Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Especially as Mez was subjected to a long torture.

Evidence for this please.

Oh wait.... there isn't any.

 

[anglolawyer]

Massei was satisfied there was having seen all of the evidence in a court of law.

I believe you are mistaken and that Massei made no such finding. As his motivation is online, can you please find and cite the reference?

 

[LondonJohn]

Massei was satisfied there was having seen all of the evidence in a court of law.

Ahhhh Massei! The guy who also gave us the following legendary reasoning in regard to Capezzali and the famous "scream of death":

"If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it."


There's no denying that sort of outstanding legal mind

 

[Vixen]

The suggestion of a clean up requires a willing suspension of disbelief and the ignorance of the absence of evidence that must necessarily be present if it were true. You could even concede that the possibility exists selectively to remove microscopic traces of some evidence but not others. It is still not nearly enough.

They cannot just say "lamp" and think this is probative. The lamp is not an activity. It is called up as a tool required to carry out an activity. But no evidence of the activity exists, no evidence of cleaning materials employed for the task exists and no transfer evidence exists.

A crime scene clean up necessitates a number of other clean ups, including the disposal of cleaning materials and the cleaning or disposal of clothes worn during the original cleanup.

Then, we have to go on to ask other questions, such as why, having conducted a clean up of at the microscopic level, is the bathmat not disposed of? Perhaps the contention must be that since the print on the mat belongs to Guede, then Amanda didn't need to dispose of it.

The suggestion of a clean up does not take a suspension of credulity. It is a fact water diluted with blood was found.

 

[anglolawyer]

I believe you are mistaken and that Massei made no such finding. As his motivation is online, can you please find and cite the reference?

I don't know why but I will help you out. Massei made no finding. After summarising the evidence he said:

The Court, on this point, takes notice of the opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion. It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion lying on the floor, to the exclusion of Knox (the smaller dimensions of the right foot can be explained by the characteristics of the underlying surface, the pillow, having a non-*‐‑rigid structure and where the material of the pillow-*‐‑slip may have been not perfectly straightened out, but, on the contrary, soft and as such determining the curvature), to whom [=Knox], actually, one [must] attribute moving herself about the murder scene essentially in bare feet, as shown in the part of the report that examines the genetic investigations that were done on certain biological traces and the positive Luminol prints.
See p. 344 of the PMF PDF translation.

He seems to think it isn't her print because she was wandering about in bare feet as 'proved' by the luminol work. Are we agreed on this, Vixen?

 

[Kauffer]

IIRC Vinci gave evidence at the trial. It was the courts prerogative to accept or reject it.

AIUI the defense did not draw the court's attention to the stain until after the verdict.

The prosecution are only interested in building their side of the case. It is grossly negligent for the defense to deliberately conceal their independent discovery of the stain under ALS.

It was Raf and his legal team's conscious decision to not bring the stain issue up during the trial.

Huh? The cops tried to justify not testing it stating that it would have taken the investigation in a different direction.

Your presence here is bafflingly pointless. We test the evidence. When you post claims about the evidence and these claims are refuted you either ignore the refutation or say it was up to the courts to make a decision anyway.

You make pro guilt claims but refuse to carry out your own comparative enquiry.

You should bear in mind that that the last court to hear the case against Amanda and Raffaele rejected it. So, if you're going to make appeals to authority, you should be aware what the authority is and what it says. It doesn't support your position. There are no other authorities.

 

[Vixen]

Well, in fairness, the prosecution did present a "mountain of evidence." Most of it can be classed as innuendo, none of it proves anything, and much of it can be trivially debunked by looking at crime scene photos. Every bit of it has been discredited in one way or another. It is a mountain of worthless evidence, contrived to prop up a wild accusation.

Vixen is coming from a realm where all of it is enshrined as holy writ, untouchable by fact or reason.

I'm glad some of you have the patience to keep swatting away at these stale canards.

The "mountain of evidence" remark was tongue in cheek, throwing back the own insult by which vociferous anti-justice campaigners ascribe to those they see as "guilters".

It's certainly set LondonJohn off.

 

[carbonjam72]

'Cynically'

I agree injustices such as this must be fought against. There is never an excuse for police brutality.

Whilst some police personnel may have overstepped their mark, physically and psychologically, in Raf's and Amanda's case, I am sceptical it was anything out of the ordinary. Raf has not put in a complaint and Amanda said more than once she was well-treated.

Yes, it's wrong to refuse a comfort break, in their overzealousness. AIUI it is not true Amanda had no food or drink. A couple of the cops put some chairs together so Amanda could have a nap, when she turned up at the questura of her own accord.

The claim she was subjected to Guantanomo Bay - style torture is pure PR by people cynically trying to spin the story for commercial gain.

Priceless.

 

[Samson]

Ahhhh Massei! The guy who also gave us the following legendary reasoning in regard to Capezzali and the famous "scream of death":

"If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it."


There's no denying that sort of outstanding legal mind

Outside of Anglolawyer, I have given up on legal minds for enlightenment, for a variety of evidentiary reasons. Sad but true.

 

[Vixen]

I believe you are mistaken and that Massei made no such finding. As his motivation is online, can you please find and cite the reference?

I quoted Massei's direct quote of Dr Rinaldi, earlier.

 

[Kauffer]

The suggestion of a clean up does not take a suspension of credulity. It is a fact water diluted with blood was found.

No, not in the luminol prints and blobs. The test employed to determine blood was negative for blood and Stefanoni testified that it was not blood.

A cleanup in the hallway or elsewhere would have been revealed by swirling patterns in the luminol fluorescence.

But this is outside Kercher's room. What evidence exists to demonstrate a clean up inside the room?

Utter suspension of disbelief is required.

 

[anglolawyer]

I quoted Massei's direct quote of Dr Rinaldi, earlier.

THere is your problem (one of several). Massei reciting the evidence of one or other witness is not a finding. As you see from the quote I supplied, Massei made no finding to the claimed effect. Do you accept this now? If not, please say why not.

 

[Vixen]

Just a bit of diversion into the realm of Italian procedural law.

The concept that the CSC may not consider the facts of a case, but only the law, may be a misunderstanding. The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP Article 606, Cases of appeal to the Court of Cassation, gives the legally permissible grounds for an appeal to the CSC, and therefore the grounds on which the CSC may judge an appeal. Under CPP Art. 606 paragraph 1, there are 5 categories of admissible appeal arguments. Those of particular interest in this case include:

b) failure to comply with or misapplication of criminal law or other legal rules which must be considered in the application of criminal law;
c) failure to comply with the procedural rules established under penalty of nullity, exclusion of evidence, inadmissibility or expiry;
d) decisive evidence is not gathered, when a party has requested its gathering also during the trial evidentiary hearing, exclusively in the cases provided for in Article 495, paragraph 2.
e) [B]the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical[/B], when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceeding specified in the arguments for the appeal to the Court of Cassation.

{Bold added.}

The wording of CPP Art. 606 para. 1e allows the CSC to make judgments about the evaluation of the facts or evidence of the trial. This may itself be done improperly or illogically, as was the case with the Chieffi CSC panel. Presumably, if the Marasca CSC panel uses CPP Art. 606 para. 1e, they will do so in a logical fashion. They may also apply paragraphs 1b, 1c, or 1d to the case.

(Note: Para. 1a only applies if the judge usurped a formal power not granted to judges by law. It does not apply in this case.)

That is the bizarre thing about this case. Having shredded Hellmann's report on the above grounds and directing Nencini to correct Hellmann's shortcomings, SC have now torn up Nencini's.

 

[Vixen]

No, not in the luminol prints and blobs. The test employed to determine blood was negative for blood and Stefanoni testified that it was not blood.

A cleanup in the hallway or elsewhere would have been revealed by swirling patterns in the luminol fluorescence.

But this is outside Kercher's room. What evidence exists to demonstrate a clean up inside the room?

Utter suspension of disbelief is required.

Streak of diluted blood on the door frame. Obviously overlooked by the person/s who busied themselves in it.

 

[carbonjam72]

The "mountain of evidence" remark was tongue in cheek, throwing back the own insult by which vociferous anti-justice campaigners ascribe to those they see as "guilters".

It's certainly set LondonJohn off.

And isn't that really what its all about?

 

[Numbers]

I agree injustices such as this must be fought against. There is never an excuse for police brutality.

Whilst some police personnel may have overstepped their mark, physically and psychologically, in Raf's and Amanda's case, I am sceptical it was anything out of the ordinary. Raf has not put in a complaint and Amanda said more than once she was well-treated.

Yes, it's wrong to refuse a comfort break, in their overzealousness. AIUI it is not true Amanda had no food or drink. A couple of the cops put some chairs together so Amanda could have a nap, when she turned up at the questura of her own accord.

The claim she was subjected to Guantanomo Bay - style torture is pure PR by people cynically trying to spin the story for commercial gain.

This is one more bizarre misstatement by "Vixen". Amanda Knox described being mistreated by police in her Memoriale 1 written Nov. 6, 2007, soon after the interrogation and her questioning by the "notary" PM Mignini. Included in her account was the statement that she had been threatened and slapped. This Memoriale 1 statement is available online.

Amanda Knox also stated some of the same details of mistreatment by the police in her court testimony during the Massei court trial. For making these statements in open court, she was charged with criminal calunnia and a civil calunnia suit was lodged against her by, IIRC, approximately 12 police who were apparently the members of the interrogation team.

Knox claims to have been subjected to treatment of the type that the ECHR has described in its case-law as "inhuman and degrading treatment" which under the European Convention on Human Rights is a violation of Article 3. The very fact that the police succeeded in overcoming her resistance and breaking her will, so that she signed a false statement, which she had not maintained prior to the interrogation and which she repudiated soon after the interrogation, may be sufficient indication of this violation, according to ECHR case-law.

 

[Vixen]

Ahhh the straw man makes its near-inevitable appearance


Leaving aside for one moment the question of whether the following actually happened in this case or not: do you think it's a legitimate and lawful police interrogation tactic for them to tell a suspect 1) that they have solid evidence of that suspect's presence at a murder; 2) that the suspect will face 30 years in prison if (s)he doesn't "remember" certain events; 3) that the suspect must be suffering some form of traumatic amnesia, but must now "remember"; and 4) that the suspect might be in personal danger if (s)he does not give the police sufficient evidence to arrest and lock up another perp?

I agree Donnino's "diplomatic mediator" role is probably wrong.

However, it is standard police interrogation technique to "put suggestions" to people brought in for questioning.

Amanda rolled into the questura voluntarily and even insisted in giving Officer Rita Ficcara a written statement as "a gift".

 

[Vixen]

THere is your problem (one of several). Massei reciting the evidence of one or other witness is not a finding. As you see from the quote I supplied, Massei made no finding to the claimed effect. Do you accept this now? If not, please say why not.

It's in his written reasons, in support of his verdict.

 

[Numbers]

IIRC Vinci gave evidence at the trial. It was the courts prerogative to accept or reject it.

AIUI the defense did not draw the court's attention to the stain until after the verdict.

The prosecution are only interested in building their side of the case. It is grossly negligent for the defense to deliberately conceal their independent discovery of the stain under ALS.

It was Raf and his legal team's conscious decision to not bring the stain issue up during the trial.

Another misstatement by "Vixen". The stain was not only mentioned during the trial, there was a slide presentation by the defensed expert during the trial, showing the stain as being a presumptive semen stain. The slide presentation including images, with English translation of the text, is available on the internet.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

This is an astonishing answer. One, it suggests that Amanda and Raffaele did a skillful selective clean-up, except for the bathmat and bra clasp. Two, I don't think Rudi had much to do with getting them implicated, until after it was clear that the Perugian authorities made it clear that they were pressing ahead with a case against the pair. At that point it became very much in his interest to spread the blame to them.

By the same logic, Rudy must be a genius, as there is not a single trace of Rudy in the burglary room, (nor his blood, fingerprint or DNA on broken window or glass).

The Raf DNA on the bra clasp and Raf footprint on the bathmat is incontravertible and unequivocal.

All sorts of convoluted theories have had to brought in by the defense to explain his having seemingly been caught red-handed.

Theories which are hastily denied when applied to Rudy.