Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Ha, depends if you count the inevitable ECHR appeals. It most certainly won't be the end of the saga, and the ISC must know this. Whether they care depends on just how myopic they are in their little judicial party bubble.

It is really fascinating, (for the obsessionists if that is a word) to follow Nadeau. She bobs and weaves, but is impenetrable. I cannot cite right now, but she is deeply impressive for running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. In fact I hope they all find a place called purgatory...wherever that may be.

 

[Samson]

You have to excuse Barbie. She's not the brightest bulb in the box.

Except, do you wish she wasn't around? Of course not! Remember your wish for the thread to continue, and regrettably, I am tarred with the same voyeuristic brush... I am of course curious about the new avatar, happy to remain so.

I hope like hell and believe there will be no more jail time for either!

 

[lonepinealex]

Except, do you wish she wasn't around? Of course not! Remember your wish for the thread to continue, and regrettably, I am tarred with the same voyeuristic brush... I am of course curious about the new avatar, happy to remain so. I hope like hell and believe there will be no more jail time for either!

Hamlet?

 

[carbonjam72]

Mignini's Attitudes on Women is supportive, but not determinant.

This statement is really the crux of his very odd views about women. No Mr Mignini, it is not easy to believe that any woman would have said this. It really makes me think that his views of women come from watching far too much nasty pornography. It really is the most bizarre theory

If people really believe this is what happened (even though the only evidence of anyone sexually assaulting MK is from Guede), what kind of weird ideas do they have about young women? It's incredibly offensive to both AK and MK

I think that Mognini's theory of Amanda's sexual motive, is based on his effort to shoehorn the Kercher murder into the same satanic sect hoax that he had been perpetuating with Giutarri in the Narducci trail line of cases.

The color of that story, is that the gruesome sexual mutilations post mortem by the Monster of Florence serial killer, were 'in reality', fetish items (the woman's sex organs) collected by the 'satanic sect' as ritual objects for their 'black masses'. Hence Mignini's references to "rites of Halloween".

In order to align the Kercher murder with Mignini's Narducci trail hoax, it was necessary to have a female involved in the crime, and that her motive be consistent with a drive for sexual violence.

Mignini's imaginings about Amanda aren't based on actual evidence, or even Mignini's own natural bent towards women for the most part, imo, but rather his logical requirement to fit the Kercher case, into his Narducci trail fraud, which was itself an effort to capitalize on the tragic Monster of Florence killings.

The Monster of Florence serial killer and his violence done to young people, specifically young couples, is darkly mirrored in Mignini's unprincipled fraudulent grasping at the spotlights, to make himself the hero of a false story, when in reality, he is the most loathsome of villains in the true one.

 

[carbonjam72]

Here's the thing. If Italy had started a separate callunnia proceeding against Knox, they maybe would have had a slim chance of getting away with this, although it would have created a terrible precedent at the echr level.

But, they didn't. They introduced the statements in the murder proceeding, used them to defeat the alibi, and used the ensuing Calunnia conviction to convict for murder and increase her jail time.

Not gonna work.

Its also a false comparison to suggest a 'police informant' is in a similar situation to a coercive interrogation against a vulnerable victim of police thuggery and denials of access to a lawyer, translator, advice of rights to silence and of being a suspect, threats and violence.

It is as completely a laundry list of violations for ECHR, and Italian law too, that one could ever hope to never see happen. Everything done, was done wrong.

It's sad, but highly informative, to see MAch defending the indefensible. It's one of those rare moments where we realize, MAch's not really serious, and on some level, even he must surely know this.

 

[Kauffer]

If it upholds the convictions, the case finally will be closed.

Barbie Latza Nadeau writes this, I suppose in good faith. She defends all her writings at all times. I remember a fine NZ academic from Hamilton declaring all male female relationships being contracts resembling prostitution.

How many posters here agree the case will be closed?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...knox-a-key-decision-approaches-march-25.html#

Of course it won't be closed. Nobody can believe that unless they think that in the event of a confirmation neither Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito will apply to the ECHR claiming violations of, amongst other things, Article 6 - the right to a fair trial. As we have previously discussed, Article 6 violations confirmed by the ECHR will have the effect of setting aside conviction and sentence and occasioning a new trial without the elements that lead the ECHR to conclude the original trial was unfair - that is, if there is any appetite left for the prosecutor to attempt a retrial or a judge who will permit it.

As for the calunnia case currently before the ECHR - an Article 6 violation leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence cannot be retried for reasons of absence of evidence and statute of limitations.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The porta-porta show with Raf, was extremely sympathetic.
The following show with Dr Peter Gill and a panel of interested parties also seemed designed to undermine the evidence used to convict, and indeed to call into question the notion of a "reversal of burden of proof".

This is important because it suggest not just a lack of legitimacy in the conviction, but in the judicial institution itself, much like the conviction of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake caused similar consternation, and was reversed (in large measure).

I think the state run Italian media is much more of a spokes tool for the government in Italy, then in other countries, due to its fascists history and traditions. It's much more like Russia, China, or North Korea - the way totalitarian regimes use the media. So I see coordination in these positive portrayals of innocence, throwing doubt on the legitimacy of the verdicts.

Also, I see signs that the political warfare between Burlesconi's party and the judiciary is also reached a resolution, and I believe this is the only reason Hellman's acquittal was overturned, the judiciary trying to avoid a politically motivated investigation of their members in relation to the case.

The hostilities are at an ebb, public opinion is being softened, I think the Judiciary wants this case flushed, while they can do so without having it used as a club against them.

The timing is right to ditch this albatross (not a reference to Monty Python), and I see it getting ditched. I see cassation canceling the conviction, without requiring a retrial.

As people say here, YMMV.

Do you realise that Porta a Porta is the same TV programme that forced Raffaele’s Father to acknowledge that there had not been any deal between the prosecutor’s office and Raffaele as stated in Raffaele’s book? I am sure you are hoping that particular show will not, indeed should not have any influence the ongoing legal proceedings against Raffaele and Andrew Gumbel, right?

 

[Kauffer]

Do you realise that Porta a Porta is the same TV programme that forced Raffaele’s Father to acknowledge that there had not been any deal between the prosecutor’s office and Raffaele as stated in Raffaele’s book? I am sure you are hoping that particular show will not, indeed should not have any influence the ongoing legal proceedings against Raffaele and Andrew Gumbel, right?

What deal did Mr Sollecito state had been made with the prosecutor's office?

 

[carbonjam72]

Snippet from Nina Burleigh's new article - thought of Michael B.

In the months before the murder, Guede seemed to be having profound psychological problems. Late at night, according to a student and friend of Guede’s who spent the summer before the murder with him, he would go into fugue states and find himself miles from his bed, not knowing how he got there. His friend said Guede often preferred to sleep on the floor at his friend’s apartment, where he would wake in the middle of the night and take on different personae—such as a dog or a professor.
In the two months before the murder, Guede on three occasions known to the Perugia police had broken into what he thought were empty dwellings—sometimes eating, turning up the heat and resting before making off with items from these homes or offices. A week before the murder, he was arrested with stolen goods in his backpack, having broken into a nursery school in Milan, hundreds of miles to the north, where he had lived for a time. The Milan nursery school proprietor who found him sitting at her desk on a Saturday morning had no idea how he got inside, but she recalled he was calm and untroubled when she called the police. The items included a computer lifted from a law office in Perugia a few weeks before by someone who had climbed in a second-floor window, turned up the heat, drunk a soda from the fridge and rearranged bits of broken glass into neat little piles. The week before, someone had broken in and cooked pasta in the kitchen, leaving small bowls around the children’s cots.

The Milan police grilled Guede for several hours about the nursery school break-in, then called Perugia police and released him. One of the many mysteries of this case is why Perugia police apparently told the Milan police to let him go. He took a train back to Perugia, and a week later Kercher was dead.

Michael B, I know this was one point of disagreement over a factual element, whether Perugian authorities had called Milan police, and helped free Guede. Wondering if you still disagree on this point? Do you think NB got it wrong? Any reason for thinking she would misreport it? Just curious.

Also, Rudy as "the dog" and "the professor", that's hard to imagine that Rudy is dealing with a full deck. Who knows what he was experiencing when he assaulted Meredith. Although he did reportedly brag about his exploits to his fellow inmates in jail, so maybe he's just one F****ed up guy.

 

[carbonjam72]

Do you realise that Porta a Porta is the same TV programme that forced Raffaele’s Father to acknowledge that there had not been any deal between the prosecutor’s office and Raffaele as stated in Raffaele’s book? I am sure you are hoping that particular show will not, indeed should not have any influence the ongoing legal proceedings against Raffaele and Andrew Gumbel, right?

Well CoulsdonUK, I would ask the question WHEN was that Porta-Porta show? When Raf's book came out, right? And the purpose? To protect the reputation of the prosecutor and judge's offices, to provide the appearance of legitimacy and a lack of corruption in the prosecution and judiciary.

Whereas I've been referring to events leading up to the cassation hearing on March 25 in the last few weeks, and I will include, since you mention it, the proceedings against Gumebl and Raf over their book, Honor Bound.

I do believe the show Porta-Porta will play a role in these matters (cassation and the honor bound case), and I do think that is appropriate.

I don't think its reasonable to have cases tried in the media, and the defendants vilified in public, because it results in an unfair process. But if that's the way the process plays out in Italy, then surely its fair that the case for innocence also be made in public, and have a similar influence on the same process.
Given that a judiciary in a modern EU country (Italy) has a decision before it that effectively implements an anti-scientific standard, "contamination must be proven", it's not case law that can withstand scrutiny.

As Dr Gill has pointed out elsewhere, that is an impossible burden of proof for any defendant to meet, and a "reversal in burden of proof". It is a recipe for miscarriages of justice, which is Dr Gill's point on Porta-Porta, and the purpose of his recent book on miscarriages of justices, using the Kercher case as a text book example of such.
I see these appearances as a way of helping the public audience to understand that acquittal of Amanda and Raf is both just and necessary. That's how I see it, but I understand you may disagree.

My question to you is, should Dr Gill's voice by considered relevant in this case, and in this matter in general? Would you prefer to see a conviction maintained in this case, and then the underlying issue resolved in another case?

Does Dr Gill speaking out about the unreliability of evidence used in this case cause you to believe these convictions may be unjust? Are you able to respond, or would there be repercussions in the Coulsdon town council should you dare to utter an opinon?

 

[carbonjam72]

What deal did Mr Sollecito state had been made with the prosecutor's office?

I think CoulsdonUK is referring to the suggestion that had Raf said he couldn't remember if Amanda went out, things would go a lot easier on him. If not having charges dismissed, then at least having his sentence significantly reduced.

But that type of pressure would have been inappropriate, so they got Raf's father on TV and 'put the question' to him. If he said 'yes', he would have opened himself up to criminal charges,and have had to prove his innocence. So saying 'No', however distasteful, was probably the safest thing he could do.

Unless you believe Raf's story wasn't truthful. I believe Raf. Others will not.

 

[Kauffer]

I think CoulsdonUK is referring to the suggestion that had Raf said he couldn't remember if Amanda went out, things would go a lot easier on him. If not having charges dismissed, then at least having his sentence significantly reduced.

But that type of pressure would have been inappropriate, so they got Raf's father on TV and 'put the question' to him. If he said 'yes', he would have opened himself up to criminal charges,and have had to prove his innocence. So saying 'No', however distasteful, was probably the safest thing he could do.

Unless you believe Raf's story wasn't truthful. I believe Raf. Others will not.

Yes quite - no deal was ever made. Of course Mr Sollecito is telling the truth. This relates to the stupid "under the bus" allegations made by some people here until recently. Had he disavowed Ms Knox, he would have probably been able to escape prosecution.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gill on the non sterile box; Patrick Waring case

On p. 34 of Misleading DNA evidence Peter Gill wrote, “A knife (item 36) had been packaged in an envelope, then removed at a police station by an individual who had searched the suspect’s room some hours earlier, and then transferred it into a nonsterile box.” Please note that Gill does not say anything about the identity of the box, which is immaterial; the evidence should have remained packaged until examined in a laboratory. It should have been tossed as evidence even if one were dealing with normal amounts of DNA, let alone low template amounts of DNA. The fact that Gubbiotti had been to the flat earlier in the day makes the incident even worse, as students of the Patrick Waring case know. "...the same officers had visited the homes of the girl and the accused which allowed for contamination of evidence." What is not best practice in Perth is not best practice in Perugia.

"But [Robin] Napper quickly discovered a litany of basic policing errors, starting with the night of Patrick's arrest. ''The police had broken every forensic rule in the book,'' Napper says...Police cars are so full of contamination as to render the girl's clothes worthless as forensic evidence. The police then did the same with Patrick: rather than remove the clothes he said he'd been wearing, they drove him to the station in a general-purpose vehicle.) link

By the way Patrick Waring lied, but he was still innocent. People say falsehoods all the time; that includes the police in the Waring case, as well as the present one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hiya Machiavelli,
Your post above has me wondering something,
can ya help me figure something out?

This photo below
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9640[/qimg]
is the dude Miss Kercher was dating,
I believe his name is Giacomo Silenzi , right?


I have learned by reading a few books and some of the The Massei courtroom testimony,
that Miss Kercher's new boyfriend was growing marijuania, right?

Hang on a moment,
I'll dig up a crime scene screen grab photo for ya,
in case you mighta forgotten this tidbit of info, ok?:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9641[/qimg]


Questions:
Is it legal to grow your own in Italy?

Yes it is, if for personal use. It is not legal to sell it.

If so, what ever happened to the pot plants?
Were they given back to Giacomo Silenzi?
Or did the Flyin' Squad harvest and smoke 'em?

I'm afraid they died.

If growing and/or selling marijuania was illegal in Italy in 2007,
was Miss Kercher aiding a drug dealer then?

It was not illegal anyway to grow pot plants in2007.

Did The Flying Squad ever investigate Giacomo Silenzi's phone contacts for possible or probable drug dealings as you write that they did so with Amanda Knox?

Of course he was investigated, not because of the pot plants nor because of drug dealings specifically, but just like all other contacts of Meredith or Amanda.

Or was the Amanda Knox drug dealing phone contact investigation simply another way to get the she-devil witch?

Very stupid question, there was no "she-devil" hunt, only a normal investigation, and the drug dealers ring - that was discovered by chance from Federico's contacts - was not used in the Knox trial. So your question is out of place.

 

[Numbers]

Here's the thing. If Italy had started a separate callunnia proceeding against Knox, they maybe would have had a slim chance of getting away with this, although it would have created a terrible precedent at the echr level.

But, they didn't. They introduced the statements in the murder proceeding, used them to defeat the alibi, and used the ensuing Calunnia conviction to convict for murder and increase her jail time.

Not gonna work.

Please take another look at this. Are you saying that the criminal calunnia case by itself would justify use of the statements obtained during the interrogation without counsel and the custody without counsel?

There would still be the violation of ECHR case-law for the calunnia case: Salduz v Turkey, Dayanan v Turkey, Ibrahim et al. v the UK (and citations within).

I don't know know what you mean by "creating a terrible precedent at the ECHR level." The calunnia by itself conviction would not stand by ECHR case-law. In fact, what Amanda Knox's current application to ECHR can cover is only the calunnia by itself. That could change with a new application after the CSC hearing on March 25 if other criminal charges are finalized.

 

[Samson]

Yes it is, if for personal use. It is not legal to sell it.



I'm afraid they died.



It was not illegal anyway to grow pot plants in2007.



Of course he was investigated, not because of the pot plants nor because of drug dealings specifically, but just like all other contacts of Meredith or Amanda.



Very stupid question, there was no "she-devil" hunt, only a normal investigation, and the drug dealers ring - that was discovered by chance from Federico's contacts - was not used in the Knox trial. So your question is out of place.

All these replies are surprising. While there seems a realistic chance your responses to this monumental hoax will be affirmed in a few days, I have noticed that there is no precedent for facts to be trumped by judicial meanderings for more than a century or so.
Before I retire from the debate, are you comfortable with the findings on Galileo by the Italian courts?
Do you know how irritating it is for people to have to deal with this current case?

 

[Bill Williams]

Or was the Amanda Knox drug dealing phone contact investigation simply another way to get the she-devil witch?

Very stupid question, there was no "she-devil" hunt, only a normal investigation, and the drug dealers ring - that was discovered by chance from Federico's contacts - was not used in the Knox trial. So your question is out of place.

At trial, did Mignini ever invent dialog and put it into the defendant's mouth, which he claimed said, "It is easy to believe Knox said... 'You were such a little saint… now you are going to be forced to have sex'."?

 

[Antony]

Also kwill, without wishing to be pedantic, Leila says

Pi is not math. Pi is a number. Math is what you do with that number.

But Pi is surely not a number, it is a ratio. I know what she means, but why make such an easily falsifiable statement?
Disconcertingly, there are a small number of fine and analytical minds on PMF, as long as they discuss subjects other than the murder of Meredith Kercher.

No, Samson, Leila is right and you are wrong on this one. A number is not just one of the whole numbers, but includes all quantities in between. Pi is perhaps the best-known of the irrational numbers - meaning that the one thing it is not, is a ratio. It cannot be expressed as the ratio of 2 whole numbers (although 22/7 is a working approximation).

 

[Diocletus]

Please take another look at this. Are you saying that the criminal calunnia case by itself would justify use of the statements obtained during the interrogation without counsel and the custody without counsel?

There would still be the violation of ECHR case-law for the calunnia case: Salduz v Turkey, Dayanan v Turkey, Ibrahim et al. v the UK (and citations within).

I don't know know what you mean by "creating a terrible precedent at the ECHR level." The calunnia by itself conviction would not stand by ECHR case-law. In fact, what Amanda Knox's current application to ECHR can cover is only the calunnia by itself. That could change with a new application after the CSC hearing on March 25 if other criminal charges are finalized.

The issue is spelled out in Ibrahim at para. 164/170 (characterizing the Government's argument/characterizing the applicant's argument).

-Adverse use of exculpatory statements made under compulsion is violation of right against self-incrimination (Saunders)

-Adverse use of false "freely-made" statement is not violation of right against self-incrimination (Allen)

The issue would be whether there was "compulsion", which in my view is not a well-defined concept under ECHR caselaw. In my view there was compulsion and compulsion is easily found; however, I think that they would have had a shot at proving lack of compulsion.

 

[Diocletus]

Except, do you wish she wasn't around? Of course not! Remember your wish for the thread to continue, and regrettably, I am tarred with the same voyeuristic brush... I am of course curious about the new avatar, happy to remain so.

I hope like hell and believe there will be no more jail time for either!

I got tired of looking at Andrew Hamilton, notwithstanding the great debt that we all owe him for his good works.

The new Avi is John Zacherle doing a Hamlet skit c. 1958.