Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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.

This is interesting. Haven't they already had the DNA results back which demonstrate its not Lumumba's in Kercher's vagina before Nov 10th?

 

[carbonjam72]

This is interesting. Haven't they already had the DNA results back which demonstrate its not Lumumba's in Kercher's vagina before Nov 10th?

Yes, IIRC, the DNA results from Stef's lab came back on Nov 6.

also as an aside, since the new ISC ruling will be the final word on the matter, I'm wondering if DR Mignini will have the full latitude to speak at his defamation trials against Amanda, Raf and Oggi, and whatever else?

Could cassation say something like, 'Mignini's conclusions were irrational from the evidence available', which would deprive Mignini of defenses he might need at a future trial of his own?

If there is going to be an investigation of the Kercher investigation, and what everyone did, could Mignini expose himself to questioning on the stand in this current spate of cases, that could come back and haunt him if he were the subject of a later criminal case?

I believe defendants are allowed and expected to lie in criminal cases. But surely not prosecutors or witnesses.

I believe Mignini is scheduled to take the stand on June 16 in his Oggi trial. Not sure if he'll take the stand against Raf/Gumbel in Honor Bound, but that is my fantasy.

 

[anglolawyer]

We cannot really know this objectively, because we don't have the actual questions that were put to her. Yet we know she was suspected from other sources of information. This document is not what it purports to be. Consider the subject heading:"Transcript of questioning of a person informed of the facts". It isn't a transcript at all; it's a precis written up by a translator. We also know that in her 4th November interrogation, she was virtually accused of lying and still didn't sense the danger! The problem seems to be that it's not in innocent Amanda's makeup to recognise the clues that would have led her to realise the suspicion she was under.

As for the cleaning, you are right. It is inconceivable, given that Amanda could not know people would not return to the cottage, that if she was going to attempt a cleanup (a fruitless exercise anyway, for which there is no evidence), she would hardly wait until the following morning to try to get it done.

This is ūber skeptical. She cannot have been asked in any detail about her own movements and activity on the night of the 1st because that would have made her, or those she was confiding in, smell a rat. We know the questions she was asked from the statement she gave and, in advance of their impending appearance here, I can tell you now there will be nothing about her said activity and nothing about her work with Patrick.

Wanna bet?

ETA it's not a précis either. It's her statement given in answer to questions. I have taken hundreds like it and watched the police take dozens more. It's not a verbatim transcript but it's not a condensation either. If I ask : 'what time did you go to bed?' and you answer '9.00 p.m.' I write down 'I went to bed at 9.00 p.m.' Not a précis, not verbatim but 100% accurate.

 

[Numbers]

This is interesting. Haven't they already had the DNA results back which demonstrate its not Lumumba's in Kercher's vagina before Nov 10th?

Yes, IIRC, the DNA results from Stef's lab came back on Nov 6.

....

And since the confirmation of arrest hearing was on Nov. 8, the detention of all three was thus in bad faith - that is, a fraud based on misrepresentations by the police and prosecutor.

If this is not explicitly acknowledged by the CSC, it may be an issue for civil action in Italy and/or a claim to the ECHR.

 

[Numbers]

This is ūber skeptical. She cannot have been asked in any detail about her own movements and activity on the night of the 1st because that would have made her, or those she was confiding in, smell a rat. We know the questions she was asked from the statement she gave and, in advance of their impending appearance here, I can tell you now there will be nothing about her said activity and nothing about her work with Patrick.

Wanna bet?

ETA it's not a précis either. It's her statement given in answer to questions. I have taken hundreds like it and watched the police take dozens more. It's not a verbatim transcript but it's not a condensation either. If I ask : 'what time did you go to bed?' and you answer '9.00 p.m.' I write down 'I went to bed at 9.00 p.m.' Not a précis, not verbatim but 100% accurate.

Also, this statement came before Giobbi had observed how she put on shoe covers and perceived her hip wiggle. That is the point where he considers her of special investigatory interest, according to his testimony, IIUC.

Does anyone have any comment about the fingerprinting of Amanda and the British women at 3 AM on Nov. 3 possibly making all of them, let us say, suspects or potential suspects? Is there any Italian law that states one can only fingerprint potential suspects? There is, as I pointed out, one (CPP Art. 349) that states suspects may be fingerprinted for identification.

ETA: For a long time, I had considered Giobbi a fool because of the "behavioral" reasons he gave for considering Amanda a suspect. It was only after reading his testimony about the cat jumping to leave blood on the light switch that I came to the conclusion that he was a liar and a fool.

 

[Desert Fox]

And since the confirmation of arrest hearing was on Nov. 8, the detention of all three was thus in bad faith - that is, a fraud based on misrepresentations by the police and prosecutor.

If this is not explicitly acknowledged by the CSC, it may be an issue for civil action in Italy and/or a claim to the ECHR.

Is it any more in bad faith as what was done with Russ Faria?

 

[Numbers]

Is it any more in bad faith as what was done with Russ Faria?

There are currently 1599 exonerations in the National Registry of Exonerations. Many of them - 728 - involve official misconduct.

There is no reason to believe that the Knox - Sollecito case had "more" bad faith than the Russ Faria case.

There are, unfortunately, too many instances of official misconduct and bad faith in the US justice system. How the system can be improved should be discussed and worked on.
ETA: Source: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx#

 

[Kauffer]

Also, this statement came before Giobbi had observed how she put on shoe covers and perceived her hip wiggle. That is the point where he considers her of special investigatory interest, according to his testimony, IIUC.

Does anyone have any comment about the fingerprinting of Amanda and the British women at 3 AM on Nov. 3 possibly making all of them, let us say, suspects or potential suspects? Is there any Italian law that states one can only fingerprint potential suspects? There is, as I pointed out, one (CPP Art. 349) that states suspects may be fingerprinted for identification.
ETA: For a long time, I had considered Giobbi a fool because of the "behavioral" reasons he gave for considering Amanda a suspect. It was only after reading his testimony about the cat jumping to leave blood on the light switch that I came to the conclusion that he was a liar and a fool.

I suppose the point of this fingerprinting would normally be to allow the CSIs to exclude any of their prints which might have shown up for innocent reasons at the crime scene. But perhaps, even as early as the early hours of the third, they might have been hoping to nail Amanda decisively by them. Later, when it came to the footprints, they didn't even have Romanelli's and Mezzetti's for comparison.

 

[Anode]

We'll have the Nov 3 and 4 statements translated soon.

The other thing that caught my eye was Filomena's statement on November 7. For a long time I thought it was a TJMK myth that Luca and Paola checked the car to see if Amanda or Raffaele planted something in it because they weren't asked about that when they testified.

Well it turns out it was true but they only checked after the arrests.

This is what JK wrote in his book:

Quote:
It was later pointed out on the website, True Justice for Meredith Kercher, an unbiased and non-profit-making website, which originated in America and is contributed to by American and Italian lawyers, that after they had dropped Knox and Sollecito off at the police station, Luca and Paola were so concerned they ‘thoroughly checked the interior of their car for any incriminating evidence, as they were scared that something might have been planted there’.

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter’s murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (p. 89). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.
---------------------------------
He really fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Aside from the "originated in America", none of this is true. Well maybe it doesn't make much profit. I can't even find any reference where J. Kercher and PQ ever met. Unfortunately it seems it will be a long, long time, if ever, until J. Kercher will ever let himself consider the innocence of AK and RS.

 

[Numbers]

I suppose the point of this fingerprinting would normally be to allow the CSIs to exclude any of their prints which might have shown up for innocent reasons at the crime scene. But perhaps, even as early as the early hours of the third, they might have been hoping to nail Amanda decisively by them. Later, when it came to the footprints, they didn't even have Romanelli's and Mezzetti's for comparison.

Is it known if the police obtained fingerprints and/or DNA from Giacomo Silenzi (Meredith's boyfriend) and the others from downstairs?

 

[LashL]

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."

Indeed.

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.

Indeed. This is how it is supposed to work in all civilized countries with the rule of law. When a case is made up entirely of circumstantial evidence (which many are), the trier of fact is to assess each piece of circumstantial evidence for reliability and evidentiary value, if any, as against the accused. This is not even remotely close to requiring proof BARD with respect to each piece of evidence, as some PGP suggest. It is simply that they do not wish to understand the proper process for assessing pieces of evidence.

If any given piece of circumstantial evidence is unreliable or has no evidentiary value against the accused, then it should not be considered further when it ultimately comes time for the trier to fact to assess whether or not the totality of the pieces of reliable and probative evidence as a whole amount to proof BARD.

Hellmann nailed this, and his written judgment is the only one released yet in this case that passes juridical muster and demonstrates a proper appreciation of the law.

Moreover, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction only when it is consistent with the conclusion that the criminal act was committed by the accused AND that the facts are such as to be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion other than that the accused in the guilty party. That is to say, the test for conviction based on circumstantial evidence is that the trier of fact must be satisfied BARD that the only rational inference that can be drawn by the circumstantial evidence is that the accused is guilty.

This has been the law for a long, long time here in Canada, and it is supposed to be law in Italy as well. The elements of an offence have to be established BARD, and while an element of an offence can be based on circumstantial evidence, that is only so when a trier of fact is satisfied BARD that the guilt of the accused is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the proven facts. The proven facts are those that have survived scrutiny in the initial assessment of the evidence (for reliability and evidentiary value, etc., as noted above). Reliance on irrational or speculative evidence to support an inference of guilt is not appropriate, and cannot properly sustain a conviction.

 

[Bill Williams]

This has been the law for a long, long time here in Canada, and it is supposed to be law in Italy as well. While an element of an offence can be based on circumstantial evidence, that is only when a trier of fact is satisfied BARD that the guilt of the accused is the ONLY reasonable inference to be drawn from the PROVEN FACTS. The proven facts are those that have survived scrutiny in the initial assessment of the evidence. Reliance on irrational or speculative evidence to support an inference of guilt is not appropriate.

I'm scrambling for the cite, but here in Canada there was a case where the alleged perps were acquitted, even though their guilt could be reasonably inferred from the proven facts......

..... but that those same proven facts could, in the reasoning of the judge, also reasonably point to other conclusions - other than their guilt.

Perhaps you can remember this case. It is very recent. If I am reading this right, the prosecution HAD proven its case (in a manner of speaking), it's just that the prosecution had not gone the further step of demonstrating why their case was the ONLY reasonable inference.

Whereas this recent one was not the Kish case, that's the way I've always viewed the Justice Nordheimer finding of guilt for Nyki Kish. It's not so much that he has failed to construct a scenario/timeline that points to her guilt (hence, Nordheimer's claim for an irresistible inference that she did it)....

...... it's that the available evidence can also be constructed so as to demonstrate reasonable doubt that she'd done it, and perhaps even constructed further to show she could have done it.

So it's not just Italy/Mignini/Massei/Galati/Chieffi/Nencini (Crini doesn't count because he's just a lick-spittle), it's Canada, too, which falls prey to this.

 

[Grinder]

ETA it's not a précis either. It's her statement given in answer to questions. I have taken hundreds like it and watched the police take dozens more. It's not a verbatim transcript but it's not a condensation either. If I ask : 'what time did you go to bed?' and you answer '9.00 p.m.' I write down 'I went to bed at 9.00 p.m.' Not a précis, not verbatim but 100% accurate.

Hahahahaha! Anglo tough question for you. What agency did this work? They most likely asked about her work and briefly where she was that night. IIRC Mignini referred to some of these interviews. I can' wait for the other 50 hours of 100% accurate recording of her remarks.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hahahahaha! Anglo tough question for you. What agency did this work?

They most likely asked about her work and briefly where she was that night.

IIRC Mignini referred to some of these interviews. I can' wait for the other 50 hours of 100% accurate recording of her remarks.

I can't wait for the 100% accurate accounting of the fateful interrogations of Nov 5/6, 2007. Not only Amanda's, but Raffaele's, Patrick's, and then later Rudy's.

 

[LashL]

I'm scrambling for the cite, but here in Canada there was a case where the alleged perps were acquitted, even though their guilt could be reasonably inferred from the proven facts......

..... but that those same proven facts could, in the reasoning of the judge, also reasonably point to other conclusions - other than their guilt.

Perhaps you can remember this case. It is very recent. If I am reading this right, the prosecution HAD proven its case (in a manner of speaking), it's just that the prosecution had not gone the further step of demonstrating why their case was the ONLY reasonable inference.

Perhaps the R. v. Sawyer Robinson case from around the first of May?

 

[anglolawyer]

Hahahahaha! Anglo tough question for you. What agency did this work?

They most likely asked about her work and briefly where she was that night.
IIRC Mignini referred to some of these interviews. I can' wait for the other 50 hours of 100% accurate recording of her remarks.

Please rephrase your question about the agency because I don't understand it. We already know they asked her briefly about what she did that night because her answer is in the statement. I guess you didn't read it. Get back to us when you have. They did not ask her about Le Chic. We already know this by other means but if you want to lose another bet, fine. 111 Dalmatians is the stake. Bet?

 

[anglolawyer]

I can't wait for the 100% accurate accounting of the fateful interrogations of Nov 5/6, 2007. Not only Amanda's, but Raffaele's, Patrick's, and then later Rudy's.

Different rules applied when the statements of 5/6 Nov were taken. You guys understand nuthin'

 

[LashL]

Whereas this recent one was not the Kish case, that's the way I've always viewed the Justice Nordheimer finding of guilt for Nyki Kish. It's not so much that he has failed to construct a scenario/timeline that points to her guilt (hence, Nordheimer's claim for an irresistible inference that she did it)....

...... it's that the available evidence can also be constructed so as to demonstrate reasonable doubt that she'd done it, and perhaps even constructed further to show she could have done it.

So it's not just Italy/Mignini/Massei/Galati/Chieffi/Nencini (Crini doesn't count because he's just a lick-spittle), it's Canada, too, which falls prey to this.

There is a lot wrong with Nordheimer's decision, in my view, and I am still really peeved that the OCA upheld it, but remember that the Kish case was not solely based upon circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence, if believed by the trier of fact, can be accepted all on its own as proving a necessary element or as proving an offence.

The additional proviso that we are discussing applies only to circumstantial evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Please rephrase your question about the agency because I don't understand it. We already know they asked her briefly about what she did that night because her answer is in the statement. I guess you didn't read it. Get back to us when you have. They did not ask her about Le Chic. We already know this by other means but if you want to lose another bet, fine. 111 Dalmatians is the stake. Bet?

I read it and it doesn't cover more than 5 minutes of answers. She discussed Le Chic and most likely Patrick's name came up.

Did she sign this one?

The agency question was an attempt for you to realize we are talking about the Perugian LE. They don't do too good of a job.

Can't wait for the remaining 50 hours.

 

[Wattson]

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 )

Do snarky comments like this make you feel better about yourself?