Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Matthew Best]

Maybe he popped outside and tweeted and thus missed the judge's rebuke.

Yes, I'm sure that was it.

 

[anglolawyer]

In that case, he must have been having a powwow with Vogt, because she missed it too.

Yes, I'm sure that was it.

Let's give our on-the-spot reporters the benefit of the doubt. Theirs is a tough job.

 

[Samson]

I am sure Raffaele will remain a free man tonight.

My reasoning is that he had nothing to do with the crime

 

[Antony]

Interestingly, what might appear to be a 'bad' outcome, at first sight, may well, on sober reflection, actually turn out to be a good one in the long term.

Cassation has a major problem with these cases and I would bet that within the large body of judges on the court, there are at least some who realise it and realise that the charges are junk.

There were indications on Wednesday that Bruno and Matone are cut from different cloth than Chieffi, for example.

But these cases would not survive ECHR scrutiny, and one possible interpretation of a 'good' result is that for both defendants, the convictions are confirmed. That way the control of their fates will pass to Strasbourg, rather than an Italian appellate court and then again, Cassation, in about two years time.

The short term consequences of such a result will not be pleasant for either Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito, but justice is rarely swift and seemingly, never swift in Italy.

A defeat today will be a victory tomorrow in a different arena, but a partial victory today may well result in longer term torment. They cannot have that different arena while the Italian courts hold on to them.

It is too much to hope that acquittal is realistically a possibility at this point.

Yet both Maresca and Raff's lawyers have complained to the judge about the length of the proceedings, and there may be no appetite for yet another re-trial. If the present ISC bench are sensitive to the stink of injustice, they may well acquit outright - perhaps even by reinstating the Hellmann verdicts.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two fallacies with respect to luminol

This is nothing but your opinion. She said they made trials and determined that most times luminol stains that are actually blood would yield false negatives on confirmatory tests.

And anyway, we all know that TMB tests are logically irrelevant, because TMB is less sensitive and less specific and because they react to the same array of false negatives, there are no substances known to be reactive to luminol but not to TMB, certainly no substance with such property is known as probable or plausible for bare footprints.

Machiavelli,

The first paragraph above is the most confused statement I have ever heard about luminol, and that is going a piece. The second statement is dubious. The most recent determination of the lower limit of detection for luminol, which I posted in the last few months, is around a dilution factor of 1 to 100,000. The type of TMB test that Conti and Vecchiotti did had a lower limit of about 1 to 300,000. Nor is there any valid reason to think that luminol is more specific.

 

[JREF2010]

How does the ISC vote? Unanimous required or is it majority?

Too bad they dont film these sessions it might be an interesting reality to peel away the shroud and have full transparency, yes?

Why the secrecy only for the Judges? The lawyers speak in public, in front of the people, why cant the Judges?

just more skeptical thoughts I guess, but people who arent transparent always make me wonder "why?"

like the interrogation in Perugia, why no recordings, why was it all hidden?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thought for the day

I also suggested it would help your credibility if you posted ECHR decisions which rejected claims of Art 6, or the various other claims that might arise in AK's case. That way, we would see the nuances of their decision process, not just the limited prisms of Salduz or other selected cases you have pointed out.

If I am going to be persuaded by your arguments, I want to see how the ECHR has rejected similar claims in the past, undoubtedly made by many defandents, so I can compare those cases to AK's.

griffinmill,

Why don't you do your own homework? That would actually move the argument forward.

 

[acbytesla]

In fairness, I do not believe Machiavelli ever said this. I, too, once claimed he did and thought I had read him posting this on IIP.... but I cannot find it.

In all fairness, he did...because he said it directly in posts replying to me.

 

[carbonjam72]

Interestingly, what might appear to be a 'bad' outcome, at first sight, may well, on sober reflection, actually turn out to be a good one in the long term.

Cassation has a major problem with these cases and I would bet that within the large body of judges on the court, there are at least some who realise it and realise that the charges are junk.

There were indications on Wednesday that Bruno and Matone are cut from different cloth than Chieffi, for example.

But these cases would not survive ECHR scrutiny, and one possible interpretation of a 'good' result is that for both defendants, the convictions are confirmed. That way the control of their fates will pass to Strasbourg, rather than an Italian appellate court and then again, Cassation, in about two years time.

The short term consequences of such a result will not be pleasant for either Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito, but justice is rarely swift and seemingly, never swift in Italy.

A defeat today will be a victory tomorrow in a different arena, but a partial victory today may well result in longer term torment. They cannot have that different arena while the Italian courts hold on to them.

It is too much to hope that acquittal is realistically a possibility at this point.

I've given my reasons for believing a full acquittal is the verdict today, without a retrial.

By my reckoning, the acquittal is already agreed upon, and the judges are now in the back room playing Parchezi, or possibly Gin Rummy.

Italian state Tv has been softening up the public over the last few weeks, undermining the case against Raf, and neutral or leaning positive to Amanda - including having a world class scientist on National TV, Dr Gill, explainging that the courts made a grave mistake in their understanding of the central evidnce. Rudy Guede's sentence has been increased, and Burlesconi was finally acquitted by cassation on sex with a minor last week in a show of good faith by the judiciary, that political conflict has subsided. Girlanda's boss resigned over the broad investigation of corruption, of which Girlanda is included, so he's on a tight leash if he makes trouble. And the first thing the judges said was, "there are many uncertainties, and one definite conviction".

Renzi's government doesn't wan a tiff with the US, or an innocent Italian citizen in jail (seen to be innocent), so I'm guessing a deal has been cut.

After acquittal, Chieffi will resign, and Mignini will resign by the end of the year.

So, that's what I think. YMMV, as folks say here.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yet both Maresca and Raff's lawyers have complained to the judge about the length of the proceedings, and there may be no appetite for yet another re-trial. If the present ISC bench are sensitive to the stink of injustice, they may well acquit outright - perhaps even by reinstating the Hellmann verdicts.

I've made that mistake too. Hellman can't be reinstated, but they can annul the convictions without ordering a re-trial. Which has the practical effect of an acquittal, accept that it doesn't contradict wih any prior rulings, like Hellman's did when he ruled that there was no staged break-in beacuse - "the crime does not exist".

I think this is where cassation needed to go to climb down out of this tree house. I feel pretty good about today.

Obviously I could be delusional.

 

[Diocletus]

Personally, I think that an outright acquittal is unlikely.

I do see a chance for one or more issues to be sent on to a United Panel.

I also see a chance for both defendants' cases to be remanded for separate re-trials, with instructions to allow full investigation and discovery as to almost all of the points that the defendants have raised, and the callunnia statements excluded at least as to Sollecito.

I still think that dual convictions are most likely, but I see glimmers of hope here and there. Not that new trials, with another 2-3 years of delay, would be that great.

 

[acbytesla]

She covers for this in her book the same way you cover for her. Whatever she did was perceived as weird, attention grabbing, and not normal. It was apparently significant enough that she feels a need to explain it.

So you either believe a bunch of people think she acted strangely, or you believe that AK was just culturally misunderstood as she claims.

And before it gets said, this is not evidence of guilt or innocence.

What is strange Griffin? I think a lot of people''s behavior is strange but maybe it is just me. Want a list of people that others thought to be strange? The list would probably include us all. But for argument''s sake let's say that Amanda is not boring and run of the mill. Does that mean she has a psychological disorder? or more specifically some deep hidden violent one? I don't think so. That's the real problem with this guilter meme. All my life people have thought I was a little strange. I laugh out loud when something strikes me as funny even if others don't see the humor. I don't ask others for permission to live my life unrestrained. But there is no connection between being unusual and psychologically, disturbed. What is really offensive is this idea that someone that maybe a little different or maybe promiscuous or has sex that is a lititle more interesting than straight missionary position is somehow a threat to your boring life.

 

[LondonJohn]

Personally, I think that an outright acquittal is unlikely.

I do see a chance for one or more issues to be sent on to a United Panel.

I also see a chance for both defendants' cases to be remanded for separate re-trials, with instructions to allow full investigation and discovery as to almost all of the points that the defendants have raised, and the callunnia statements excluded at least as to Sollecito.

I still think that dual convictions are most likely, but I see glimmers of hope here and there. Not that new trials, with another 2-3 years of delay, would be that great.

I find it impossible to predict. I'll of course be interested to analyse the SC decision and the reasoning behind it.

Incidentally, on that subject, I'm finding it interesting and illuminating (and, frankly, very odd) that so many pro-guilt commentators are professing that they are almost sick (literally) with worry as they wait for the SC verdicts. Surely the only people who ought to have that level of emotional investment are Knox and Sollecito, the Kercher family, and family and friends of Knox and Sollecito. Why would an unconnected internet warrior be making themselves almost sick with worry over this matter? Perhaps some of them might want to step back and think about what that might tell them about the unhealthiness of their engagement in this case, and what's truly motivating them to be experiencing such extreme emotional reactions.......

 

[Kauffer]

Rejection of Article 6 violation claims

griffinmill,

Why don't you do your own homework? That would actually move the argument forward.

In order to give griffinmill a small taste of the feast available to him if only he did do his homework as you suggest he should, I can direct him to Dirioz v Turkey (Case: 38560/04), where the applicant claimed that his trial proceedings lacked equality of arms because the prosecutor stood on a raised platform in court!

The ECHR rejected his complaint as 'manifestly ill founded' and decided that he had not, in fact, been placed at a disadvantage. - Quelle surprise!

This is a fairly typical example of the thousands of applications the ECHR receives in which claims of violations of important human rights principles are based on no more than rank silliness.

As griffinmill might understand if he dug a little, Ms Knox's and Mr Sollecito's claims that they were not permitted to examine, in accordance with established international standards, the raw data of the forensic evidence adduced against them, is serious, substantial, clearly admissible and a gross violation of the principle of equality of arms.

To put this into context - even if this were their only grounds for complaint, it would be sufficient to warrant the setting aside of conviction in Italy, the grant of a re-trial, and the full disclosure of the raw data, or, if it is not available, the elimination of the forensic evidence as a component of the new trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

I find it impossible to predict. I'll of course be interested to analyse the SC decision and the reasoning behind it.

Incidentally, on that subject, I'm finding it interesting and illuminating (and, frankly, very odd) that so many pro-guilt commentators are professing that they are almost sick (literally) with worry as they wait for the SC verdicts. Surely the only people who ought to have that level of emotional investment are Knox and Sollecito, the Kercher family, and family and friends of Knox and Sollecito. Why would an unconnected internet warrior be making themselves almost sick with worry over this matter? Perhaps some of them might want to step back and think about what that might tell them about the unhealthiness of their engagement in this case, and what's truly motivating them to be experiencing such extreme emotional reactions.......

It could be a metaphor!

 

[MDDVS]

I find it impossible to predict. I'll of course be interested to analyse the SC decision and the reasoning behind it.

Incidentally, on that subject, I'm finding it interesting and illuminating (and, frankly, very odd) that so many pro-guilt commentators are professing that they are almost sick (literally) with worry as they wait for the SC verdicts. Surely the only people who ought to have that level of emotional investment are Knox and Sollecito, the Kercher family, and family and friends of Knox and Sollecito. Why would an unconnected internet warrior be making themselves almost sick with worry over this matter? Perhaps some of them might want to step back and think about what that might tell them about the unhealthiness of their engagement in this case, and what's truly motivating them to be experiencing such extreme emotional reactions.......

For some reason, the idea of Amanda Knox as a sexual killer has a very strong psychological attraction for some people. I can't understand why, but it's very strong, almost like a drug. What is it that makes this idea so compelling to some psyches?

 

[Numbers]

In order to give griffinmill a small taste of the feast available to him if only he did do his homework as you suggest he should, I can direct him to Dirioz v Turkey (Case: 38560/04), where the applicant claimed that his trial proceedings lacked equality of arms because the prosecutor stood on a raised platform in court!

The ECHR rejected his complaint as 'manifestly ill founded' and decided that he had not, in fact, been placed at a disadvantage. - Quelle surprise!

This is a fairly typical example of the thousands of applications the ECHR receives in which claims of violations of important human rights principles are based on no more than rank silliness.

As griffinmill might understand if he dug a little, Ms Knox's and Mr Sollecito' claims that they were not permitted to examine, in accordance with established international standards, the raw data of the forensic evidence adduced against them, is serious, substantial, clearly admissible and a gross violation of the principle of equality of arms.

To put this into context - if this were their only grounds for complaint, it would be sufficient to warrant the setting aside of conviction in Italy, the grant of a re-trial, and the full disclosure of the raw data, or, if it is not available, the elimination of the forensic evidence as a component of the new trial.

Right, the ones that are not silly, that have substance, become judgments in the case-law. (Even those get ranked by ECHR in order of importance and uniqueness.)

If griffinmill were serious and sincere, he or she would read my recent posts carefully and see that I have provided the information on the potential exceptions to requirements of counsel during interrogation. However, instead of analyzing the information provided, griffinmill apparently wishes to direct me to analyze about 10,000 irrelevant judgments or decisions for his or her amusement, or to suggest that there is "cherry-picking".

I think the basic issue here is one of understanding how common law works. It is clear that guilters are naive or ignorant about how law is supposed to have substantial equality among similar cases. That is why the arbitrary decisions of the Italian judges in this case do not seem perverse to them.

 

[anglolawyer]

For some reason, the idea of Amanda Knox as a sexual killer has a very strong psychological attraction for some people. I can't understand why, but it's very strong, almost like a drug. What is it that makes this idea so compelling to some psyches?

Well, you only have to look at her to see she's evil personified. It's obvious as shown by all the people she ran into both before and after the murder who have said so. Oh wait. There aren't any.

 

[toto]

I am sorry to say I believe firmly that both will be convicted today. If at most Sollecito's case is sent back it will be for some very small number and precise issues to be covered. I would hope I am wrong, but I assumed the last appeal would be favourable and I can see where that got me.

 

[Samzilla]

Again, I think you misunderstood. I will not be dedicating my life to researcing the ECHR as you have.

So if your rebuttal is that I have to prove you wrong, you win.

But I thought you were interested in truly understanding the ECHR case law. In that case, you would obviously want to review cases that both support and don't support your opinion.

I have only seen cases like Salduz, and to a lesser extent Dorigo, which support you claims.

If I am going to believe you, I want to see cases where defendants were rejected by the ECHR so I can understand the differences. Surely you've seen those cases in all your research. Share them with us.

Numbers has made his claim that Amanda Knox's rights were violated, and that the ECHR will view it this way. He's stated numerous case law that supports his assertion.

It's your claim that the ECHR may not view it this way, but have not cited anything. Somehow this is also Numbers' job? That's not how it works. If you don't have the time, you could probably hire someone on fiverr to do it for you.

In a trial that I was at, for sentencing, for hours it was first the defense reading case law of similar crimes given a lenient sentence. Then it was the prosecutor reading case law of similar crimes given a harsh sentence. It was then up to the judge to decide.

In this instance, if Numbers is the defense, he's done a thorough job of making his point. As an interested observer, I've noticed the prosecution has done nothing to make theirs.