Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

The murder conviction: Article 6 violations follow abuse of procedural rights

From Ms Knox's appeal document:

Violation of law due to the use of Knox’s statements

The challenged ruling (Nencini) makes repeated reference to the content of Knox’s statements written at 1.45 am and 5.45 am on November 6, 2007.

“It appears suitable to also point out how the statements made by the girl to the Police and then to the Public Minister during the night of November 6, 2007, are of undeniable interest also in the context of the reconstructive evidentiary framework specifically pertaining to the murder.” (page 101)
“And on the other hand, as it has already been said, it is Amanda Marie Knox herself who places herself, even if together with Lumumba and not with Sollecito, at Piazza Grimana on the night of November 1, 2007, after 21 pm.” (page 130)

“One can hence assert not just that the statements given to the Police at 1.45 am and to the Public Minister at 5.45 am of November 6, 2007, by Amanda Marie Knox constitute a crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, but also that said calumny was fabricated with the specific aim of deflecting the suspicions of the Police from the defendants.” (page 142).

All of these statements make use of the content of statements whose use has been declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court already in April 2008, hence the Florence Court openly admits using against Knox documentary evidence the Supreme Court had ruled being totally inadmissible for use against its author (1.45 am statement) or against anybody (5.45 am statement.
Nor evidence can be derived from the November 6 memorial, because it is the product of a violation of the defendant’s rights.

If at 5.45 am on November 6, 2007 (hence well before the drafting of the memorial) the right to silence had been made explicit to Knox, she certainly would not have written it without before consulting a lawyer.

The violation of the defendant’s rights imply the rejection of the memorial...which, at any rate, is a confused document, self-contradictory and expression of desperation, not representative of the real events."

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

Where "evidence" clearly determined to be inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court is utilised by Nencini to underpin the murder conviction, the same court can hardly ignore its own ruling and thus (logically), must be bound to accept Ms Knox's appeal. Furthermore, for the ECHR, that ruling (on admissibility) will not have gone far enough in respect of either the calunnia (most egregiously) or murder trials, (for example, with regard to the memorial), but would likely be cited by that court in any case to demonstrate (if the conviction for murder is upheld), that the Italians can't even abide by their own decisions, let alone the case law of the European Court.

One of the keys to understanding how events will develop over time is an appreciation that Convention law stands above ordinary law in Italy as, effectively, a co-opted, over-arching element of the constitution. The Italian Supreme Court has shown itself more than capable in the past of responding to the challenges presented by the Convention. But, it's record is, until now, one of a body which has been reactive, all be it slowly, rather than pro active.

The question is, therefore: Will the Supreme Court now consider this matter in the light of the case law of the European Court (and thus the Italian Constitution)? If it does, it could throw out a great deal of evidence and order a re-trial having pulled the prosecution's teeth.

The procedural rights issue is, of course, only one aspect of the combined elements of the wrongful conviction.

 

[MichaelB]

New English translation of Marshal Francesco Pasquali about the break-in. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Testimony-of-Francesco-Pasquali.rtf

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi MichaelB,
Thanks for the English translations, keep them coming.

I'm very curious to read testimony from Stefano Bonassi, 1 of the downstairs boyz.
It was Stefano's bed that had the comforter shoved up to the top of the bed,
(while the other 3 guys beds were nicely made)
and it was Stefano's comforter that had those odd blood lines on it,
along with blood drops too.

Did Stefano ever testify that he had made his bed before leaving with Giacomo on holiday?

Did he ever state that the blood was or was not there on his comforter when he left?

Here is a photo of Stefano from court.

I find it odd how he is dressed to appear for testimony in the Massei Court.


Hekuran Kokomani,
seen below:

was also dressed similarly when he testified for the Massei Court.

B. Nadeau has written in Angel Face that Kokomani was rumored to be a police informer,
which makes sense to me that he was hiding while testifying.

But why is Stefano Bonassi also hiding when he appeared in court?

 

[Kauffer]

Hi MichaelB,
Thanks for the English translations, keep them coming.

I'm very curious to read testimony from Stefano Bonassi, 1 of the downstairs boyz.
It was Stefano's bed that had the comforter shoved up to the top of the bed,
(while the other 3 guys beds were nicely made)
and it was Stefano's comforter that had those odd blood lines on it,
along with blood drops too.

Did Stefano ever testify that he had made his bed before leaving with Giacomo on holiday?

Did he ever state that the blood was or was not there on his comforter when he left?

Here is a photo of Stefano from court.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9531[/qimg]

I find it odd how he is dressed to appear for testimony in the Massei Court.


Hekuran Kokomani,
seen below:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9533[/qimg]
was also dressed similarly when he testified for the Massei Court.

B. Nadeau has written in Angel Face that Kokomani was rumored to be a police informer,
which makes sense to me that he was hiding while testifying.

But why is Stefano Bonassi also hiding when he appeared in court?

Are you obliquely suggesting that Stefano and Kokomani are in fact one and the same?

 

[Bill Williams]

As always, you seem to be operating under the bizarrely illogical assumption that, if you can only manage to pierce holes in the US police and justice systems' admittedly flawed armor, you absolve Mignini and his whole sick crew of their wrongdoing. No person with just a modicum of intellectual training would follow you on such a flight of stupidity.

He was commenting to me. . . . . .
There is usually an illusion of following the law by police, prosecutors, and judges where the people looking from the outside normally cannot see the problems. The Italian legal system though seems like they are not even following the illusion yet it seems to be perfectly normal.

I've never understood a response to a criticism that goes something like this: "but what about you!?"

If nothing else it is a tacit admission that Desert Fox was on to something, when the responder has to divert by pointing out some similar miscarriage in Desert Fox's country.

Is Vibio REALLY trying to make the tacit admission? I think: yes.

 

[Diocletus]

Are you obliquely suggesting that Stefano and Kokomani are in fact one and the same?

They sure do look the same.

 

[Diocletus]

From Ms Knox's appeal document:

Violation of law due to the use of Knox’s statements

The challenged ruling (Nencini) makes repeated reference to the content of Knox’s statements written at 1.45 am and 5.45 am on November 6, 2007.

“It appears suitable to also point out how the statements made by the girl to the Police and then to the Public Minister during the night of November 6, 2007, are of undeniable interest also in the context of the reconstructive evidentiary framework specifically pertaining to the murder.” (page 101)
“And on the other hand, as it has already been said, it is Amanda Marie Knox herself who places herself, even if together with Lumumba and not with Sollecito, at Piazza Grimana on the night of November 1, 2007, after 21 pm.” (page 130)

“One can hence assert not just that the statements given to the Police at 1.45 am and to the Public Minister at 5.45 am of November 6, 2007, by Amanda Marie Knox constitute a crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, but also that said calumny was fabricated with the specific aim of deflecting the suspicions of the Police from the defendants.” (page 142).

All of these statements make use of the content of statements whose use has been declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court already in April 2008, hence the Florence Court openly admits using against Knox documentary evidence the Supreme Court had ruled being totally inadmissible for use against its author (1.45 am statement) or against anybody (5.45 am statement.
Nor evidence can be derived from the November 6 memorial, because it is the product of a violation of the defendant’s rights.

If at 5.45 am on November 6, 2007 (hence well before the drafting of the memorial) the right to silence had been made explicit to Knox, she certainly would not have written it without before consulting a lawyer.

The violation of the defendant’s rights imply the rejection of the memorial...which, at any rate, is a confused document, self-contradictory and expression of desperation, not representative of the real events."

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

Where "evidence" clearly determined to be inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court is utilised by Nencini to underpin the murder conviction, the same court can hardly ignore its own ruling and thus (logically), must be bound to accept Ms Knox's appeal. Furthermore, for the ECHR, that ruling (on admissibility) will not have gone far enough in respect of either the calunnia (most egregiously) or murder trials, (for example, with regard to the memorial), but would likely be cited by that court in any case to demonstrate (if the conviction for murder is upheld), that the Italians can't even abide by their own decisions, let alone the case law of the European Court.

One of the keys to understanding how events will develop over time is an appreciation that Convention law stands above ordinary law in Italy as, effectively, a co-opted, over-arching element of the constitution. The Italian Supreme Court has shown itself more than capable in the past of responding to the challenges presented by the Convention. But, it's record is, until now, one of a body which has been reactive, all be it slowly, rather than pro active.

The question is, therefore: Will the Supreme Court now consider this matter in the light of the case law of the European Court (and thus the Italian Constitution)? If it does, it could throw out a great deal of evidence and order a re-trial having pulled the prosecution's teeth.

The procedural rights issue is, of course, only one aspect of the combined elements of the wrongful conviction.

This is such a passive-sounding argument. I don't understand why they're not more direct and forceful, why they're not challenging the 1:45 statement just as hard, and why they're not telling the court that the procedure violated the echr as well as the supreme court's prior order. I guess you can't do this in Italy.

 

[anglolawyer]

New English translation of Marshal Francesco Pasquali about the break-in. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Testimony-of-Francesco-Pasquali.rtf

Thanks for posting this. I had to read right through to the end before I saw any reference to glass on the ground outside. None of the advocates brought it up but Massei did:

President. - For that conclusion, did you consider the presence... that conclusion or another, the presence of possible pieces of glass below the pavement, whether there were any or not.

Consultant. - Well, since I did not find them to be documented...{56}

President. - You did not find them.

Consultant. - And I did not find them at the site inspection; I went down to see but I found nothing.

President. - There were none of these pieces of glass?

Consultant. - When I visited, no; in the official documents, I did not see them, no...

No one asked him whether he would have expected to find glass outside nor whether in his own reconstruction any glass finished up outside. So we can only guess what his answers would have been. Brilliant!

I also noticed, as observed here many times, that his reconstruction was attacked on the unreal basis that it was somehow invalidated because it did not include a pair of outer shutters even though, assuming they, or at least the right one, were/was sufficiently open to make no difference at all to the trajectory of the throw.

 

[platonov]

Sophistry – ur doin’ it wrong [1]

I think your point is well taken, and well said.

The real history of the disclosure of info in this case is this: Both pro-guilt and pro-innocent people have, as far as I know, made any and all materials in their possession public, just as soon as they had them, and had permission to post them. Any insinuation (not referencing you) that information was somehow withheld is speculation not backed up by any facts.

And, as you mentioned, I too can see why people, if they had access to them, would be interested in reports and/or pictures of the condition of the body in a murder case where they are trying to learn what happened. I further think that those reports and/or images would be a strange thing to publish publicly, and find criticism that was not done to be a bit illogical.

Who withheld permission for what now?

What comes to mind to write in response to this is impolite. So it will have to stay in my mind.

I never said anyone withheld permission.

I guess you can't discuss the true facts, but instead have to change them to make your point? Fits in well with this case -- that is exactly what Massei and Nencini did.

OK

What permission were you talking about? Your argument is rather confused.
Best to drop it maybe unless you wish to explain what you meant.

Do you?

 

[platonov]

Sophistry – ur doin’ it wrong [2]

You mean that the images were in open court? If they were to be revealed at all that is the place I would expect them to be shown.

As far as the other documents, what I understand from Machiavelli's post many, many pages ago, it was Maresca who has released the current documents so they could be in the public realm (on The Merdith Wiki).

So in this post you were talking about Maresca, were you? Not platonov.

I can now see why you didn't know what to make of RS's recent interview.
It's all very confusing!

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks for posting this. I had to read right through to the end before I saw any reference to glass on the ground outside. None of the advocates brought it up but Massei did:

President. - For that conclusion, did you consider the presence... that conclusion or another, the presence of possible pieces of glass below the pavement, whether there were any or not.

Consultant. - Well, since I did not find them to be documented...{56}

President. - You did not find them.

Consultant. - And I did not find them at the site inspection; I went down to see but I found nothing.

President. - There were none of these pieces of glass?

Consultant. - When I visited, no; in the official documents, I did not see them, no...

No one asked him whether he would have expected to find glass outside nor whether in his own reconstruction any glass finished up outside. So we can only guess what his answers would have been. Brilliant!

I also noticed, as observed here many times, that his reconstruction was attacked on the unreal basis that it was somehow invalidated because it did not include a pair of outer shutters even though, assuming they, or at least the right one, were/was sufficiently open to make no difference at all to the trajectory of the throw.

Well, if he had found it, they would have just used that as "proof" that the rock was thrown from inside.

 

[platonov]

Get out of my garden!

Well, if he had found it, they would have just used that as "proof" that the rock was thrown from inside.

Would they indeed
You might want to check that with Numbers or Planigale.

Guys, is this true

 

[Kauffer]

This is such a passive-sounding argument. I don't understand why they're not more direct and forceful, why they're not challenging the 1:45 statement just as hard, and why they're not telling the court that the procedure violated the echr as well as the supreme court's prior order. I guess you can't do this in Italy.

To be clear though, this is the English language summary (by Luca Chelli) of the original Italian document, which runs to some 118 pages. But you would certainly want some ECHR case law in there together with a clear recitation to their honours of the constitutional position of the same. But Nencini is a member of the club too. How lightly must they tred, I wonder?

 

[carbonjam72]

They sure do look the same.

Its the same pointi-ness of head.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Are you obliquely suggesting that Stefano and Kokomani are in fact one and the same?

...or that they are both police informers?

Another possibility is that they both would like to keep from being photographed. I think that most people who find themselves ancillary figures to a murder would want to keep out of the public eye.

 

[christianahannah]

So in this post you were talking about Maresca, were you? Not platonov.

I can now see why you didn't know what to make of RS's recent interview.
It's all very confusing!

No, I was speaking in general not to any one specific person. As for Maresca, what images he may or may not have shown and the debate surrounding them, was done in the proper venue which was court.

Concerning the (naked) images of Meredith, I have not seen any nor do I want to see them. I can read and generally have good reading comprehension (except when I read and try to understand some of your posts). I don't need visuals to understand what horrific things were done to Meredith. Stefanoni's report, which was used along with her testimony, was enough visuals for me.

I still don't know what to make of Raffaele's interview. I'd like to hear your thoughts, not riddles, concerning his interview.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Novelli left the court with misapprehensions

You have read Novelli's report? What is your opinion concerning his comments to The Conti-Vecchiotti Report?

christianahannah,

I have only read a few paragraphs in machine translation, which I agree is not ideal. Do you have some page numbers in mind? More generally my opinion is that (whatever his intentions) he badly misled the courts in two or three key areas.

With respect to contamination, it is simply untrue that a route of contamination can always be demonstrated. I have found only one case where the route is known (Adam Scott) and one case where a good guess can be offered (Lukis Anderson). I know of at least two well-studied cases where no route is known and where there are gaps of one or two days between the events that must have led to contamination (Farah Jama and Jaidyn Leskie). I know of one case in which anyone with a modicum of common sense agrees that one or two instances of contamination took place (Gary Leiterman), yet the routes are unknown despite some scrutiny.

With respect to the ability to amplify DNA from one or two cells, this process is at least twenty years old. Novelli drew the analogy to embryonic DNA testing, but as Angela van Daal argued, this analogy is misleading. Dr. Angela von Daal wrote, "The use of PCR for analysis of very low levels of DNA in the field of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been used to justify general acceptance of LCN analysis in the wider scientific community(12). This argument is flawed. PGD analysis is not analogous to LCN analysis for several reasons. PGD uses pristine cellular DNA from a single source, whereas forensic LCN samples are mostly mixtures and are likely in a state of apoptosis. The complexities of profile interpretation issues seen with STR analysis (e.g., stutter) are not an issue for PGD testing(13). However the most significant difference is that the samples derived from the mother, father and embryo are single-source and the parental samples are of known genotype."

With respect to supposed improvements in DNA profiling kits after 2007, the argument that somehow this improves DNA forensics in the low template region ignores at least two problems. One is that it is much easier to transfer (unknowingly) small amounts of DNA that large amounts. This is not going to change when someone comes up with a new generation of DNA testing kits. Two is that the lower limits of detection of a given body fluid may be larger than the lower limit of detection of DNA under these conditions. This is a problem that Peter Gill discussed in his book IIRC. In framework of propositions he discussed, DNA without an associated body fluid is "sub-source." No improvements DNA forensic testing can fix this problem. Instead, one would need to find new tests with lower minimum limits of detection of the various body fluids.

 

[Dan O.]

I just read through one of Rudy's depositions. One very illuminating aspect is the tendency of Mignini and the prosecution team to use leading questions to inject their own beliefs into Rudy's statements. Rudy however had been well rehearsed by his attorney and stuck to his story.

At one point while Mignini is trying to coax Rudy to identify the assailant he saw that night as Raffaele, Rudy simply repeats that he has been compromised because he had seen Raffaele in the news while on the run.

In seeking a description of the knife the assailant was weilding, Mignini interjects "a kitchen knife", not as a question but more a statement of fact. Again though, Rudy sticks to his own story.

And again in Rudy's exit from the cottage Rudy says he went up the steps and Mignini clarifies "the steps by the basketball court" and asks: "did you run into anyone on those steps".

It becomes painfully obvious that Mignini cannot play the role of a notory to record the witnesses observations but instead is only seeking to use the witness to confirm his own theory.

 

[platonov]

Some stuff obviously isn't that obvious

I just read through one of Rudy's depositions. One very illuminating aspect is the tendency of Mignini and the prosecution team to use leading questions to inject their own beliefs into Rudy's statements. Rudy however had been well rehearsed by his attorney and stuck to his story.

At one point while Mignini is trying to coax Rudy to identify the assailant he saw that night as Raffaele, Rudy simply repeats that he has been compromised because he had seen Raffaele in the news while on the run.

In seeking a description of the knife the assailant was weilding, Mignini interjects "a kitchen knife", not as a question but more a statement of fact. Again though, Rudy sticks to his own story.

And again in Rudy's exit from the cottage Rudy says he went up the steps and Mignini clarifies "the steps by the basketball court" and asks: "did you run into anyone on those steps".

It becomes painfully obvious that Mignini cannot play the role of a notory to record the witnesses observations but instead is only seeking to use the witness to confirm his own theory.

It’s painfully obvious that there is some confusion here between the role of a PM interviewing a suspect and Mignini’s claim that he was acting as a notary in the case of AK’s 5.45 SD.

Seriously is this stuff really that confusing?

I don’t see it!

 

[sept79]

This (Knox's appeal to ISC) is such a passive-sounding argument. I don't understand why they're not more direct and forceful, why they're not challenging the 1:45 statement just as hard, and why they're not telling the court that the procedure violated the ECHR as well as the supreme court's prior order. I guess you can't do this in Italy.

It's always appeared to me that the Italian defense attorneys beat around the bush . . .