Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

It must have really gone tits up for the prosecution today, because here is Machiavelli's latest:

"Antonio Paolo Bruno is the Supreme Judge who was accused of conspiracy with Mafia by prosecutor DeMagistris in 2006."

And, we all know that Machiavelli only resorts to masonic/mafia conspiracies when all else fails.


Also, Vogt "doesn't know" which way things are leaning, but "other people" think it looks good at least for Sollecito. LOL.

 

[js202]

So what?

Indeed. To this I say, "who knew?," tongue planted firmly in cheek.

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought there were more axioms - such as that there were multiple killers and that Nara did hear a scream and so on. And if there aren't many certainties then it's very simply - you must acquit. That's my reading of the tea leaves for the day anyway

All of this reminds me of Kremlinology - the Italian system, "is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

As elsewhere, it seems that Bongiorno is hitting the court with the complete case-file. As Numbers said upthread:

"To me, Raffaele and his defense team have adopted a typical legal strategy, not a betrayal of Amanda. The statement that if the court wishes to accept her guilt, based on false evidence, does not mean it must accept his guilt on the same false evidence."​

The Achilles Heel of this case is that they really haven't been after Raffaele anyway. If Raffaele had caved in, then Nencini would have said that Exhibit 165B has an innocent explanation for Raffaele's trace being there.... Nencini would be noting that Raffaele was in the cottage the afternoon prior to the murder.

But since they had to go after Raffaele, they had to make a case which accounted for both Amanda AND Raffaele.

With 8 of 9 experts saying that a single attacker is eminately possible, if not probable, one might be inclined to say, "Well, maybe it was Amanda and Rudy." But add Raffaele.... and the experts claims need more adjustment to fit.

Who knows if this two-day delay and the comments of the head judge are positive. It's all Kremlinology. But who knows, maybe they ARE setting up a scenario where Cassazione will remove Raffaele from this absurdity.

The second best thing for either of them is the acquittal of the other.

 

[Bill Williams]

It must have really gone tits up for the prosecution today, because here is Machiavelli's latest: "Antonio Paolo Bruno is the Supreme Judge who was accused of conspiracy with Mafia by prosecutor DeMagistris in 2006."
And, we all know that Machiavelli only resorts to masonic/mafia conspiracies when all else fails.


Also, Vogt "doesn't know" which way things are leaning, but "other people" think it looks good at least for Sollecito. LOL.

NOw THAT'S the most hopeful thing I've heard!

 

[Kauffer]

So what?

That the victim's family is sponsoring, even at arms length, a bunch of disinformation junkies who have had, whether we like it or not, a profound impact on media reporting in this case would be shameful if true.

Perhaps it hasn't had a substantive effect on the conduct of the trials, but it has certainly contributed to the reputational damage done to the defendants, Ms Knox, in particular.

One of the prevailing memes in this case has been the 'dignified silence' of the Kerchers contrasted with the 'PR machine' of Ms Knox. It gets them sympathy, support, unquestioning allegiance and a sense that, for their sake, people need to condemn the defendants.

 

[Kauffer]

It must have really gone tits up for the prosecution today, because here is Machiavelli's latest:

"Antonio Paolo Bruno is the Supreme Judge who was accused of conspiracy with Mafia by prosecutor DeMagistris in 2006."

And, we all know that Machiavelli only resorts to masonic/mafia conspiracies when all else fails.


Also, Vogt "doesn't know" which way things are leaning, but "other people" think it looks good at least for Sollecito. LOL.

They're getting anxi at PMF.

Verdict is definitely Friday, apparently.

 

[js202]

That the victim's family is sponsoring, even at arms length, a bunch of disinformation junkies who have had, whether we like it or not, a profound impact on media reporting in this case would be shameful if true.

Perhaps it hasn't had a substantive effect on the conduct of the trials, but it has certainly contributed to the reputational damage done to the defendants, Ms Knox, in particular.

One of the prevailing memes in this case has been the 'dignified silence' of the Kerchers contrasted with the 'PR machine' of Ms Knox. It gets them sympathy, support, unquestioning allegiance and a sense that, for their sake, people need to condemn the defendants.

John Kercher Sr. is an old-school, tabloid journalist, surely well-schooled in those dark arts. I take a jaundiced view of this aspect of the case, and consider it just one more element at which to sadly shake one's head.

Doug Bremner, his sister, and others like them have been attacked in what appears to be systematic fashion. It is disgusting, and I share his opinions as to the likely source.

 

[acbytesla]

Straw men. This is an exercise of downplaying, denying and twisting.

Surely you jest. This is like the pot calling the china black. In the last few days we have caught you lying about Meredith's door and Amanda walking home alone on Halloween as well as sobbing. You have not only been twisting the facts but have been making them up out of thin air.

 

[moije2]

PR

That the victim's family is sponsoring, even at arms length, a bunch of disinformation junkies who have had, whether we like it or not, a profound impact on media reporting in this case would be shameful if true.

Perhaps it hasn't had a substantive effect on the conduct of the trials, but it has certainly contributed to the reputational damage done to the defendants, Ms Knox, in particular.

One of the prevailing memes in this case has been the 'dignified silence' of the Kerchers contrasted with the 'PR machine' of Ms Knox. It gets them sympathy, support, unquestioning allegiance and a sense that, for their sake, people need to condemn the defendants.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Didn't John Kercher write a note of thanks to TJMK in his book?

IMO there has been a deft exercise of a well orchestrated PR campaign to convict AK and RS. I would venture in many respects unprecedented.

 

[Diocletus]

Now, Machiavelli says:

"Pinelli asked 3 months cut from both penalties (weapon carrying). But this cut may technically require intervention by Florence court."


Whoa, Nellie. How can they acquit her of weapon carrying? I thought she carried the murder weapon back and forth from Sollecito's place. She didn't? And, wasn't this some kind of aggravating circumstance?

And, what's this about intervention by the Florence Court. Doesn't that imply that the case is going to get sent back down?

 

[anglolawyer]

That the victim's family is sponsoring, even at arms length, a bunch of disinformation junkies who have had, whether we like it or not, a profound impact on media reporting in this case would be shameful if true.

Perhaps it hasn't had a substantive effect on the conduct of the trials, but it has certainly contributed to the reputational damage done to the defendants, Ms Knox, in particular.

One of the prevailing memes in this case has been the 'dignified silence' of the Kerchers contrasted with the 'PR machine' of Ms Knox. It gets them sympathy, support, unquestioning allegiance and a sense that, for their sake, people need to condemn the defendants.

'Sponsoring'? That's a bit strong. Deriving moral support more like. I agree with what's been said before here, the Kerchers probably believe the explanations their lawyers and the prosecutors have been feeding them. It's not like they (the lawyers etc) would look that great if the victim's family were to repudiate them so they have a lot invested in keeping them onside. I don;t blame the Kerchers at all for this. They are putty in the hands of the liars running this show.

The case is built on lies and lies are inherently difficult to untangle even if one doesn't start with a bias in favour of the authorities doing rings properly.

 

[TruthCalls]

'Sponsoring'? That's a bit strong. Deriving moral support more like. I agree with what's been said before here, the Kerchers probably believe the explanations their lawyers and the prosecutors have been feeding them. It's not like they (the lawyers etc) would look that great if the victim's family were to repudiate them so they have a lot invested in keeping them onside. I don;t blame the Kerchers at all for this. They are putty in the hands of the liars running this show.

The case is built on lies and lies are inherently difficult to untangle even if one doesn't start with a bias in favour of the authorities doing rings properly.

Completely agree. However, it would be nice to see the Kercher' start to question some of the 'presumed facts' of the case. Why haven't they gone to Gil and had a private discussion of the case? I have never lost a child so I can not know what it is like to be in their shoes, but I'd like to believe I would at least want to dig into this as far as my knowledge and understanding can take me. Speaking to one of the foremost DNA experts, who has looked into this case, would be one of the first things I would want to do. They seem to not only have been convinced of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, but they don't seem the least bit interested in looking into the possibility that could be a wrong conclusion.

 

[Kauffer]

Now, Machiavelli says:

"Pinelli asked 3 months cut from both penalties (weapon carrying). But this cut may technically require intervention by Florence court."


Whoa, Nellie. How can they acquit her of weapon carrying? I thought she carried the murder weapon back and forth from Sollecito's place. She didn't? And, wasn't this some kind of aggravating circumstance?

And, what's this about intervention by the Florence Court. Doesn't that imply that the case is going to get sent back down?

Barbie tweeted something about statute of limitations, presumably on the carrying out if the sentence - not clear. But the Florence court reference is interesting. Perhaps this could be a mere administrative task.

 

[Numbers]

Is there any ECHR jurisprudence on arbitrary reasoning? Apologies if you have already posted it nine times already. I tend to prefer concrete examples over abstract principles. What would arbitrary reasoning look like?

Sometimes ECHR uses the term "arbitrary reasoning" and sometimes instead "manifestly unreasoned" or "manifestly ill-reasoned". There may be some overlap. "Unreasoned" may be specific to the judge/court not providing reasons why some judgment has been made.

Here is one case:

ECHR on Manifestly ill-reasoned judgment in a criminal case.
Nechiporuk & Yonkalo v Ukraine 42310/04 21/04/2011

Paragraph 280: The Court has held...that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point of the applicant {who had been the defendant in a criminal trial}, the domestic courts fall short their obligations under Article 6.1 of the Convention. It observes a similar issue in the present case, where that requirement....was not met. {Thus, there is a violation of Article 6.1 of the Convention.}

The parts left out in the above quote point out that previously the ECHR had ruled that certain civil cases were manifestly ill-reasoned, for example Pronina v Ukraine 63566/00 paragraph 25, 18 Jul 2006.

There are IMO several instances of such "manifestly ill-reasoned judgment" in the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case. One instance is in Amanda's conviction by the Hellmann court for calunnia. It appears that the report by the defense expert on memory was ignored in reaching this judgment. In the provisional conviction of both by Nencini for murder, the report by Conti and Vecchiotti impeaching the DNA sample collection and testing was apparently not addressed. ECHR states that the requirement for sound reasoning is even more stringent in the context of criminal than civil cases.

 

[carbonjam72]

Now, Machiavelli says:

"Pinelli asked 3 months cut from both penalties (weapon carrying). But this cut may technically require intervention by Florence court."


Whoa, Nellie. How can they acquit her of weapon carrying? I thought she carried the murder weapon back and forth from Sollecito's place. She didn't? And, wasn't this some kind of aggravating circumstance?

And, what's this about intervention by the Florence Court. Doesn't that imply that the case is going to get sent back down?

I think I saw it tweeted that this request had to do with a statute of limitations. It just means they are getting credit for a crime where the SOL ran out. On some level it seems generous in the sense that they aren't asking for "life" or 3o years, or an increase in the sentence.

If it went back down to Florence on only this basis, then only a modification of the sentence would be at issue. Sentence can be adjusted, without re-opening the issue of a confirmed conviction, IIUC.

However, as I say, I think its notable that they are requesting a lower sentence, rather than seeking to raise it. Seems to me an acquittal is in the winds, and everyone can feel it. Like the prosecution knows they're bucking headwinds, and trying to give up as little ground as they can, so they come up with this fig leaf. (But hey, what the hell do I know? Ask Bill)

 

[NancyS]

I think "McCall" doesn't quite realise that the very subject of that AP piece was a peek into the bizarro world of the online campaigns, and specifically the highly unsusual phenomenon of so-called "pro-victim" campaigns. After all, people have campaigned on behalf of perceived wrongful convictions since justice systems first came into place: there's a very important principle at stake and the power of the state needs to be kept under close and constant scrutiny in a healthy democracy.

But the new phenomenon of "pro-guilt" campaigns is truly fascinating. I think it's genuinely fair for people (and the media) to wonder quite why coalitions of individuals who never knew the victim(s), the victim's family or the alleged perpetrators should feel the need/want to organise campaigns to argue for the convictions and incarcerations of the alleged perpetrators. Indeed, many sociologists and psychologists appear to have been looking at exactly this phenomenon, and attempting to explain it. "McCall" is just a useful - and clearly accessible - figurehead for this phenomenon. I wonder how jealous Ganong, Michael and God Ergon might have been though

Great post, I've been trying to find the words to express that there is a huge difference between people campaigning against potential wrongful convictions and the very strange 'pro-guilt' campaign, regarding someone they have no connection to.

 

[acbytesla]

griffinmill,

Both Raffaele's experts and Amanda's experts asked for them (Recall what Carlo Dalla Vedova said in a 2011 interview about making repeated requests). Every expert who has spoken about them in general has said that they form an essential part of a thorough case review. The ABA lists them as explicitly discoverable. How the defense is supposed to demonstrate contamination with one arm tied behind its back is something that the PG commenters have never been willing to address.

I'm convinced that Stefanoni's objectied to Michelle years before this proves that the defense asked for the EDF files almost immediately. Why would he object to the judge to provide something he wasn't asked for? The answer is that he wouldn't.

 

[carbonjam72]

Completely agree. However, it would be nice to see the Kercher' start to question some of the 'presumed facts' of the case. Why haven't they gone to Gil and had a private discussion of the case? I have never lost a child so I can not know what it is like to be in their shoes, but I'd like to believe I would at least want to dig into this as far as my knowledge and understanding can take me. Speaking to one of the foremost DNA experts, who has looked into this case, would be one of the first things I would want to do. They seem to not only have been convinced of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, but they don't seem the least bit interested in looking into the possibility that could be a wrong conclusion.

Yes, its their utter lack of interest in the certainty, safety and soundness of a conviction that I find galling. And its uncomfortably awkward that this blindness allows them the opportunity to access Raf's inheritance.

 

[Numbers]

Sometimes ECHR uses the term "arbitrary reasoning" and sometimes instead "manifestly unreasoned" or "manifestly ill-reasoned". There may be some overlap. "Unreasoned" may be specific to the judge/court not providing reasons why some judgment has been made.

Here is one case:

ECHR on Manifestly ill-reasoned judgment in a criminal case.
Nechiporuk & Yonkalo v Ukraine 42310/04 21/04/2011

Paragraph 280: The Court has held...that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point of the applicant {who had been the defendant in a criminal trial}, the domestic courts fall short their obligations under Article 6.1 of the Convention. It observes a similar issue in the present case, where that requirement....was not met. {Thus, there is a violation of Article 6.1 of the Convention.}

The parts left out in the above quote point out that previously the ECHR had ruled that certain civil cases were manifestly ill-reasoned, for example Pronina v Ukraine 63566/00 paragraph 25, 18 Jul 2006.

... ECHR states that the requirement for sound reasoning is even more stringent in the context of criminal than civil cases.

Here's another case. This one had "an absence of sufficient reasons" for a conviction.

CASE OF GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA 7170/02 08/04/2008

112. The Court further notes that the higher courts did not deal with the finding of the lower court that G. and the other co-accused had an alibi for the presumed time of the crime (see paragraphs 41-42 above), and that a number of serious procedural violations made unreliable most of the expert reports (see paragraphs 56-57 above).

113. The higher courts also relied on the many witness statements in G.’s case. However, the Court observes that no comment was made on the finding by the lower court that some of those statements were fabricated by the police (see paragraphs 31 and 41 above).

114. The Court concludes that while accepting as “decisive evidence” (see paragraph 75 above) the self-incriminating statements made by the accused, the domestic courts chose simply to remain silent with regard to a number of serious violations of the law noted by the lower court and to certain fundamental issues, such as the fact that the accused had an alibi for the presumed time of the murder. The Court could not find any explanation for such omission in the courts’ decisions and neither did the Government provide any clarification in this respect.

115. In the light of the above observations and taking into account the proceedings as a whole, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons for convicting G. and thus did not satisfy the requirements of fairness as required by Article 6 of the Convention.

116. The Court recalls its finding that the proceedings against G. concerned directly the applicant’s own rights (see paragraph 101 above). It concludes that G.’s conviction, in the absence of sufficient reasons, necessarily breached the applicant’s right to a fair trial.

117. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

'Sponsoring'? That's a bit strong. Deriving moral support more like. I agree with what's been said before here, the Kerchers probably believe the explanations their lawyers and the prosecutors have been feeding them. It's not like they (the lawyers etc) would look that great if the victim's family were to repudiate them so they have a lot invested in keeping them onside. I don;t blame the Kerchers at all for this. They are putty in the hands of the liars running this show.

The case is built on lies and lies are inherently difficult to untangle even if one doesn't start with a bias in favour of the authorities doing rings properly.

Hi Anglolawyer - while I greatly respect your offerings here and elsewhere, I don't agree that the Kerchers are like putty in anyone's hands. These are adults with functioning brains who should have been able to see this debacle for the bad joke that it is a long time ago. That so many disinterested experts, not just American ones either, have criticized various aspects of the "case" against Knox/Sollecito should tell them something. It should tell them pretty much everything really.

As moije2 pointed out above, Kercher Sr. definitely praised TJMK as "unbiased" in his book. That had to be one of the most absurd claims I've ever read in my life and that's saying plenty . I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but I don’t consider the Kerchers to be the least bit dignified or silent. There are a lot of ways to be heard. I also believe that their gigantic moral blinders are about one simple thing and it isn't justice for Meredith. It's money. As though a big payday down the road will help to ease their suffering and nobody else's suffering matters in the least. On one level I can’t really blame them for this…many victims of all sorts of crimes are legitimately entitled to financial compensation for their loss, pain, & suffering. For the Kerchers to get any money, though, they’ve got to buy into an utter mess of lies. But these lies seem so blatant, brazen even….I just don’t see them as being difficult to untangle. That the Kerchers seem so fine with not doing so is what’s staggering.