Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

I thought there was some special Italian provision that says they can do whatever they want? (Not being ironic).

Not quite anything and not that. Every bizarre thing we've seen the ISC do in this case they've done before. But they have never annulled a finalised verdict sua sponte, nor is there anything in the codes, which can be used to justify it. The process is messy as it stands, because it requires a grant of review of trial and then dismissal. But this could be changed before the ECHR rules.

ETA: If they could do it and were minded to do it, they would already have done it.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't think the Marasca court can, because the Chieffi court was part of the same process. A new ISC probably can, though.

Wouldn't the case being still open, provide a better opportunity than another court down the road having to "re-open" the case to reverse the conviction?

I am totally ignorant of the Italian legal process (or close enough to count as such). But I can smell a skunk at a garden party when the guests flee shrieking into the woods.

All bets are off. It's beef jerky time. Kindly stop expecting rational procedure from an irrational process.

Woof.

 

[Grinder]

My understanding is that the only appropriate mechanism is an art 630 review of trial following an ECHR art 6 violation finding. The application would be made to the appellate court in the first instance not the ISC although the ISC would confirm or deny the finding as normal. But it may well be that a different mechanism will be carved out by the Italian legislature before the need arises.

Hellmann reviewed a case that had been "finalized" and reversed the findings.

 

[RoseMontague]

Would this be a reference to Rudy's early claim he saw Amanda's silhouette, changed later, to he heard her voice?

This was in his third interview with the police, outlined in his final ISC motivation report, and dealt with his claim he saw her walking away from the house from his view through Filomena's (open) window.

 

[Strozzi]

Nope. She'll clear herself. It will be very embarrassing for Italy. But watch out when it happens. Italy will claim it has changed since the Knox trial, that mistakes were made which are no longer possible, that the police now behave according to properly formulated policy etc etc.

Italy will benefit from the exoneration as it causes the courts, legislators, scientists, media, and public to reexamine with a critical eye what went wrong.

Even individuals involved in this case will do things differently. Stefanoni, for example, will be very cautious about how she collects physical evidence when she is on camera. She will probably in the future use clean gloves and sterile tweezers when working on camera. She will be more careful about fabricating lab results. If she tells a court she found several hundred pictograms of matter, she will be sure she can document it.

Police Chief de Felice will probably never again call a press conference and boast "They told us what we knew to be true" and "Case closed!".

Police, responding to an apparent second-story break-in, will probably examine the scene closely before readily declaring it staged.

 

[Katody Matrass]

There were five bloodstained cards and papers scattered about, revealing at least two different footprints, not Kercher's. The one found in Filomena's room was not Rudy's footprint. In fact, nothing at all of Rudy was found in the burglary room.

In addition, two DNA mixtures fo Amanda & Mez were transported from the murder room to the burglary room. As Amanda didnot step into the murder room when Luca broke the door down, and anyway, the blood would have been long dry, the question has to be asked, how did it get there, if Amanda was not there?

The question was and remains: what is your source of these fabrications? We know it's not the case file and I'm assuming you're not making it up on your own.

 

[Vixen]

I'm going on record with a prediction that cassation will annul the conviction for calunnia in its motivation report due in June 2015.

I don't know if there is any precedent, except I think cassation can basically do anything they want, and the over whelming and final acquittals suggests to me they want this case done and done - not bouncing back from the ECHR to make them look foolish all over again.

So laugh it up Paliaccho's, I'm on the record again, ahead of the curve, and around the bend! Not even Bill W can hold me back!

My prediction is, they'll be looking to save face, as the acquittals weren't a nem com decision, with reports of Bruno and Marasca wrestling into the night like Jacob and God, IOW it was not a decision that they had no choice but to make.

Rather than embarrass their peers, they will let the calunnia trials of Raf and Amanda run their normal course, and this course can mean dismissing the case at a prehearing in the future.

With every single court upholding the calunnia against Amanda, including ISC, twice, it would be completely unconstitutional and outside their jurisdiction for a dismissal of the conviction in retrospect. It'd need to be a pardon from Italy's version of the Home Secretary.

 

[RoseMontague]

Are there any lab records supporting this finding, or just Step's assurances?

Here...

 

[RoseMontague]

The question was and remains: what is your source of these fabrications? We know it's not the case file and I'm assuming you're not making it up on your own.

I wouldn't assume anything. Most of it is just silly.

 

[Kauffer]

The person I mentioned a while ago who actually caught a burglar climbing out of a window in his home, with his laptops, was asked by the police to attend an identification line up of the guy. (The police arrested a man later.) He picked the wrong person, but did say he wasn't sure. The police had enough evidence to prosecute the perp anyway, from fingerprints.

So, when you have a crime scene, you try to look at as many perspectives as possible.

There is no need to abandon ID parades, or do away with eye witness testimony.

Everything you've written here supports our position and not yours with regard to Toto. A person actually encounters the criminal at close quarters but can't safely identify them. Yet Toto claims to remember 6 months after the event two people at a distance he'd never seen before while under the influence of heroin.

To give you another perspective - Not all that long ago I witnessed a crime and encountered the perpetrator at close quarters for some minutes. I reported the matter to the police. Later, a third party showed me a photograph from the internet he had reason to believe was the perpetrator. He was right! I identified the perpetrator from the photograph. Subsequently, the police dropped the case because the safe identification of the perpetrator had been compromised by my having seen the photograph. Yet when I encountered the perpetrator, it was outside, in strong light, close up, from all angles. I remain 100% convinced my identification was correct. Yet, the circumstances prevent my evidence being used.

Toto would never have made it into court in the UK.

 

[Kauffer]

Hellmann reviewed a case that had been "finalized" and reversed the findings.

Oh? Go on.....

 

[RWVBWL]

Regarding Rudy:

This was in his third interview with the police, outlined in his final ISC motivation report, and dealt with his claim he saw her walking away from the house from his view through Filomena's (open) window.

It's interesting that we still have not been able to read a transcript of Rudy Guede's 1st Interrogation,
taken on Dec. 7, 2007 with PM Mignini, Judge Claudia Matteini, and others present.

This Interrogation surley must have been recorded and transcribed.

This, and Rudy's Skype calls and his Interrogation with German Police when busted on the run
would give us a much clearer picture of what Mig +buddies got Guid-o to say in those later 2 interrogations, I'd bet...

Heck they chatted for something like 7 hours.
Rudy's lawyer was present, so I hope that he was given tea and snacks too,
and was able to use the restroom for ah, what does Vixen call 'em?
Oh ya, comfort breaks...

RW

 

[Vixen]

Who brought the lamp into the room? Where are the bloody shoe or footprints leaving Kercher's room, going into Amanda's room, then out again back into Kercher's room and then back out into the hall a final time?

You recall police originally identified the shoeprints as Raf's, in particular, because there was a specific star shaped deformity on the heel (?) which matched his.

As you know, Dad Raf moved heaven and earth to match it with a brand that matched a shoebox in Rudy's apartment. At the trial, the court allowed him that point that the footprints were Rudy's not Raf's.

Now consider this. The court conceded this point on the basis there was plenty more evidence of Raf's presence anyway, and it was established Rudy was there anyway.

What if they were Raf's shoeprints all along?

After all, he did soak his daps in bleach immediately after the crime. In addition, he told police, "The person who committed the murder, must have stolen my trainers."

 

[Grinder]

Oh? Go on.....

I remember this with mathematical certainty

The new judge assigned to Knox's case is no stranger to allegations of judicial error. In fact, he was one of three judges who, in 2000, overturned a controversial conviction in the stabbing murder of Cinzia Bruno, setting free a man who had been jailed for more than seven years.

Bruno's husband, Massimo Pisano, was convicted along with his lover in the stabbing death of Bruno, who was found in 1993 on the banks of the Tiber River, near Rome. He was sentenced to life in prison, a ruling upheld in all three phases of Italian court process, including the Supreme Court.

Then, a "revision" of the case by a three-man court of appeals panel, including Pratillo Hellman, freed Pisano after he had already served seven years, six months and 12 days behind bars.

The Bruno case is, of course, no indicator of how Pratillo Hellman might approach Knox's case. However, it shows a willingness to go against the judicial grain that is likely to please hopeful Knox supporters.

The new judge's initial approach to the case will become clear on the very first day of the trial, when he will have to decide a variety of issues, such as whether or not witnesses and evidence should be reheard or introduced.​

 

[Katody Matrass]

Where is the facepalm emot when it's needed?
This one must do.

 

[Kauffer]

My prediction is, they'll be looking to save face, as the acquittals weren't a nem com decision, with reports of Bruno and Marasca wrestling into the night like Jacob and God, IOW it was not a decision that they had no choice but to make.

Rather than embarrass their peers, they will let the calunnia trials of Raf and Amanda run their normal course, and this course can mean dismissing the case at a prehearing in the future.

With every single court upholding the calunnia against Amanda, including ISC, twice, it would be completely unconstitutional and outside their jurisdiction for a dismissal of the conviction in retrospect. It'd need to be a pardon from Italy's version of the Home Secretary.

Once again, the Original Calunnia case was not before the Marasca court! Only Nencini's aggravation, which they dismissed. I have visions of silly guilters going around the place claiming that Marasca's decision was in some sense supportive of a pro guilt position. It wasn't. The ISC did not confirm calunnia twice.

Furthermore, no, it does not have to be a pardon. It won't be a pardon. Calunnia will be thrown out after the finding of an art 6 violation.

 

[Vixen]

ROFL

You do realize if true, in that the bra clasp wasn't tested until mid December,
in makes that "find" even more suspect, but of course DNA is quite hardy.

Why would the DNA on Mez be hardy but the DNA on the window not?

Things may have changed since you took your M test.

Hair can be used for a variety of procedures—from DNA
isolation and identification to genotyping and forensics.
There are two parts to hair from which DNA can be
extracted and isolated: the hair follicle and the hair shaft.
​

​

Not necessarily. DNA can last infinitely. How do you think they identified King Richard III, recently?

OTOH It can breakdown very quickly in other instances.

 

[Vixen]

This was in his third interview with the police, outlined in his final ISC motivation report, and dealt with his claim he saw her walking away from the house from his view through Filomena's (open) window.

It's a pity nobody can believe a single word Rudy says.

 

[Kauffer]

I remember this with mathematical certainty

The new judge assigned to Knox's case is no stranger to allegations of judicial error. In fact, he was one of three judges who, in 2000, overturned a controversial conviction in the stabbing murder of Cinzia Bruno, setting free a man who had been jailed for more than seven years.

Bruno's husband, Massimo Pisano, was convicted along with his lover in the stabbing death of Bruno, who was found in 1993 on the banks of the Tiber River, near Rome. He was sentenced to life in prison, a ruling upheld in all three phases of Italian court process, including the Supreme Court.

Then, a "revision" of the case by a three-man court of appeals panel, including Pratillo Hellman, freed Pisano after he had already served seven years, six months and 12 days behind bars.

The Bruno case is, of course, no indicator of how Pratillo Hellman might approach Knox's case. However, it shows a willingness to go against the judicial grain that is likely to please hopeful Knox supporters.

The new judge's initial approach to the case will become clear on the very first day of the trial, when he will have to decide a variety of issues, such as whether or not witnesses and evidence should be reheard or introduced.​

That's consistent with an art 630 review of trial or revision. It's not the same as the ISC throwing out sua sponte a finalised verdict. This is the same mechanism Amanda will likely use. The difference is the cause. Until recently it was not possible to obtain a review of trial in Italy following an ECHR ruling. It was restricted to cases in which new evidence was found. Indeed it is theoretically possible for the heirs of a decreased criminal to pursue a review of the dead man's trial years later.

 

[RoseMontague]

Now consider this.

Nope. More silly stuff.