Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

I'm no lawyer, and even less an Italian lawyer, but it seems to me that the ISC in 2013 missed an important modifier to that bit, "each piece of evidence."

It should have said something akin to, "each piece of evidence with merit."

Grinder: the one bit of positive evidence you've cited that argues FOR staging of the break-in, is that the cops were initially zero'ing in on Sollecito, Knox, AND Lumumba. The positive part of that is that is would have been reasonable for PLE/Mignini to derive from that, that none of those three, really, was capable of the climb.

The stunner, then, is that when Guede is located, when Guede admits right from the git-go to have been in the cottage at the crucial time, and when Lumumba has a rock-solid alibi - why that initial "positive piece of evidence" simply did not collapse into dust?

It is there with Guede, right there right then, that PLE/Mignini went off the rails completely.
We can argue until we're blue in the face who is right and who is wrong about the "beginning" of suspicion that the break-in was a staging. I guess that is an issue which can keep this thread in busy-work until Marasca's motivations report comes out.

But by any measure, buy the time Lumumba is gone and Guede is in, all suspicion of a faked/staged break-in, including the impossibility of the climb through Filomena's window, should have passed into history. For me that's the issue.

That it's being debated amongst supporters! 7 1/2 years later is the height of ludicrousness.

Yes, this exactly.

 

[carbonjam72]

No evidence that they were ever in the murder room. No evidence of a cleanup. No evidence of a staged breakin. How do you put this together as a whole and come up with guilty?

Because they wanted to. Its not based on logic or reason. Its just the desired outcome from the people in charge at each stage.

When new people came in whose interest was justice, the case evaporated, as it should have immediately.

You get a mignini into a position of power, and there's a lot of mischief he can do.

 

[Wattson]

Does anyone know when the theory of staging the break-in was in introduced to the public? Was anyone reporting this in the early days?

 

[Numbers]

Italian courts must obey Italian laws & ECHR case-law

I believe one of the things the ISC said to Hellmann was that each piece of evidence doesn't need to be certain but rather all of the evidence needs to be taken as a whole.

The Chieffi panel of the CSC violated Italian procedural law in their judgment. So did the Massei and Nencini courts, so there was some consistency to these violations.

The specific provisions violated by "each piece of evidence doesn't need to be certain but rather all of the evidence needs to be taken as a whole" include CPP Art. 192 Evaluation of evidence, para. 2: The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent. According to ECHR case-law, evidence as a whole must be evaluated fairly, otherwise, there is a violation of Convention Article 6.

 

[Dan O.]

I was mentioning this argument by Dr Mignini to draw a comparison in the thought process for suggesting that a break-in that "looks real", makes for a stronger argument that it was staged. The argument strikes me as circular, fulfilling the presumption of guilt.

Mignini isn't going in circles he, he is working backwards. He knows that a real breakin is exhonorating evidence so he must prove that the breakin was staged. He did this by requestioning the investigators to reinforce their negative findings. Nobody saw any glass from the broken window on the ground outside, nobody saw signs of footprints in the grass under the window, nobody saw and scuff marks on the wall leading up to the window.

Of course, we know that the police were in the yard below that window. They were recorded on video in the early morning hours of November 3. We see them down there doing what investigators do: they were smoking and chatting on a cell phone.

Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that Mignini got the investigators to lie in court to support his prosecution. I hope this gets investigated.

 

[Numbers]

Tesla I'm not talking about two weeks later. I'm talking about the initial times. Before the 5th and 6th. They looked at Patrick and thought no way he climbed in that window.

It isn't that because it looked real that it is faked, but rather that the demands by people here to prove staging can't necessarily be met even if it were staged. I'm sure many insurance frauds and murder stagings can't be proven by the staging but other evidence such as means and motive come into play such as an insurance policy or reason to end a marriage without the mess of a divorce

In this case had the kids been involved and let's just say footprints matched and weren't just compatible and the knife matched the outline and wounds and had Mez's blood do you believe the prosecution would have to prove the staging?

It is obvious that a well done staging won't leave evidence but that doesn't mean it wasn't staged.

This is not the case that the Italian authorities made. They claimed that they had detected staging based on a number of subjective factors and (non-existent or undectable) objective evidence. And staging must be proven by the prosecution, not disproven by the defense.

The alleged subjective factors included but may not have been limited to: 1. the "impossibility" of climbing to the window and 2. it was the "wrong" window that a burglar would not choose. These reasons are false.

The alleged objective evidence included: 1. glass fragments on top of clothes and 2. "nothing was taken".

No objective evidence was provided to support 1; this evidence was similar conceptually in verity to the "scratch" on the knife blade seen only by Stefanoni, and not visible under a microscope to anyone else.

For 2, indeed things were taken: a) 300 euros cash from Meredith's purse, b) two cell phones used by Meredith, c) the life of Meredith Kercher. Even if nothing had been taken, this argument would not be valid; break-ins occur all the time with nothing being stolen.

 

[Grinder]

If the two defendants in this case cannot be shown to have left the apartment that night, it follows they cannot be shown to have committed the staging of a break-in at Amanda's apartment.

This wasn't known until later and in fact the prosecution produced Curatolo to prove they weren't at home. Cura was bs. They "proved" they were not home with their bogus evidence of knives and footprints etc.

I do not believe the burglary was stage much less by the kids but I think it was a reasonable possibility at first.

If you're trying to isolate the evidence they knew in the early days (before Nov 5/6), they certainly did know there was only one set of footprints in wet blood, even if they got the footprints owner wrong, because they couldn't count the rings in a shoe. And they certainly had the DNA results from Nov 6 showing the presence of a single unknown male from inside Meredith's body, yet that information was withheld by Mignini from Judge Matteini at a November 8, 2007 trial session (IIRC).

It was very early on that the papers were talking about a 4th suspect.

 

[Grinder]

Does anyone know when the theory of staging the break-in was in introduced to the public? Was anyone reporting this in the early days?

One early account had the broken window in Kercher's room. There was mention of the broken window and entry but I don't think they publicly discussed staging.

ETA - you know this Google thing may catch on.

Missing key

BBC correspondent Christian Fraser said the door to the bedroom in which she was found had been locked from the inside and it is thought the murderer may have left through a broken window.

Police are also keen to trace an Italian boyfriend and a missing key used to lock Miss Kercher's door, and have recovered a bloodstained handkerchief from close to the apartment.


We are deeply shocked at this terrible news
University of Leeds spokeswoman
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that a British national was found dead in her apartment.

ETA 2 - The squad of Perugia - directed by Marco Chiacchera - and the forensic police headquarters have started the investigation. It appears that traces of blood have been found on the broken window and on a handkerchief near a railing that delimits the road above, as well as in the chamber of the victim. No sign of forced entry evident was instead identified on the front door. In the evening, however, it came from Rome a team Ert, Experts raised tracks, police for further investigations still ongoing. Investigators - coordinated by the deputy prosecutor Giuliano Mignini - are trying to reconstruct the last hours of the student. It seems to have been seen alive for the last time on Thursday afternoon. It is unclear how he spent the next several hours and if he met someone. ( November 2, 2007 )

 

[Grinder]

Numbers have you read Galati? https://galatiappeal.wordpress.com/contents/preface/

 

[Dan O.]

This wasn't known until later and in fact the prosecution produced Curatolo to prove they weren't at home. Cura was bs. They "proved" they were not home with their bogus evidence of knives and footprints etc.

I do not believe the burglary was stage much less by the kids but I think it was a reasonable possibility at first.



It was very early on that the papers were talking about a 4th suspect.

This was in the papers November 10:

Police suspected the involvement of a fourth person after bloody fingerprints found on a pillow did not match Kercher or the three current suspects, The Telegraph reported Saturday.
A security camera near Kercher's flat identified the fourth suspect as a Congolese known only as "Usi" retreating from Kercher's flat shortly after the incident allegedly occurred. UPI​

Isn't it funny that the prosecution was already fitting evidence against Patrick's prime alibi until the Swiss professor showed up the next day.

And when was it that the prosecution produced Curatolo? When they first questioned him in the days after the murder he saw nothing.

 

[Numbers]

Staging=Amanda a suspect v Amanda a suspect=staging

Mignini isn't going in circles he, he is working backwards. He knows that a real breakin is exhonorating evidence so he must prove that the breakin was staged. He did this by requestioning the investigators to reinforce their negative findings. Nobody saw any glass from the broken window on the ground outside, nobody saw signs of footprints in the grass under the window, nobody saw and scuff marks on the wall leading up to the window.

Of course, we know that the police were in the yard below that window. They were recorded on video in the early morning hours of November 3. We see them down there doing what investigators do: they were smoking and chatting on a cell phone.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/151444c5509a2d3029.jpg[/qimg]

Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that Mignini got the investigators to lie in court to support his prosecution. I hope this gets investigated.

Part of this discussion, at least for me, is to understand the timeline of planning for framing by the police and their subsequent misconduct. It is clear that the police and prosecutor used "staging" as a justification for suspecting Amanda. But I suggest (as part of my pet hypothesis) that Amanda was considered a suspect (of convenience [for police] and of obsession [for Mignini]) and thus the police and prosecutor arbitrarily adopted the proposition that the break-in had been staged.

The clearly publicly visible first police misconduct remains, AFAIK, the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations. I believe that the planning for those interrogations constituted the beginning of the framing (which is indeed a conspiracy, in US legal terms). I am not sure when such planning began, but a reasonable first guess would be Nov. 4 (to allow for the scheduling overnight of the police personnel).

 

[Numbers]

Numbers have you read Galati? https://galatiappeal.wordpress.com/contents/preface/

The problems with Galati's appeal include that he has reversed the burden of proof. It is the prosecution which must establish that each fact derived from the each piece of circumstantial evidence against the defense is based on circumstantial evidence that is serious, precise and consistent. Those facts may then be combined into a whole. When the defense shows that the significant circumstantial evidence is not serious, precise and consistent, then there is reasonable doubt, and the defendant is to be acquitted.

ETA: Galati's appeal is a primer on how to twist wording to violate Italian law and ECHR case-law, while seeming to follow it.

 

[Bill Williams]

The problems with Galati's appeal include that he has reversed the burden of proof. It is the prosecution which must establish that each fact derived from the each piece of circumstantial evidence against the defense is based on circumstantial evidence that is serious, precise and consistent. Those facts may then be combined into a whole. When the defense shows that the significant circumstantial evidence is not serious, precise and consistent, then there is reasonable doubt, and the defendant is to be acquitted.

ETA: Galati's appeal is a primer on how to twist wording to violate Italian law and ECHR case-law, while seeming to follow it.

It is also the epitome of assuming that whatever the PM does, as well as the supporting cast of Scientific Police, they do in good will.

Every other jurisdiction in the world demands full disclosure from those making the accusations, and good-will has nothing to do with it.... Galati, and judges before him as well as the 2013 ISC, turn that instinct for full disclosure on its head.

In the absence of disclosure, the PM and supporting cast gets to say - with apparent judicial support, including Hellmann - "are you accusing me of dishonesty?"

On the basis of that whining, they then demand that the defence charges them with a crime before even considering the limited-conditions they are prepared to make disclosure - as Stefanoni said, in my lab under my supervision.

In point of fact, it is reasonable to believe that the defence risked prosecution for defamation, for simply demanding disclosure!!!

The 2015-ISC under Marasca-Bruno saved the day as far as things like this are concerned. It is hard to wait for their motivations report, on this alone.

 

[Numbers]

To Dan O. or anyone with a good command of the images:

Is there an image available that supports this statement from Giobbi's testimony about the downstairs flat:

I had to know immediately if the blood that was in the blood of the victim was, or why there was all this blood, we talk about the blood that was shed in all the rooms, there were stains on the wall, there was a duvet bedspread completely drenched {in blood}.

Could the rolled up bed spread (duvet) be what he's referring to? Or is he inaccurate? Or is it a translation error?

 

[Sergei Walankov]

BBC correspondent Christian Fraser said the door to the bedroom in which she was found had been locked from the inside and it is thought the murderer may have left through a broken window.

I hope Vixen is reading this ...

 

[RoseMontague]

One early account had the broken window in Kercher's room. There was mention of the broken window and entry but I don't think they publicly discussed staging.

ETA - you know this Google thing may catch on.

Missing key

BBC correspondent Christian Fraser said the door to the bedroom in which she was found had been locked from the inside and it is thought the murderer may have left through a broken window.

Police are also keen to trace an Italian boyfriend and a missing key used to lock Miss Kercher's door, and have recovered a bloodstained handkerchief from close to the apartment.

Almost as bad as that Owen Richards fellow with the High TIMES.

 

[RoseMontague]

To Dan O. or anyone with a good command of the images:

Is there an image available that supports this statement from Giobbi's testimony about the downstairs flat:

I had to know immediately if the blood that was in the blood of the victim was, or why there was all this blood, we talk about the blood that was shed in all the rooms, there were stains on the wall, there was a duvet bedspread completely drenched {in blood}.

Could the rolled up bed spread (duvet) be what he's referring to? Or is he inaccurate? Or is it a translation error?

IIRC, you can see a bloodstained bedspread pretty well in the video of the downstairs evidence "collection". However he just sounds confused on the upstairs vs the downstairs, in my opinion. Not really surprising, he probably had pizza for breakfast.

 

[Numbers]

IIRC, you can see a bloodstained bedspread pretty well in the video of the downstairs evidence "collection". However he just sounds confused on the upstairs vs the downstairs, in my opinion. Not really surprising, he probably had pizza for breakfast.

Yes, he could be confusing the upstairs and downstairs duvets.

And if he is confused about that, he may also be confused about whether he intuited that the break-in was staged, and therefore the suspects were narrowed down to Amanda, or whether it was decided that Amanda would be the suspect, and therefore the break-in was staged.

 

[Numbers]

Intuiting

Mignini isn't going in circles he, he is working backwards. He knows that a real breakin is exhonorating evidence so he must prove that the breakin was staged. He did this by requestioning the investigators to reinforce their negative findings. Nobody saw any glass from the broken window on the ground outside, nobody saw signs of footprints in the grass under the window, nobody saw and scuff marks on the wall leading up to the window.

Of course, we know that the police were in the yard below that window. They were recorded on video in the early morning hours of November 3. We see them down there doing what investigators do: they were smoking and chatting on a cell phone.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/151444c5509a2d3029.jpg[/qimg]

Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that Mignini got the investigators to lie in court to support his prosecution. I hope this gets investigated.

If one looks carefully, one can see that they are engaged in intuiting that there was a staged break-in.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla I'm not talking about two weeks later. I'm talking about the initial times. Before the 5th and 6th. They looked at Patrick and thought no way he climbed in that window.

It isn't that because it looked real that it is faked, but rather that the demands by people here to prove staging can't necessarily be met even if it were staged. I'm sure many insurance frauds and murder stagings can't be proven by the staging but other evidence such as means and motive come into play such as an insurance policy or reason to end a marriage without the mess of a divorce

In this case had the kids been involved and let's just say footprints matched and weren't just compatible and the knife matched the outline and wounds and had Mez's blood do you believe the prosecution would have to prove the staging?

I agree. They wouldn't. But just as in our discussions about how motive would be irrelevant if there is strong evidence, the same is true here.These side issues wouldn't matter.

What's strange to me is the Italian Supreme Court in the previous ruling seemed to say that the evidence needed to be viewed in its totality, but I've noticed that they in fact refused to look at these other points that I see as totally destructive to the case. Such as the lack of motive, the idea that the cooking knife is an unlikely weapon, that there really is no proof of staging. That there weren't any electronic communications ever between Rudy and either Raffaele or Amanda.

It is obvious that a well done staging won't leave evidence but that doesn't mean it wasn't staged.

FYI: I was always viewing it in its totality. I've never said that the police should ignore the possibility of staging, just that without significant proof of staging that they shouldn't base a case on it. Which they did.