The thing that struck me about this case, was that the defendants knew and lived with the victim - and my first thought when I heard the DNA evidence was that there is always going to be the chance of contamination. If the defendants had no legitimate contact with the victim and had not lived/visited the cottage, the contamination possibility would seem more like a way to divert the truth.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter acbytesla
- Start date
- Status
The thing that struck me about this case, was that the defendants knew and lived with the victim - and my first thought when I heard the DNA evidence was that there is always going to be the chance of contamination. If the defendants had no legitimate contact with the victim and had not lived/visited the cottage, the contamination possibility would seem more like a way to divert the truth.
anglolawyer
Banned
There should be added to the defences to libel: fair comment on a matter of public opinion ('the evidence against them was compelling' for example) absolute privilege (e.g. a statement in court having reference to the proceedings) or qualified privilege (e.g. a statement made in circumstances where the publisher has a duty to make and the published a duty to hear/read the defamatory statement - proof of malice destroys the defence).
The first is the one the guilters should look up if they want to continue to wage their war, (now a hopelessly lost cause but that won't stop them).
The first is the one the guilters should look up if they want to continue to wage their war, (now a hopelessly lost cause but that won't stop them).
davefoc
Philosopher
I had very similar thoughts. I am just not sure what legal recourse I should have or would have if this happened. I think it is probably true that in most libel cases where AK was the plaintiff she could prove, based on a preponderance of evidence standard, that she is not a murderer. Would this be enough to win a libel suit against somebody that claimed she was?
Would the motive of the defendant be important? Would somebody that was an author profiting from defamatory claims against AK be in a different situation than somebody that was not profiting from their claims?
As a practical matter, would the dodge of just putting "I believe" in front of every accusation be a defense against libel?
I also agree that AK's best strategy right now might be to just to let things die down naturally. Her case is not nearly as well known in the public as it is to people that participate in this thread and I suspect within five years, the most common public response to a question about AK will be Amanda who?
But things seem to be different enough in Italy that Sollecito might be better off with an aggressive strategy to deal with the most virulent PGP.
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Huffington post quotes Maresca:
"I think the Italian justice system needs to establish who was with Rudy Guede," Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca said on Friday."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/raffaele-sollecito-knox-reparations_n_6971270.html
I really hope this matter is resolved differently by the motivations report in order to eviscerate this already established "judicial truth".
The history of this case cannot be allowed to encompass the notion that Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted of the crime in circumstances where the other participants were never found because there were no other suspects.
Seems to me the ISC should have to say that this interpretation is wrong, otherwise they will always be wrongfully tainted by inappropriate suspicion, whatever the consequences.
"I think the Italian justice system needs to establish who was with Rudy Guede," Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca said on Friday."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/raffaele-sollecito-knox-reparations_n_6971270.html
I really hope this matter is resolved differently by the motivations report in order to eviscerate this already established "judicial truth".
The history of this case cannot be allowed to encompass the notion that Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted of the crime in circumstances where the other participants were never found because there were no other suspects.
Seems to me the ISC should have to say that this interpretation is wrong, otherwise they will always be wrongfully tainted by inappropriate suspicion, whatever the consequences.
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
Heh, he has to keep singing that tune so that he can say to his clients 'if not them, then who?' He is lucky they are so credulous. If they turn on the investigation it really is game over.
lonepinealex
Muse
Oh there's loads still to come - the motivations report, the satellite trials, the ECHR application.
You do know you don't have to read all the threads in the forums right? It must be terribly time consuming.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,458
Yes. It's OK to say things such as "Knox was arrested and charged with murder", or "I think that the courts erred in acquitting Knox of murder" or "In my opinion, the evidence against Knox overwhelmingly proved murder". But it's not OK to say things like "Knox is a murderer who got away with it" and so on.
And in regard to the OJ Simpson parallel, there's another important factor to be taken into account. A court assessing a libel action has to decide that the person in question suffered material damage to his/her reputation or good standing because of the defamatory remark. In Simpson's case, he's been found liable in a civil court for the murder, and he's since been given a very lengthy sentence for kidnapping and armed robbery. So those factors would weigh very heavily in deciding whether Simpson's reputation/good standing was being damaged by calling him a "murderer".
The UK press exploit this fact regularly. They will sometimes print negative untruths about a person whose reputation has been severely dented by something else (e.g. running a story alleging physical abuse concerning someone who's already sitting in prison for murder), and they often take the small window between someone being arrested for a serious crime such as murder and that person being charged with the crime (after which the matter becomes subject to sub judice rules and no press comment is allowed) to print a whole heap of dirt on that person. They can subsequently defend themselves if necessary by claiming that at the time of writing, the person in question was under arrest for murder, so how can they claim their reputation was being damaged by stories about lesser alleged offences.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,458
Plus... what is the point (especially on a sceptics' forum) of coming into this thread to request that its participants "give it a rest"?? If this member is bored or fed up by the continuation of the debate, all (s)he needs to do is not click on the thread title, and restrict himself/herself to reading and contributing to threads in which (s)he really does have an interest. Is the continuation of the debate in this thread giving this member any material problems with his/her ability to read or contribute to everything else within this forum?
MichaelB
Muse
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 555
Porta a Porta summary from TeddyIIP:
Raffaele interview: same as shown on Sky Italia recently but with a little extra. He says he hardly knew Meredith. He’s been in touch with Amanda very recently (presumably after the acquittals). She’s still a friend. He knows nothing about Guede or who he is.
Francesco Sollecito: Worked very very hard in the defense of his son. Talks about the “caso chiuso” announcement, the investigation was rushed and this caused the problems. Lumumba shouldn’t have been taken into custody without more verification. He has tried to reach out to Meredith’s family through Maresca, with no luck. He would really like to talk to them. Describes how the 3 Carabinieri patrols followed them from Rome back to Puglia before the acquittal, waiting outside the house.
Vanessa Sollecito: Talks about why she was dismissed from the Carabinieri – there was no valid justification provided. She didn’t ever interfere in the case using her position. She’s very well qualified but can’t find a job. She used to wake up every day with panic attacks. On hearing Meredith’s mother’s interview, says she has been badly informed by her lawyers. It’s not true that there is no responsible person for Meredith’s death, it was Guede. Explains more about how she lost her job. The Carabinieri made 165 staff retake tests to verify they had the prerequisites, this was after 6 years. Out of 165 officers, only 2 were not approved and one was Vanessa. The other was an officer who had been suicidal. Worst moments were after first guilty verdict which she didn’t expect as the evidence was so obvious even to the lay person, then also the 1st SC decision – she lost faith at that point. Also talked about how she didn’t want the case to be covered in the media because she knew that it would be a disadvantage.
Simonetta Matone: Speaks about the emotion that has followed the case – the mob outside the courthouse after Hellmann acquittal. There was a basic error from the start to try and include all 3 at the scene, instead of taking the obvious route of accusing only Rudy. The acquittal now should be seen as something extremely reassuring, of civility and it was also courageous. If we don’t go beyond reasonable doubt we cannot inflict these convictions on people. The proof absolutely wasn’t there. Says Amanda is a particularly irritating person, even when she is crying [maybe Ms. Matone should take a look at herself and how she appears on TV?]. When she read the Nencini sentence she was very perplexed by the. Intuitively while reading it you could see that it was heavily conditioned by the Chieffi SC annulment of Hellmann, and in fact every 3 pages it justified itself by referring to the Chieffi SC decision. We need to wait now for the new motivations, but it was obvious that the judges of the Marasca SC really meditated a long time over the decision, studying all the court. She notes that this verdict has been received with a lot of relief by the Judiciary in Italy based on what she has noted as the reaction from her colleagues. Regarding Guede’s possible day-release, he has always recounted a load of lies and he will be expected to reflect on what he has done and so it’s possible that if he doesn’t admit his role or say more, his request may be refused. She explains her surprise at Dershowitz’s position given his past experience in defending people who looked to be certainly guilty.
Roberta Bruzzone: as usual, talks about the forensics needs to be improved, with more rigorous controls during site inspections required. We’ve avoided the worst possible scenario with this acquittal, i.e. putting an innocent in prison. Caso Chiuso was too quick to show the world how effective the investigators were. Analysis in second appeal revealed nothing new. Nothing found on the knife. Don’t expect Rudy to talk now, he is the one who benefits most by not saying anything, and benefited most by how the trials were carried out. Jokingly admits to being nearly always a guilter. Believes that Raffaele’s separation strategy opened the door for a rethink and overturn of the convictions for both Amanda and Raffaele.
Arline Kercher: same as NBC interview recently aired but a little more – doesn’t understand what happened. Was there enough evidence to convict? Yes she says, sad to say but yes.
Hellmann: In his own Court the lack of proof convinced them to acquit, mentioning the independent review of DNA and even today he still doesn’t understand why it was not accepted by the Chieffi SC. There were failings in the investigation, dirty gloves handling the clasp etc. He didn’t imagine such a reaction to the acquittals outside the courtroom in 2011. After that, colleagues treated him differently, not badly, but they cooled towards him. Only Guede can know the truth. He has always believed in the innocence of AK/RS. States that Italian justice has not given a bad impression because of this case.
Nicodemo Gentile [Guede’s lawyer]: These acquittals mean nothing for Rudy. Rudy has given his version, it wasn’t believed and so now he has nothing else to add. Rudy confirms never knowing Raffaele. Rudy can benefit from permits for day-release and he’s a model prisoner and is studying. When asked whether he’s ever asked Rudy who was with him, he answers a totally different question.
Karen Pruett and Bill Williams shown at one point. Some flashes of interviews with Amanda.
Giuseppe Castellini: not present. I wonder why?
Raffaele interview: same as shown on Sky Italia recently but with a little extra. He says he hardly knew Meredith. He’s been in touch with Amanda very recently (presumably after the acquittals). She’s still a friend. He knows nothing about Guede or who he is.
Francesco Sollecito: Worked very very hard in the defense of his son. Talks about the “caso chiuso” announcement, the investigation was rushed and this caused the problems. Lumumba shouldn’t have been taken into custody without more verification. He has tried to reach out to Meredith’s family through Maresca, with no luck. He would really like to talk to them. Describes how the 3 Carabinieri patrols followed them from Rome back to Puglia before the acquittal, waiting outside the house.
Vanessa Sollecito: Talks about why she was dismissed from the Carabinieri – there was no valid justification provided. She didn’t ever interfere in the case using her position. She’s very well qualified but can’t find a job. She used to wake up every day with panic attacks. On hearing Meredith’s mother’s interview, says she has been badly informed by her lawyers. It’s not true that there is no responsible person for Meredith’s death, it was Guede. Explains more about how she lost her job. The Carabinieri made 165 staff retake tests to verify they had the prerequisites, this was after 6 years. Out of 165 officers, only 2 were not approved and one was Vanessa. The other was an officer who had been suicidal. Worst moments were after first guilty verdict which she didn’t expect as the evidence was so obvious even to the lay person, then also the 1st SC decision – she lost faith at that point. Also talked about how she didn’t want the case to be covered in the media because she knew that it would be a disadvantage.
Simonetta Matone: Speaks about the emotion that has followed the case – the mob outside the courthouse after Hellmann acquittal. There was a basic error from the start to try and include all 3 at the scene, instead of taking the obvious route of accusing only Rudy. The acquittal now should be seen as something extremely reassuring, of civility and it was also courageous. If we don’t go beyond reasonable doubt we cannot inflict these convictions on people. The proof absolutely wasn’t there. Says Amanda is a particularly irritating person, even when she is crying [maybe Ms. Matone should take a look at herself and how she appears on TV?]. When she read the Nencini sentence she was very perplexed by the. Intuitively while reading it you could see that it was heavily conditioned by the Chieffi SC annulment of Hellmann, and in fact every 3 pages it justified itself by referring to the Chieffi SC decision. We need to wait now for the new motivations, but it was obvious that the judges of the Marasca SC really meditated a long time over the decision, studying all the court. She notes that this verdict has been received with a lot of relief by the Judiciary in Italy based on what she has noted as the reaction from her colleagues. Regarding Guede’s possible day-release, he has always recounted a load of lies and he will be expected to reflect on what he has done and so it’s possible that if he doesn’t admit his role or say more, his request may be refused. She explains her surprise at Dershowitz’s position given his past experience in defending people who looked to be certainly guilty.
Roberta Bruzzone: as usual, talks about the forensics needs to be improved, with more rigorous controls during site inspections required. We’ve avoided the worst possible scenario with this acquittal, i.e. putting an innocent in prison. Caso Chiuso was too quick to show the world how effective the investigators were. Analysis in second appeal revealed nothing new. Nothing found on the knife. Don’t expect Rudy to talk now, he is the one who benefits most by not saying anything, and benefited most by how the trials were carried out. Jokingly admits to being nearly always a guilter. Believes that Raffaele’s separation strategy opened the door for a rethink and overturn of the convictions for both Amanda and Raffaele.
Arline Kercher: same as NBC interview recently aired but a little more – doesn’t understand what happened. Was there enough evidence to convict? Yes she says, sad to say but yes.
Hellmann: In his own Court the lack of proof convinced them to acquit, mentioning the independent review of DNA and even today he still doesn’t understand why it was not accepted by the Chieffi SC. There were failings in the investigation, dirty gloves handling the clasp etc. He didn’t imagine such a reaction to the acquittals outside the courtroom in 2011. After that, colleagues treated him differently, not badly, but they cooled towards him. Only Guede can know the truth. He has always believed in the innocence of AK/RS. States that Italian justice has not given a bad impression because of this case.
Nicodemo Gentile [Guede’s lawyer]: These acquittals mean nothing for Rudy. Rudy has given his version, it wasn’t believed and so now he has nothing else to add. Rudy confirms never knowing Raffaele. Rudy can benefit from permits for day-release and he’s a model prisoner and is studying. When asked whether he’s ever asked Rudy who was with him, he answers a totally different question.
Karen Pruett and Bill Williams shown at one point. Some flashes of interviews with Amanda.
Giuseppe Castellini: not present. I wonder why?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,458
Yes, thanks. Hopefully the Italian media - and through them the general public in Italy - will come to see that there never was a case against Knox or Sollecito, and that it's a racing certainty that Guede committed this crime all by himself.
And maybe (hopefully) shows like this might start to bring the truth (and some peace) home to those who've suffered the most emotional turmoil through this, especially Arline Kercher and others in the family.
And maybe (hopefully) shows like this might start to bring the truth (and some peace) home to those who've suffered the most emotional turmoil through this, especially Arline Kercher and others in the family.
MichaelB
Muse
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 555
Sure thing. This is exactly what Vanessa said regarding Meredith's mother:
At 26:28 minutes Vanessa says: "It's obvious to me that Meredith's mother has been misinformed in these years, at this point I think by her lawyers. It's evident she doesn't know how the trials progressed, how the DNA was thrown out, etc. The mother says the result of the acquittals means we don't know who murdered Meredith, but that's obviously not true as it was Rudy Guede and he should now tell the truth, etc".
At 26:28 minutes Vanessa says: "It's obvious to me that Meredith's mother has been misinformed in these years, at this point I think by her lawyers. It's evident she doesn't know how the trials progressed, how the DNA was thrown out, etc. The mother says the result of the acquittals means we don't know who murdered Meredith, but that's obviously not true as it was Rudy Guede and he should now tell the truth, etc".
anglolawyer
Banned
+1 (or +2)
Antony
Graduate Poster
Don't read the thread if it doesn't interest you. There's an option at the bottom of the page to unsubscribe if you don't want it at the top of your feed all the time.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
I've always imagine Mach as the three hundred pound Halibut of the guilters ocean, so I'm not sure of who the 'bigger fish' might be. I'd be curious to know Mr Bill.
lonepinealex
Muse
Nice to have the Porta a Porta summary, many thanks for posting.
Vanessa Sollecito doesn't pull any punches does she? Excellent stuff. I hope the spotlight falls more on Guede now, and helps the Kerchers get to the bottom of this.
Vanessa Sollecito doesn't pull any punches does she? Excellent stuff. I hope the spotlight falls more on Guede now, and helps the Kerchers get to the bottom of this.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
It's Italy. That's how they roll. Sometimes.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
I think they say it's pro-defendant because they mitigate those failures with relatively short prison terms and payouts for wrongful imprisonment. They're not barbarians, their system just doesn't work very well.
Great list by the way!
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
There's an echo-chamber like quality to ALL the postings on-line about this, on all sites, on all sides. Whereas M. has had an obvious impact here as well as on the other, more "legally exposed" sites, it's the likes of us who participate in giving him his larger than life reputation.
If it weren't for us, Peter Quennell would only refer to having access to 10s of lawyers. Given the attention paid to the fellow at places like ISF and IIP/IA, Peter risks inflating that evaluation by making M. representative of 100s of lawyers.
Bring up Machiavelli around a lunch table, and the person bringing him up seems a tad, shall we say, eccentric (!) to those in the real world!
It matters, but all of us here have to appreciate just how far up in the bleachers we are! The attention any of us gets is a little self-referential, and does not necessarily translate to the real world.
Apparently, this goes for Machiavelli, too.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
"Dr" Stef's evidence manufacturing service (as in doctored evidence)
Briefly, I think Dr Gill has said that the amount of Raf's DNA on the bra clasp was maybe 4-5 skin cells.
I have to question whether this was deliberate planting, because how could they be so certain of planting and then finding just 4-5 skin cells?
Although, they did manage to actually take video of themselves touching the actual clasps with dirty gloves.
But my bet is on deliberate lab contamination, via a 'happy accident' from Stef. I say this both because of the discrepancies of the circumstances of testing on the bra clasp, but also the corresponding short comings on the testing of the knife supposedly finding Kercher's DNA.
I think the police and Mignini reviewed the video and tried to think what piece of evidence could they find that would tie Raf to the murder room in an exciting way, and realized they hadn't collected the bra clasp and they got excited, because evidence relating to underwear would strike them as salacious.
So they were looking for the bra clasp yes, and made a big show of finding it. But I think Mignini relied on Stef's skills in the lab to jimmy the results, just like she did with the knife.
I think Stef's lab work was seen as 'a made to order evidence manufacturing service', not so much as an independent forensic lab. Stef's ability to achieve findings on specific pieces of evidence, with a shoddy manner of testing, and suppressing her data to track back what she dis, is just too out of the ordinary in just those two circumstances to be a coincidence, imo.
Briefly, I think Dr Gill has said that the amount of Raf's DNA on the bra clasp was maybe 4-5 skin cells.
I have to question whether this was deliberate planting, because how could they be so certain of planting and then finding just 4-5 skin cells?
Although, they did manage to actually take video of themselves touching the actual clasps with dirty gloves.
But my bet is on deliberate lab contamination, via a 'happy accident' from Stef. I say this both because of the discrepancies of the circumstances of testing on the bra clasp, but also the corresponding short comings on the testing of the knife supposedly finding Kercher's DNA.
I think the police and Mignini reviewed the video and tried to think what piece of evidence could they find that would tie Raf to the murder room in an exciting way, and realized they hadn't collected the bra clasp and they got excited, because evidence relating to underwear would strike them as salacious.
So they were looking for the bra clasp yes, and made a big show of finding it. But I think Mignini relied on Stef's skills in the lab to jimmy the results, just like she did with the knife.
I think Stef's lab work was seen as 'a made to order evidence manufacturing service', not so much as an independent forensic lab. Stef's ability to achieve findings on specific pieces of evidence, with a shoddy manner of testing, and suppressing her data to track back what she dis, is just too out of the ordinary in just those two circumstances to be a coincidence, imo.
- Status