Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

It is frustrating to see that on the eve of the appeal, the prosecution seek to minimise the role of Guede. PMF.org, PMF.net, TJMK are all continuing to support the position of the civil prosecutors, the Kercher family.

This post is typical.

Guede admitted to being there in the cottage at the time of the murder although he says he was in the bathroom listening to his iPOD when Meredith was actually killed. He says he emerged from the bathroom to encounter an Italian guy who shrieked, "Black man found, black man guilty!" According to his account, Guede then tried to help Meredith by using towels to try to stem the flow of blood before taking fright and scarpering. Typically, Knox and her vile followers twist this admission of presence to turn it into an admission of murder. Of course the evidence shows that Guede was also involved which helps Knox and co to reinforce and give credence to their myth.

 

[Kauffer]

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

​

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.

An excellent link - thanks Bill.

Check this bit:

"There is a backlog of around nine million cases, 5.5 million civil and 3.4 million criminal.

Italy is the fourth most litigious of 38 European countries with 2.8 million new cases being brought last year alone.

The state paid 84 million euros in compensation for miscarriages of justice and legal delays in 2011. There were nearly 50,000 such claims compared to 3,500 in 2003. Another 46 million euros was paid out to people unjustly thrown in jail.
Some 42 percent of those in jail or 28,000 people, are awaiting trial and the prison population is 68,000 in institutions intended to hold 45,000.

U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts could not believe how many cases were brought before Italy's supreme Court of Cassation each year, said Michele Vietti, vice president of Italy's top magistrates body the CSM, describing a recent visit to Washington.

"He thought he hadn't understood the translation properly," Vietti told Reuters."

Good luck with an extradition when the current US Chief Justice has been briefed about how utterly useless Italian justice is.

 

[Planigale]

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.

I think most Italians (at least the highly unrepresentative, unrandomly selected ones I know), recognise the legal system needs reformation. The problems are it would potentially involve fewer and less powerful lawyers (hence unlikely to be supported by the present incumbents), uncertainty about the shape of reformation, and a great deal of distrust in the political system to bring about reform. The reality is that there is unlikely to be a systemic change, despite the fact most Italians see the need for this.

Mach (and to be fair other Italians) seems to genuinely believe in behind the scenes powers - dietrology. Reading French magazines this seems something the French are prone to also. i guess the equivalent in Britain are establishment conspiracies; the difference being the establishment is overt rather than occult.

 

[Kauffer]

Electronic Data Files

"The electronic files are also useful for producing trial exhibits. An expert with the right software can convert the files from their proprietary format into Adobe AcrobatTM files containing images that can easily be inserted into PowerpointTM and Microsoft WordTM documents.

It is easy for crime laboratories to produce the electronic data that underlie their conclusions. All that is necessary is to copy the files produced in the case onto a CD-ROM or other storage medium. CD-ROMs are generally preferred because they create an unalterable record of the data produced by the laboratory. Copying files to a CD-ROM is a simple point and click operation that can be accomplished in fifteen minutes or less in most cases. CD-ROM burners compatible with any laboratory computer are available commercially for under $200. There is no legitimate excuse for refusing to turn over electronic data for defense review. In a few instances laboratories have resisted producing electronic files, or have even destroyed the files, but the great majority of trial courts will not tolerate such obstructive behavior."

"Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence" - William C Thompson, Simon Ford, Travis Doom, Michael Raymer and Dan E Krane

There is also mention in the paper of the Dr. Dirk Greineder case, which involved claims of tertiary transfer of DNA. Also, interestingly, a model Discovery request is provided by the authors as an appendix.

http://www.bioforensics.com/app/download/5285804/Champion2.pdf

 

[Samson]

I think most Italians (at least the highly unrepresentative, unrandomly selected ones I know), recognise the legal system needs reformation. The problems are it would potentially involve fewer and less powerful lawyers (hence unlikely to be supported by the present incumbents), uncertainty about the shape of reformation, and a great deal of distrust in the political system to bring about reform. The reality is that there is unlikely to be a systemic change, despite the fact most Italians see the need for this.

Mach (and to be fair other Italians) seems to genuinely believe in behind the scenes powers - dietrology. Reading French magazines this seems something the French are prone to also. i guess the equivalent in Britain are establishment conspiracies; the difference being the establishment is overt rather than occult.

Considering Sollecito's dire straits, what do you suggest right now? I realise this is not your brief of course, but someone must do something. We are pontificating without effect. Machiavelli has won, and has no doubt that his victory is authentic. I hope and presume you will fight on, as a young woman.

My belief is that Raffaele will never spend another night in jail, and curiously, this is because there is no chance Amanda will. The Italians will find a reason to delay his incarceration pending resolution of "other" matters. Their captivity and liberty has always been coincident, so let me hope.

 

[Kauffer]

The 5th/6th interrogations: Giobbi's "tactic"

More of Edgardo Giobbi's thinking is revealed in this transcript under questioning by Luciano Ghirga regarding his order that BOTH Mr Sollecito AND Ms Knox be brought in for questioning on the night of the 5th November.

LG
So we’re at the evening of the 5th, then the night between the 5th and the 6th. To us it appears from other points of the investigation, also from the witness [evidence], that on that evening, around 21:30 only Sollecito had been called to the Questura. You, on the contrary, said that they were both made to be questioned/heard together.
EG:
No, I remember having said that they were called together on purpose.
LG:
You, but [sic] to us it appears from the testimony of your colleagues that only Amanda was called, and Raffaele Sollecito insisted on coming.
EG:
I gave direct orders to the investigators to take them. I, look, I remember it very well, because it was the first time that we carried out a sort [sic], of doing two SIT [recaps/summaries] in a simultaneous manner, and I said go get them. I seems to me they were in a pizzeria. I can tell you mathematical certainty. I remember perfectly well having arranged a technical tactic.LG:
You took the question out of my mouth, that of hearing/questioning them together was a choice.
EG:
Absolutely, yes. I believe it was the only time that they were heard/questioned concurrently.
LG:
I remember that when Amanda was taken for summary/recap, [for] the first information, by other people, you were in the control room with Profazio.
EG:
I, with Profazio, was in the control room the evening of the arrests.
LG:
That is to say, you were not present at the moment of the SIT, of the summaries/recaps of the witnesses.
EG:
But that, the evening [sic].
LG:
No, here we have arrived at the 5th, in the evening, when you called them both as a result of an investigative strategy.EG:
The 5th evening.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...timony_(English)#Edgardo_Giobbi.27s_Testimony

Anyone from the pro guilt mob still of the opinion that Ms Knox was merely a witness at the beginning of her interrogation? How would the ECHR read this do you think?

 

[Samson]

Now Popper contrives this

Conflicting is the word that cannot be used ... All pieces of evidence in this case point exactly to their guilt, no conflict. If evidence had been conflicting they would have been acquitted under the code.

Obviously Guede never confessed and saying the opposite amounts to defamation. Guede admitted to be there, just like Amanda Knox, but he said he did not witness the actual murder ... Amanda instead said she heard the loud scream, heard also by Nara Capezzali and others.

You will all understand how damaging can be on one hand admitting to be there, with multiple confirmations of your presence, on the other hand being caught lying on every detail of the murder, which both did ...

 

[Desert Fox]

Now Popper contrives this

Conflicting is the word that cannot be used ... All pieces of evidence in this case point exactly to their guilt, no conflict. If evidence had been conflicting they would have been acquitted under the code.

Obviously Guede never confessed and saying the opposite amounts to defamation. Guede admitted to be there, just like Amanda Knox, but he said he did not witness the actual murder ... Amanda instead said she heard the loud scream, heard also by Nara Capezzali and others.

You will all understand how damaging can be on one hand admitting to be there, with multiple confirmations of your presence, on the other hand being caught lying on every detail of the murder, which both did ...

Why is it so hard for the pro guilt side to see that she was coerced by the police? Not the only person to confess to being involved in a crime which she did not do.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Krane's biggest concern about the case

"The electronic files are also useful for producing trial exhibits. An expert with the right software can convert the files from their proprietary format into Adobe AcrobatTM files containing images that can easily be inserted into PowerpointTM and Microsoft WordTM documents.

It is easy for crime laboratories to produce the electronic data that underlie their conclusions. All that is necessary is to copy the files produced in the case onto a CD-ROM or other storage medium. CD-ROMs are generally preferred because they create an unalterable record of the data produced by the laboratory. Copying files to a CD-ROM is a simple point and click operation that can be accomplished in fifteen minutes or less in most cases. CD-ROM burners compatible with any laboratory computer are available commercially for under $200. There is no legitimate excuse for refusing to turn over electronic data for defense review. In a few instances laboratories have resisted producing electronic files, or have even destroyed the files, but the great majority of trial courts will not tolerate such obstructive behavior."

"Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence" - William C Thompson, Simon Ford, Travis Doom, Michael Raymer and Dan E Krane]

Kauffer,

Some years ago Professor Dan Krane wrote to me, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.”

 

[Bill Williams]

Now Popper contrives this

Conflicting is the word that cannot be used ... All pieces of evidence in this case point exactly to their guilt, no conflict. If evidence had been conflicting they would have been acquitted under the code.

Obviously Guede never confessed and saying the opposite amounts to defamation. Guede admitted to be there, just like Amanda Knox, but he said he did not witness the actual murder ... Amanda instead said she heard the loud scream, heard also by Nara Capezzali and others.

You will all understand how damaging can be on one hand admitting to be there, with multiple confirmations of your presence, on the other hand being caught lying on every detail of the murder, which both did ...

It is simply hard to believe the lengths people go to to rehabilitate Rudy Guede. Poor Meredith that these people also claim to be honouring her memory. Pathetic.

Guede is the only person everyone is agreed is a liar.... with the exception of Popper and Judge Nencini.

Guede also made his first admissions freely - not in police interrogation. His first admissions were absolutely predictable - a limited hangout; admissions of things he (at the time) thought the cops would know (eg. his DNA inside the victim) but with excuses which he hoped would push cops away from suspecting him.

Nencini believed Rudy. Nencini thought Rudy such an experienced/professional burglar, that he would not lower himself to such an unseemly break-in through a window. Nencini believed Rudy about the fictional rent-money-dispute, but that was in a later Rudy-narrative which also had Meredith letting him voluntarily into the cottage.

Every once in a while it becomes plain what one has to argue to fit the round peg of Amanda and Raffaele into the square hole of this crime.

And it requires someone sticking up for "poor Rudy", the only one everyone is agreed is a liar.

ETA - it also points out how much guilters simply do not believe the motivations reports, even the ones which convicted AK and RS. Judge Massei painted Rudy as exactly the type of character his was/is: not needing much incentive to bother women.

 

[Bill Williams]

Now Popper contrives this

Conflicting is the word that cannot be used ... All pieces of evidence in this case point exactly to their guilt, no conflict. If evidence had been conflicting they would have been acquitted under the code.

Obviously Guede never confessed and saying the opposite amounts to defamation. Guede admitted to be there, just like Amanda Knox, but he said he did not witness the actual murder ... Amanda instead said she heard the loud scream, heard also by Nara Capezzali and others.

You will all understand how damaging can be on one hand admitting to be there, with multiple confirmations of your presence, on the other hand being caught lying on every detail of the murder, which both did ...

The following from Massei's report needs posting and reposting to people, like Popper, who believe Rudy is someone simply innocently caught up in this:

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own
initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms
(the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room
right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda
and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis. It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.​

This is what I mean by saying that even guilters do not believe the convicting courts. Hells bells, even Harry Rag has to consign irony to Judge Nencini, when Nencini calls Rudy a professional. Harry Rag thinks that is an ironic rendering - yet it's the very reason why Nencini says Rudy would never have broken in through Filomena's window, in a manner the PLE would have recognized as Rudy's M.O. Yet Mr. Rag dismisses Nencini as being ironic - in short, Harry does not believe Nencini.

Do guilters believe ANYTHING the convicting courts say?

For mercy's sake, can these people spell c-o-n-f-i-r-m-a-t-i-o-n b-i-a-s?

 

[Numbers]

Paging through the English translation of the Italian CPP edited by Gialuz et al., I found this article:

Article 526
Evidence for the purposes of deliberation

1. For the purposes of deliberation, the judge shall not use evidence other than that lawfully gathered during the trial.
1-bis. The accused person's guilt shall not be proven on the basis of statements made by the person who deliberately chose not to be examined by the accused or his lawyer.

Article 526 reflects some of the provisions of the Italian Constitution Article 111.

This finding bears upon certain misstatements by guilters in posts here; the CPP (which may be called jurisprudence, or legal judicial procedure) and the Constitution are aligned. It is the actual Italian court practice which deviates.

On a technical note about the Gialuz et al. translation, it lacks an index, and there is a table of contents. But while the CPP is divided into various functional sections, the table of contents only lists the start of the CPP text and not its sections. So finding any specific information in the CPPs requires some page-to-page investigation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Paging through the English translation of the Italian CPP edited by Giuluz et al., I found this article:

Article 526
Evidence for the purposes of deliberation

1. For the purposes of deliberation, the judge shall not use evidence other than that lawfully gathered during the trial.
1-bis. The accused person's guilt shall not be proven on the basis of statements made by the person who deliberately chose not to be examined by the accused or his lawyer.

Article 526 reflects some of the provisions of the Italian Constitution Article 111.

This finding bears upon certain misstatements by guilters in posts here; the CPP (which may be called jurisprudence, or legal judicial procedure) and the Constitution are aligned. It is the actual Italian court practice which deviates.

On a technical note about the Guiluz et al. translation, it lacks an index, and there is a table of contents. But while the CPP is divided into various functional sections, the table of contents only lists the start of the CPP text and not its sections. So finding any specific information in the CPPs requires some page-to-page investigation.

Wow. The hallmark of both Massei and Nencini is their ability to just make up stuff. Especially stuff no prosecutor entered at trial. They just make it up.

I swear, they missed the day where they taught "the law" at law school.

 

[Numbers]

Wow. The hallmark of both Massei and Nencini is their ability to just make up stuff. Especially stuff no prosecutor entered at trial. They just make it up.

I swear, they missed the day where they taught "the law" at law school.

Maybe it was an early morning class on those parts of CPP, and they slept in on those days.

 

[Diocletus]

Now Popper contrives this

Conflicting is the word that cannot be used ... All pieces of evidence in this case point exactly to their guilt, no conflict. If evidence had been conflicting they would have been acquitted under the code.

Obviously Guede never confessed and saying the opposite amounts to defamation. Guede admitted to be there, just like Amanda Knox, but he said he did not witness the actual murder ... Amanda instead said she heard the loud scream, heard also by Nara Capezzali and others.

You will all understand how damaging can be on one hand admitting to be there, with multiple confirmations of your presence, on the other hand being caught lying on every detail of the murder, which both did ...

This guy is too funny. He has to be related to Bagdad Bob.

 

[platonov]

Considering Sollecito's dire straits, what do you suggest right now? I realise this is not your brief of course, but someone must do something. We are pontificating without effect. Machiavelli has won, and has no doubt that his victory is authentic. I hope and presume you will fight on, as a young woman.

My belief is that Raffaele will never spend another night in jail, and curiously, this is because there is no chance Amanda will. The Italians will find a reason to delay his incarceration pending resolution of "other" matters. Their captivity and liberty has always been coincident, so let me hope.

Another TV appearance perhaps

Following which another petition for Britney might be in order.
Actually I see from someone’s sig there is already another petition out there. How is that one doing?

 

[LondonJohn]

Another TV appearance perhaps

Following which another petition for Britney might be in order.
Actually I see from someone’s sig there is already another petition out there. How is that one doing?

Who is Britney?

 

[platonov]

Groundhog Day - part 1325

Who is Britney?

I explained it to you on the occasion of it's first usage?

 

[platonov]

Deciphering for experts

Well, more accurately, what appears to have happened in the 5/6 November interrogation of Sollecito was this: the police appear to have gone into that interrogation with the predetermined plan to "break" Sollecito, since they (the police and PM) were by now convinced that a) Knox had been directly involved in the murder, and b) Sollecito was lying to protect her. I believe that there was a carefully-orchestrated plan for that night, which involved firstly getting Sollecito to admit that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder, then confronting Knox with this and other "evidence", and getting her in turn to break, admit her involvement, and name everyone else involved.

I think (with reference to what little we know about Sollecito's interrogation from the trial references and Sollecito's own account) that the police confronted Sollecito with the "fact" that they had absolute proof that Knox had been involved in the murder. I think they told him that not only would he be a fool to keep trying to "protect" her, he would actually be committing a serious criminal offence. I think they told him that it was now strongly in his own self-interest to "tell them the truth" about the night of the murder, and that they tried further to drive a wedge between him and Knox by asking him why he would want to protect a vicious murderer (and that he obviously didn't know the "real Knox, etc).

I think that under the weight of that pressure, Sollecito underwent a period of serious cognitive dissonance, where he was trying to reconcile his (hazy) memory of that evening/night (that Knox had been with him all the time) with the apparent unambiguous certainty being told to him by the police that Knox had been present at - and had participated in - the murder. He was faced with his own fallible memory on the one hand, and the directly contradictory "hard evidence" on the other hand, with the added knowledge that if he stuck to his version of events but turned out to be wrong about his memory, he faced very serious consequences.

And this, in my opinion, is exactly how and why Sollecito came to "re-imagine" the events of the evening/night of 1st November. He found he could come to no other conclusion than that his memory was fallible, since it was directly contradicted by what he believed was inarguable physical evidence of Knox's presence at the murder. He therefore began to convince himself that elements of what he'd thought (correctly) had applied to the previous night (31st October) had in fact taken place on the night of the murder. And he then distorted the picture further to allow for Knox to have left him for long enough to participate in the murder, since he now believed that this simply had to have happened (because the police told him they had proof that it had happened).

And platonov (and others) still appear unable to decipher the argument being employed by Sollecito's legal team in the most recent press conference. But here it is, yet again:

1) Sollecito knows he had absolutely nothing to do with the murder.

2) Sollecito believes Knox also had nothing to do with it.

3) But Sollecito cannot be logically certain of this, for obvious reasons related to metaphysics and consciousness.

4) Despite all the above, the Italian courts have, in their wisdom, decided there's sufficient proof to find both Knox and Sollecito guilty of the murder.

5) But in their "proof", one of the key elements involves Knox cooking up the scheme with Guede in the absence of Sollecito.

6) And therefore, if the courts are using this logic to convict Knox, it also directly suggests the non-participation of Sollecito.


In simple summary, Sollecito's argument here is that neither he nor Knox had anything to do with the murder, but if the courts are going to (mistakenly, in Sollecito's opinion) decide that certain evidence is part of the proof of guilt of Knox, then that same evidence is actually indicative of the non-participation of Sollecito. Basically, Sollecito is pointing out that the courts have caught themselves in a logical closed loop.

I certainly didn’t decipher the physical presence of RS’s legal team in the most recent TV appearance [The press conference was months ago] – RS in a one to one on Italian TV.
You must have missed it. Which is surprising given all the comment it provoked on this thread – OK I’m kidding, it gained very little traction in cartwheel world.

The upshot of this interview was that RS most definitely can’t account for AK’s presence on the night of the murder – he was extremely non committal on the whole business.
You should check it out, the TV interview that is. Apparently RS’s imagination w.r.t his ‘interrogation’ on the 5th is not as fertile as yours. He restricts himself to ‘he wasn’t sure which night’ the police were asking him about. One wonders if he has groupies in Italy who deconstruct what he really meant.

Obviously he doesn’t read this thread and thus doesn’t know what he is talking about

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Who is Britney?

-

Yes. Who is Britney?

d

-