Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

It's correct, in fact the book is basically a false report. If Sollecito was able to bring witnesses about his claims, and if he didn't have some obvious evidence that belies his false reports (such as the actual transcript of misreported Mignini's words at Quarto Grado interview, or Mignini's words to Bob Graham, etc) he could be on the winning side. He can't, thus he will be convicted for defamation and will have to pay damages.

He obviously has the tapes of the bob graham interview.

The thing is that yes, we know that defendants do lie but we also know that the police often lie and they will often back each other up in these lies. As such, since we have no recording, all we have is the testimony of both sides and we have no idea who is being honest.

Any honest civil court system would simply dismiss the case for lack of evidence but when has that stopped the Italian legal system.

 

[Bill Williams]

Guilter's dilemma - if the cops witnessed Raffaele throwing Knox under a bus......

Why then did the cops still regard her as only a "person informed of the facts" and not a suspect with rights?

No wonder Machiavelli invents a third category of, "someone strongly suspected."

Don't start again dirty tricks attempting to misquote other people's words. Nobody invents categories here.

Sigh.

Your posts have been a road-map of the wrongful conviction.

But note - you,too, avoid the issue. Why is it if the cops were getting Raffaele to "refuse to be Amanda's alibi," or as other pro-guilt lobby posters here say, "Raffaele threw Amanda under a bus," why that doesn't right there, right then make Knox a suspect?

Your use of the phrase, "she was strongly suspected," implied that Knox, even with this alleged withdrawal of Raffaele as an alibi, still was legally denied a lawyer or a translator. (Even you agree that what she got was a mediator and a diplomat!)

 

[Machiavelli]

What I am thinking of is something like this (it's an example only):

• Massei finds she went out the night of the 1st because the cell phone records say so (therefore she was lying when she said she stayed in with Raf)
• She appeals challenging the cell phone triangulation evidence (say)
• Hellman decides he does not need to investigate this issue because a negative finding on the issues he selects renders it otiose.
• Prosecution appeals Hellman on the findings he did make
• Case remanded to Nencini and Nencini reiterates Massei's finding and relies on it as proof of guilt.

This is not the same as the semen stain which was never tested at all (AFAWK). Here, we have a finding which was challenged and the only reason it was not adjudicated was that Hellman decided a series of 'preliminary issues' which were themselves decisive in his view but not that of the CSC.

This is comparable to a civil process in which I sue you for damages for causing me personal injury in a road accident and you raise a bunch of issues one of which is - you were not the driver of the other car. The court decides to try just that issue on a preliminary basis (because if you win there is no need to look at the others). You win (say) and I appeal and the decision is reversed. What should happen now is that we move on to all the other issues you raised. Instead, by analogy with what I think may have happened in Italy, I get judgment for the full claim without those issues being addressed at all.

The issues Massei tried, the two of them appealed but Hellman decided not to look at, have only been tried at first instance when, supposedly, the defendants are entitled to appeal as of right. That right of appeal ought to include a right to challenge all the issues they say were decided incorrectly by having them tested in court. That's what I am saying.

This is a correct observation, with regards to the semen stain.

However, the examination of the semen stain was rejected by Massei too. And was rejected by Nencini as well, on grounds which we may reasonably infer, are the same of Massei's; but we shall assume they must be very different from the reasons of Hellmann.

It's not that Nencini refuses the analysis of the semen stain because he fails to abjudicate the reasons that Hellmann left uncovered. Nencini in fact dismisses the defence's preliminary request to examine the alleged semen stain, because he probably sticks to the same arguments of Massei.

 

[Samson]

I don't see how Maresca could have the power to influence the judiciary.
But, I see that also, it appears you don't realize how abhorrent and revolting the Hellmann-Zanetti sentence is under jurispprudence. How much it utterly offends principles of law, and also of truth and logic as a consequence.

Principles of law must always be less compelling than principles of science.
There is no scientific possibility that Sollecito or Knox were involved in a bloody slaughter at the time it was committed. You manufacture principles of law to rewrite physical laws. It failed with Galileo, and is in the sure process of failing here.
How are you getting on with principles of medical research that guarantee Curatolo and Nara delivered mendacious and irrelevant testimony?

 

[Bill Williams]

A publishing company cannot be sued for criminal defamation, only individuals can. However Mignini's lawsuit was an "open complaint", meaning that included possible unknown editors and staff who contributed to the book content.

LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a correct observation, with regards to the semen stain.

However, the examination of the semen stain was rejected by Massei too. And was rejected by Nencini as well, on grounds which we may reasonably infer, are the same of Massei's; but we shall assume they must be very different from the reasons of Hellmann.

It's not that Nencini refuses the analysis of the semen stain because he fails to abjudicate the reasons that Hellmann left uncovered. Nencini in fact dismisses the defence's preliminary request to examine the alleged semen stain, because he probably sticks to the same arguments of Massei.

Massei's argument was the this sort of biological sample cannot be date-stamped.

Stunningly, Massei contradicts his own reasoning by assuming that Amanda's own biological material could only have been deposited in her own bathroom on the night of the murder.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is a correct observation, with regards to the semen stain.

However, the examination of the semen stain was rejected by Massei too. And was rejected by Nencini as well, on grounds which we may reasonably infer, are the same of Massei's; but we shall assume they must be very different from the reasons of Hellmann.

It's not that Nencini refuses the analysis of the semen stain because he fails to abjudicate the reasons that Hellmann left uncovered. Nencini in fact dismisses the defence's preliminary request to examine the alleged semen stain, because he probably sticks to the same arguments of Massei.

The idea of not testing the semen stain is so baffling that one has trouble believing it. Your response on why basically makes no sense in any civilized legal system.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sigh.

Your posts have been a road-map of the wrongful conviction.

But note - you,too, avoid the issue. Why is it if the cops were getting Raffaele to "refuse to be Amanda's alibi," or as other pro-guilt lobby posters here say, "Raffaele threw Amanda under a bus," why that doesn't right there, right then make Knox a suspect?

Your use of the phrase, "she was strongly suspected," implied that Knox, even with this alleged withdrawal of Raffaele as an alibi, still was legally denied a lawyer or a translator. (Even you agree that what she got was a mediator and a diplomat!)

Look, the name translators is for those working with texts or speeches (one way only, and from a language into another). Thos working with communication between individuals are called interpreters (they work in two directions, their main focus and care is communication and information exchange, not text, and not necessarily languages are separate). It's to different tasks. Maybe often the same people can do both tasks, depening on situation and context, an interpreter can also work as translator in the moment when it's needed, but it's two tasks, two jobs.

Now, the issue of the "moment" is really pointless; in fact I addressed it many many times to show how void it is, and you would always reboot.

Police can't decide whether the person is a suspect or not. They dont have that power. They may stop interrogation on cautionary grounds. But the moment is never precise.
Moreover, they don't have that task.

In fact Sollecito signed his statement only after 3am, when Knox's interrogation had been already stopped since more than an hour. It's impossible to tell "the minute" because collecting and reading statements, print them and bring them to other offices to discuss with other detective teams, is not a matter of a minute.

 

[Machiavelli]

Massei's argument was the this sort of biological sample cannot be date-stamped.

Stunningly, Massei contradicts his own reasoning by assuming that Amanda's own biological material could only have been deposited in her own bathroom on the night of the murder.

No, Massei's argument was that it was not an "absolutely necessary" piece of evidence. It was not necessary to know about the putative semen stain, that is that it would be irrelevant at this stage, because there is already enough evidence against Sollecito (not absolutely necessary to the evidence set).
And in the event that it was someone else's DNA, that would be an action aimed at "investigating" rather than deciding.

 

[Machiavelli]

The UK also has very strong libel/slander laws, I think the UK standard is you have to be able to prove that what you say is actually true. Whereas in the US, a simple "I'm stupid and didn't know" is actually a defense (although I think the standard is different for libeling/slandering "public" as opposed to "private" citizens.

But the courts in the UK are also outrageously expensive, and the custom is that the "loser pays" the cost of the case. SO a wealthy person can afford to sue, and lose, while scaring the daylights out of a non-wealthy person. Or alternatively, trounce a non-wealthy person in court because they can only afford a crappo lawyer, in which case the wealthy person can be both abusive before hand, and ruinous after the fact, at least against the wee folk who dare to speak the truth and lack the resources to defend themselves.

I think in the UK, its a residual 'class thing', and in Italy it's a residual 'fascism thing'.

But what's fascinating is that Italy and The UK seem to have the strongest libel/slander laws. and yet they also have the most irresponsible and reckless tabloids that have so deformed their society using mass produced ridicule as a weapon of mass social destruction.

SO the fact that Italian courts are horrendous, doesn't seem to track in the UK. I think the common denominator is an utterly vicious and unmerciful press and media, based on credulous populations that adore the sleazy tripe in their gutter tabloids.

(....)

Actually, this is incorrect. UK and German tabloids are far worse than the Italian ones. Italy actualy doesn't have a true tabloid press. You really seem to know little about Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Look, the name translators is for those working with texts or speeches (one way only, and from a language into another). Thos working with communication between individuals are called interpreters (they work in two directions, their main focus and care is communication and information exchange, not text, and not necessarily languages are separate). It's to different tasks. Maybe often the same people can do both tasks, depening on situation and context, an interpreter can also work as translator in the moment when it's needed, but it's two tasks, two jobs.

Now, the issue of the "moment" is really pointless; in fact I addressed it many many times to show how void it is, and you would always reboot.

Police can't decide whether the person is a suspect or not. They dont have that power. They may stop interrogation on cautionary grounds. But the moment is never precise.
Moreover, they don't have that task.

In fact Sollecito signed his statement only after 3am, when Knox's interrogation had been already stopped since more than an hour. It's impossible to tell "the minute" because collecting and reading statements, print them and bring them to other offices to discuss with other detective teams, is not a matter of a minute.

If I remember correctly, you summed up this very long explanation above by saying that Knox was "strongly suspected". Those were the two words you used to whittle down the concept you explain above. No matter, it was a way to avoid getting her a lawyer or a translator who would NOT act as if a mediator or as if a diplomat.

No matter. The fact is that no one can say Lumumba was not a suspect. Yet, he too was denied a lawyer as well as a transcribed/taped interrogation.

It is clear this whole thing will not be solved in Italy anyways.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, Massei's argument was that it was not an "absolutely necessary" piece of evidence. It was not necessary to know about the putative semen stain, that is that it would be irrelevant at this stage, because there is already enough evidence against Sollecito (not absolutely necessary to the evidence set).
And in the event that it was someone else's DNA, that would be an action aimed at "investigating" rather than deciding.

The excuses for the non-testing of the putative semen stain are endless. And baffling that anyone, much less a judge, would even try to explain it away.

If nothing else Massei's exercise in bafflegab is proof that most judges in Italy would rather engage in bafflegab than imply the cops screwed up - much less lied.

 

[Bill Williams]

Look, the name translators is for those working with texts or speeches (one way only, and from a language into another). Thos working with communication between individuals are called interpreters (they work in two directions, their main focus and care is communication and information exchange, not text, and not necessarily languages are separate). It's to different tasks. Maybe often the same people can do both tasks, depening on situation and context, an interpreter can also work as translator in the moment when it's needed, but it's two tasks, two jobs.

Now, the issue of the "moment" is really pointless; in fact I addressed it many many times to show how void it is, and you would always reboot.

Apparently there is a moment.... this is what Migini said about it:

Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.

And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. “Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]”. And thus the police stopped and informed Amanda, who had placed herself on the scene of the crime and who said that she had accompanied Lumumba and let him in and that then Lumumba, in the other room, allegedly committed a sexual act and killed Meredith. This is what she said.​

Yes, this is about Amanda. My question was that when, as some claim, Raffaele allegedly withdrew his alibi - why Amanda was not considered a suspect then?

You avoid this question. It is clear that even with Mignini's invitation to Amanda for her to "continue making spontaneous statements", he was playing around with the letter of the law.

 

[Numbers]

No, Massei's argument was that it was not an "absolutely necessary" piece of evidence. It was not necessary to know about the putative semen stain, that is that it would be irrelevant at this stage, because there is already enough evidence against Sollecito (not absolutely necessary to the evidence set).
And in the event that it was someone else's DNA, that would be an action aimed at "investigating" rather than deciding.

{Emphasis added to quote.}

I could not resist pointing out the absurd reversal of the burden of proof and presumption of innocence as shown in the emphasized statement.

The defense asks for some evidence from the crime scene to be introduced with the aim of showing the defendant is not guilty, or has lesser guilt than the prosecution states; this is standard defense procedure in the democratic countries with adversarial judicial systems.

What is the response from the Italian judge? Essentially: "We already have enough evidence to find you guilty. Stop annoying us with your requests for the defense." Truly, a reversion to the inquisitorial, non-democratic system. The judge is an agent of the prosecution, and not neutral and impartial. And of course, one aspect of the defense is to investigate and seek alternatives to the prosecution charges of guilt; this is a legitimate defense request in accordance with the very nature of a fair trial.

This type of response from a judge occurs on occasion in some of the former Communist countries now in the Council of Europe, btw, and the ECHR of course finds a violation of Article 6 in such cases.

 

[Diocletus]

This is a correct observation, with regards to the semen stain.

However, the examination of the semen stain was rejected by Massei too. And was rejected by Nencini as well, on grounds which we may reasonably infer, are the same of Massei's; but we shall assume they must be very different from the reasons of Hellmann.

It's not that Nencini refuses the analysis of the semen stain because he fails to abjudicate the reasons that Hellmann left uncovered. Nencini in fact dismisses the defence's preliminary request to examine the alleged semen stain, because he probably sticks to the same arguments of Massei.

Whatever. Everyone knows that you test the semen stain between the rape victims legs. And if you don't, you suck at investigations and we know that the rest if your investigation sucks, too.

 

[Diocletus]

Actually, this is incorrect. UK and German tabloids are far worse than the Italian ones. Italy actualy doesn't have a true tabloid press. You really seem to know little about Italy.

That's because the tabloids have been sued out of existence.

 

[Diocletus]

Look, the name translators is for those working with texts or speeches (one way only, and from a language into another). Thos working with communication between individuals are called interpreters (they work in two directions, their main focus and care is communication and information exchange, not text, and not necessarily languages are separate). It's to different tasks. Maybe often the same people can do both tasks, depening on situation and context, an interpreter can also work as translator in the moment when it's needed, but it's two tasks, two jobs.

Now, the issue of the "moment" is really pointless; in fact I addressed it many many times to show how void it is, and you would always reboot.

Police can't decide whether the person is a suspect or not. They dont have that power. They may stop interrogation on cautionary grounds. But the moment is never precise.
Moreover, they don't have that task.

In fact Sollecito signed his statement only after 3am, when Knox's interrogation had been already stopped since more than an hour. It's impossible to tell "the minute" because collecting and reading statements, print them and bring them to other offices to discuss with other detective teams, is not a matter of a minute.

Don't worry, the echr will be precise.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is a correct observation, with regards to the semen stain.

However, the examination of the semen stain was rejected by Massei too. And was rejected by Nencini as well, on grounds which we may reasonably infer, are the same of Massei's; but we shall assume they must be very different from the reasons of Hellmann.

It's not that Nencini refuses the analysis of the semen stain because he fails to abjudicate the reasons that Hellmann left uncovered. Nencini in fact dismisses the defence's preliminary request to examine the alleged semen stain, because he probably sticks to the same arguments of Massei.

Nencini's reasons were that it wouldn't prove anything since she was sexually active and the stain could not be dated (ignoring a couple of obvious rejoinders). That does sound like the sort of thinking we got from Massei so I think it quite possible his reasons were just as compelling.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - given your remarks about the current defamation trial, regarding Sollecito's book....

And the obviousness of his guilt....

Why even have a trial? This is a serious question.

 

[Kauffer]

The case for the annullment of Hallmann-Zanetti was brought to the Supreme Court by an act signed by the Prosecutor General of Umbria, Galati, and argued before the court by the Rome SC Prosecutor General Riello.
These are not folks who would depend on Maresca's opinion.

This is naiive. If Maresca had let it be known that the Kerchers were no longer supporting the prosecution after Hellmann, that would have been the end of it. Can you imagine these people being prepared to listen to the family publicly critiquing the investigation, the lack of discovery and the leniency handed to Guede? Can you imagine the effect of their saying that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito had been victims of a wrongful conviction? In Italy, if you haven't saved face, you haven't got anything.

Before the Nencini verdict, Maresca said they would accept that verdict "serenely". I wonder why.

Later, in court, as the verdict was read, the staff member from the British Consulate despatched at the cost of the British taxpayer (me, amongst others), to hold the Kercher children's hands and lord it over their press conference, was seen to be grinning like a Cheshire Cat.