Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

There is only a few references to gloves so it is quite easy to find. But there are no page numbers to reference.

GB: Were you wearing that suit that we saw that the police was wearing? With
the shoe covers, the gloves?

AK: No, no, I was still wearing my own clothes. They gave me those -- things
that you put on your shoes.

GB: The shoe covers. And gloves?

AK: They gave me gloves when I went upstairs to look through the knives.

GB: Yes, but excuse me. The day you went downstairs with the police and entered
into the apartment downstairs, you went in together with the police and you
didn't have gloves?

AK: No, I didn't have gloves.
​

Just occurred to me that gloves wouldn't matter in this scenario, since they would already know Amanda had chosen the knife, and if they found her DNA or prints on the knife, it would only then be probative if she were wearing gloves when she picked the knife out.

But who knows. Think I want to rethink this a bit, so I'm just talking out loud.

In any event, it is an effort by Napoleone to associate Amanda with a knife that 'could have been used in the murder', so they must have had some reason for doing that.

 

[Numbers]

Just occurred to me that gloves wouldn't matter in this scenario, since they would already know Amanda had chosen the knife, and if they found her DNA or prints on the knife, it would only then be probative if she were wearing gloves when she picked the knife out.

But who knows. Think I want to rethink this a bit, so I'm just talking out loud.

In any event, it is an effort by Napoleone to associate Amanda with a knife that 'could have been used in the murder', so they must have had some reason for doing that.

The "is there a knife missing" or "do you see a knife that could have been used in the murder" episode in Amanda's apartment suggests some police effort at entrapment. Were the other two flat-mates asked the same question?

In contrast, the seizure of a knife from Raffaele's kitchen based on "investigator's instinct" is a clear example of either 1. an arbitrary police investigation technique with intent to frame or 2. incredible laziness and incompetence - or both.

 

[Dan O.]

IIRC Raffaele called the police to tell them about the condition of the flat, and it was the police who asked whether or not anything had been stolen.

No Chris, we have the audio of the calls. While it is natural to expect the police to ask if anything had been stollen, in this instance Raffaele offered the response before the question was asked. Keep in mind though that the recorded calls were not Raffaele's first call to the police. Just before that he called his sister and she would have asked the pertinent questions. Raffaele would have just been being efficient to forward the needed information without being asked.

ETA: Actual times of these calls:

• 12:50:34 Raffaele Sollecito calls his sister Vanessa Sollecito (39 seconds).
  Source phone records on Raffaele Sollecito page. Vanessa, a lieutenant in the Carabinieri, tells RS to dial 112.
  (cell Square Lupattelli week. 7)
• 12:51:40 Raffaele Sollecito calls 112, Italian emergency number. (169 seconds)
  From RS phone records.
  (cell Eagle Tower Aqueduct sett.l)
• 12:54 RS makes second call to 112. (57 seconds)
  From RS phone records.
  (cell Square Luppatelli week 7)

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

The passage you quoted is a little ambitious, and a link would have been helpful. The charges being dismissed might refer to the charges against the players or to something else.

Sorry it was Wiki and I've found that if one uses quotes around a passage the link will be at the top when doing a Google.

You had previously written, "Can you give an example of a prosecution for character assassination? In US courts people generally can be prosecuted for perjury but such things as defamation are exempt. Anglo please chyme in." What I had in mind was something a little different, namely public statements made by the prosecutor against the three defendants. Although Nifong only served a day in jail (for contempt of court), he still faced disciplinary measures for other actions.

The comment I made was in response to this:

Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
This is not what I have been saying. Official misconduct in a US court would include, for example, character assassination of the defendant, as was done by the Italian prosecution and civil suit lawyers against Amanda Knox.

IMO the judge would warn the prosecutor and then perhaps contempt which isn't official misconduct in the sense of "as was done by the Italian prosecution and civil suit lawyers against Amanda Knox"

 

[Grinder]

In any event, it is an effort by Napoleone to associate Amanda with a knife that 'could have been used in the murder', so they must have had some reason for doing that.

As I wrote earlier to you we have been told by Giobbi and others that they were watching her for psychological signs of guilt, blah, blah, blah.

Her behavior AFTER the crime was covered in the trial including IIRC the knife visit.

 

[Dan O.]

Anyways on to some new info.

Deposition of Alessando Capasso: He made a statement together with Stefanai Tommasi. He states that he is was responsible for the prank call. He had a €100 bonus for his cell phone credit and so he would make prank calls. On 31-Oct-2007 he was in a Pizzeria named Ghiottone with his friends to celebrate Halloween and they called various numbers including 075/451595 from his mobile (which was shown to the Police) at 21:48. He remembers saying "be careful because you've got a bomb in your toilet".

The odd thing is the date in the deposition for the prank call is Oct 31 even though Lana says she received it on Nov 1 and the cops turned up. Deposition states he showed his phones call log to the cops when he made his statement. So there's a discrepancy.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2007-11-03-Witness-deposition-Capasso.pdf

Thanks to Teddy IIP for helping read all of these.

Interesting. That conflicts with the dates and times given in the February 6, 2009 Testimony of Fiametta Biscarini. It is possible that she simply forgot that there was a whole day between the bomb threat and the discovery of the phones. It also eliminates the conflict of Rudy tossing the two phones into the garden at exactly the same time that the police were there investigating the call.

 

[lonepinealex]

1. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were subjected to clearly apparent police misconduct beginning on Nov. 5, 2007 with a police interrogation that violated Italian procedural law and ECHR case-law, due to failure to provide the legally mandated cautions, failure to provide counsel, and failure to provide a fair interpreter. There was a violation of the Convention prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment.


2. There was clearly apparent police and prosecution misconduct in the failure, not corrected by the Italian courts, to produce all relevant information, including descriptions of test methods, faithful descriptions of samples and controls tested, DNA quantification results, DNA profile results, and raw DNA profile data (EDFs) which would provide a fair "best evidence" record of equipment settings and test results, resulting in a denial of potentially exculpatory information from the police forensic lab. Furthermore, a non-validated novel LCN DNA test method was used in a lab not equipped to conduct LCN DNA testing, and which did not show evidence of adequate contamination control.

The introduction in court of circumstantial evidence - the LCN DNA alleged results - was a violation of Italian procedural law that such evidence must be serious, precise, and consistent.

There was a violation of ECHR case-law mandating the provision of all necessary facilities for the defense. ECHR case-law states that all information gathered by the police and prosecution that may assist the defense, such as exculpatory evidence or evidence that would allow the impeachment of inculpatory evidence must be provided to the defense.

3. There are other instances of misconduct, such as the misrepresentation of the luminol data and late disclosure of the TMB testing for the footprints, destruction of computer hard drives, misleading analysis of the mat footprint, and failure to test or report the presumed semen stain on the pillow.

4. The list above does not include all the instances of misconduct.

5. The CSC final judgment found that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent.

6. One may conclude that the instances of misconduct were intended to "frame" innocent persons. Since the CSC judgment was that the defendants were innocent, it is apparent that the frame was unsuccessful.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. No. Even with the quotation marks around "frame".

 

[Numbers]

....

6. No. Even with the quotation marks around "frame".

See my post #1856 for information on some actual US court cases where "frame-up" by the police was a defense claimed in appeals against criminal charges and conviction.

The idea that one cannot claim to have been framed if one has been suspected by police, subjected to criminal charges, or even convicted simply does not correspond to reality, at least with respect to the US judicial system.

 

[Kauffer]

Read it carefully, and you'll see the direct sources are Filomena's, Amanda's and court testimony. What kind of person doesn't notify the police at all in the three hour time frame of supposedly "really banging" on her "friend's" door, nor ring up her housemate to tell her her room is a wreck?

Not someone who cares a darn.

But we have already established your error here! And you still can't get it.

Amanda did not bang on Kercher's door until her second visit after the break in is discovered. That is the first game changer. Now, Amanda has clear, objective evidence that something is definitely wrong at the flat, which cannot be interpreted innocently. There's been a break in. That Romanelli calls Amanda before Amanda could call her about the break in is incidental.

If Amanda had wanted to hide anything from Romanelli, she would not have called her after her first visit to the cottage. The effect of Amanda calling Romanelli is that Romanelli becomes alarmed. A guilty Ananda would know this is a possibility and would not have contacted her at all. She did not know where Romanelli was! It could have been that she was 2 minutes away and might have descended on the cottage at any moment. She has already made Romanelli aware of "strange things".

Get your facts straight once and for all.

 

[Numbers]

On the penalty for "official misconduct" by a prosecutor in a US court trial.

Most of the misconduct by prosecutors does not amount to a criminal violation, but is rather a procedural violation against the defendant's rights. These rights may be defined by court precedent rather than by statute. The most likely "penalty" is that statements or testimony would be stricken from the record, if the misconduct is not significantly prejudicial in the judge's view. If there is likely to be a significant prejudice from the misconduct to the defendant, the case may be dismissed as a mistrial, or there could be an acquittal - either at first instance or at appeal. There is the possibility that the prosecutor would be censured - that is, rebuked, or found in contempt. Only a really extreme case of misconduct, such as, for example, clearly soliciting perjured testimony or intentionally using fabricated evidence, might result in criminal charges.

 

[lonepinealex]

See my post #1856 for information on some actual US court cases where "frame-up" by the police was a defense claimed in appeals against criminal charges and conviction.

The idea that one cannot claim to have been framed if one has been suspected by police, subjected to criminal charges, or even convicted simply does not correspond to reality, at least with respect to the US judicial system.

I don't know if your examples above fit the proper definition of framing or not, but that doesn't mean that the use of the word was correct in those cases either way.

 

[Strozzi]

The "is there a knife missing" or "do you see a knife that could have been used in the murder" episode in Amanda's apartment suggests some police effort at entrapment. Were the other two flat-mates asked the same question?

In contrast, the seizure of a knife from Raffaele's kitchen based on "investigator's instinct" is a clear example of either 1. an arbitrary police investigation technique with intent to frame or 2. incredible laziness and incompetence - or both.

Remember the knife collection in the context of what had just occurred at the police station in the previous hour or two. Police officers Finzi and C. thought they had just obtained Amanda's confession that she was at her cottage during the murder and that Raffaele (mixing up days) had said Amanda had gone out. Therefore, having just gone to Raffaele's with him in their custody to collect evidence, and having been looking unsuccessfully for a knife for several days, the police needed a knife. They grabbed a knife. No indication that it was the real murder weapon - that it met specs. It was just a mean-looking knife in his cutlery drawer. Finzi picked it up and asked C. "How's this?". "it's great, great" was the answer. The two cops collected any knife they could use to claim it was the knife. The two police were framing them with any convenient knife.

 

[Dan O.]

The "is there a knife missing" or "do you see a knife that could have been used in the murder" episode in Amanda's apartment suggests some police effort at entrapment. Were the other two flat-mates asked the same question?

The others were asked if there were any knives missing. I don't recall them being asked to pick out a knife that would be suitable for a murder. Their lawyers would probably interrupt the proceedings at that point if they had.

 

[Bill Williams]

Remember the knife collection in the context of what had just occurred at the police station in the previous hour or two. Police officers Finzi and C. thought they had just obtained Amanda's confession that she was at her cottage during the murder and that Raffaele (mixing up days) had said Amanda had gone out. Therefore, having just gone to Raffaele's with him in their custody to collect evidence, and having been looking unsuccessfully for a knife for several days, the police needed a knife. They grabbed a knife. No indication that it was the real murder weapon - that it met specs. It was just a mean-looking knife in his cutlery drawer. Finzi picked it up and asked C. "How's this?". "it's great, great" was the answer. The two cops collected any knife they could use to claim it was the knife. The two police were framing them with any convenient knife.

I do not view this as an act of framing.

At the time, they did not know how Raffaele fit into their theory that Amanda had helped out Lumumba with his date with Meredith. (Their theory at the time was that Amanda had used her key to let Patrick in, so that he could be alone with Meredith, while Amanda was in the kitchen. This is the scenario, essentially, that translator/mediator/diplomat Anna Donnino asked Amanda to imagine. Amanda, exhausted and confused, thought her own imaginings were somehow helpful.)

The intent of the knife from Raffaele's was mainly to collect it in his presence. It was to show Raffaele the lengths they would go to accuse him, if he did not co-operate in the accusations against Knox/Lumumba.

Even after receiving Stefanoni's report about 36A and 36B, there was still plenty of time to drop the knife as evidence. That is, until trial. My view is that Mignini (at the time of the knife collection) never thought he'd be taking charges against Raffaele to trial.

 

[Grinder]

The idea that one cannot claim to have been framed if one has been suspected by police, subjected to criminal charges, or even convicted simply does not correspond to reality, at least with respect to the US judicial system.

Why do keep repeating this? Anyone can claim framing at any time. No one has said that framing can't be claimed.

You put forward a scenario that isn't framing and when that is pointed out you stamp your feet and say tis, tis, tis.

You can produce a million US cases where the complainant claims he was framed and that doesn't change what framing means.

 

[Strozzi]

I do not view this as an act of framing.

At the time, they did not know how Raffaele fit into their theory that Amanda had helped out Lumumba with his date with Meredith. (Their theory at the time was that Amanda had used her key to let Patrick in, so that he could be alone with Meredith, while Amanda was in the kitchen. This is the scenario, essentially, that translator/mediator/diplomat Anna Donnino asked Amanda to imagine. Amanda, exhausted and confused, thought her own imaginings were somehow helpful.)

The intent of the knife from Raffaele's was mainly to collect it in his presence. It was to show Raffaele the lengths they would go to accuse him, if he did not co-operate in the accusations against Knox/Lumumba.

Even after receiving Stefanoni's report about 36A and 36B, there was still plenty of time to drop the knife as evidence. That is, until trial. My view is that Mignini (at the time of the knife collection) never thought he'd be taking charges against Raffaele to trial.

I agree with you. I see the framing as the police taking a random but mean-looking knife while Raffaele looks on and scaring him to believe the police will claim it to be the murder weapon. Just implying to him that we can grab what we want from your flat and use it against you to make/fabricate a case against you is, in my opinion, the frame. (Grinder may see it as "official misconduct".)

 

[Numbers]

I don't know if your examples above fit the proper definition of framing or not, but that doesn't mean that the use of the word was correct in those cases either way.

Here you are supposing that the judges who wrote the opinions may not have used the term "framing" properly in terms of its definition.

I should apologize if you had thought I meant to call you an "elite word-smith" but you are judging the US judges' and lawyers' choice of words.

Here is a quote from one case:

FEATHERSTON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued February 24, 1992. Decided March 19, 1992.

….
A. I believe that members of the raid party added cocaine to the soap. I know that members of the Franklin Township Police Department were well aware of the fact that I was arrested and charged with a drug offense as a juvenile. These charges were subsequently dismissed. I believe that members of the Franklin Police Department have the incentive to frame me.
….Q. Do you have any idea why the Franklin Police Department would be out to frame you?
Q. Why would Franklin Police Department have an interest in framing you? A. I guess 'cause I was arrested in 1986 and was not convicted.

{Judges opinion, in part:}

….in light of the testimony of the defense experts that only two parts per 1,000 were cocaine and, therefore, could not have been for distribution, the defense was plausible defendants could not be intending to distribute the substance and did not possess it to distribute, and that they were "framed" by police who themselves added a small quantity of cocaine to Featherston's laundry powder.

{Highlighting added.}

 

[Grinder]

I agree with you. I see the framing as the police taking a random but mean-looking knife while Raffaele looks on and scaring him to believe the police will claim it to be the murder weapon. Just implying to him that we can grab what we want from your flat and use it against you to make/fabricate a case against you is, in my opinion, the frame. (Grinder may see it as "official misconduct".)

It is certainly misconduct if it went as you describe or at least not framing for sure. Assuming Raf is guilty would there be anything wrong with taking the knife?

Addressing this to all the framing (true use) fans why would they pick a knife that didn't fit the description of a "pen knife" that was in the press or at least one that would be about the size of the outline or wounds?

Why would grabbing a knife he knew was the wrong knife if he was the killer work for them?

He had already surrendered his pocket knife. Why would the huge kitchen knife put fear into him. Why didn't they find blood and DNA on his pocket knife if they were framing the kids?

How besides investigative intuition would they pick a knife? Why not just take them all? Would that put less fear into him?

 

[Grinder]

I do not view this as an act of framing.


Even after receiving Stefanoni's report about 36A and 36B, there was still plenty of time to drop the knife as evidence. That is, until trial. My view is that Mignini (at the time of the knife collection) never thought he'd be taking charges against Raffaele to trial.

Follain? Or just voices?

 

[Grinder]

Here you are supposing that the judges who wrote the opinions may not have used the term "framing" properly in terms of its definition.

I should apologize if you had thought I meant to call you an "elite word-smith" but you are judging the US judges' and lawyers' choice of words.

No. Do you really not see that the defendants claimed framing?

What possible significance do you put to "official" use of the word framing?

The word framing or to frame is a perfectly good word with main line dictionary definitions albeit usually 'slang'. There is no reason the courts shouldn't use the word. I'm sure that the court understands that the defendant is claiming innocence and is saying the police or someone else made a plan to make it look like he was guilty.

Btw - we know you add the highlighting.