Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Many posts (pages, actually) behind and so maybe this is now exhausted but.. I am still confused on your point. As you're own cite indicates, rigor sets in from 1-7 hours after death and remains for 1-6 days. The body was discovered just after 13:00 and Lalli arrives 1-2 hours after that. At that point Meredith could have been dead for only 3-4 hours,

She was dead 16-17 hours by then.

She would have been cold to the touch. Full rigor in place would put death easily 7 hours or more before most likely longer considering body touch temp. The marginal benefit from the temp would be less than the risk of losing other forensic info.

 

[moije2]

Many posts (pages, actually) behind and so maybe this is now exhausted but.. I am still confused on your point. As you're own cite indicates, rigor sets in from 1-7 hours after death and remains for 1-6 days. The body was discovered just after 13:00 and Lalli arrives 1-2 hours after that. At that point Meredith could have been dead for only 3-4 hours,

She was dead 16-17 hours by then.

She would have been cold to the touch. Full rigor in place would put death easily 7 hours or more before most likely longer considering body touch temp. The marginal benefit from the temp would be less than the risk of losing other forensic info.

I may have missed this so apologies in advance... But what is the "other forensic evidence" that would be lost? Maybe it is more difficult to take a body temperature than I am imagining.

 

[anglolawyer]

3 pages and no 'I thinks'. Keep it up.

I declare Grinder the winner on the definition of framing. Numbers, stop impersonating Machiavelli and state clearly, without reeling off reams of irrelevant legal references, whether you think they were framed (as defined), when that began and what evidence entitles us to draw the inference.

I have said what I think. Rose has put her finger on the clasp collection. Your turn.

 

[Dan O.]

Many posts (pages, actually) behind and so maybe this is now exhausted but.. I am still confused on your point. As you're own cite indicates, rigor sets in from 1-7 hours after death and remains for 1-6 days. The body was discovered just after 13:00 and Lalli arrives 1-2 hours after that. At that point Meredith could have been dead for only 3-4 hours,

She was dead 16-17 hours by then.

She would have been cold to the touch. Full rigor in place would put death easily 7 hours or more before most likely longer considering body touch temp. The marginal benefit from the temp would be less than the risk of losing other forensic info.

I may have missed this so apologies in advance... But what is the "other forensic evidence" that would be lost? Maybe it is more difficult to take a body temperature than I am imagining.

For instance, if there were a semen stain in close proximity it could be destroyed if excrement were to leak out in the process of taking the temperature.

 

[davefoc]

3 pages and no 'I thinks'. Keep it up.

I declare Grinder the winner on the definition of framing. Numbers, stop impersonating Machiavelli and state clearly, without reeling off reams of irrelevant legal references, whether you think they were framed (as defined), when that began and what evidence entitles us to draw the inference.

I have said what I think. Rose has put her finger on the clasp collection. Your turn.

A small comment on this framed thing: Attempting to force precision on the meaning of words that doesn't exist in common usage leads to needless semantic quarreling. Is a marmot a squirrel? The meaning of the common word, squirrel, is not constrained sufficiently to allow a categorical answer to that question.

I suggest that discussions about police actions to intentionally misrepresent evidence in order to get a guilty verdict avoid the word, framing. I've been speaking English for more than sixty years and I don't know whether somebody that is misrepresenting evidence to obtain a guilty verdict is attempting to frame somebody if they think that somebody is guilty. The only clear cut situation where the word framing would apply is if the police sought to misrepresent evidence to obtain a guilty verdict for somebody they knew to be innocent. But I wouldn't be surprised if some people extended the usage of the word to cover situations where the police misrepresent evidence in an attempt to convict somebody they believe to be guilty.

One of the interesting questions about this case is whether police, forensic investigators, prosecutors or judges ever became aware that AK/RS were probably innocent and continued to pursue a conviction anyway. For me, that is one of the most interesting questions. What the range of meaning for the word framing is quite a bit less so.

 

[Numbers]

3 pages and no 'I thinks'. Keep it up.

I declare Grinder the winner on the definition of framing. Numbers, stop impersonating Machiavelli and state clearly, without reeling off reams of irrelevant legal references, whether you think they were framed (as defined), when that began and what evidence entitles us to draw the inference.

I have said what I think. Rose has put her finger on the clasp collection. Your turn.

I have written what I think. The "framing" began on Nov. 3. But it included clear misconduct only on Nov. 5.

Evidence {we don't need no stinkin' evidence}:

1. WTBH. Chapter 8, Nov.3.

At the police station. Some time after 11:00 am arrival.
Amanda tells Ficarra (whose name Amanda did not know until 2 years later) that her parents want her to go to Germany to stay with relatives for a few weeks. Ficarra replies: You can't leave Perugia. You're an important part of the investigation.
Amanda: How long will you need me?
Ficarra: We don't know - maybe months.
Amanda: But I'm planning to go home for Christmas.
Ficarra: Well, we'll decide if you can do that. We'll have to hear what the magistrate says when he calls in three days.
Amanda repeated this conversation to her Mom, who says: That doesn't make sense.
Amanda invites her mother to come to Perugia for moral support.
Her mother calls back and tells Amanda the flight information. Amanda's Mom is scheduled to fly into Rome on Tuesday morning, Nov. 6.

Nov. 3. Afternoon. Police drive Amanda to the villa.
The police lead Amanda to the downstairs apartment. She is handed shoe covers and gloves. After she slipped them on, she sang out "Ta-dah" [Giobbi testifies he heard "Voila"] and thrusts out her arms as in a musical [Giobbi testifies she swayed her hips].
Amanda toured the downstairs flat with the police, told them, no, the blood stains and unmade bed in Stefano's room was not normal.
Then she was returned by the police to the station and repeated all her previous responses for the record.
She was allowed to call Raffaele to pick her up at about 7:00 pm.
While waiting for him, she had a phone conversation with her Aunt Dolly (cousin Doroty) in Germany, who said: If they really want to question you, they can do it from Germany. Maybe we should find a lawyer for you....

Chapter 9. Nov. 4
Amanda writes that The Mail on Sunday (London tabloid), which she had not read, that day stated in an article that the Italian police were investigating the possibility that the murderer was a woman - someone Meredith had known well.
She returns to the police station as requested by the police.
The police return her to the cottage, along with her Italian house mates.
She asked to look through a drawer of utensils, including knives, and identify if any knives are missing.
While at the police station, she has a phone conversation with her Aunt Dolly, who suggests that Amanda call the US embassy.

So there's the evidence. Not of something being planted, unless it is an idea in Giobbi's mind. But perhaps it was already in Ficarra's mind. Or in the magistrate's mind.

But what do you mean by "framed"? Is there police misconduct at this point? Giobbi's testimony is my guide. He saw behavior he interpreted as suggesting guilt, he was aware that Amanda's alibi was weak (only Raffaele backing it), and that she had a key to the flat. He believed, he testified, that the break-in was staged, in part because a true burglar would break in through the balcony.

What I perceive or imagine is an unreasonable (or unjustified) suspicion that the police and magistrate must, in their opinion, make reasonable to justify an arrest and detention before Amanda's mother reaches her and before Amanda gets a lawyer. Thus (and with hindsight), I conclude that any (corrupt) police officer and magistrate in Italy wishing to short-cut "little" procedural issues next schedules an all-night coercive (nearly) "simultaneous" interrogation to find the "truth" that they already know. And that will involve official misconduct and a frame-up.

And I perceive or imagine the target of the frame-up is Amanda Knox. But this means her alibi must be destroyed. Therefore, Raffaele Sollecito must also be arrested and ultimately charged. IMO (and I have come to this brainstorm recently), that is partly why Patrick Lumumba must be arrested; he and Amanda texted on Nov. 1, and if he is part of the murder conspiracy, then his text is not innocent and can't help Amanda's alibi. Plus, he (in my imagination) is the heavy - the violent killer - because, after all, he is a black African. And he needs Amanda to open the door - he may be too short to climb the grating. It all adds up, in my imagined view into the mind of Mignini and the police.

So the framing began with the Nov. 5/6 interrogation if one wishes to include clear official misconduct.

Now did the police "believe" Amanda et al. were guilty? IMO, some may have. Others may have seen a suspect of convenience. Did Giobbi actually believe a cat with a bloody ear jumped and got blood on the downstairs light switch? Did he really believe his perceptions of Amanda's behaviors were indications of guilt? I suggest that there is a cultural tendency, among Italian officials, to prefer to be seen as clowns or incompetent fools rather than as criminals. And that is what Giobbi displayed in his remarks about behavior.

You may or may not agree with what I have presented here.

I do believe that my attempts at explaining legal issues have been meaningful. (And you may or may not agree.) A real and impartial court, such as the ECHR, will look for concrete evidence, such as clear official misconduct, and be careful in making inferences. It will look at domestic Italian law and its own case-law derived from the Convention. It may even derive new principles of case law, if needed for its judgment.

 

[Bill Williams]

3 pages and no 'I thinks'. Keep it up.

I declare Grinder the winner on the definition of framing. Numbers, stop impersonating Machiavelli and state clearly, without reeling off reams of irrelevant legal references, whether you think they were framed (as defined), when that began and what evidence entitles us to draw the inference.

I have said what I think. Rose has put her finger on the clasp collection. Your turn.

Numbers was framed and I can prove it.

Grinder quickly editted the Wiki entry on "Frameup" and then called "time". There are witnesses.

 

[Numbers]

Post Script to my longish essay on the frame-up: If anyone wishes to call the process I have described (in too many words) a "frame-up", "noble corruption" or even simply "official misconduct" I will not be concerned.

I would be concerned if you call it, for example, "legitimate police techniques of interrogation".

 

[Numbers]

3 pages and no 'I thinks'. Keep it up.

I declare Grinder the winner on the definition of framing. Numbers, stop impersonating Machiavelli and state clearly, without reeling off reams of irrelevant legal references, whether you think they were framed (as defined), when that began and what evidence entitles us to draw the inference.

I have said what I think. Rose has put her finger on the clasp collection. Your turn.

A small comment on this framed thing: Attempting to force precision on the meaning of words that doesn't exist in common usage leads to needless semantic quarreling. Is a marmot a squirrel? The meaning of the common word, squirrel, is not constrained sufficiently to allow a categorical answer to that question.

I suggest that discussions about police actions to intentionally misrepresent evidence in order to get a guilty verdict avoid the word, framing. I've been speaking English for more than sixty years and I don't know whether somebody that is misrepresenting evidence to obtain a guilty verdict is attempting to frame somebody if they think that somebody is guilty. The only clear cut situation where the word framing would apply is if the police sought to misrepresent evidence to obtain a guilty verdict for somebody they knew to be innocent. But I wouldn't be surprised if some people extended the usage of the word to cover situations where the police misrepresent evidence in an attempt to convict somebody they believe to be guilty.

One of the interesting questions about this case is whether police, forensic investigators, prosecutors or judges ever became aware that AK/RS were probably innocent and continued to pursue a conviction anyway. For me, that is one of the most interesting questions. What the range of meaning for the word framing is quite a bit less so.

Numbers was framed and I can prove it.

Grinder quickly editted the Wiki entry on "Frameup" and then called "time". There are witnesses.

Grinder will therefore be sentenced to reading through all the cases of wrongful convictions attributed to "official misconduct" in the National Registry of Exonerations, and categorizing each one as "frame-up", "noble corruption", or "other". There are currently (5-12-2015) 423 such cases.

I look forward to learning the results of Grinder's analysis, which should include a comparison to the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Post Script to my longish essay on the frame-up: If anyone wishes to call the process I have described (in too many words) a "frame-up", "noble corruption" or even simply "official misconduct" I will not be concerned.

I would be concerned if you call it, for example, "legitimate police techniques of interrogation".

Now you're talking.

 

[anglolawyer]

Numbers, before Grinder picks that confused melange apart, you have not accepted my ruling on the meaning of framing. You continue to give the word such an elastic interpretation as to empty it of meaning. What you have recounted are the well known indicators suggesting Amanda was suspected in the days before the 5th. I doubt Grinder disagrees with thst. I certainly do not. The question is: whether the cops continued to manufacture/fabricate/collect evidence against them knowing or believing them to be innocent or lacking an honest and genuine belief in guilt.

Yes or no and, if the former, please expand.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, before Grinder picks that confused melange apart, you have not accepted my ruling on the meaning of framing. You continue to give the word such an elastic interpretation as to empty it of meaning. What you have recounted are the well known indicators suggesting Amanda was suspected in the days before the 5th. I doubt Grinder disagrees with thst. I certainly do not. The question is: whether the cops continued to manufacture/fabricate/collect evidence against them knowing or believing them to be innocent or lacking an honest and genuine belief in guilt.

Yes or no and, if the former, please expand.

I don't understand how you could interpret my confused and excessively long essay, which cribbed extensively from Amanda's memoir, as not being exact.

If "framed-up" means the police believed that Amanda was not guilty* and that they committed misconduct to show her as guilty, this only occurred starting on Nov. 5 at the interrogation.

I am aware of no clear police misconduct prior to Nov. 5.

I quoted from Amanda's memoir to attempt to show the indications or barely visible foreshadowing of the police intent. Their motivation for the Nov. 5 date was the anticipated arrival of Amanda's mother on Nov. 6 and the potential that her mom would help Amanda get a lawyer.

IIUC, Grinder believes that the police sincerely but wrongly believed that Amanda was guilty. I do not have evidence to disprove that, and I do not believe that Grinder has evidence to prove it.

And again, this is an argument truly about nothing but words and definitions. And things we can't be sure about due to a lack of reliable information.

There were two types of unlawful behavior committed by the police on Nov. 5/6: procedural and criminal. It is this official misconduct, and similar concrete matters, that would be examined by the ECHR for the calunnia application. Inferences could be made by the ECHR from the misconduct and concrete matters. The extensive questioning of Amanda Nov. 2 through 4, for example, might be viewed as a "softening-up" by the ECHR in preparation for the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. The second calunnia charge against Amanda, for calunnia against the police in her court testimony, may be interpreted as retaliation and an attempt to block an effective investigation of the police for misconduct by the ECHR.

ETA: *To more fully respond, by my imaginary examination of the brains of the police, I have concluded that the left halves believed Amanda was not guilty, but the right halves lacked an honest and genuine belief in her guilt. But this was true in only 50% of the police; in the other 50%, the attributes of the halves were reversed, so that the right halves believed Amanda was not guilty, while the left halves lacked an honest and genuine belief in her guilt. And this can be proven by any other objective imaginary examination by anyone who agrees with me.

ETA2: If not clear, let me state that I believe Giobbi was lying that he thought Amanda was guilty because of her behavior. That was a cover-up for arbitrarily selecting her and Raf and Patrick as the convenient suspects. The evidence: Giobbi's statement that the cat jumped and thus put blood on the light switch. That is not plausible. Thus, Giobbi's other marginally plausible or implausible statements I regard as fabrications.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't understand how you could interpret my confused and excessively long essay, which cribbed extensively from Amanda's memoir, as not being exact.

If "framed-up" means the police believed that Amanda was not guilty* and that they committed misconduct to show her as guilty, this only occurred starting on Nov. 5 at the interrogation.

I am aware of no clear police misconduct prior to Nov. 5.

I quoted from Amanda's memoir to attempt to show the indications or barely visible foreshadowing of the police intent. Their motivation for the Nov. 5 date was the anticipated arrival of Amanda's mother on Nov. 6 and the potential that her mom would help Amanda get a lawyer.

IIUC, Grinder believes that the police sincerely but wrongly believed that Amanda was guilty. I do not have evidence to disprove that, and I do not believe that Grinder has evidence to prove it.

There is a meaningless over-precision here, surrounding what the word "frame-up" means. I believe that Numbers has settled the matter by framing the debate properly in the highlighted text. (Note: different meaning of "framing" intended.)

This is similar to what Postal Police Battistelli was supposed to have meant with, "this is no burglary", when he peered into Filomena's room and saw it pre-body discovery.

The meaning of "this is no burglary" is hopelessly compromised by the meaning foisted on to it by the subsequent investigation. It only later took on the meaning:

- this is a staging​

.... when Mignini chose to lock the investigation into a multi-attacker scenario, based on it being an inside job.

The point being, that very same verbal observation could have later quite nicely fit into another, more accurate description of a single attacker, who broke in through Filomena's window, where it then even more accurately denotes:

- this is a burglary which was interrupted and never carried out.​

DaveFoc called it, too. There is just no sense in over-defining the meaning of "frame-up", it is that which makes the term meaningless. Meaningless in what Numbers has properly observed - prior to the Nov 5/6 interrogation, the requisite information to define it is simply unrecoverable, which is the reason why seeking the remedy of better defining the term is a waste of time.

And again, this is an argument truly about nothing but words and definitions. And things we can't be sure about due to a lack of reliable information.

 

[Numbers]

There is a meaningless over-precision here, surrounding what the word "frame-up" means. I believe that Numbers has settled the matter by framing the debate properly in the highlighted text. (Note: different meaning of "framing" intended.)

This is similar to what Postal Police Battistelli was supposed to have meant with, "this is no burglary", when he peered into Filomena's room and saw it pre-body discovery.

The meaning of "this is no burglary" is hopelessly compromised by the meaning foisted on to it by the subsequent investigation. It only later took on the meaning:

- this is a staging​

.... when Mignini chose to lock the investigation into a multi-attacker scenario, based on it being an inside job.

The point being, that very same verbal observation could have later quite nicely fit into another, more accurate description of a single attacker, who broke in through Filomena's window, where it then even more accurately denotes:

- this is a burglary which was interrupted and never carried out.​

DaveFoc called it, too. There is just no sense in over-defining the meaning of "frame-up", it is that which makes the term meaningless. Meaningless in what Numbers has properly observed - prior to the Nov 5/6 interrogation, the requisite information to define it is simply unrecoverable, which is the reason why seeking the remedy of better defining the term is a waste of time.

Battistelli's alleged statement "this is no burglary" needs some attention, because we don't know what it means.

What does "burglary" mean in Italy, and are there different legal types based on particular circumstances of the activity?

For example, in the US, a common legal definition of burglary is:
To enter a structure without the owner's permission, or by fraud, with the intent of committing a felony. (The felony could be theft, arson, rape, murder, etc.)

In the Hellmann motivation report, there is some discussion on the different end results of a break-in, relating to Raffaele's call to the police and his subsequent statement to them, which may have some illustrative relevance:

In reality, for individuals not legally qualified, the expression “a theft has been carried out inside the house” amounted to a quick representation of the situation they found: penetration into the inside of the house via break-in of the window pane and ransacking of the room…”. They certainly had neither the means nor the desire to differentiate between mere violation of domicile, attempted theft, or an actual theft.. : what counted in that moment for the two youths was, above all, to make known that the Carabinieri had already been called.

 

[Bill Williams]

Battistelli's alleged statement "this is no burglary" needs some attention, because we don't know what it means.

What does "burglary" mean in Italy, and are there different legal types based on particular circumstances of the activity?

For example, in the US, a common legal definition of burglary is:
To enter a structure without the owner's permission, or by fraud, with the intent of committing a felony. (The felony could be theft, arson, rape, murder, etc.)

In the Hellmann motivation report, there is some discussion on the different end results of a break-in, relating to Raffaele's call to the police and his subsequent statement to them, which may have some illustrative relevance:

The point I failed to include in the post was that this was touted as the first indication/acknowledgement that the break-in had been staged.

No it wasn't.

This comment only a later became interpreted that way - at the time Battistelli made it, it could have meant either of those two things noted. It could have equally later been seen as the first mention of an interrupted burglary. It all depends on what meaning was later foisted onto it, not what Battistelli meant at the time.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, before Grinder picks that confused melange apart, you have not accepted my ruling on the meaning of framing. You continue to give the word such an elastic interpretation as to empty it of meaning. What you have recounted are the well known indicators suggesting Amanda was suspected in the days before the 5th. I doubt Grinder disagrees with thst. I certainly do not. The question is: whether the cops continued to manufacture/fabricate/collect evidence against them knowing or believing them to be innocent or lacking an honest and genuine belief in guilt.

Yes or no and, if the former, please expand.

anglo,
I now have a question for you.

Is "framing" someone defined as a crime in the UK (England-Wales or Scotland or NI)? If so, does the prosecution need to prove the knowledge of the police, alleged to have committed it, in terms of the guilt or innocence of the "framee"?

What about "noble corruption" - is that defined as a crime in the UK? Is it a crime where the prosecution needs to show that the police, alleged to have committed it, believed the subject of the crime was guilty?

What about "official misconduct" or "abuse of authority" (or similar general terminology)?

 

[Numbers]

official misconduct

n. improper and/or illegal acts by a public official which violate his/her duty to follow the law and act on behalf of the public good. Often such conduct is under the guise or "color" of official authority.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/official+misconduct


Official Misconduct
Definition

Police, prosecutors, or other government officials significantly abused their authority or the judicial process in a manner that contributed to the exoneree's conviction.
Case Examples

Michael Evans
Gary Gauger
Jacques Rivera
Gordon Randy Steidl
Burge Torture Cases

Remedies

Police and prosecutors need to be trained to avoid using improper techniques; in addition, these officials need to be held accountable for using improper techniques.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/issues/misconduct/index.html

RCW 9A.80.010 {RCW = Revised Code of Washington [State]}
Official misconduct.


(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

[2011 c 336 § 408; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.80.010 .]

Notes:
Effective date -- Severability -- 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.

Failure of duty by public officers: RCW 42.20.100.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.80.010

 

[Numbers]

Example of the use of "framing" as a defense (appeal of the denial of a writ of habeas corpus).

United States of America Ex Rel. Roy Helwig, Appellant, v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent, Western State Penitentiary, Pittsburgh 33, Pennsylvania, Appellee, 271 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1959)

Throughout this lengthy litigation, appellant has asserted that he was "framed" by his wife, friends, a person who he alleges is the "real burglar" and various state and local officials; that this was accomplished by false and perjured testimony; and that the prosecutor knew the testimony was false. The issue of "framing" was exhaustively covered at the state court trial. Any conflicting testimony regarding it at that trial was before the jury for its consideration, and obviously resolved against Helwig. The District Court granted the habeas corpus hearing "* * * because relator represented that the testimony of five `eye witnesses' was suppressed and withheld by the prosecution `whose testimony would prove that [he] was falsely accused of burglary'

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/271/329/27043/

{Emphasis added.}

ETA: Application to the AK-RS case. I suggest Stefanoni presented false testimony and false (misrepresented) data regarding, for example, the DNA allegedly on the knife blade. Did the prosecutor know that the testimony was false and the data misrepresented? Is there a legal difference dependent on what the prosecutor knew?

 

[Planigale]

Vixens input is valuable. It is clear V has been deeply influenced by the initial press reports which he continually refers to. I missed these, and only read about this case after initial conviction. The initial press reports are clearly full of speculation and errors, but certainly capable of shaping the view that Knox and Sollecito were wicked drug using sociopaths. Unfortunately V has failed to move on and read the copious original documents showing much of the initial reports are false. The phone records are published and on line, there is no connection with Guede. The drug dealers phone number was allegedly found on Knox's phone, but there is no record of spoken communication. The alleged drug dealer was living in rome so could not have been a supplier to Knox of drugs. When you go to the details this collapses into speculation. Even the 'sexual relation' was at most a single makeout session.

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixens input is valuable. It is clear V has been deeply influenced by the initial press reports which he continually refers to. I missed these, and only read about this case after initial conviction. The initial press reports are clearly full of speculation and errors, but certainly capable of shaping the view that Knox and Sollecito were wicked drug using sociopaths. Unfortunately V has failed to move on and read the copious original documents showing much of the initial reports are false. The phone records are published and on line, there is no connection with Guede. The drug dealers phone number was allegedly found on Knox's phone, but there is no record of spoken communication. The alleged drug dealer was living in rome so could not have been a supplier to Knox of drugs. When you go to the details this collapses into speculation. Even the 'sexual relation' was at most a single makeout session.

Yes. And the media reporting of this case has - from almost the very outset - been tainted by its yearning to adopt a specific narrative: young, bright, ambitious, pretty British female student abroad is brutally killed by her young, bright, attractive American female housemate (and her lover) in either a bizarre sex game gone wrong or some sort of "mean girls" feud which exploded into bloody murder.

Of course, the police and prosecutors were more than willing to feed the media misinformation to support this narrative, right from the very start. And the media then had the total green light to go all-guns-blazing on the narrative, since they effectively had the "official" endorsement to support it. In addition - and specifically in regard to the UK media - they were in clover because they were totally unconstrained by the sort of sub judice reporting restrictions they'd have been forced to adopt if the murder had occurred in the UK.

It's very easy, therefore, to understand just how and why the media reported on this case in the way it did, especially in late 2007 and after the Massei verdict.