Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

For those who doubt the eventual judgment of the ECHR in Amanda Knox's application against Italy for her calunnia conviction, there is an ECHR press release:

The Court clarifies the scope of the right to effective legal assistance
in criminal proceedings

In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of A.T. v. Luxembourg (application no. 30460/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to assistance of counsel) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken together with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) on account of a failure to provide legal assistance during a police interview,

no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1 as regards the lack of access to the case file prior to the applicant’s first appearance before the investigating judge, and

a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of communication between the applicant and his lawyer prior to his first appearance before the investigating judge.

The case concerned the failure to provide A.T. with effective legal assistance after he was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant, during both the police interview and his first appearance before the investigating judge.

Amanda Knox was not provided with a lawyer during her interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007 nor was she provided with a lawyer during the period when she was taken into custody, Nov. 6 through Nov. 8, 2007, until the time she was present at the hearing where her arrest was reviewed before a magistrate or judge. These are relevant parallels to the A. T. v Luxemburg case cited. The calunnia case conviction rests on statements made by Knox during her coercive interrogation and subsequent custody. The plain English meaning of the statements made while she was in custody was to cast doubt on the reliability of the statements attributed to her from the interrogation.

 

[anglolawyer]

Mignini discusses the case - video with sub-titles

This is a must watch:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mk1uz

 

[Samson]

This is a must watch:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mk1uz

Epic Eric P

 

[RWVBWL]

A drop of cats blood?

Greetings,
So I'm still bothered abit by the downstairs crime scene
and how does it, if at all, relate to the upstairs rape and murder of Miss Kercher.

That bed of Stefano's has 1 spot of blood that perplexes me,
have a closer look:

It almost looks like that bloody imprint is from a knife handle,
especially when you look at and compare it with the bloody knife handle imprint on Miss Kercher's bed,
seen below:

Supposedly all the blood downstairs is from a hurt ear of a cat.
But Diocletus and others have pointed out some issues with this.
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/


I just find it odd that the cat leaves straight bloody lines on Stefano's bedspread
and also on his bed itself, instead of round bloody droplets, as seen below:

+

Does the bloody imprint at Crime Scene Marker B from downstairs on Stefano's bed
look like it could be a drop of blood from a cats ear? Or a knife handle?

Do those straight lines on Stefano's comforter look like they are from a cats ear
or were they left by something else?


To me it look like there was someone down stairs with a bloodied knife handle.
If a knife, maybe the blade did not touch the bed, as a knife blade did on Meredith's bed. If it is from a knife handle, it is not from the same knife handle as seen imprinted on Meredith's bed I think though...

Did Rudy have a buddy outside who saw Miss Kercher arrive while Rudy was inside her apartment, on the toilet? Who might have started the whole assault?

Just wonderin' of some of your thoughts...
RW


Oh by the way,
Amanda E Raffaele
sono innocenti!

 

[Planigale]

What I think is interesting is how facts long since discredited seem to being still propagated by those who think that the recent Italian court ruling was in error. For instance I have seen several mentions of Knox's bloody footprints in MK bedroom.

Several people make use of the logic; murderers are bad people if we can show Knox was a bad person therefore Knox is a murderer. So they claim she lied, or had sex, or was bad by a process of contamination because she had the phone number of a bad person.

There continues to be irrational defence of the police / crime scene investigation. It was done badly.

As an aside on this I note a comment on IIP site about another case
http://www.ansa.it/english/news/gen...der_e145834e-7117-4abf-9139-314ae9364893.html

"A similar case is likely to Stasi. He was acquitted in the first degree and sentenced by the court of appeal. The author of the judgment of appeal wrote a judgment in-depth and very good style, but looks more like a novel than a judgment. In fact it is just a house of cards, well built, but still fragile, as every building is not based on accurate data but only on probable according to the conviction of the judges. A fact supports the other, but if one falls, they all fall. If Stasi was never identified a motive; the judges came up with that because the accused occasionally watched porn photos on the Internet (to me last week've had to work to remove a virus from my computer that I opened continuously porn pages!), this obviously meant he demanded from girlfriend porn performance and that since it refused killed her. Good thinking that only proves that the judges believe that you can kill every friend who refuses oral sex! It is no longer normal to think that if that were the case, the accused would have sought a girlfriend longer available?
The process then is vitiated by an irremediable fundamental error. The accused has been declared to have a solid alibi for the time of the murder had been working at the computer. Investigators took the computer and have destroyed the contents and so the alibi of the accused is blown! Now all those who are not suffering from orchitis brain, understand that the court can not shrug and say "patience, we do it!". In any judicial system seriously evidence deduced a suspect and destroyed by the prosecution to be considered as existing."

Sady it seems frying hard drives does not appear to be limited to Perugia. My guess is that there was an error in the way that Italian police were trained to clone hard drives.

 

[anglolawyer]

Epic Eric P

Who is that guy?

Anyhoo, on the film itself, notice:

1 it was obvious at once the burglary was staged and that A & R fell immediately under suspicion since who but her would have a reason to stage a burglary? Ergo, she was a suspect from minute one (but obviously not in need of a lawyer, oh no). That's why they tapped her phone and bugged her boss's cafe.

2 it was so obvious, there was no need to prove glass on top of clothes with, say, photographs (this is me taking, not The Great Mig)

3 the DNA was never central to the case (no ******)

4 Amanda is very astute. She artfully misdirected the enquiry by pointing to a black person. The brilliant actress had them all going for a minute of two.

5 the American circle has played on his mind (while we here in the UK have been better behaved )

6 he went down to the Questura at around 1.30 to 2.00 (one second - it can't have been 1.30 as she hadn't confessed yet). Strangeky, no mention of the REM sleep. May have to call Mach in on that.

7 by brilliant detective work they figured out Patrick was innocent all along.

It's very LOLworthy. Watch!

ETA oh yes and something about how they had to 'stop the recording' when she confessed. No doubt something lost in translation there.

 

[RWVBWL]

Gotta stay awake...

Investigators took the computer and have destroyed the contents and so the alibi of the accused is blown!
Sady it seems frying hard drives does not appear to be limited to Perugia. My guess is that there was an error in the way that Italian police were trained to clone hard drives.

Yikes!
Is that true Planigale?
More fried computers in another high profile murder case in Italy?
Gosh, I still wonder of this that I read recently regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher:

Questions about the professionalism of forensic officers in the case have emerged after they were heard joking on a crime scene video about taking cocaine to stay awake.

The tape was shown to the court during the appeal and at the original trial but with no audio – until it was played on Italian TV.

Link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ress-says-Patrick-Lumumba-accused-murder.html

 

[carbonjam72]

Same knife, imo...

Greetings,
So I'm still bothered abit by the downstairs crime scene
and how does it, if at all, relate to the upstairs rape and murder of Miss Kercher.

That bed of Stefano's has 1 spot of blood that perplexes me,
have a closer look:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9696[/qimg]


It almost looks like that bloody imprint is from a knife handle,
especially when you look at and compare it with the bloody knife handle imprint on Miss Kercher's bed,
seen below:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9697[/qimg]


Supposedly all the blood downstairs is from a hurt ear of a cat.
But Diocletus and others have pointed out some issues with this.
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/


I just find it odd that the cat leaves straight bloody lines on Stefano's bedspread
and also on his bed itself, instead of round bloody droplets, as seen below:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9698[/qimg]
+
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9699[/qimg]


Does the bloody imprint at Crime Scene Marker B from downstairs on Stefano's bed
look like it could be a drop of blood from a cats ear? Or a knife handle?

Do those straight lines on Stefano's comforter look like they are from a cats ear
or were they left by something else?


To me it look like there was someone down stairs with a bloodied knife handle.
If a knife, maybe the blade did not touch the bed, as a knife blade did on Meredith's bed. If it is from a knife handle, it is not from the same knife handle as seen imprinted on Meredith's bed I think though...

Did Rudy have a buddy outside who saw Miss Kercher arrive while Rudy was inside her apartment, on the toilet? Who might have started the whole assault?

Just wonderin' of some of your thoughts...
RW


Oh by the way,
Amanda E Raffaele
sono innocenti!

Hi RBW, Welcome back, great to see you.

Quick thought on the blood spot you suggest may be that knife handle. If you look at the angle of the top of the print, it appears slanted in both the upstairs and downstairs. The angle of slant appears the same, however, the slant is in the opposite direction.

So may I suggest that it is the same knife, just a print on the other side of the knife, thus reversing the angle. Maybe that half moon smudge at the bottom (downstairs knife handle print) is where Rudy's thumb went?

The DNA profiles of the downstairs, as well as all the other DNA files are what's missing, and those need to surface for people who know what they mean to have a look at. Cat, my foot.

 

[carbonjam72]

Translating the Mig...

Who is that guy?
Anyhoo, on the film itself, notice:

1 it was obvious at once the burglary was staged and that A & R fell immediately under suspicion since who but her would have a reason to stage a burglary? Ergo, she was a suspect from minute one (but obviously not in need of a lawyer, oh no). That's why they tapped her phone and bugged her boss's cafe.

2 it was so obvious, there was no need to prove glass on top of clothes with, say, photographs (this is me taking, not The Great Mig)

3 the DNA was never central to the case (no ******)

4 Amanda is very astute. She artfully misdirected the enquiry by pointing to a black person. The brilliant actress had them all going for a minute of two.

5 the American circle has played on his mind (while we here in the UK have been better behaved )

6 he went down to the Questura at around 1.30 to 2.00 (one second - it can't have been 1.30 as she hadn't confessed yet). Strangeky, no mention of the REM sleep. May have to call Mach in on that.

7 by brilliant detective work they figured out Patrick was innocent all along.

It's very LOLworthy. Watch!

ETA oh yes and something about how they had to 'stop the recording' when she confessed. No doubt something lost in translation there.

Eric P appeared a few threads up, just before the verdicts I think, with some spectacularly weird posts.

I'd been a fan of his video translations, although I'd had some questions in a few key spots. (For example, in one exchange, he has Raf talking about "blood on a knife", but it has to be a mistranslation for something like DNA or biological material).

If you search for some of his recent posts here, he was all over the map on the science (IIRC). Its as though he had spent so much time on guilter sites that he had gotten used to saying anything, and really wanted to know, on some level, how those arguments would fly in this forum. It was kind of interesting to watch, I must admit.

At any rate, Eric poses the translator's dilemma. Most of his translation seems to make sense, and open a window for those of us who don't speak Italian. OTOH, he's into some weird ****.

I'm looking forward to watching Big Mig's performance. Does anyone know the context? Was it a hearing of some kind? Conference? School setting? I think its from Nov of 2014, so deep in the thick of expecting ISC to rubber stamp his prize convictions.

 

[anglolawyer]

Eric P appeared a few threads up, just before the verdicts I think, with some spectacularly weird posts.

I'd been a fan of his video translations, although I'd had some questions in a few key spots. (For example, in one exchange, he has Raf talking about "blood on a knife", but it has to be a mistranslation for something like DNA or biological material).

If you search for some of his recent posts here, he was all over the map on the science (IIRC). Its as though he had spent so much time on guilter sites that he had gotten used to saying anything, and really wanted to know, on some level, how those arguments would fly in this forum. It was kind of interesting to watch, I must admit.

At any rate, Eric poses the translator's dilemma. Most of his translation seems to make sense, and open a window for those of us who don't speak Italian. OTOH, he's into some weird ****.

I'm looking forward to watching Big Mig's performance. Does anyone know the context? Was it a hearing of some kind? Conference? School setting? I think its from Nov of 2014, so deep in the thick of expecting ISC to rubber stamp his prize convictions.

Thanks CJ.

Keep a lookout for the expressions on the faces of those listening to Mig. Maybe they are all keyed in on the message but … maybe not. It would be interesting to know who those people are. And I agree, those were the high times for The Great Migninny.

 

[Antony]

Good point. So you believe that the moment they got Amanda to sign those statements that they were committed to doing whatever it took to avoid losing their jobs or even going to prison themselves?

So, do you believe that at some point they actually knew that the kids were innocent and proceeded any way?

That's more-or-less my belief. Miscarriages of justice are littered with cases of police "solving" the crime the easy way, by focussing on someone already under their noses. After that, arse-covering is all that is needed to explain the behaviour of the police.

As for the prosecution, Mignini imposed his own agenda on the already existing wrong investigation track, and as for the judges - well, carbonjam has a better understanding than I do of the battle lines and alliances within the judiciary.

 

[carbonjam72]

Thanks CJ.

Keep a lookout for the expressions on the faces of those listening to Mig. Maybe they are all keyed in on the message but … maybe not. It would be interesting to know who those people are. And I agree, those were the high times for The Great Migninny.

Everyone knows the criminal can't help himself from "returning to the scene of the crime". Funny how he just has to take a victory lap, setting up his own comeuppance. A very dramatic fellow.

Would be interesting to know the setting and the people in attendance, and their thoughts today, in hindsight.

 

[anglolawyer]

Everyone knows the criminal can't help himself from "returning to the scene of the crime". Funny how he just has to take a victory lap, setting up his own comeuppance. A very dramatic fellow.

Would be interesting to know the setting and the people in attendance, and their thoughts today, in hindsight.

yeah, he can't help slipping in little self-justifying/puffing remarks here and there, about how he took her statement without asking any questions etc. She somehow realised he was a magistrate. How exactly did she do that? He doesn't say he told her he was one. And how they brilliantly worked out Lumumba had no part in the crime.

 

[carbonjam72]

That's more-or-less my belief. Miscarriages of justice are littered with cases of police "solving" the crime the easy way, by focussing on someone already under their noses. After that, arse-covering is all that is needed to explain the behaviour of the police.

As for the prosecution, Mignini imposed his own agenda on the already existing wrong investigation track, and as for the judges - well, carbonjam has a better understanding than I do of the battle lines and alliances within the judiciary.

I actually don't really. I think Mignini's desire to shape the Kercher case to align with his previous fraud in the Narducci trail cases, as a satanic-orgy tinged "rite related to Halloween", makes sense for Mignini. He was just then indicted for abuse of office, so using innocent people 'like a human shield' (as KP put it), however detestable, is at least a recognizable miscreant behavior.

(Paul Ciolino (?) from CBS said somewhere, "Mignini believes his own lies". I thought that was great. Dealing with the criminal element, I think gives insight into a deranged subset of humanity, for which the rules of normal logic and common decency simply don't apply. Mignini is a specimen.)

But I can't square how all the judges went along with everything, every step of the way. The way the group think set-in, as Judge Hellman recently described how he got the cold shoulder after his acquittals. I'm still struggling with that. It really was something of a witch hunt, and that environment, enflamed by the media coverage - matters.

The ability to suspend disbelief among the judiciary is something I can't quite square with my expectations of a professional judiciary. I believe the 2013 ISC reversal was pure kabooki theater to deflect a political-judicial crisis with the Burlesconi forces. But the early judges in the case, their refusal to allow and require full and fair discovery, their refusal to doubt Guede and Curatolo, and even the police and prosecutor claims. It's truly difficult to grasp, and worthy of a full, slow careful methodical deconstruction of each and every element. (Before carting them all off to jail, imo).

 

[Samson]

Thanks CJ.

Keep a lookout for the expressions on the faces of those listening to Mig. Maybe they are all keyed in on the message but … maybe not. It would be interesting to know who those people are. And I agree, those were the high times for The Great Migninny.

Let us not be fooled, I thought I could read them being devoid of belief in what Mignini was "trying to say". But maybe they were disciples. I don't know. I think we need Donald Rumsfeld to deconstruct the body language.

 

[anglolawyer]

Let us not be fooled, I thought I could read them being devoid of belief in what Mignini was "trying to say". But maybe they were disciples. I don't know. I think we need Donald Rumsfeld to deconstruct the body language.

Oh sure, I am not claiming to be able to read their minds. I just saw thought-bubbles above their heads and wondered what was in them.

 

[Strozzi]

There is a part of me that believes that some or one of the authorities in Italy actually planted or destroyed evidence. I'm sure that they did this because they genuinely thought that Knox was guilty.

But I really want to put aside that thought and review this farce as if the actions of the authorities were done in good faith. Because I can't or don't want to think that someone would actually seek to put people in prison that they know to be innocent and who had no hint of criminal activity in their past.

I can truthfully understand why the authorities suspected Amanda and Raffaele's involvement at the beginning and why the became convinced of their guilt. I can also see why they continued to be convinced of their guilt.

It's clear that they made mistakes. It's also fair to expect people to make honest mistakes. I can't help but wonder if it was the honest mistakes that caused the authorities to get locked in on the two innocents. That said, I think human failings, not honest mistakes was the biggest problem with this legal disaster.

For example, I think the biggest mistake the authorities made was the result of one of the most positive a destructive trait, pride. It was pride that made them take a bow and declare the "case closed" and it was pride that kept them from admitting they made a mistake.

They made many other mistakes as well, but I think that was the worst. If they had just arrested them they would have been able to release the kids after it was clear that the shoe prints did not match. That I think was their 2nd biggest mistake. That confirmed their belief that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. Otherwise, I think they would have released A&R when they let Patrick go. Their third biggest mistake was not to own up to their mistakeep after they found out that the shoe prints belonged to Rudy and not Raffaele. This led to the bra clasp DNA which they refused to believe was possibly caused by contamination.

I wonder if they would have released Amanda and Raffaele if they hadn't discovered the DNA on the bra clasp? Or would they have continued the case with the knife and the weak statements? I actually think they still would have. That they were so afraid of looking like fools that they would stubbornly have gone forward.

Willfully destroyed evidence? Think bra clasp so it could not be tested again. No police forensic dr.-scientist accidentally stores in fluid a small fabric and metal trophy. It was deliberate. Stefanoni made a special trip back to the crime scene 46 days later to collect it when she needed to pull a rabbit out of a hat to save the prosecutor's case when wiretaps revealed the shoeprint evidence against Raffaele was about to be exposed on TV as Rudi's shoe. She flaunted the bra clasp for the camera. Stefanoni is cunning with her lab work, as you can see in the way she manipulates her trays. The clasp's destruction was no lab mishap.

 

[Samson]

Willfully destroyed evidence? Think bra clasp so it could not be tested again. No police forensic dr.-scientist accidentally stores in fluid a small fabric and metal trophy. It was deliberate. Stefanoni made a special trip back to the crime scene 46 days later to collect it when she needed to pull a rabbit out of a hat to save the prosecutor's case when wiretaps revealed the shoeprint evidence against Raffaele was about to be exposed on TV as Rudi's shoe. She flaunted the bra clasp for the camera. Stefanoni is cunning with her lab work, as you can see in the way she manipulates her trays. The clasp's destruction was no lab mishap.

Similar late discovered evidence has persuaded 96% of New Zealanders they jailed a monster 14 days ago. I am trying to decide whether it is noble corruption, or corruption.

The monster is innocent.
Damn.

 

[Strozzi]

. . .
I'm also not sure I agree that they couldn't have released Amanda and Raffaele when they discovered that the shoe prints didn't match Raffaele just because Amanda was hit during the interrogation. So what that there is a law against it? They would just deny it and say it was an exaggeration.

I agree that the issue of hitting the American girl twice in interrogation was no big issue for the police or prosecution. The two hits were pretty insignificant compared to the gravity of the crime being investigated, and certainly not a consideration as they weighed what to do with the American girl and her alibi boyfriend. In keeping with character, the PLE stayed the course.

Mignini asked Napoleoni the necessary cursory question, "Was she hit?", and got the expected answer that she was not hit. When later asked about it on camera by a foreign journalist, Mignini explained it away by saying maybe she got bumped from behind. It was a small room.

 

[Dan O.]

...
To me it look like there was someone down stairs with a bloodied knife handle.
If a knife, maybe the blade did not touch the bed, as a knife blade did on Meredith's bed. If it is from a knife handle, it is not from the same knife handle as seen imprinted on Meredith's bed I think though...

Did Rudy have a buddy outside who saw Miss Kercher arrive while Rudy was inside her apartment, on the toilet? Who might have started the whole assault?

Just wonderin' of some of your thoughts...
RW

Compare how the blood stains on the upstairs bed were tested to the testing performed on the blood stains on the downstairs bed. Look at the results of the DNA testing of the blood stains in comparison to non blood stained patches from adjacent areas of the same bedding. It's by this actual comparative analysis that you can arrive at a conclusion as to what happened. Not by speculating with partial results.