Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

What is surprising is that they recorded the evidence collection, leaving a permanent record of how piss poor a job they did.

That just illustrates how confident (arrogant, even) they were that nothing they did would ever be scrutinised.

 

[Bill Williams]

Apparently, this HLN piece is driving Harry Rag nuts! However, there now seems to be a mountain of stuff out there all saying the same thing.

Vinnie Politan answers your Amanda Knox questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvEjFmGv-dg

 

[Strozzi]

That just illustrates how confident (arrogant, even) they were that nothing they did would ever be scrutinised.

There was recently an incident in the U.S. where several cops were abusing a suspect in the street in front of a police cruiser where the dash-cam camera was recording. One of the police noticed the camera was on and alerted the others that "we're on Red". Another police officer turned off the dash-cam video. He is in real trouble. I wish I was on the jury in that lawsuit.

 

[Desert Fox]

The issue of contamination, luminol, and footwear came up in the Lundy case as well, but is obviously pertinent here. Link. I am not saying that the police in either case were unusually bad; rather, I am suggesting that the average level of competence is not what one would like to see.

One thing that has recently been driving me crazy is that I have been watching a number of "Forensic Files" TV shows and they always use the luminol and they use the term presumptive but they never stress that additional testing is needed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Caption: "Lawyers protesting against planned reforms to Italy's legal system stand with tape over their mouths during a demonstration at the start of the judicial year in Naples, in this file photo taken January 28, 2012. REUTERS/AGN"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/us-italy-justice-idUSBRE83409E20120405

Falsifying a one euro ($1.33) bus ticket in Italy is a criminal offence eligible for a full trial and two appeals that would cost the state many thousands of euros.

The U.S. Supreme Court reviews around 100 appeals per year. The number for Italy's top appeal court, serving a population a fifth the size? More than 80,000.​

There is a train of thought here which says that this time Cassazione may either just confirm Nencini, or simply on its own annul without sending back - simply because the whole thing has become so unwieldy.

Regardless of March 25, Italy has a problem.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the fewer people handle evidence, the better

At the National Institute of Justice I found this: "In processing the evidence, the fewer people handling the evidence, the better. There is less chance of contamination and a shorter chain of custody for court admissibility hearings." link This is one reason why Gubbiotti's repackaging of the knife was bad forensics, but it is not the only one.

 

[Bill Williams]

At the National Institute of Justice I found this: "In processing the evidence, the fewer people handling the evidence, the better. There is less chance of contamination and a shorter chain of custody for court admissibility hearings." link This is one reason why Gubbiotti's repackaging of the knife was bad forensics, but it is not the only one.

I ran across this Italian saying on IIP: "The mother of morons is always pregnant."

It just seemed to apply here......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA and presumptive blood tests

One thing that has recently been driving me crazy is that I have been watching a number of "Forensic Files" TV shows and they always use the luminol and they use the term presumptive but they never stress that additional testing is needed.

By coincidence earlier today I found this in a 2012 newsletter from Suzanna Ryan: "For example, a reddish stain located in the same area as a possible grass-stain on a pair of jeans could potentially yield a positive result even if the reddish stain is not actually blood. Later testing may yield a DNA profile, but it is possible that the DNA profile is actually from skin cells and the presumptive positive blood test was reacting with plant material, not blood. In fact, unless a blood confirmatory test is performed, it is improper to state on a report that blood was identified even if a DNA profile is obtained from the stained area." The notion that the luminol positive stains in Filomena's room have been shown to be blood is simply wrong.

 

[platonov]

Recurring confusion

The attempt to place the November 5/6, 2007 illegal interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito under a kind of microscopic examination to determine if someone is guilty of something can only come to one conclusion:
The police were guilty of conducting two illegal interrogations that violated the rights of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The rights of these two persons that were violated are those found in Italian law, under the Italian Constitution, and under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Nothing that Amanda or Raffaele said or allegedly said or statements that they signed, may be used to convict either one of them of any crime, because the interrogations were conducted without counsel present for the subjects. Furthermore, the statements that Amanda wrote after the end on the interrogation, while she was in police custody, cannot be used to convict her, because, she was not provided with counsel during that period. The ECHR case-law is completely clear in these matters; citations include but are not limited to: Salduz v Turkey, Brusco v France, Dayanan v Turkey, and Ibrahim and others v the UK.

I’ve never understood the confusion between inadmissible and illegal (not that this was the issue under discussion)

The distinction is not that subtle yet it keeps cropping up here - almost as often as broken window perplexity

It has probably been explained 113 times so if you read the threads from the start it should be easily found. There is a link to the original thread on page 1 of this thread courtesy of yours truly.

You’re welcome

 

[Desert Fox]

I’ve never understood the confusion between inadmissible and illegal (not that this was the issue under discussion)
The distinction is not that subtle yet it keeps cropping up here - almost as often as broken window perplexity

It has probably been explained 113 times so if you read the threads from the start it should be easily found. There is a link to the original thread on page 1 of this thread courtesy of yours truly.

You’re welcome

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-to-suppress-evidence.html
The Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered illegally. It usually comes into play when evidence is obtained in violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. For example, a murder weapon cannot be used at trial if police illegally searched a defendant’s home to recover it. An officer generally must obtain a valid search warrant and follow proper procedures for a piece of evidence to be admissible at trial. The rule may also be triggered by police violations of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment.

Additionally, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine holds that otherwise admissible evidence, testimony, or even confessions may be excluded from trial if they resulted from an illegal search or some other constitutional violation. For example, a suspect is arrested and tells police where to find the gun used to commit the crime. But if he was not read his Miranda Rights or police ignored his pleas to speak to his lawyer, the gun may later be deemed inadmissible in court.


If you note, basically illegal and inadmissible are basically the same thing. . . .

 

[Numbers]

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-to-suppress-evidence.html
The Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered illegally. It usually comes into play when evidence is obtained in violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. For example, a murder weapon cannot be used at trial if police illegally searched a defendant’s home to recover it. An officer generally must obtain a valid search warrant and follow proper procedures for a piece of evidence to be admissible at trial. The rule may also be triggered by police violations of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment.

Additionally, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine holds that otherwise admissible evidence, testimony, or even confessions may be excluded from trial if they resulted from an illegal search or some other constitutional violation. For example, a suspect is arrested and tells police where to find the gun used to commit the crime. But if he was not read his Miranda Rights or police ignored his pleas to speak to his lawyer, the gun may later be deemed inadmissible in court.


If you note, basically illegal and inadmissible are basically the same thing. . . .

There are really three categories:
1. Inadmissible (applies to evidence obtained, for example, by illegal means)
2. Illegal (applies to actions specifically not allowed by law)
3. Criminal (apples to some, but not all, illegal actions)

In this case, the statements produced during interrogation and while in police custody were inadmissible under Italian law (under but not limited to, for example, CPP Articles 63, 64, and 188) and Constitution, and not usable for a trial leading to conviction under the ECHR case-law (Salduz, Brusco, Dayanan, and Ibrahim). The actions of the police were illegal, but only some of their actions, such as threats and violence to produce a false statement by a person to be given to a judicial authority, would be subject to criminal charges and penalties (under but not limited to, for example, CP Article 377-bis). The continued framing (official misconduct) directed against Amanda and Raffaele were likely to have been motivated by a desire by the police and their colleagues in the judiciary to avoid criminal charges being brought against the police. If convicted of such charges, an individual could be sentenced, IIRC, to prison for a term of 2 to 6 years.

CP Article 377-bis
Google Translation

Art. 377-bis.
Induction to not make statements or to make false statements to the court [judicial authority]. (1)

Unless the act constitutes a more serious offense, anyone with violence or threats, or offers or promises of money or other benefits, leads to not make statements or to make false statements to the person called to testify before the court [judicial authority] evidence in the criminal proceedings, when it has the right to remain silent, is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

(1) Article inserted by art. L. 20 of March 1, 2001, n. 63

 

[Bill Williams]

I’ve never understood the confusion between inadmissible and illegal (not that this was the issue under discussion)
The distinction is not that subtle yet it keeps cropping up here - almost as often as broken window perplexity

It has probably been explained 113 times so if you read the threads from the start it should be easily found. There is a link to the original thread on page 1 of this thread courtesy of yours truly.

You’re welcome

"Illegal" is the more general term, "inadmissible" is the more specific term which, in this case, describes more clearly why the issue at hand is illegal.

In this case, the interrogations are not illegal in the sense that they violate a criminal code section, they are illegal in the sense that they become legally inadmissible.

The remedy for their illegality is different, too. In some cases the remedy is jail time, in others a fine, in still others both. Here the remedy for the illegality of the interrogations is their inadmissibility.

...... which Mignini then dealt from the bottom of the deck by talking Lumumba into bringing his calunnia action against Knox into the very same trial that the murder stuff was being considered. Not only was this prejudicial against Knox, it was prejudicial against Sollecito who was not even a party to the calunnia action - but ended up having the same affect against him as if he'd "calunnia'ed" someone, because there was no separation of the two, what convicted one convicted both..... because Mignini was hell-bent to show why Knox blaming Lumumba was the key to this murder.

You still hear it to this day. She's guilty of the murder because she lied about Lumumba. It therefore became "admissible" through the back door, and was used also to incriminate Raffaele!

 

[Numbers]

"Illegal" is the more general term, "inadmissible" is the more specific term which, in this case, describes more clearly why the issue at hand is illegal.

In this case, the interrogations are not illegal in the sense that they violate a criminal code section, they are illegal in the sense that they become legally inadmissible.

The remedy for their illegality is different, too. In some cases the remedy is jail time, in others a fine, in still others both. Here the remedy for the illegality of the interrogations is their inadmissibility.

...... which Mignini then dealt from the bottom of the deck by talking Lumumba into bringing his calunnia action against Knox into the very same trial that the murder stuff was being considered. Not only was this prejudicial against Knox, it was prejudicial against Sollecito who was not even a party to the calunnia action - but ended up having the same affect against him as if he'd "calunnia'ed" someone, because there was no separation of the two, what convicted one convicted both..... because Mignini was hell-bent to show why Knox blaming Lumumba was the key to this murder.

You still hear it to this day. She's guilty of the murder because she lied about Lumumba. It therefore became "admissible" through the back door, and was used also to incriminate Raffaele!

Your post and mine (2431) may have crossed. The interrogation without a lawyer was illegal and the evidence it produced was inadmissible, for the reason that the subject did not have a lawyer. However, the interrogation was illegal and a criminal act (CP 377-bis) because the subject (Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito) was threatened (both) or subjected to violence (Amanda was slapped during the interrogation, Raffaele perhaps afterwards).

 

[Numbers]

delete - duplicate

 

[Desert Fox]

There are really three categories:
1. Inadmissible (applies to evidence obtained, for example, by illegal means)2. Illegal (applies to actions specifically not allowed by law)
3. Criminal (apples to some, but not all, illegal actions)

In this case, the statements produced during interrogation and while in police custody were inadmissible under Italian law (under but not limited to, for example, CPP Articles 63, 64, and 188) and Constitution, and not usable for a trial leading to conviction under the ECHR case-law (Salduz, Brusco, Dayanan, and Ibrahim). The actions of the police were illegal, but only some of their actions, such as threats and violence to produce a false statement by a person to be given to a judicial authority, would be subject to criminal charges and penalties (under but not limited to, for example, CP Article 377-bis). The continued framing (official misconduct) directed against Amanda and Raffaele were likely to have been motivated by a desire by the police and their colleagues in the judiciary to avoid criminal charges being brought against the police. If convicted of such charges, an individual could be sentenced, IIRC, to prison for a term of 2 to 6 years.

CP Article 377-bis
Google Translation

Art. 377-bis.
Induction to not make statements or to make false statements to the court [judicial authority]. (1)

Unless the act constitutes a more serious offense, anyone with violence or threats, or offers or promises of money or other benefits, leads to not make statements or to make false statements to the person called to testify before the court [judicial authority] evidence in the criminal proceedings, when it has the right to remain silent, is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

(1) Article inserted by art. L. 20 of March 1, 2001, n. 63

You are still stating that the inadmissible evidence was obtained by illegal means. I see everything from the first illegal act to also be illegal based on that. To admit the evidence would be against the law, therefore illegal.

Even evidence such as (using David Camm), introducing the evidence of Camm's inappropriate activities with women is still illegal. It is not germane to the case, therefore it is against the law to into introduce it. . . .Therefore illegal.

Yes, I am splitting hairs but so is platonov

 

[Bill Williams]

Your post and mine (2431) may have crossed. The interrogation without a lawyer was illegal and the evidence it produced was inadmissible, for the reason that the subject did not have a lawyer. However, the interrogation was illegal and a criminal act (CP 377-bis) because the subject (Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito) was threatened (both) or subjected to violence (Amanda was slapped during the interrogation, Raffaele perhaps afterwards).

The trouble........

The levers of prosecuting these claims are controlled by you know who. For me to even imply that they might be up to something opens me up to a defamation charge for the simple suggestion.

This is the equivalent to Stefanoni writing to the judge about the release of the EDFs. Her complaint is that she needs to put conditions on the EDFs' release because she's being also accused of something illegal.

What does the judge do? The judge completely ignores Article 111 of the Italian constitution and sides with Stefanoni.

Who watches the watchers in this country?

 

[Strozzi]

Your post and mine (2431) may have crossed. The interrogation without a lawyer was illegal and the evidence it produced was inadmissible, for the reason that the subject did not have a lawyer. However, the interrogation was illegal and a criminal act (CP 377-bis) because the subject (Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito) was threatened (both) or subjected to violence (Amanda was slapped during the interrogation, Raffaele perhaps afterwards).

Raffaele wrote in his book that during his interrogation when he heard Amanda screaming for help from down the hall, he became alarmed for her. A police officer in the room whispered into Raffaele's ear “If you try to get up and leave, I will bloody beat you and kill you. I'll leave you in a pool of blood."

Clearly the reason the police officer whispered that threat into Raffaele's ear, rather than said it aloud, is because the police officer knew or assumed the interrogation was being recorded.

 

[Numbers]

You are still stating that the inadmissible evidence was obtained by illegal means. I see everything from the first illegal act to also be illegal based on that. To admit the evidence would be against the law, therefore illegal.

Even evidence such as (using David Camm), introducing the evidence of Camm's inappropriate activities with women is still illegal. It is not germane to the case, therefore it is against the law to into introduce it. . . .Therefore illegal.

Yes, I am splitting hairs but so is platonov

Yes, I agree with you that admitting the inadmissible evidence into a trial is also illegal. These are illegal procedural acts and have no criminal penalty in terms of time in prison or even a fine.

The inclusion of the inadmissible evidence, if it makes the trial unfair and there is a conviction, results in a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. That is also not a criminal offense of an individual, but a violation of a solemn treaty by a State. When the ECtHR judges this unfair act as a violation by the State, the State must restore the person whose rights were violated to the condition he or she would have been in before the violation of rights. This generally involves a payment (not merely the just satisfaction imposed by the ECtHR) but also a retrial in conformance with the Convention or sometimes simply expunging the conviction.

 

[Numbers]

The trouble........

The levers of prosecuting these claims are controlled by you know who. For me to even imply that they might be up to something opens me up to a defamation charge for the simple suggestion.

This is the equivalent to Stefanoni writing to the judge about the release of the EDFs. Her complaint is that she needs to put conditions on the EDFs' release because she's being also accused of something illegal.

What does the judge do? The judge completely ignores Article 111 of the Italian constitution and sides with Stefanoni.

Who watches the watchers in this country?

The Italian judiciary seems to lack ethics and to not have proper supervision. The ECHR of course provides a check, but it operates on the Italian government (and on the governments of the other States), rather than directly on the judiciary.

 

[Desert Fox]

I found an interesting statistic with regards to Rudy Guede
http://www.sarsonline.org/resources-stats/reports-laws-statics
Rapists are more likely to be serial criminals than serial rapists. In one study, 46% of rapists who were released from prison were rearrested within 3 years of their release for another crime -- 18.6% for a violent offense, 14.8% for a property offense, 11.2% for a drug offense and 20.5% for a public-order offense. (2002 RPR94)

Definitely, he does appear to have been a serial criminal