Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[MichaelB]

http://www.giovinazzoviva.it/notizie/processo-meredith-francesco-mastro-raffaele-e-innocente/

They're suing a Mediaset journalist for having falsely reported what Rudy had said about seeing Raffaele in the house, and the trial will start 27th March, after the GUP had confirmed that it should be sent for trial. They also tried to sue some Perugian investigators, for having provided this false information, but that was archived. Later in the article he says that if things go badly in Cassation, they'll go to the ECHR.

 

[MichaelB]

When will they stop hounding Amanda Knox?

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...-stop-hounding-amanda-knox/16808#.VRFAdWdd6Uk

 

[Diocletus]

http://www.giovinazzoviva.it/notizie/processo-meredith-francesco-mastro-raffaele-e-innocente/

They're suing a Mediaset journalist for having falsely reported what Rudy had said about seeing Raffaele in the house, and the trial will start 27th March, after the GUP had confirmed that it should be sent for trial. They also tried to sue some Perugian investigators, for having provided this false information, but that was archived. Later in the article he says that if things go badly in Cassation, they'll go to the ECHR.

Interesting. A collateral attack in a friendly venue, and looking for any route to echr.

 

[MichaelB]

From Teddy IIP:

Another pro-innocence show with Remo Croci and the director of Oggi magazine. Lots of anger in the studio about how terrible this case has been handled, especially from Remo Croci. Both Croci and the director of Oggi magazine think there is a strong chance that Raffaele will be sent back for a new Appeal, while Amanda gets convicted (not because of logic, but because of a change in perception in Italy). All agree that the cul-de-sac that the previous Cassation went down is a problem now for exonerating them, but one lawyer indicates that this section 5 of Cassation has been known to go into the details of cases previously and exonerate, so he thinks there is hope yet. Raffaele gives an interview and supports Amanda's innocence but leaving open the possibility that if what Nencini says is true about Amanda, it still has nothing to do with him.

http://www.veratv.it/video/2015/03/...-in-Giallo-Edizione-21-00-del-21-03-2015.aspx

 

[Diocletus]

From Teddy IIP:

Another pro-innocence show with Remo Croci and the director of Oggi magazine. Lots of anger in the studio about how terrible this case has been handled, especially from Remo Croci. Both Croci and the director of Oggi magazine think there is a strong chance that Raffaele will be sent back for a new Appeal, while Amanda gets convicted (not because of logic, but because of a change in perception in Italy). All agree that the cul-de-sac that the previous Cassation went down is a problem now for exonerating them, but one lawyer indicates that this section 5 of Cassation has been known to go into the details of cases previously and exonerate, so he thinks there is hope yet. Raffaele gives an interview and supports Amanda's innocence but leaving open the possibility that if what Nencini says is true about Amanda, it still has nothing to do with him.

http://www.veratv.it/video/2015/03/...-in-Giallo-Edizione-21-00-del-21-03-2015.aspx

I hope that Raffaele does get a new trial, although he should be acquitted.

If Amanda is to be convicted, having Raffaele singled out for new trial is probably the best thing that can happen to her. Makes the whole process stand out as the misogynistic, anti-American farce that it is.

 

[lonepinealex]

I hope that Raffaele does get a new trial, although he should be acquitted.

If Amanda is to be convicted, having Raffaele singled out for new trial is probably the best thing that can happen to her. Makes the whole process stand out as the misogynistic, anti-American farce that it is.

It'll be very interesting to see the guilter response to that scenario. Will they protest Raffaele's exoneration? ETA: if it happens, obv.

 

[Dan O.]

RS's time window to deposit it is so small, and to access so paradoxically that item. Remember in 2008 RS's father had to say "Maybe AK wore that bra." to make sense of that paradox.

Haven't you read any of the folowups to your posts? The prosecution is being stupid to claim the only opportunity for Raffaele's DNA to get on that clasp was during the murder.

1. Unless meredith never washes her bras, this bra had been in the wash and there is a possibility of DNA transfer in the wash.
2. The washed bra is laid out on the drying rack to dry. This rack is in the hall right outside Amanda's room. Raffaele could have touched the clasp while passing the rack on the way to Amanda's room or the small bathroom.
3. Meredith must handle this bra prior to getting dressed the morning of the first. If she were for instance to run a fingernail under the clasp to clear lint, DNA she picked up under her nails could be transferred to the clasp.
4. The opportunity to transfer DNA to the clasp hooks durring the murder is limited. While the clasp is fastened, the hooks point inward towards Meredith's back. The clasp was not cut off by Raffaele's knife as the prosecution claims with zero backing evidence, it was removed when the stitching tore out. Pulling out and down on the band behind Meredith's right shoulder will cause the shoulder strap and clasp to unstitch exactly as seen and also cause the deformation of the one hook while leaving the othe intact. Rudy Guede's DNA was found on the right band of the bra giving strong indication that it was Rudy who ripped Meredith's bra off. The clasp would fall to the floor untouched.
5. Some might try to argue that Raffaele could have stepped on the clasp with his bare foot. Apart from the fact that there is no indication that Raffaele was in the murder room with bare feet or otherwise, the photographs show that the clasp was not stepped on until after it was first discovered on November 3. The photos from the subsequent recovery on December 18 show that one of the hooks has been collapsed whereas it was still open on November 3.
6. Prior to the morning of November 14 there was an unrecorded access to the cottage. This is evidenced by a photo taken by Barbie Nadeu and collaborated by a statement to the press on the 12th that the police would be using Luminol in the cottage the next day.
7. The clasp is recovered on December 18, found under a rug a meter away from where it was last seen. The clasp could have picked up DNA from the dust on the floor or objects it was rubbing against like the cord to Amanda's lamp.
8. The investigators do not pick up the clasp with sterile disposable tweezers and immediately place it in the evidence bag. Stefanoni picks up the clasp with obviously soiled gloves, transferes it from hand to hand and passes it around the group before it is put back on the floor, rephotographed, picked up again and then put in the bag with several staged photos of the process.
9. And finally, laboratory contamination of samples is not unheard of.

The evidence we have of multiple contributors to that profile found only on the hooks of the clasp suggests a secondary transfer event like number 3.


ETA, Left one out: [3.5] Around noon on November 1, Raffaele is cooking pasta in the kitchen of the cottage when Meredith comes through to put something in or take something out of the washer. In the kitchen she could have engaged Raffaele in a friendly duel, snapping him on the shoulder with her flail while he turns and touches her hand with the tip of his sword.

 

[GreyFox]

Unfortunately I don't have Nina Burleigh's book, I only have a quotation from another book so I can't look up the source myself.
I also don't have the police testimonies of Juve and Spyros so I can't quote them.
But I also had independent sources which told me about the event.However, I also think that Sollecito's and Knox's book are sufficiently eloquent in their admissions and omissions.

Sollecito clearly said Amanda wanted to spend the night with Meredith, and says she was disliked and rejected. She wanted to party with Meredith and she found herself walking home alone. The sms exchange ending witn "call me" with no answer is eloquent, and it's a fact. Knox pulls a curtain saying "thankfully Halloween was over", how can you interpret this, no matter how much sobbing there was?
Robyn Butterworth expressed an opinion that she thought next day Meredith felt guilty for not having answered Amanda's invitation (it was only Robyn's opinion). It's clear there was a rejection on the part of Meredith. It's clearly something petty as an event, but it's also clear that Amanda was suffering that night, and she was suffering because of Meredith - because of her own loneliness she felt when she was not there, and probably jealousy - not because of other factors like social life or other sillines.

Typical of you to say you have inside information that the rest of us can't debate. Like others from your side who claim to be the mesiah .... Well who can argue with GOD. The official spokeswoman from your group (Barbie Nadue) did this as well claiming things that were false (bleach receipts) then blaming sources inside the police department. It doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as you put it out there the damage is done.Because most people wont take the time to explore for themselves. That's the way the darkside works.

As to Robyns opinion.... How does she know what Amanda felt ? Any decent judge would have instructed her to say what she knows to be fact and not what she thinks. Knox's lawyer should have objected perhaps.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not just one or two stray alleles

ericparoissien,

In a 2010 review article on trace DNA van Oorschot and coauthors wrote, "Contamination is a crucial issue in the analysis and interpretation of trace DNA. Contaminant DNA may appear as either the major or minor sample within a mixture or, alternatively, may overwhelm the target DNA completely." This is consistent with what everyone knows about DNA, namely that the mere existence of a profile does not provide information on when or how it got there.

 

[Diocletus]

We know that the Kerchers arrived in Perugia on the evening of the 3rd November.

"Doroty: Have you... have you spoken to the father?
Amanda: With whom?
Doroty:: With Meredith’s father.
Amanda: No, we... eh... Filomena talked to a policeman today to ask him for the father’s number. He’s coming... arriving tonight."

(Source: telephone intercepts/Amanda Knox conversation with Dorothy, 3rd November: 16:54 - 17:03)

Here's John Kercher's recounting of his first meeting with Mignini, that night, in Perugia.

"He was serious about obtaining information on Meredith, and wanted to know in particular what she had told us of her housemate Amanda Knox"

(Source: "Meredith" p 20)

So, Ms Knox's telephone is tapped on the 3rd and Mignini is questioning the father of the victim about his daughter's relationship with Ms Knox.

The vultures are circling and the case against her is being prepared - two days before the final interrogations, where she will later be described as a mere "witness".

This raises quite an interesting issue for the ECHR about just when "suspect" status attaches to a person of "investigative interest."

It's clear that the police can call someone in for questioning as part of an undifferentiated group of witnesses. On the other hand, Italy has already been written up for calling in suspects in as witnesses. See p. 15, here: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ita/2010-12-inf-eng.pdf, and see para. 28-80 here: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ita/2010-13-inf-eng.pdf

Here, we have the noose gradually tightening:

1. Knox is suspected of being a suspect almost immediately, because the cops determined right away that the break-in was staged, and believed that a keyholder was the perpetrator.

2. Giobbi and the other investigative wizards suspect Knox immediately, because of their amazing intuition.

3. Every other resident of the cottage alibied out, I think by 3 Nov.

4. Knox's phone is wiretapped, and her call records from the night of the murder are pulled.

5. Mignini is focused on Knox when he interviews John Kercher.

6. Lumumba appears to enter the picture because of his communications with Knox; his bar is bugged.

7. By the time they are called in on the 5th, there really are no other suspects.

 

[NancyS]

This raises quite an interesting issue for the ECHR about just when "suspect" status attaches to a person of "investigative interest."

It's clear that the police can call someone in for questioning as part of an undifferentiated group of witnesses. On the other hand, Italy has already been written up for calling in suspects in as witnesses. See p. 15, here: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ita/2010-12-inf-eng.pdf, and see para. 28-80 here: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ita/2010-13-inf-eng.pdf

Here, we have the noose gradually tightening:

1. Knox is suspected of being a suspect almost immediately, because the cops determined right away that the break-in was staged, and believed that a keyholder was the perpetrator.

2. Giobbi and the other investigative wizards suspect Knox immediately, because of their amazing intuition.

3. Every other resident of the cottage alibied out, I think by 3 Nov.

4. Knox's phone is wiretapped, and her call records from the night of the murder are pulled.

5. Mignini is focused on Knox when he interviews John Kercher.

6. Lumumba appears to enter the picture because of his communications with Knox; his bar is bugged.

7. By the time they are called in on the 5th, there really are no other suspects.

When was Lumumba's bar bugged?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

this one has always bugged me

8. A police officer plants a device to listen in on a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda at the station. This was 3 or 4 November IIRC.

 

[JREF2010]

It'll be very interesting to see the guilter response to that scenario. Will they protest Raffaele's exoneration? ETA: if it happens, obv.

For some reason I expect an odd order to come out.

How does the "system" save face, from this embarrassing farce, yet set them free and be done with the bad publicity and global and public embarrassment for being a Goofball Court, full of dishonest politics?
I can understand their position. If you start letting people go then the system seems vulnerable to be wrong, which stirs more protesting and more people being let go and more lawsuits for damages of ruining lives, and a mini-revolution occurs.

If they drop Raffaele and keep on at Amanda.... they can appease the Hate-Mongers, maintain some local public positive tv worship and while keeping the farce going with some foreigner still being charged, as a nod to the corrupt cops and politics of face saving.

But for me, the guiltards evidence against Amanda is even weaker than Raffaeles.

The knife evidence is weaker than the bra clasp, imo.
No blood=Not cleaned = tested, tested and retested = Nothing.
DNA RFU below low..

There is no blurry bloody footprint blob mat... against Amanda.

No DNA in Merediths room.
She lived in the apartment so her DNA and anything else would not be alarming if found in the toilet,sink, floor, or kitchen.

All the other fiction scenarios the Guiltards vomited become even more of a bad joke, with only vindictive obsession towards her surviving.

Maresca seems to be the last standing Loyalist to the Guiltard party.
I was reading Hellmans transcripts...
They had a chance to break Rudy, in Hellmans court, to try to get some truth out of him, but Maresca objected, and objected and objected a few more times on Rudys behalf. So strange to imagine Maresca defending the man who raped and murdered Meredith, and yet he supposedly is counseling the Kerchers? And more bizarre is, shortly after Marescas protecting Rudys silence in court, John Kercher was publicly asking Rudy to talk?

Old Maresca is a slippery snake....I await surprises from him too, not just the SC.

 

[Diocletus]

When was Lumumba's bar bugged?

Not sure about that.

 

[js202]

8. A police officer plants a device to listen in on a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda at the station.

Bugged, indeed. And yet, according to the patiently sincere Meisterburger Mignini, resources were too strapped down at the police station to properly record Ms. Knox's "interview." A great pity for all concerned.

 

[lonepinealex]

For some reason I expect an odd order to come out.

How does the "system" save face, from this embarrassing farce, yet set them free and be done with the bad publicity and global and public embarrassment for being a Goofball Court, full of dishonest politics?
I can understand their position. If you start letting people go then the system seems vulnerable to be wrong, which stirs more protesting and more people being let go and more lawsuits for damages of ruining lives, and a mini-revolution occurs.

If they drop Raffaele and keep on at Amanda.... they can appease the Hate-Mongers, maintain some local public positive tv worship and while keeping the farce going with some foreigner still being charged, as a nod to the corrupt cops and politics of face saving.

But for me, the guiltards evidence against Amanda is even weaker than Raffaeles.

The knife evidence is weaker than the bra clasp, imo.
No blood=Not cleaned = tested, tested and retested = Nothing.
DNA RFU below low..

There is no blurry bloody footprint blob mat... against Amanda.

No DNA in Merediths room.
She lived in the apartment so her DNA and anything else would not be alarming if found in the toilet,sink, floor, or kitchen.

All the other fiction scenarios the Guiltards vomited become even more of a bad joke, with only vindictive obsession towards her surviving.

Maresca seems to be the last standing Loyalist to the Guiltard party.
I was reading Hellmans transcripts...
They had a chance to break Rudy, in Hellmans court, to try to get some truth out of him, but Maresca objected, and objected and objected a few more times on Rudys behalf. So strange to imagine Maresca defending the man who raped and murdered Meredith, and yet he supposedly is counseling the Kerchers? And more bizarre is, shortly after Marescas protecting Rudys silence in court, John Kercher was publicly asking Rudy to talk?

Old Maresca is a slippery snake....I await surprises from him too, not just the SC.

I just don't see how the ISC is going to reconcile Amanda and Raff's case with Rudy's. It seems impossible now. God knows what will happen tomorrow.

 

[Kauffer]

When was Lumumba's bar bugged?

It would appear from Stefano Buratti's evidence that it could have been as early as the 3rd.

PROSECUTOR – DR. COMODI QUESTION – Could you make a list of telephone users that have been subjected to interception based on the Prosecutor’s Decree in the context of Meredith’s murder, do you have a list?
ANSWER – Well, at the moment I don’t have one, of all interceptions made?
PRESIDENT – of the users Yes.
ANSWER – They are pretty much, if I’m not mistaken 83 wiretaps, which are called ‘Rit’, so any wiretap corresponds to a user or to an environment, 83, 5 of them are environmental, of those, three in prison, one in the police station and the other was at Lumumba’s Pub QUESTION – then were the defendants’ phones intercepted? ANSWER- the telephones of the defendants, of Knox, and … QUESTION – of suspects by then? ANSWER – the suspects by then so from day 2, starting from day 2 to follow developments of the investigative activity gradually wiretaps became authorized. QUESTION – So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito. ANSWER-Yes, then let’s talk about the first interceptions, no? QUESTION – I am not asking you in chronological order, then Rudy Guede, Lumumba? ANSWER – Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti. QUESTION – Then even friends? ANSWER – Yes.

 

[sept79]

I hope that Raffaele does get a new trial, although he should be acquitted.

If Amanda is to be convicted, having Raffaele singled out for a new trial is probably the best thing that can happen to her. Makes the whole process stand out as the misogynistic, anti-American farce that it is.

That scenario certainly wouldn't promote American/Italian relations . . .

 

[TruthCalls]

Also, it's just not true that personality issues would be a big asset to the prosecution. In the real world psychological expert reports is mostly worthless evidence at trials. In the real practice not even serial killers are assessed by experts, not because inadmissible but because it's worthless evidence. You suspect a narcissistic personality disorder, would you demand an expert assessment? No prosecutor would. Or they would have to do so for all criminals. I don't remember even one case where a report about personality was ordered, unless it was to determine that a folk was insane to the point of not be able to tell a duck from a melon.

So does this mean it is far more effective to make wild accusations about the psychological makeup of the defendant without any professional or circumstantial evidence to back it up? Nothing to prove the accusations are false, all one needs to do is be a good used car salesman and tada, you have a foothill for your mountain.

These last few pages are truly bizarre. And to think, you, Mach, are looked upon as an expert in the prosecution of this case by your PG brethren. Wow...

 

[Diocletus]

Italy Written Up for Failure to Investigate Abuse

Note that the Committee for Prevention of Torture has written up Italy for failing to investigate allegations of abuse. The discussion corresponds exactly to what happened to Knox:

10. The CPT recalls that prison health-care services can make a significant contribution to the prevention of ill-treatment of detained persons by law enforcement officials through the systematic recording of injuries and the transmission of information to the relevant authorities (see also paragraphs 81 and 82).

In this regard, the CPT is very concerned about the action taken – or rather lack of action – by the relevant judicial authorities in potential cases of ill-treatment (even when supporting medical evidence was available). This is the result of a fundamental flaw in the current criminal justice system.

The Committee acknowledges the efforts made by medical staff and the management of the prisons visited to systematically communicate all cases of traumatic lesions which were indicative of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials in a timely manner to the competent judge (i.e. the judge who imposed remand detention or, in the case of sentenced prisoners, the supervisory judge).

In cases where the estimated prognosis for recovery exceeded 20 days, the prosecutor’s office was also notified systematically.

However, from the consultations which the delegation held in the course of the visit with the President of a Supervisory Court of Milan as well as with a prosecutor, it became clear that supervisory judges would forward the above-mentioned cases to the prosecutor’s office only if the prognosis for recovery had been estimated by the prison doctor to exceed 20 days. In the same vein, the interviewed prosecutor affirmed to the delegation that even if he did receive reports of traumatic lesions which may have been the result of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials (or prison officers) but had an estimated prognosis for recovery of 20 days or less, he would only be in the position to initiate a preliminary inquiry upon receipt of a formal complaint by the alleged victim.

In other words, for as long as the victim him/herself or his/her lawyer does not submit any such complaint, no action will be taken by a prosecutor.

This highly unsatisfactory state of affairs stems from the fact that the (only) provision of the Penal Code which is in principle applicable in such cases (Section 582), stipulates that the offence of bodily harm (lesione personale) is only punishable upon request (querela) of the person concerned, when the recovery period does not exceed 20 days and when no aggravating
circumstances as set out in Section 583 (e.g. invalidity, loss of a corporal sense or permanent facial disfigurement) or Section 585 (e.g. use of weapons) of the Penal Code apply.

11. It is a well-known fact that detained persons are often reluctant to take the initiative of lodging a formal complaint about ill-treatment by law enforcement officials (or prison officers), due to fear of reprisals or other negative consequences. In addition, a threshold of recovery of 20 days for a case of possible ill-treatment to be taken up by a prosecutor ex officio is far too high. The CPT’s experience in various countries has shown all too often that severe physical ill-treatment or even torture can be inflicted on a person leaving injuries which heal in less than 20 days and that such methods can in some cases be applied without leaving any visible traces whatsoever.

Consequently, all information which is indicative of ill-treatment of detained persons should be followed up by the relevant judicial authorities, if need be, ex officio.

The introduction of the crime of “torture” in the Penal Code, which is currently under discussion before Parliament, will constitute a partial remedy in this regard (see paragraph 6). The CPT also notes that, in a recent judgment7, the Court of Cassation held that Section 572 of the Penal Code, which penalises the crime of “domestic violence” (maltrattamento in famiglia o verso fanciulli) and which is criminally prosecutable ex officio, may under certain circumstances be applicable in cases of ill-treatment of prisoners by staff in a carceral environment. However, the CPT understands that this extensive interpretation of the current criminal legislation is unlikely to extend to instances of ill-treatment of detained persons in a police custody context.

12. In the light of the above, it is clear that the current criminal legislation displays a major lacuna which undermines the prevention of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and may well foster a climate of impunity.

The CPT recommends that the Italian authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that the physical ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement officials (or other persons acting on behalf of a public authority) becomes prosecutable ex officio irrespective of the prognosis of recovery. To this end, the criminal legislation should be amended so that the 20-day threshold set out in Section 582 of the Penal Code no longer
applies in such cases.

Further, the Committee recommends that steps be taken by all relevant authorities to ensure that, whenever injuries are recorded by a doctor which are consistent with allegations of ill-treatment made by a detained person (or which, even in the absence of allegations, are indicative of ill-treatment), the record is systematically brought to the attention of the relevant prosecutor, regardless of the wishes of the person concerned. If necessary, the relevant legal provisions should be amended accordingly.