that someone waived their right to counsel/right to remain silent. Whether this was done spontaneously is not really relevant. The test requires a knowing and intentional waiver, which usually means a waiver under advice of counsel.

The application of the concept of spontaneity is illegal as applied by the Italian courts in this case.

Whether I have been had or not, the issue is that coercion is even less of a reason.....

Because the issue at the end of the day is the admissibility of what happens.

Knox (and Sollecito) have had the supposed spontaneous nature of Knox's "declarations" about Lumumba used against them at trial.

 

[Numbers]

Diocletus is tough, but fair. The Kerchers have behaved disingenuously and rather foolishly if (and I take them at their word), they really wanted the truth. They have been badly advised. The tragedy of it is that there will have been (and still are) world class experts who could have explained the scientific evidence to them personally and that the lack of disclosure is damning.

They should have used their position at trial to make a real nuisance of themselves in the search for truth - rather than the concoction of "judicial truth".
I find myself in self-reprimanding territory too, because I cannot get away from the belief that the incentive of substantial money damages has played a part in the development of their conduct and as a distraction.

I say all this as a Brit, who feels their loss as a tribal member, so to speak.

Their statements about "searching for the truth" and their lawyer's actions during the trial are at variance. Their lawyer has supported, for example, not having the purported semen stain on the pillow tested.

In terms of respect for Meredith, he also had displayed on a screen in full view of the press in the courtroom, Meredith's naked dead body (IIUC). Is this how the victim's family's agent shows their respect?

 

[Numbers]

Whether I have been had or not, the issue is that coercion is even less of a reason.....

Because the issue at the end of the day is the admissibility of what happens.

Knox (and Sollecito) have had the supposed spontaneous nature of Knox's "declarations" about Lumumba used against them at trial.

And results of Rudy Guede's fast-track trial, where he could not be cross-examined by them, used against them.

Please see:
ECHR Judgments Relevant to the Amanda Knox / Raffaele Sollecito Case

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/e...t-to-the-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-case/

I hope my write-up was thorough enough. It was about 9 3/4 pages of computer equivalent 8x11 sheets long. I feel I may have missed half the abuses of rights. I am still planning to post more on the Article 3 violations relating to the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

The issue at Amanda's interrogation was the spontaneity of the declarations, not their coerced nature.
Thus: the guilter dilemma, which no one who adheres to the pro-guilt lobby ever addresses.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Whose issue?

Italian law considers a false statement presented to a judicial authority as a result of threat or violence an illegal act: CP 377-bis.

Italian law requires that a suspect under interrogation have a lawyer (IIUC - don't know the CPP). Amanda and Raffaele were both suspects. For example, in Honor Bound, Raffaele states he was ordered to empty his pockets during the interrogation. Would a witness be ordered to empty his pockets, or a suspect?

And if you look at ECHR case-law, suspects (and pretend witnesses) must be provided lawyers from the first interrogation, unless there are compelling reasons not to provide a lawyer (example of compelling reason: safety interview of a presumed terrorist about location of explosives).

Italian human rights law, according to the Convention, is the stronger (more protective of human rights) of its domestic law or the ECHR case-law. (Convention Art. 17, Art. 53)

"Italian law considers a false statement presented to a judicial authority as a result of threat or violence an illegal act:"​

And yet, everyone concedes that most Italian interrogations, "start physical." Imagine how suddenly Lumumba, for instance, got cooperative when Mignini approached him with a potential calunnia charge for accusing the cops of a crime - all for what the Daily Mail had reported Lumumba had said about his arrest? (And remember, Mignini controls the charge process!!!!!)

There's judicial truth, and then there're things every Italian and their brothers know about up-country police. If you end up in an interrogation room with them, you're going to get a smack on the head - at the very least.

This is all funneled through the PM anyway. Instead of Commodi actually investigating Knox's claim she'd been hit on the head, she became very receptive to the idea of 12 people joining in to sue Knox!!!!! Italy has way, way too many uneven playing fields.

(As an aside, one of the uneven playing fields is found in the way Judge Massei assesses evidence in his motivations report. Despite 8 of nine experts saying that a single attacker was a distinct possibility, Massei simply defaults to what was found as a "judicial truth" at the end of the Guede-process. Why? Because a judge would not really want to be seen to judge against the police, or even acknowledge that they'd got ANYTHING wrong. After-all, they're on the same side are they not?)

So: whose issue?

Mignini's.

Since he was the one who was going to end up prosecuting Ficarra's/Napoleoni's mess, he needed to fix the 1:45 am memorandum - in both senses of the word.

And for admissibility issues at trial, spontaneity played big. It's why to Drew Griffin in the CNN interview, Mignini goes through the rhetorical contortions he does - about acting as if only a notary, about sensing Knox's need to continue even though he did not directly ask her.....

..... it's all to preserve the spontaneity of the alleged declarations.

Did it work? Well, with Judge Nencini - partly. Six-plus years after the interrogation, the "spontaneity" of the 1:45 to 5:45 remarks is still in play.

Not even as evidence of calunnia, but as evidence of murder.

This is one of those "the line is drawn here," (best Captain Picard voice) issues. The spontaneity of Amanda's declarations is something that Mignini-ites will defend like the plague...

..... as they will defend the integrity (or lack of same) of Mignini's initial speculations about motive, two very controversial ones he planned to use at trial. Machiavelli will argue against ritualistic killing as a motive advanced by Mignini until the cows come home, for obvious reasons.

"The line is drawn here!"

ETA- the claimed spontaneity of Amanda's declarations is one of the pivot points of the guilters' dilemma.

 

[Kauffer]

I lived in Britain for a length of time, and was constantly amazed at the tribal sensibilities of the place.

For me, Steve Moore nailed it in his piece on what wrongful convictions do to the original victims of the crime.

Tribal sensibilities are strong everywhere. It's a huge issue in guaranteeing fairness at trial. There are cases after cases where the choice of venue was itself a factor in the unfairness. Perhaps here too in slightly modified form.

But in this case, certainly, it is the extraordinary ability of the Kerchers by virtue of their position at trial as civil plaintiffs, which has been a part of the axis around which injustice spins.

 

[Desert Fox]

Everyone should read Steve Moore's piece on what it is to be a victim of a crime.

From the Kercher's point of view, there was absolutely no reason to believe that the PLE had done anything wrong, until perhaps Oct 2011. They can be forgiven for truly believing that the police and courts had done everything right, right through the Massei trial which (through its verdict) vindicated the Mignini prosecution.

I have never understood the need to use even slangy terms to describe this family. Yes, someone is going to go on about Maresca..... which is a little beside the point, except to say that until the publication of the Massei motivations report.... why would they even know there was a hint that Maresca could be using them?

Even then - we have plenty of examples here of how someone like Machiavelli can take plain-text meanings of things and say, "Well, in the original Italian it suggests something more nuanced."
I've never understood the need to drag them into these debates.

It should be the job of a legal system to write something in clear language and have clear meanings.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm sorry, but the nicest things I can say about your comment is that it is extremely blinkered and that it suggests that a double standard is in play. Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito have been attacked in the most extreme ways for years. "Amanda Knox is a reptilian shapeshifter" can be seen on YouTube, and that is just one of many examples. I don't recall hearing even one PG commenter say that such things were out of line.

The Kercher family chose to participate in the legal actions against Knox and Sollecito early on, and their lawyer has said some very obnoxious things over the years. They don't seem to be open to new information (they said that they would appeal Hellman's verdict before his report was public). John Kercher repeated falsehoods and quarter-truths that Harry Rag and others have been spreading for years. I have skimmed Mr. Kercher's book, and Meredith sounds like a fine young woman that any parent would be proud of. I am sorry for their loss, but I cannot say that any of the things noted above are good decisions. The family willingly entered the public debate, and they cannot expect to avoid being criticized for their public words and actions, as long as the criticism remains civil. MOO.

i don't know if it is wise to take that video as serious of if just done as a Poe.

 

[Desert Fox]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Whose issue?

Italian law considers a false statement presented to a judicial authority as a result of threat or violence an illegal act: CP 377-bis.

Italian law requires that a suspect under interrogation have a lawyer (IIUC - don't know the CPP). Amanda and Raffaele were both suspects. For example, in Honor Bound, Raffaele states he was ordered to empty his pockets during the interrogation. Would a witness be ordered to empty his pockets, or a suspect?

And if you look at ECHR case-law, suspects (and pretend witnesses) must be provided lawyers from the first interrogation, unless there are compelling reasons not to provide a lawyer (example of compelling reason: safety interview of a presumed terrorist about location of explosives).
Italian human rights law, according to the Convention, is the stronger (more protective of human rights) of its domestic law or the ECHR case-law. (Convention Art. 17, Art. 53)

Don't you know there was a secret plot by Amanda which coordinated hundreds of black guys to murder female British students all over Italy. They had to stop Amanda's plot.

 

[Numbers]

"Italian law considers a false statement presented to a judicial authority as a result of threat or violence an illegal act:"​

And yet, everyone concedes that most Italian interrogations, "start physical." Imagine how suddenly Lumumba, for instance, got cooperative when Mignini approached him with a potential calunnia charge for accusing the cops of a crime - all for what the Daily Mail had reported Lumumba had said about his arrest? (And remember, Mignini controls the charge process!!!!!)

There's judicial truth, and then there're things every Italian and their brothers know about up-country police. If you end up in an interrogation room with them, you're going to get a smack on the head - at the very least.

This is all funneled through the PM anyway. Instead of Commodi actually investigating Knox's claim she'd been hit on the head, she became very receptive to the idea of 12 people joining in to sue Knox!!!!! Italy has way, way too many uneven playing fields.

(As an aside, one of the uneven playing fields is found in the way Judge Massei assesses evidence in his motivations report. Despite 8 of nine experts saying that a single attacker was a distinct possibility, Massei simply defaults to what was found as a "judicial truth" at the end of the Guede-process. Why? Because a judge would not really want to be seen to judge against the police, or even acknowledge that they'd got ANYTHING wrong. After-all, they're on the same side are they not?)

So: whose issue?

Mignini's.

Since he was the one who was going to end up prosecuting Ficarra's/Napoleoni's mess, he needed to fix the 1:45 am memorandum - in both senses of the word.

And for admissibility issues at trial, spontaneity played big. It's why to Drew Griffin in the CNN interview, Mignini goes through the rhetorical contortions he does - about acting as if only a notary, about sensing Knox's need to continue even though he did not directly ask her.....

..... it's all to preserve the spontaneity of the alleged declarations.

Did it work? Well, with Judge Nencini - partly. Six-plus years after the interrogation, the "spontaneity" of the 1:45 to 5:45 remarks is still in play.

Not even as evidence of calunnia, but as evidence of murder.

This is one of those "the line is drawn here," (best Captain Picard voice) issues. The spontaneity of Amanda's declarations is something that Mignini-ites will defend like the plague...

..... as they will defend the integrity (or lack of same) of Mignini's initial speculations about motive, two very controversial ones he planned to use at trial. Machiavelli will argue against ritualistic killing as a motive advanced by Mignini until the cows come home, for obvious reasons.

"The line is drawn here!"

ETA- the claimed spontaneity of Amanda's declarations is one of the pivot points of the guilters' dilemma.

I have no idea how this case will play out in the CSC this March. My "prediction" slightly favors CSC going to a third 2nd-level trial, because that allows the judges to not make any final decision that may come back too soon to haunt them with the ECHR consequences (which may not amount to much to them, anyway, if the Italian parliament is reluctant to make the judicial system more democratic).

For the eventual ECHR judgment in Amanda Knox's calunnia conviction, there is no doubt in my mind that Italy will be found in violation, based on the case-law. Similarly, Italy would be found in violation for the overall murder/rape case, if that comes before the ECHR.

The issues that the guilters keep on, such as "spontaneity" or whatever, just are not relevant at the ECHR level. The guilters seem not to have any depth of understanding of the ECHR and the Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe process.

 

[platonov]

You and LJ are the gold standard of reasonableness as far as I'm concerned. Not the only ones by any means but I don't want to embarrass too many here.

I agree. And Numbers and Kauffer are catching up. The loons at the hate sites have no equivalent to the Fab Four.

Bill, it seems we are in agreement! Something terrible must be about to happen.

However w.r.t both LJ and Kauffer discovering that RS’s Nov 5/6th betrayal of Amanda was IRRELEVANT catching up is hardly applicable.
It seem Kauffer is 3 or 4 years behind ‘the curve’ (no pun intended) in this matter.
I will accept Numbers knowledge of the case is certainly on a par with Kaosiums.

But you are forgetting someone. Supernaut

While you have all identified the vast scope of the conspiracy, only he was brave enough to name those responsible.
To be fair in an Amanda centered universe such paranoia probably makes sense.

 

[Samson]

You don't think the arrest of the wrong guy and obvious signs of a coercive interrogation should have tipped them off? There's also the fact that Amanda Knox doesn't have the right plumbing to even have committed the crime, and the obvious ridiculous theory of the crime. As for maresca, he is their agent and acting on their behalf. He has done as much as anybody to thwart full disclosure in this case, and they are responsible for that, notwithstanding their letter to the court falsely claiming to be interested in the truth.

From my perspective, what the Kerchers have done to Knox and Sollecito is the moral equivalent of what guilters think that Knox did to lumumba, except Knox was coerced and the Kerchers are using their bully pulpit of being the victim's family to achieve their wrongful aims

If the Kercher family had accepted Hellmann and paid and sacked Maresca, would this case be live now? This is a question that some one may be able to answer, Machiavelli maybe.
It seems to me that if the Italian state would have backed off then, they are now doing to the Knox and Sollecito families what Guede did to their family.

 

[Desert Fox]

If the Kercher family had accepted Hellmann and paid and sacked Maresca, would this case be live now? This is a question that some one may be able to answer, Machiavelli maybe.
It seems to me that if the Italian state would have backed off then, they are now doing to the Knox and Sollecito families what Guede did to their family.

The family of murder victims almost never look at cases rationally. The best one can do really is just minimize their legal damage.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, it seems we are in agreement! Something terrible must be about to happen.

However w.r.t both LJ and Kauffer discovering that RS’s Nov 5/6th betrayal of Amanda was IRRELEVANT catching up is hardly applicable.
It seem Kauffer is 3 or 4 years behind ‘the curve’ (no pun intended) in this matter.
I will accept Numbers knowledge of the case is certainly on a par with Kaosiums.

But you are forgetting someone. Supernaut

While you have all identified the vast scope of the conspiracy, only he was brave enough to name those responsible.
To be fair in an Amanda centered universe such paranoia probably makes sense.

It's hard to respond to strawman arguments other than to point it out.

 

[Numbers]

If the Kercher family had accepted Hellmann and paid and sacked Maresca, would this case be live now? This is a question that some one may be able to answer, Machiavelli maybe.
It seems to me that if the Italian state would have backed off then, they are now doing to the Knox and Sollecito families what Guede did to their family.

Maybe not. What's the statute of limitations on use of threats or violence to obtain a false statement to present to a judicial authority (CP 377-bis)?

The Italian judiciary may want to be sure that that time limit is passed before there is an acquittal or the case somehow is disappeared.

 

[Samson]

The family of murder victims almost never look at cases rationally. The best one can do really is just minimize their legal damage.

Here is a new article which may help with the broader creation evolution discussion, though it is not willdly scientific.

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-explores-universe-morality.html

Relevance to this thread:

In particular, they will likely agree with us that there is something morally special about rational, social creatures.

The guilters generally, and the Kercher family in particular score an epic fail here. It is immoral and irrational to persecute innocent people when a completely rational explanation that exculpates them has been exhaustively delivered.