Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[MichaelB]

New English translation of Michele Battistelli v Luca Altieri

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...mony-Battistelli-Vs-Altieri-confrontation.pdf

Battistelli not only lied about entering the room and lifting the duvet but also about knowing Meredith's 2nd phone had been stolen. Luca Altieri said the post-it note Battistelli brought with him had two phone numbers written on it. If he knew about the 2nd phone then he certainly didn't arrive at 12.35 because Elizabeth Lana only took the phone to the cops around 12.30pm.

Also he wrote in his police report on the 2nd that he was dispatched after both phones had been found.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

If you are wondering why there are not many U.S. posters posting in the last three hours, it is because the American football Superbowl championship game is being played right now. Amanda Knox's hometown team, Seattle Seahawks, is fighting an uphill battle against the New England Patriots, known for letting the air out of the football. Few vehicles are moving on U.S. roads right now.

-

I was wrong. Seattle lost.

It's now time to get back to the discussion of this case.

I still have to perform the rock and the paper-bag experiments. First I need a paper-bag and a rock.

Any suggestions as to what the parameters of the experiment should be?

I propose a 10 pound rock (4 kg) about 5 feet away from the bag. I will try to both roll the rock and then throw it into the bag.

What I'm looking for is to see if the rock rips through the bag or not. This might take a day to get a paper-bag.

Please stay tuned for further developments,

d

-

 

[Strozzi]

Good observation, MichaelB!

Let me also raise another issue regarding the Postal Police's honesty. They claimed to have arrived at the cottage earlier than they did. The parking garage camera and corrected clock time show when they really arrived.

If I remember correctly, they also claimed to have been near the cottage's location in their car but were having difficulty finding the street and were forced to drive around the immediate neighborhood again due to one-way streets. They indicated that it took them quite a while - perhaps 20 minutes or so - to come around again. 20 minutes to drive a few blocks??? What took them so long? They claimed traffic was bad. I wonder if in fact they stopped to grab lunch or a snack (it was around 12:45 pm) and wanted to gloss over it. Whether they came straight from the Postal Police headquarters to the cottage, or stopped in the neighborhood to buy lunch is not important in itself. What is important is the Postal Police's honesty in stating how they traveled there and when they arrived, and then what Raffaele was allegedly doing as the Postal Police walked up the driveway to the front yard where they mey Raffaele and Amanda. Postal Police honesty and their transparency is in question.

 

[anglolawyer]

New English translation of Michele Battistelli v Luca Altieri

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...mony-Battistelli-Vs-Altieri-confrontation.pdf

Battistelli not only lied about entering the room and lifting the duvet but also about knowing Meredith's 2nd phone had been stolen. Luca Altieri said the post-it note Battistelli brought with him had two phone numbers written on it. If he knew about the 2nd phone then he certainly didn't arrive at 12.35 because Elizabeth Lana only took the phone to the cops around 12.30pm.

Also he wrote in his police report on the 2nd that he was dispatched after both phones had been found.

The usual chaos and incoherence. They really could do with training in examining witnesses.

 

[Dan O.]

-
I still have to perform the rock and the paper-bag experiments. First I need a paper-bag and a rock.

Any suggestions as to what the parameters of the experiment should be?

I propose a 10 pound rock (4 kg) about 5 feet away from the bag. I will try to both roll the rock and then throw it into the bag.

What I'm looking for is to see if the rock rips through the bag or not. This might take a day to get a paper-bag.

Please stay tuned for further developments,

d

-

There's more than just the paper bag. The bag would have initially been near the wall and the chair would have been rotated the other way and pushed up against the bag giving access to sit in the chair to sit at the table. The sweatshirt would most likely be hung over the back of the chair for ready access.

The rock entering through the breaking window would be deflected by the inner shutter towards the table. Most of the rocks forward momentum would be converted into swinging open the inner shutter. As the rock falls into the bag, its momentum pushes the bag into the chair and the chair is pushed into the far leg of the table. It is this pushing against the chair that allows the rock to tear the edge of the bag.

 

[Numbers]

The usual chaos and incoherence. They really could do with training in examining witnesses.

The testimony in these trials seems fairly conversational, as you write chaotic and incoherent - although I would qualify it as almost chaotic and incoherent.

But it sure isn't what one would expect in a US court or a deposition.

Taking turns speaking in a court in Italy is apparently not a cultural norm (in this trial, at least).

I am impressed that Altieri courageously sticks to his statement.

Battistelli did the right thing to check on the victim but fears to admit it.

I suspect the postals did stop for lunch but also fear to admit it.

 

[MichaelB]

The testimony in these trials seems fairly conversational, as you write chaotic and incoherent - although I would qualify it as almost chaotic and incoherent.

But it sure isn't what one would expect in a US court or a deposition.

Taking turns speaking in a court in Italy is apparently not a cultural norm (in this trial, at least).

I am impressed that Altieri courageously sticks to his statement.

Battistelli did the right thing to check on the victim but fears to admit it.

I suspect the postals did stop for lunch but also fear to admit it.

One thing. If Battistelli knew two dumped phones had been turned into the police then he couldn't have left the police station until after 12.30pm because that's when Elizabeth Lana dropped off the 2nd phone. So clearly he couldn't have arrived at the cottage at 12.35pm like he claimed.

He wrote in his police report on the 2nd that he was dispatched after both phones had been found and the post-it note he took with him had two numbers written down on it. The part about his original police report isn't in the transcript above but was brought up the previous day when he was asked why he was now claiming to know only about one phone when he went to the cottage.

I thought at one stage last year they'd stopped off for lunch as well but I don't think that's the case.

 

[anglolawyer]

The testimony in these trials seems fairly conversational, as you write chaotic and incoherent - although I would qualify it as almost chaotic and incoherent.

But it sure isn't what one would expect in a US court or a deposition.

Taking turns speaking in a court in Italy is apparently not a cultural norm (in this trial, at least).

I am impressed that Altieri courageously sticks to his statement.

Battistelli did the right thing to check on the victim but fears to admit it.

I suspect the postals did stop for lunch but also fear to admit it.

The question is: why? Given that there was nothing wrong with what he did (she might have been still alive and in need or urgent assistance) why not say so? I suspect the fear was that the defence would then jump all over this and suggest it as a route for contamination.

I was not completely clear which side of the victim he walked around to check her out. In the end it looked like it was the right (window) side. Could he have acquired any blood on the soles of his shoes and transferred it elsewhere?

 

[Numbers]

The question is: why? Given that there was nothing wrong with what he did (she might have been still alive and in need or urgent assistance) why not say so? I suspect the fear was that the defence would then jump all over this and suggest it as a route for contamination.

I was not completely clear which side of the victim he walked around to check her out. In the end it looked like it was the right (window) side. Could he have acquired any blood on the soles of his shoes and transferred it elsewhere?

There is more than one why.
For example: Why did the postals feel the need to say that they had arrived earlier than they did?

(And if MichaelB thinks they didn't stop for lunch, I assume based on the timing, that's ok. They are dedicated public servants, after all (?))

I suspect that either on his own, or coached by the prosecution, Battistelli committed some perjury: 1) to avoid looking like he might have contaminated the area, and 2) to make it seem that the postals arrived before Raffaele and Amanda called the carabinieri.

 

[Numbers]

SAUNDERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM 19187/91

This case is relevant to the ECHR application of Amanda Knox in regard to her conviction for calunnia based on statements she made during an interrogation and in custody without a lawyer.

It involve statements made without benefit of an attorney, and indeed under legal compulsion of 2-years prison and a fine, to inspectors. These statements were subsequently used in a criminal trial to convict the applicant of fraud. However, the statements did not incriminate the applicant directly; rather, they reflected his knowledge that someone else may have conducted some fraudulent activity.

However, when the statements were used in the trial of the applicant, they could be inferred as being incriminating to him, because of his knowledge; he was an executive who should (perhaps) have taken action based on that knowledge. At any rate, the statements reflected negatively on the applicant's honesty.

70. It has not been disputed by the Government that the applicant was subject to legal compulsion to give evidence to the inspectors. He was obliged under sections 434 and 436 of the Companies Act 1985 (see paragraphs 48-49 above) to answer the questions put to him by the inspectors in the course of nine lengthy interviews of which seven were admissible as evidence at his trial. A refusal by the applicant to answer the questions put to him could have led to a finding of contempt of court and the imposition of a fine or committal to prison for up to two years (see paragraph 50 above) and it was no defence to such refusal that the questions were of an incriminating nature (see paragraph 28 above).

However, the Government have emphasised, before the Court, that nothing said by the applicant in the course of the interviews was self‑incriminating and that he had merely given exculpatory answers or answers which, if true, would serve to confirm his defence. In their submission only statements which are self-incriminating could fall within the privilege against self-incrimination.

71. The Court does not accept the Government’s premise on this point since some of the applicant’s answers were in fact of an incriminating nature in the sense that they contained admissions to knowledge of information which tended to incriminate him (see paragraph 31 above). In any event, bearing in mind the concept of fairness in Article 6 (art. 6), the right not to incriminate oneself cannot reasonably be confined to statements of admission of wrongdoing or to remarks which are directly incriminating. Testimony obtained under compulsion which appears on its face to be of a non-incriminating nature - such as exculpatory remarks or mere information on questions of fact - may later be deployed in criminal proceedings in support of the prosecution case, for example to contradict or cast doubt upon other statements of the accused or evidence given by him during the trial or to otherwise undermine his credibility. Where the credibility of an accused must be assessed by a jury the use of such testimony may be especially harmful. It follows that what is of the essence in this context is the use to which evidence obtained under compulsion is put in the course of the criminal trial.

____
ETA: For "evidence obtained under compulsion" substitute "evidence obtained under coercion" or "evidence obtained under interrogation without a lawyer"

 

[Samson]

Popper from PMF says

"Wikipedia is a great resource but as we all know sometimes one has to fight to find truth. In most London's schools, and I guess all over the UK, the first thing they tell children is they cannot use it for their research, as Catnip noted.

The Meredith Kercher case is a very good example of a biased Wikipedia entry, even if what Courts have concluded is quite clear. The advantage of internet is that things like Wikipedia's entries can be changed. In the past biased stories, printed only in books, were hardly modified in decades or centuries. On the other hand, false or biased info are easier to find on the internet as any info can be found very quickly through a search engine and the potential reach is universal. It could be argued that, in case of biased or false information, the defamatory reach of internet is universal."

Of course it will be noted by future students of this case that the wikipedia entry conforms with ISF concensus, the two students were uninvolved in the killing.

It will be interesting to see how wikipedia and ISF converge in other discussions.

 

[sept79]

There is more than one why.
For example: Why did the postals feel the need to say that they had arrived earlier than they did?

(And if MichaelB thinks they didn't stop for lunch, I assume based on the timing, that's ok. They are dedicated public servants, after all (?))

I suspect that either on his own, or coached by the prosecution, Battistelli committed some perjury: 1) to avoid looking like he might have contaminated the area, and 2) to make it seem that the postals arrived before Raffaele and Amanda called the carabinieri.

Who made the request of Battistelli to commit perjury in order to more easily obtain a conviction?

Who told Stefanoni that she had to 'deliver the goods'?

 

[christianahannah]

New English translation of Michele Battistelli v Luca Altieri

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...mony-Battistelli-Vs-Altieri-confrontation.pdf

Battistelli not only lied about entering the room and lifting the duvet but also about knowing Meredith's 2nd phone had been stolen. Luca Altieri said the post-it note Battistelli brought with him had two phone numbers written on it. If he knew about the 2nd phone then he certainly didn't arrive at 12.35 because Elizabeth Lana only took the phone to the cops around 12.30pm.

Also he wrote in his police report on the 2nd that he was dispatched after both phones had been found.

Wasn't Battistelli informed of the second phone found while he was at the cottage? They could not find the owner information at the station but called Battistelli with the number since it was found near the first phone (Filomena's) and the two phones might be connected.

As for the police report that could have been an error of wording by Battistelli or translation but I can't say for certain having not seen the report.

 

[Rolfe]

SAUNDERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM 19187/91

This case is relevant to the ECHR application of Amanda Knox in regard to her conviction for calunnia based on statements she made during an interrogation and in custody without a lawyer.

It involve statements made without benefit of an attorney, and indeed under legal compulsion of 2-years prison and a fine, to inspectors. These statements were subsequently used in a criminal trial to convict the applicant of fraud. However, the statements did not incriminate the applicant directly; rather, they reflected his knowledge that someone else may have conducted some fraudulent activity.

However, when the statements were used in the trial of the applicant, they could be inferred as being incriminating to him, because of his knowledge; he was an executive who should (perhaps) have taken action based on that knowledge. At any rate, the statements reflected negatively on the applicant's honesty.

70. It has not been disputed by the Government that the applicant was subject to legal compulsion to give evidence to the inspectors. He was obliged under sections 434 and 436 of the Companies Act 1985 (see paragraphs 48-49 above) to answer the questions put to him by the inspectors in the course of nine lengthy interviews of which seven were admissible as evidence at his trial. A refusal by the applicant to answer the questions put to him could have led to a finding of contempt of court and the imposition of a fine or committal to prison for up to two years (see paragraph 50 above) and it was no defence to such refusal that the questions were of an incriminating nature (see paragraph 28 above).

However, the Government have emphasised, before the Court, that nothing said by the applicant in the course of the interviews was self‑incriminating and that he had merely given exculpatory answers or answers which, if true, would serve to confirm his defence. In their submission only statements which are self-incriminating could fall within the privilege against self-incrimination.

71. The Court does not accept the Government’s premise on this point since some of the applicant’s answers were in fact of an incriminating nature in the sense that they contained admissions to knowledge of information which tended to incriminate him (see paragraph 31 above). In any event, bearing in mind the concept of fairness in Article 6 (art. 6), the right not to incriminate oneself cannot reasonably be confined to statements of admission of wrongdoing or to remarks which are directly incriminating. Testimony obtained under compulsion which appears on its face to be of a non-incriminating nature - such as exculpatory remarks or mere information on questions of fact - may later be deployed in criminal proceedings in support of the prosecution case, for example to contradict or cast doubt upon other statements of the accused or evidence given by him during the trial or to otherwise undermine his credibility. Where the credibility of an accused must be assessed by a jury the use of such testimony may be especially harmful. It follows that what is of the essence in this context is the use to which evidence obtained under compulsion is put in the course of the criminal trial.

____
ETA: For "evidence obtained under compulsion" substitute "evidence obtained under coercion" or "evidence obtained under interrogation without a lawyer"

That's even more relevant to the David Gilroy case, we should move the post! (Gilroy appealed on the basis that he should have been under caution when he gave a statement, but in fact the police were pretending he was just a witness. Ring any bells? The statement was however non-incriminating and he actually relied on it in court. The judge correctly noted that ruling that statement inadmissible wasn't going to change anything, but at the same time jumped through a few rather questionable hoops to avoid ruling that Gilroy should have been cautioned - which he should have been.)

 

[Rolfe]

Popper from PMF says

"Wikipedia is a great resource but as we all know sometimes one has to fight to find truth. In most London's schools, and I guess all over the UK, the first thing they tell children is they cannot use it for their research, as Catnip noted.

The Meredith Kercher case is a very good example of a biased Wikipedia entry, even if what Courts have concluded is quite clear. The advantage of internet is that things like Wikipedia's entries can be changed. In the past biased stories, printed only in books, were hardly modified in decades or centuries. On the other hand, false or biased info are easier to find on the internet as any info can be found very quickly through a search engine and the potential reach is universal. It could be argued that, in case of biased or false information, the defamatory reach of internet is universal."

Of course it will be noted by future students of this case that the wikipedia entry conforms with ISF concensus, the two students were uninvolved in the killing.

It will be interesting to see how wikipedia and ISF converge in other discussions.

Didn't that Wikipedia article have to be completely rewritten by a senior editor because of the vandalism it had suffered? I remember because people thought she had done a good job on it (and because the editor in question, Slimvirgin, is someone I am constantly accused of being by my crazy stalker).

I would have thought the article would have been protected after that, but if it's open to any and all editing, God knows what's been twisted by now.

 

[Numbers]

That's even more relevant to the David Gilroy case, we should move the post! (Gilroy appealed on the basis that he should have been under caution when he gave a statement, but in fact the police were pretending he was just a witness. Ring any bells? The statement was however non-incriminating and he actually relied on it in court. The judge correctly noted that ruling that statement inadmissible wasn't going to change anything, but at the same time jumped through a few rather questionable hoops to avoid ruling that Gilroy should have been cautioned - which he should have been.)

{Highlighting added to quote.}
Not to go off-topic, but: If the defense relied on the statement made under interrogation without a lawyer, and there was a conviction based on the statement, Ibrahim et al. v UK suggests no violation of the Convention. That does not mean that the Convention wasn't violated by an interrogation without a lawyer - the question is, was the trial rendered unfair because of this police tactic?

ETA: That is, since apparently the defense itself introduced it into the trial. (I'm not at all familiar with the case, but thinking this is what happened based on your post.)

 

[Rolfe]

Carloway denied the appeal, anyway. He's back at the SCCRC wanting another appeal, but nobody knows what the grounds are this time. There's a separate thread on the case.

 

[LondonJohn]

{Highlighting added to quote.}
Not to go off-topic, but: If the defense relied on the statement made under interrogation without a lawyer, and there was a conviction based on the statement, Ibrahim et al. v UK suggests no violation of the Convention. That does not mean that the Convention wasn't violated by an interrogation without a lawyer - the question is, was the trial rendered unfair because of this police tactic?

ETA: That is, since apparently the defense itself introduced it into the trial. (I'm not at all familiar with the case, but thinking this is what happened based on your post.)

Wasn't the important issue in the Ibrahim ruling related to the urgent (and very real) national issue that had created the extraordinary circumstances which validated the police questioning the suspects without legal counsel (and the subsequent use of these interrogations as evidence against the men)?

And isn't that why the Ibrahim ruling is also an excellent comparator for the Knox ECHR application? After all, it's perfectly clear - and will be clear to the ECHR judges - that there was palpably nothing remotely close to the same extraordinary situation applying to Knox (and Sollecito) on the evening/night of 5th/6th November 2007. And because of that, there could be nothing that could reasonably outweigh the rights of Knox (and Sollecito) to legal counsel once they had clearly been considered suspects of a criminal offence.

(I still wonder how and why Mignini was allowed to (apparently) get away without providing the required written reasoning to the Micheli court explaining the justification for denial of counsel. It seems unbelievable that this was seemingly allowed to pass with nothing more than a mild murmur at best. To me, it's another vivid illustration of the improper nature of relationships/blind trust that still exists between many Italian judges and PMs)

 

[Numbers]

ECHR Case: Giuttari v Italy 42733/07 02/12/2014

This application was lodged by Michele Giuttari, the police officer who worked with Mignini on the Narducci cases. His computer hard drive and other materials were taken as evidence in the investigation against him for abuse of power. The hard drive and other electronically stored information was copied. The investigation of his actions was dropped, and his hard drive and other materials returned. However, the copies were not given to him. He requested the return of the copies. He was apparently told to follow certain procedures to get them back, but he did not do so. He filed an application with the ECHR, claiming Italy had violated his Convention rights under Articles 8, 13, 3, and 6.1. Perhaps most humorous of the claims is that the searches themselves of his office and home subjected him to inhuman and degrading treatment (Art. 3).

His application was ruled inadmissible by the ECHR, but not until Dec. 2, 2014.
The decision on the application is given in French.

 

[Numbers]

Wasn't the important issue in the Ibrahim ruling related to the urgent (and very real) national issue that had created the extraordinary circumstances which validated the police questioning the suspects without legal counsel (and the subsequent use of these interrogations as evidence against the men)?

And isn't that why the Ibrahim ruling is also an excellent comparator for the Knox ECHR application? After all, it's perfectly clear - and will be clear to the ECHR judges - that there was palpably nothing remotely close to the same extraordinary situation applying to Knox (and Sollecito) on the evening/night of 5th/6th November 2007. And because of that, there could be nothing that could reasonably outweigh the rights of Knox (and Sollecito) to legal counsel once they had clearly been considered suspects of a criminal offence.

(I still wonder how and why Mignini was allowed to (apparently) get away without providing the required written reasoning to the Micheli court explaining the justification for denial of counsel. It seems unbelievable that this was seemingly allowed to pass with nothing more than a mild murmur at best. To me, it's another vivid illustration of the improper nature of relationships/blind trust that still exists between many Italian judges and PMs)

You are correct that the extraordinary danger posed by the possible bombs and materials to make bombs justified the safety interviews with lawyers. Statements obtained in those interviews were not significant in the convictions of the first three defendants, and no violation of Article 6.1 was found.

However, the fourth defendant, who was interviewed (and not properly so, after about midway through) as a witness, incriminated himself by statements made during the interview. However, he used those statements in his defense in an attempt to show how minimal and unknowing his role was in helping another conspirator. The ECHR ruled that because he had introduced the interview statements in his defense, even though they then became evidence leading to his conviction, there was no violation of Article 6.1.