Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

IMO the way the RIS Carabinieri reported to the Nencini court is the model that should have happened with Stefanoni at the Massei trial.

The RIS Carabinieri simply brought everything with them as part of their report to the court, which became available to both sides upon acceptance by the court. IIUC this also included all the raw data, so that both sides could make of it what they would.

This is called transparency.

Machiavelli used to argue that it was the courts' responsibility to enforce Stefanoni's lack of disclosure.... and then when a poster would then show how a judge erred in letting Stefanoni get away with things, Mach would devolve into saying, "Well, the defence never objected." When a poster here would show that, in fact, the defence objected all the way along, Machiavelli just went silent.

This is called a lack of transparency on the part of the court.

Yes, I agree that is the way the forensic results should be presented, to the defense as well as to the prosecution. That conforms to the Convention and Italian law. But what I had meant in my question was who among the police actually saw Stefanoni's full work, or was it only seen by PM Mignini and other prosecutors. (If anyone posting here has any knowledge of this.)

 

[Numbers]

Yes, I agree that is the way the forensic results should be presented, to the defense as well as to the prosecution. That conforms to the Convention and Italian law. But what I had meant in my question was who among the police actually saw Stefanoni's full work, or was it only seen by PM Mignini and other prosecutors. (If anyone posting here has any knowledge of this.)

What I am trying to do is to get a view of the extent of the "conspiracy" or team effort to commit official misconduct in this case. Obviously, it probably must include PM Mignini and Stefanoni, and possibly Giobbi who claimed in this testimony to have set up the interrogation of Nov. 5/6. What about the other Perugian police? Were they active leaders for the team, or simply following orders (Nuremburg "defense"), perhaps trusting their leaders knew something they didn't?

 

[carbonjam72]

Mignini & Commodi

Question:
To whom would Stefanoni be required to disclose her reports and results, besides, under legal obligation from the CCP, PM Mignini? Would VQA Giobbi or VQA Profazio or any of the other Perugia police have been informed? The point is, how large and knowing was the "conspiracy" or team effort for official misconduct in this case, and which of the police were aware of the objective evidence of guilt of Rudy Guede and lack of evidence of guilt (or innocence) of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (and Patrick Lumumba)?

ETA: For clarity, I mean to whom among the police would she be obligated to share her reports and results under police and prosecution procedures. In this case, Convention and Italian law were violated by not fully sharing the reports and results with the defense.

Just responding here, but this is a great question.

Planigale has pointed out (probably others too), that the original footprint and shoe print analysis also don't appear to be legitimate, and were essentially fitted up to the defendants to insure a case going forward. So in addition to Stef, there are those experts.

Also, there is the destruction of the computers by the postal police examining the computers, and frying them 3 or four in a row.

Someone has to synthesize the evidence that is available, and into a theory of prosecution.

Mignini even said at one point, he got the evidence from the Rome lab to come out the way he wanted.

The more state experts who contributed false or evidence destroying acts, the stronger the argument for a centrally led conspiracy (i.e. Mignini led conspiracy), without which there would be no central coordination of fitting the "evidence" together into a picture of "guilt".

It can't just be an accident that they all pull in the same direction, without some agency providing and defining that direction so precisely and consistently.

I think Commodi said it best, "we decide what is important".

 

[Antony]

I saw Mignini on camera not long ago claim that Amanda, 20 at the time of the murder, is very astute. Do you believe that she found Rudi's specimen in the toilet and deliberately decided to use it for theatrical effect with the responding police (Napoleoni)? Is this what you mean, above?

I remember in the early days of my following this case, the guilters on the news website comment sections were making a big thing of the fact that Amanda didn't flush it away immediately, claiming that as a sign of guilt.

"Why didn't she flush! An innocent person wouldn't have left poo in the toilet!"​

Of course, if Amanda had flushed it out of fastidiousness, the evidence would have been gone. If she had then told the police about it, the guilters would have been accusing her of making it up, or else destroying evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Planigale has pointed out (probably others too), that the original footprint and shoe print analysis also don't appear to be legitimate, and were essentially fitted up to the defendants to insure a case going forward. So in addition to Stef, there are those experts.

It took quite a while for the defense to figure this out. Maybe Dan O or Rose has pictures of the prints as found and reference prints from Raf's shoes.

Also, there is the destruction of the computers by the postal police examining the computers, and frying them 3 or four in a row.

Why would they think it a good idea?

[Mignini even said at one point, he got the evidence from the Rome lab to come out the way he wanted.

In fairness to V could you provide a cite.

It can't just be an accident that they all pull in the same direction, without some agency providing and defining that direction so precisely and consistently.

I think Commodi said it best, "we decide what is important".

I think many there were and still are convinced of their guilt and worked hard to find evidence to convict. I doubt many if any were framing them knowingly. While one can't frame a guilty person they can fabricate evidence against one and that may have happened here.

In general they are incompetent boobs.

 

[Numbers]

Just responding here, but this is a great question.

Planigale has pointed out (probably others too), that the original footprint and shoe print analysis also don't appear to be legitimate, and were essentially fitted up to the defendants to insure a case going forward. So in addition to Stef, there are those experts.

Also, there is the destruction of the computers by the postal police examining the computers, and frying them 3 or four in a row.

Someone has to synthesize the evidence that is available, and into a theory of prosecution.

Mignini even said at one point, he got the evidence from the Rome lab to come out the way he wanted.

The more state experts who contributed false or evidence destroying acts, the stronger the argument for a centrally led conspiracy (i.e. Mignini led conspiracy), without which there would be no central coordination of fitting the "evidence" together into a picture of "guilt".

It can't just be an accident that they all pull in the same direction, without some agency providing and defining that direction so precisely and consistently.

I think Commodi said it best, "we decide what is important".

carbonjam,

Yes, thanks. Your post is the kind of analysis I am thinking of.

The question of the charges against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher are now settled, with the CSC having found them not guilty, for not having committed the crime. We await the motivation report from the CSC Marasca panel to better understand their reasoning for their eminently rational decision of "not guilty".

In particular, I would hope to see their acknowledgment of the many violations of defendants' rights in this case. I suspect they may confine themselves to a simple recitation of the evidence and lack of evidence, in order not to impugn the police, prosecutors, and judges who have been responsible for initiating and maintaining this miscarriage of justice over approximately seven and one-half years, including nearly four years of unjustified imprisonment for Knox and Sollecito.

It now seems to me that the questions that remain are those of Amanda Knox's application against Italy for her (wrongful) conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba, and a more exact and accurate understanding of how the police and prosecution, with the assistance of some judges, created, through official misconduct and arbitrary judicial procedure, this miscarriage.

 

[Grinder]

I remember in the early days of my following this case, the guilters on the news website comment sections were making a big thing of the fact that Amanda didn't flush it away immediately, claiming that as a sign of guilt.

"Why didn't she flush! An innocent person wouldn't have left poo in the toilet!"​

Of course, if Amanda had flushed it out of fastidiousness, the evidence would have been gone. If she had then told the police about it, the guilters would have been accusing her of making it up, or else destroying evidence.

Yes damned if they did damned if they didn't on a plethora of things. If they had left their phones on and where a signal could reach them, then the PGP would be raving about them doing it for a alibi and that young lovers would turn them off.

If they had gone to Gubbio, it would have been a plan for alibi.

If they told the same story of the night's activities, their stories would have too consistent and obviously rehearsed.

 

[Antony]

No, no, no, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!11!!!

Konx and Knife-boy were heavy users of cocaine/LSD/amphetamines (delete or include entirely as you wish).

The only reason why the prosecution weren't able to prove this in court was that:

a) testing was done too soon for these drugs to show up
b) testing was done too late for these drugs to show up
c) there's probably some other really good reason why these drugs didn't show up
d) erm, that's it

They staged their blood to be drug-free.

 

[Samzilla]

They staged their blood to be drug-free.

the perfect crime

 

[carbonjam72]

Here's a little biography of Nick Scola from 2014

NICK SCOLA
Nick has recently retired after serving 35 years with the Metropolitan Police Service, latterly as a Detective Chief Inspector. He spent the last ten years of his police career with the Homicide and Serious Crime Command leading major and often high-profile homicide investigations. He was the Senior Investigating Officer heading the team investigating the disappearance of 12 year old Tia Sharp in August 2012, with Detective Inspector Kate Wilson as his deputy. He was also heavily involved in the first MPS double jeopardy conviction after changes to the Criminal Justice Act in 2003, culminating in the successful prosecution in 2009 of Mario Celaire for the murder of Cassandra McDermott in October 2001.

Nick Scola considers the most complex investigation he led to be the contract killing of special constable Nisha Patel but takes most pride in convicting those responsible for the deaths of David Morley in 2004 and Jody Dobrowski in 2005 who were beaten to death for no reason other than their sexuality.

In recognition of his achievements he was recently awarded Senior Investigating Officer of the Year at the ACPO Senior Investigating Officers conference, a fitting recognition by his peers of his many qualities as a senior police officer. Nick has now been chosen to join the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, established in November 2010 by the Ministry of Defence. This appointment readily demonstrates that after an outstanding police career Nick is still committed to using his skills and expertise for the benefit of the criminal justice process.

http://www.bafs.org.uk/index.php/events/past-events

Is this the UK detective who was mentioned then in the communications?

Has he ever offered an opinion on the Kercher crime, and the evidence of more than a single perp, then or more recently?

Any word if he was continuously advising the Kerchers on any of this?

Seems like experienced people in UK law enforcement were not very outspoken about the flimsiness of the case, or not widely listened to or reported on.

I'm still trying to reconcile the difference of opinion among the expert classes in the US and the UK and Italy. Its not just the general public that seems to have held varying opinions, or am I mistaken?

Even the recent BBC4 radio piece reviewing the evidence after the final acquittals, seems like a barely gussied up resort to 'reasonable doubt', as opposed never any real evidence at all, and definitive evidence of only one person to the exclusion of multiple persons, at the scene of the crime.

 

[Kauffer]

Yes damned if they did damned if they didn't on a plethora of things. If they had left their phones on and where a signal could reach them, then the PGP would be raving about them doing it for a alibi and that young lovers would turn them off.

If they had gone to Gubbio, it would have been a plan for alibi.
If they told the same story of the night's activities, their stories would have too consistent and obviously rehearsed.

I'm not sure about that one. If they'd gone to Gubbio after Amanda's shower, then sure, but if they'd gone before, Amanda never having been back, someone else would have found the body, probably Romanelli or maybe one of the British girls would have raised the alarm. The whole business with the postal police would have had a very different narrative as they would have encountered an empty cottage. Nobody would have had a reason to question the alibis and they wouldn't have been on anyone's radar. Perhaps the break in would have just been a break in

 

[Kauffer]

Is this the UK detective who was mentioned then in the communications?

Has he ever offered an opinion on the Kercher crime, and the evidence of more than a single perp, then or more recently?

Any word if he was continuously advising the Kerchers on any of this?

Seems like experienced people in UK law enforcement were not very outspoken about the flimsiness of the case, or not widely listened to or reported on.

I'm still trying to reconcile the difference of opinion among the expert classes in the US and the UK and Italy. Its not just the general public that seems to have held varying opinions, or am I mistaken?

Even the recent BBC4 radio piece reviewing the evidence after the final acquittals, seems like a barely gussied up resort to 'reasonable doubt', as opposed never any real evidence at all, and definitive evidence of only one person to the exclusion of multiple persons, at the scene of the crime.

Yes, it's the same guy. The UK often sends a police officer to keep tabs on a case abroad involving a British victim - and act as a liaison. There's an agreement with other jurisdictions. The case you will know about where this happened and is still happening, is Madeline McCann. It never occurred to me to consider this before. I'm sure there will be some communication from him, possibly to the Kerchers and the consulate. I'll see what I can find out. Scola's got an impressive CV. The cases he was involved in won't mean much to Americans but they were high profile here.

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure about that one. If they'd gone to Gubbio after Amanda's shower, then sure, but if they'd gone before, Amanda never having been back, someone else would have found the body, probably Romanelli or maybe one of the British girls would have raised the alarm. The whole business with the postal police would have had a very different narrative as they would have encountered an empty cottage. Nobody would have had a reason to question the alibis and they wouldn't have been on anyone's radar. Perhaps the break in would have just been a break in

Yes I always have thought if guilty they should have gone, but I was assuming that they still would have been charged.

 

[Strozzi]

I remember in the early days of my following this case, the guilters on the news website comment sections were making a big thing of the fact that Amanda didn't flush it away immediately, claiming that as a sign of guilt.

"Why didn't she flush! An innocent person wouldn't have left poo in the toilet!"​

Of course, if Amanda had flushed it out of fastidiousness, the evidence would have been gone. If she had then told the police about it, the guilters would have been accusing her of making it up, or else destroying evidence.

I am concerned about the possibility that Rudi used Amanda's and Meredith's bathroom, and failed to flush. And that the specimen showed up in Laura's and Filomena's toilet. Vixen, what is the possibility that the specimen was moved? Unlike DNA, we know that this sort of specimen doesn't fly. Who moved it?

 

[carbonjam72]

"oops", is not good enough.

Yes, it's the same guy. The UK often sends a police officer to keep tabs on a case abroad involving a British victim - and act as a liaison. There's an agreement with other jurisdictions. The case you will know about where this happened and is still happening, is Madeline McCann. It never occurred to me to consider this before. I'm sure there will be some communication from him, possibly to the Kerchers and the consulate. I'll see what I can find out. Scola's got an impressive CV. The cases he was involved in won't mean much to Americans but they were high profile here.

Well that's interesting. Would be interesting to see his point of view on the case as the lies from the prosecution kept piling up, and the tabloids were having a field day. I wonder if any effort was made to intervene or inject some element of reason. I wonder if today he wishes he had done more?

The Kercher's attorney would certainly have any such communications, I wonder if the Kerchers ever saw it, or just left everything to Maresca? I wonder what the UK diplomatic services made of whatever input that detective might have had?

I'm just wondering if the ' 'All for Meredith' means convicting anyone' mindset was accepted at higher levels in the UK government?

I guess I want to know why the government representatives (US, UK, IT) weren't more vocal about the mad buffoon Mignini hurling charges of satanism-orgy-murder with zero, fabricated and suppressed evidence?

Seems to me, "oops", is not good enough.

 

[anglolawyer]

Another thing theories like Vixen's leave out of account is that Amanda did not know Laura and Filomena were away for the weekend. She says so in her book and it must be true as it's too easily falsifiable if not. So, as far as she knew, either one of them might have come marching in during the murder or the subsequent clean up and staging. What was she going to do? Kill them too? And at some point during the night she is supposed to have thought, 'bugger this, I'm off for some kip. I'll buy some bleach in the morning and finish the job and if anyone shows up while I'm asleep I'll just have to make something up. Oh well. Nothing's perfect.'

 

[carbonjam72]

Selective clean-up is impossible, so it didn't happen.

Another thing theories like Vixen's leave out of account is that Amanda did not know Laura and Filomena were away for the weekend. She says so in her book and it must be true as it's too easily falsifiable if not. So, as far as she knew, either one of them might have come marching in during the murder or the subsequent clean up and staging. What was she going to do? Kill them too? And at some point during the night she is supposed to have thought, 'bugger this, I'm off for some kip. I'll buy some bleach in the morning and finish the job and if anyone shows up while I'm asleep I'll just have to make something up. Oh well. Nothing's perfect.'

My problem with these kinds of 'what if's' or 'what who knew', is that it ignores the fact that no such selective clean-up of DNA, fingerprints, and footprints in wet-blood is physically possible. It didn't happen, because its not possible that it happened.

The reason for suggesting it did happen, is because those trying to assign guilt to Amanda and Raf know that they have to explain the complete absence of evidence against them, alongside the overwhelming evidence of only Rudy Guede. The single set of footprints in wet-blood alone creates an insurmountable barrier to suggesting any others more than Guede was in the room when the blood was wet.

The ideas of 'who knew what when' is avoiding the fact that the evidence does not permit the theorizing of additional perps, at least not inside the murder room when the crime was committed, nor really, anytime thereafter.

The clean-up is the prosecutor's theoretical crutch to hobble over the fact that there is zero evidence of anyone but Guede involved in this crime. There isn't any evidence of a clean-up, and indeed, it is plainly apparent there was no clean-up, nor could there be.

Without the theory of a 'selective clean-up of evidence', there is left only the fact of 'no evidence'.

Vixen's theory fails on its own and is irrelevant to whatever anyone said or allegedly behaved. Its all just nonsense, and I do not believe it is put forward in good faith.

I'll bet Mignini believes his own baloney, I don't believe Vixen does.

 

[Strozzi]

Another thing theories like Vixen's leave out of account is that Amanda did not know Laura and Filomena were away for the weekend. She says so in her book and it must be true as it's too easily falsifiable if not. So, as far as she knew, either one of them might have come marching in during the murder or the subsequent clean up and staging. What was she going to do? Kill them too? And at some point during the night she is supposed to have thought, 'bugger this, I'm off for some kip. I'll buy some bleach in the morning and finish the job and if anyone shows up while I'm asleep I'll just have to make something up. Oh well. Nothing's perfect.'

It is quite possible that Filomena ALSO did not know she was going to be away for the weekend.

She went to a birthday party Friday evening, with a present wrapped by Raffaele. Filomena went to the party with her boyfriend, Marco, and she spent Friday night with him. Did she plan on not coming back to her place, not even to shower or change her clothes, until Sunday evening? Did she routinely go to her boyfriend's place for an entire weekend, rather than one night?

 

[anglolawyer]

My problem with these kinds of 'what if's' or 'what who knew', is that it ignores the fact that no such selective clean-up of DNA, fingerprints, and footprints in wet-blood is physically possible. It didn't happen, because its not possible that it happened.

The reason for suggesting it did happen, is because those trying to assign guilt to Amanda and Raf know that they have to explain the complete absence of evidence against them, alongside the overwhelming evidence of only Rudy Guede. The single set of footprints in wet-blood alone creates an insurmountable barrier to suggesting any others more than Guede was in the room when the blood was wet.

The ideas of 'who knew what when' is avoiding the fact that the evidence does not permit the theorizing of additional perps, at least not inside the murder room when the crime was committed, nor really, anytime thereafter.

The clean-up is the prosecutor's theoretical crutch to hobble over the fact that there is zero evidence of anyone but Guede involved in this crime. There isn't any evidence of a clean-up, and indeed, it is plainly apparent there was no clean-up, nor could there be.

Without the theory of a 'selective clean-up of evidence', there is left only the fact of 'no evidence'.

Vixen's theory fails on its own and is irrelevant to whatever anyone said or allegedly behaved. Its all just nonsense, and I do not believe it is put forward in good faith.

I'll bet Mignini believes his own baloney, I don't believe Vixen does.

I, of course, agree with all this - except the highlighted part.

It is quite possible that Filomena ALSO did not know she was going to be away for the weekend. She went to a birthday party Friday evening, with a present wrapped by Raffaele. Filomena went to the party with her boyfriend, Marco, and she spent Friday night with him. Did she plan on not coming back to her place, not even to shower or change her clothes, until Sunday evening? Did she routinely go to her boyfriend's place for an entire weekend, rather than one night?

How far away was Marco's place? Any idea?

 

[RoseMontague]

It took quite a while for the defense to figure this out. Maybe Dan O or Rose has pictures of the prints as found and reference prints from Raf's shoes.

At first glance they have a similar pattern, however Raffele's would leave a print less uniform in distance between lines (short,long,short,long) or may not even show the lines at all as the depressions are very small gaps. Raffaele also has a distinct pattern on the edges of his shoes that would show up as tiny lines on the edges of the prints running in the opposite direction. The counting of the lines thing to me is less obvious.