Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[davefoc]

A poll in forum community, dislosed posters, as to the likelihood of eventual success would be interesting.

I don't have a clue. The only thing I know about the issue is what is reported here and I don't even read all the posts on the issue. However, I will venture an uninformed guess:

The calumnia charge will be overturned to the degree that ECHR can over turn it.

I forget who it was right now, but one of the posters in this thread didn't seem to think public opinion was much of a factor with regard to influencing judges. I have the opposite view and I think the ECHR will be influenced by the rising tide of people in Europe that believe that AK/RS were screwed by a nutjob prosecutor, a sycophant forensic technician and a good ole boy network of corrupt judges.

There is also the possibility that the ECHR will be influenced by the evidence which is almost entirely favorable to AK and will decide the case on that basis.

 

[Numbers]

....

The calumnia charge will be overturned to the degree that ECHR can over turn it.
....

Some technical legal detail on how the ECHR works.

It is a specialized international court set up by treaty, and currently the treaty covers 47 countries - the Council of Europe States - including Italy. The Council of Europe States have adopted a kind of human rights constitution, informally called the European Convention on Human Rights - aka "the Convention".

What happens is that when a person files an application to the ECHR, that person claims his/her rights under the Convention were violated by a State, such as Italy. If the person meets the technical requirements of filing on time and after trying his/her best to get the State to fix the situation, and the State won't do that, then the ECHR will judge the case if it seems like a reasonable one to the ECHR. Such cases are called "admissible". The case will be the person, such as Amanda Knox, claiming that her rights were violated, against the particular State, such as Italy. The ECHR judges very strictly, following precedent but sometimes making new interpretations, according to the Convention and its case-law (previous judgments).

The judgment of the ECHR does not by itself annul or change a State verdict or decision. The State is obligated by treaty to itself implement the ECHR judgment. If the State is found in violation of a person's rights in a trial, for example, the State must order a retrial if requested by that person, but the retrial must strictly follow the Convention and ECHR case-law. The Italian Constitutional Supreme Court (a different court than the CSC) has ruled that Italy must follow this procedure according to its own Constitution.

In Amanda's case, that means that a retrial on calunnia would be held without any evidence of the calunnia, because that was all obtained contrary to Italian procedural law and the Convention and ECHR case-law. So there could only be a verdict of not guilty, because no crime had been committed. On the other hand, the statute of limitation for calunnia may have run out; then the case would be dismissed for that reason, and Amanda would be not guilty for that reason.

A finding of not guilty is of importance in part because Amanda cannot otherwise be compensated for three of the years that she spent in prison, which after she spent them on remand, were assigned as the penalty for the calunnia conviction by the Hellmann court.

 

[Agatha]

A number of edits and moves to AAH have had to be made recently due to people personalising their arguments. May I remind you that the topic of this thread is not each other, and that rule 0 and rule 12 applies to all posters here. Further breaches will result in moderator action including but not limited to yellow cards and suspensions.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Kauffer]

Its also important to remember that the alleged cleaning must also include cleaning up DNA (not visible to the naked eye), fingerprints leaving only Rudy's (also impossible), and really tricky is cleaning up the footprints in wet blood, leaving behind only Rudy's footprints (and Rudy story is that he was the only person in the room with Meredith).

So the cleaning meme is pretty silly. By focusing on the supposed instruments of a 'cleaning', the hope is that the listener is so gullible as to overlook that the proposed cleaning is a scientific impossibility.

ALSO, Are any of our London based posters going to the event of June 18, at the law school, posted a few weeks earlier? (I don't have the link handy, but maybe someone else does). Last I heard, I think Kauffer was going, and possibly LJ? Would be funny if they streamed it and some notorious guilters showed up to share their theories. When did the professors first believe Amanda and Raf were innocent? And why haven't they spoken out sooner? So many questions...

Essentially, this is a lecture - we are going to get an analysis of the press coverage in the case and we are going to get a presentation of the role of the prosecutor in the case placed within the historical context - the law professor concerned wrote his PHD on the role of the Italian prosecutor.

I imagine there will be a Q and A. There usually is at these things and an opportunity to chat afterwards, but it's not going to be a debate. Nonetheless, some interesting characters might show up.

 

[Kauffer]

Some technical legal detail on how the ECHR works.

It is a specialized international court set up by treaty, and currently the treaty covers 47 countries - the Council of Europe States - including Italy. The Council of Europe States have adopted a kind of human rights constitution, informally called the European Convention on Human Rights - aka "the Convention".

What happens is that when a person files an application to the ECHR, that person claims his/her rights under the Convention were violated by a State, such as Italy. If the person meets the technical requirements of filing on time and after trying his/her best to get the State to fix the situation, and the State won't do that, then the ECHR will judge the case if it seems like a reasonable one to the ECHR. Such cases are called "admissible". The case will be the person, such as Amanda Knox, claiming that her rights were violated, against the particular State, such as Italy. The ECHR judges very strictly, following precedent but sometimes making new interpretations, according to the Convention and its case-law (previous judgments).

The judgment of the ECHR does not by itself annul or change a State verdict or decision. The State is obligated by treaty to itself implement the ECHR judgment. If the State is found in violation of a person's rights in a trial, for example, the State must order a retrial if requested by that person, but the retrial must strictly follow the Convention and ECHR case-law. The Italian Constitutional Supreme Court (a different court than the CSC) has ruled that Italy must follow this procedure according to its own Constitution.

In Amanda's case, that means that a retrial on calunnia would be held without any evidence of the calunnia, because that was all obtained contrary to Italian procedural law and the Convention and ECHR case-law. So there could only be a verdict of not guilty, because no crime had been committed. On the other hand, the statute of limitation for calunnia may have run out; then the case would be dismissed for that reason, and Amanda would be not guilty for that reason.

A finding of not guilty is of importance in part because Amanda cannot otherwise be compensated for three of the years that she spent in prison, which after she spent them on remand, were assigned as the penalty for the calunnia conviction by the Hellmann court.

A requirement for the institution of a process leading to the dismissal of the calunnia conviction can realistically be pursued in the event of an Article 6 violation, although an Article 3 violation, we now understand, would have the same effect. Once communicated, it seems to me that Italy would probably wish to be able to grant an annulment as part of a friendly settlement, but there is no authority for them to do so, leading to an insistence that the ECHR renders a judgement.

It would appear that the mechanism currently available would be to grant a review of trial, retrial and subsequent dismissal of the charge on the basis that no evidence exists and the case is time barred. It is possible that some legislative action may take place in Italy before the case comes back from the ECHR, which would offer a tidier process.

Assuming that the ECHR rules in favour of Amanda - which it really must - the question is how long must she wait before the matter is resolved through the Italian courts. It could be years.

 

[Vixen]

I

Not true. This is dependant on the type of bleach and the circumstances e.g. temperature, light exposure. See for instance http://www.solvaychemicals.com/Chem...rinated_inorganics/PCH-1400-0007-W-EN_WW_.pdf Hypochlorite solutions may be reactive much longer than hours.


---------
>Not true. Only the areas with bleach on them will cause Luminol to fluoresce.

Obviously.

>Not true. There are no footprints of Sollecito identified by Luminol or otherwise. >The only DNA of Sollecito from the flat was on the cigarette butt and on the bra >fastener. There are no footprints identified as belonging to Knox. There are >Luminol positive marks that have no identifying characteristics that swabs >identified Knox's DNA as present.

Nice piece of evasion. Sollecito footprints were identified. No, the only fingerprint was on the cigarette butt. DNA on inside Mez' door and inside Laura!s room. Knox footprints were identified as was hers and Mez' genetic progiles. Consider the huge amount of blood caused by a neck wound. Rudy said the hallway was covered in blood when he left. Police found it as clean as a whistle. To explain a print of hers and Mez' as revealed by the luminol - aha!- Knox made up a ludicrous story about her foot slipping off her bathmat that she was skating around on.

All highlighted above untrue. Do you even know what a welt is? Please specify >the length, long is very subjective. There was no welt documented. There is no >rip in Knox's ear. Please evidence the graze, why is it nasty?

Both Laura and some police official spotted it. It was indeed described as a welt. Your refuting it does not make it not so. You don't think a long graze on the jaw which needs to be masked by stubble is "nasty"? Does it not indicate some kind of fracas?

>Agree APART from those found on the victim's body and possessions there are >few traces of Guede's DNA.

>Agree


>These are shoe sizes not foot sizes. What competence do the police have in this >issue? Perhaps you refer to the fingerprint officers who were working in a >private capacity for which they were paid by the prosecution, who used >discredited methodology?

Shoe size does have a correlation with foot size, I don't know about you. Er, the police are forensic footprint experts 100% objective. I am not aware of private fingerprint officers. If you mean "outsourced", that is not the same as "being paid by the prosecution".

>Please see previous references on correct forensic analysis of hairs (never >carried out by the police forensic service). Without proper analysis we do not >know if these fibres were hairs (as opposed to e.g. nylon fibre), human hairs (as >opposed to e.g. wool).

Italian forensics are experienced enough to know the difference beyween fibre and human hair. Hardly rocket science.

>Untrue. Size 37 is a shoe size. Do you refer to a shoe print or a foot print?

Most people buy shoes to fit their feet. We can be sure size 45 Guede could no way squeeze his feet into ladies size 37 to frame Knox, if that's what you are suggesting.

>Untrue there is no evidence the burglary was staged.

Er, you will find it is pretty much established.

>Untrue

If you say so, it must be :/

>Why is there no DNA trace of Filomena in her own room? Rudy admits to going >into Filomena's room. Why should he have left DNA if he broke in as he likely >wore gloves? There is no footprint or do you mean shoe print of Knox.

If "no DNA of Knox found in murder room" = she was not there, then by the same logic neither was Rudy in Filomena's room. You can't have your cake and eat it. That Rudy was "wearing gloves" is your presupposition (a logical fallacy). Police did not find this. Knox coinicidently takes ladies size 37. Police were unable to find the shoe that fit the print (ASCIC).

>Not true. There is no fingerprint of Knox in blood. In any case with an internal >bathroom one would need to switch the light on (and off) day and night.

Unfortunately for you, court documents show there was. No, the small bathroom had natural light. You just made that up. Sneaky.

>Not true. There was no blood of Knox in the bidet. You are right with regards to >the blood on the tap / faucet. There is no time stamp with regards to the blood >deposition. There are certainly many none criminal reasons for a resident to >leave blood spots in their own bathroom. It certainly cannot prove her presence >at the time of the murder.

There is a time stamp PM Mignini and Knox together established the time stamp was of 1/2 November 2007. It therefore establishes BARD Knox was present. It incriminates Knox absolutely.

>Were any DNA samples of the other flat mates or Kercher's boy friend found? >Why not?

Not relating to the murder, as they were not there.

>Not true.

Que? Reasoning?

>Not true, although his DNA mixed with Knox's DNA was. Smoking is not yet a >crime in Italy.

Que? Reasoning? Last sentence non sequitur. Don't give up the day job to become a barrister just yet.

>Not true

Que?

> Since this was sent prior to Kercher's arrival at the cottage what is the >relevance. In any case the data is compatible with being sent from Sollecito's. >Also have to match with the eye witness testimony as to Knox being present at >Sollecito's.

The relevance is Rudy was also waiting around outside. Popovic in early reåorts claimed Knox was "just leaving" when she answered the door.

>This would be the computer hard drive damaged by the police? There is no way >to know if a phone is switched off as opposed to being out of contact with a >base station. Equally there is no way to know if a phone is switched on as >opposed to coming within a base station range. Adam Ant is not grunge rock.

Nencini reasoned that phone signal receipt is not relevant, as it was clear someone either switched it on *or moved the phone to an area there was a signal*, conclusion the same. How dare you! Adam Ant is more grunge than Oasis!

>You appear to demonstrate a great deal of ignorance. Your 'evidence' is all >false. E.g. what lingerie shop?

Logical fallacy. You say it's wrong, therefore it becomes so. The shop Amanda bought a red thong.

 

[carbonjam72]

Essentially, this is a lecture - we are going to get an analysis of the press coverage in the case and we are going to get a presentation of the role of the prosecutor in the case placed within the historical context - the law professor concerned wrote his PHD on the role of the Italian prosecutor.

I imagine there will be a Q and A. There usually is at these things and an opportunity to chat afterwards, but it's not going to be a debate. Nonetheless, some interesting characters might show up.

We must have a full report. Even record and stream.

But really, it sounds like another set of academics trying to graft their fields of study onto a popular case, and draw attention to their otherwise not very well attended events.

I think that was fundamentally what happened with Leila Schnepps (?) statistical bloviator, that other law professor who wanted to claim that the case was misunderstood in the US because of the differences in the US & Italian justice systems, and even Dershowitz who just shot his mouth off to get a little more air time.

Does anyone in the UK have the courage to simply yell "BS" in public?

 

[Samson]

I don't have a clue. The only thing I know about the issue is what is reported here and I don't even read all the posts on the issue. However, I will venture an uninformed guess:

The calumnia charge will be overturned to the degree that ECHR can over turn it.

I forget who it was right now, but one of the posters in this thread didn't seem to think public opinion was much of a factor with regard to influencing judges. I have the opposite view and I think the ECHR will be influenced by the rising tide of people in Europe that believe that AK/RS were screwed by a nutjob prosecutor, a sycophant forensic technician and a good ole boy network of corrupt judges.

There is also the possibility that the ECHR will be influenced by the evidence which is almost entirely favorable to AK and will decide the case on that basis.

I see I used the non word dislosed, where I meant disclosed, or that the poll should not be a secret ballot. I will start one when I work out the format and protocol. I think it is on topic to discuss it on this thread, and I predict the poll results will be clearly demarcated by "party lines".

 

[carbonjam72]

Logical fallacy. You say it's wrong, therefore it becomes so. The shop Amanda bought a red thong.

This is simply a fallacy, without logic.

It almost seems like a hysterical outburst, rather than an argument.

And IIRC, Raf's father sued the shop owner over his rendition of this event.

Anyone know how that case is progressing?

 

[Vixen]

Well, thank you (I guess?)

Do I win a set of steak knives, or was my busting new boundaries a thankless honor?



I NEVER said Rudy Guede "must have" moved the lamp, but since Guede has admitted to being there, Guede may have moved the lamp? How can that possibility be ruled out?

As I had stated, other lamp-movers may have been Meredith herself, or even the police? Or, even someone else?

Just because we don't know how the lamp was moved (or why), that UNKNOWN can't be used as evidence AGAINST Amanda Knox.

You do grok the concepts of 'EVIDENCE' and 'UNKNOWN", right?

In R/L, are you Alice's red Queen of Hearts?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/702275580bcb865d63.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/702275580bcb865d63.gif[/qimg]

We can infer it was Amanda as when police asked her if anything was missing, she said, no, even though her room would have been dark without the lamp.

In court, Amanda went all the way around the houses before the judge squeezed it out of her it was her lamp on the floor, and which, incidentally, she and Raff could see through Mez' door keyhole!

Your proposition that anyone who wants to solve a crime must be a witch-hunting executioner, is the absurdest argument. I take it you never studied philosophy.

 

[Vixen]

This is simply a fallacy, without logic.

It almost seems like a hysterical outburst, rather than an argument.

And IIRC, Raf's father sued the shop owner over his rendition of this event.

Anyone know how that case is progressing?

Something wrong with the formatting. You need to read my responses to Planigale in the grey box.

 

[MichaelB]

Vixen have you ever actually looked at the prints the police attributed to Raffaele to see for yourself if they're a match. Here they are....do they look like his to you?

 

[Kauffer]

We must have a full report. Even record and stream.

But really, it sounds like another set of academics trying to graft their fields of study onto a popular case, and draw attention to their otherwise not very well attended events.

I think that was fundamentally what happened with Leila Schnepps (?) statistical bloviator, that other law professor who wanted to claim that the case was misunderstood in the US because of the differences in the US & Italian justice systems, and even Dershowitz who just shot his mouth off to get a little more air time.

Does anyone in the UK have the courage to simply yell "BS" in public?

The case has disappeared from the media here. Nobody is talking about it except in a small part of the twitter sphere.

Essentially, the case is passing from public entertainment to academic study, though once we get the ECHR response, I'm sure it will re-appear and cause enormous confusion once again, but that won't be for a while. This is the terrible legacy of the press coverage - the vast majority of people in the UK who have heard of Amanda Knox think that she is some sexually charged wild child who knows much more than she's told, tried to set up a poor black guy, is almost certainly guilty and probably got off on a technicality.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen have you ever actually looked at the prints the police attributed to Raffaele to see for yourself if they're a match. Here they are....do they look like his to you?

AIUI there are two versions. (1) the police version which matches Raff's foot, and (2) a photoshopped version put out by "supporters" to fit Rudy's.

Which one is yours?

 

[MichaelB]

We can infer it was Amanda as when police asked her if anything was missing, she said, no, even though her room would have been dark without the lamp.

In court, Amanda went all the way around the houses before the judge squeezed it out of her it was her lamp on the floor, and which, incidentally, she and Raff could see through Mez' door keyhole!

Your proposition that anyone who wants to solve a crime must be a witch-hunting executioner, is the absurdest argument. I take it you never studied philosophy.

Why would Amanda's room have been dark without the lamp? It had a window with plenty of light coming in.

Guede twice made a lamp part of his story. Both in his Germany diary and deposition.

Rudy Guede Prison Diary p7 – Note abat-jour is French for lamp

There was only red, nothing else. Damn, if I hadn’t gone to the bathroom, perhaps I would have opened the door, and maybe nothing would have happened. Oh my God, why all this, what had that person tried to tell me with “black man found, guilty man found?” Did he know me? I wasn’t able to see him well because the house was not well lit. Only Meredith’s room had light. I remember because the abat-jour was switched on.

Rudy Guede Deposition March 2008 p52

The light was off while when I go in the bathroom it was on. And in that moment anyway I head towards Meredith’s bedroom, I enter right into the corridor and I see this male figure, he was a male in front of the door and there was the lamp shade inside, the lighting was dim, in other words from the lamp shade that was lighting the whole area which was however weak.

 

[MichaelB]

AIUI there are two versions. (1) the police version which matches Raff's foot, and (2) a photoshopped version put out by "supporters" to fit Rudy's.

Which one is yours?

Mine is the expert reports submitted by Professor Vinci.

 

[Vixen]

What your reference actually says "Bleach only causes a reaction with luminol for a few days after the bleach is deposited" So not eight hours then?



What your reference says
"With oxygen bleach, the bleach has an oxidising agent, which could be a substance such as hydrogen peroxide. In these instances, haemoglobin is completely removed and can't later be detected." Does not say anything about duration. Suggests that if bleach was used then know Luminol positive marks would NOT have been found!



So your own references disagree with eight hours. They suggest that if bleach was used no Luminol trace would have been left. So do we conclude no clean up then?

The compiler added slack, to accommodate the most extreme limits a "supporter" can argue. As someone pointed out, it depends on conditions, such as light, temperature, volumes, etc.

 

[Vixen]

Mine is the expert reports submitted by Professor Vinci.

Vinci was a defence bod whose testimony was rejected in favour of Rinaldi and Boehma (_sp?) for the police.

 

[Kauffer]

Vinci was a defence bod whose testimony was rejected in favour of Rinaldi and Boehma (_sp?) for the police.

I think you'll find that's not true. If the 5th section of Cassation had found that the mat print was Raffaele's they would not have acquitted him. There would be no innocent interpretation available.

 

[Vixen]

Why would Amanda's room have been dark without the lamp? It had a window with plenty of light coming in.

Guede twice made a lamp part of his story. Both in his Germany diary and deposition.

Rudy Guede Prison Diary p7 – Note abat-jour is French for lamp



Rudy Guede Deposition March 2008 p52

This was a court finding. Mez' light was dim, as per Rudy deposition. We can deduce Amanda's lamp was brought in from next door by whoever returned to move the body, undress it, pose it on a pillow, remove sundry bits of evidence, etc, as a good light was needed.