Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Here is the text of the dispositivo (brief summary of CSC judgement), as posted by MichaelB earlier on ISF:



The authority for the CSC ruling in the brief summary of judgment consists of CPP Article 620, Annulment without referral.

The importance of the specific sub-paragraphs (all under paragraph 1); Annulment because:

A: The prosecution should not have been started or continued

This suggests that the CSC Marasca panel will acknowledge in their Motivation Report that the prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was wrongful.

L: In any other case in which the CSC believes the referral (to a lower court) is superfluous.

This suggests that the CSC Marasca panel will acknowledge in their MR that any referral to a lower court would be superfluous and the CSC considers that it should proceed to a final determination of sentence or other necessary decisions.

It is the use of CPP Article 620 1a that most strongly suggests that the CSC Marasca panel considers Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito totally factually innocent of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher. And, of course, the text says clearly that "the petitioners did not commit the act". We are all awaiting the Motivation Report to understand how much the judgment relies on an analysis of the procedural errors in this case compared to the total lack of reliable evidence against the defendants.

ETA: Kauffer, thanks for your help on this and all your valuable posts.

I do not see how they can argue that, as no new evidence to the effect "the petitioners did not commit the act" was presented at the appeal and indeed, I am not sure it was pleaded, the appeal grounds being restricted to Curatolo and 36(i).

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,
You may be aware that Hellmann in his court's MR found this to be not at all suspicious. He stated to the effect that, IIRC, no one should expect ordinary citizens to be so precise in their understanding of law and a crime scene.

I believe that the "suspicion" is retroactive justification.

Well I disagreed with Hellmann's take on Culumnia as well. Perhaps he lost sight of moment.

here's the section:

One final argument offered to support the theory that the burglary was staged is the fact that Raffaele Sollecito, in the phone call he made to request the intervention of the Carabinieri, said that nothing had been taken: how would he be able to say — it is argued — that nothing had been taken before an accurate inspection had been done by those who lived in the house? And the answer is that he could do so precisely because he knew very well that it was only a mise-en-scène, having [himself] been its creator [artefice] together with Amanda Knox.

This Court does not find that argument meaningful. The statement “they didn’t steal anything” was a spontaneous response, dictated by the fact that Amanda Knox, on an initial cursory examination after she had already entered the house, had not found that any important things were conspicuously missing, and at any rate, if they had been the ones to carry out the staging and to call the Carabinieri to portray their surprise at what had happened and their innocence of the murder, they would certainly have been more shrewd and Raffaele Sollecito would not have spontaneously answered “they didn’t steal anything”.

This does seem to be a bit of circular reasoning. If Raf had been involved he would never have said nothing is stolen, which doesn't address him slipping up. Hellmann's logic here is mistaken as it was for all of us but Bill when it came to Calumnia.

In fact, his writing makes the point that the police would be suspicious.

I do agree that his comment while legitimately suspicious wasn't in the end probative of staging.

 

[Vixen]

Again, you are getting "facts" from tabloid news. Read his court testimony.

That is what he told the world's media. If he changed his story, he's a liar.

 

[Numbers]

Well I disagreed with Hellmann's take on Culumnia as well. Perhaps he lost sight of moment.

here's the section:

One final argument offered to support the theory that the burglary was staged is the fact that Raffaele Sollecito, in the phone call he made to request the intervention of the Carabinieri, said that nothing had been taken: how would he be able to say — it is argued — that nothing had been taken before an accurate inspection had been done by those who lived in the house? And the answer is that he could do so precisely because he knew very well that it was only a mise-en-scène, having [himself] been its creator [artefice] together with Amanda Knox.

This Court does not find that argument meaningful. The statement “they didn’t steal anything” was a spontaneous response, dictated by the fact that Amanda Knox, on an initial cursory examination after she had already entered the house, had not found that any important things were conspicuously missing, and at any rate, if they had been the ones to carry out the staging and to call the Carabinieri to portray their surprise at what had happened and their innocence of the murder, they would certainly have been more shrewd and Raffaele Sollecito would not have spontaneously answered “they didn’t steal anything”.

This does seem to be a bit of circular reasoning. If Raf had been involved he would never have said nothing is stolen, which doesn't address him slipping up. Hellmann's logic here is mistaken as it was for all of us but Bill when it came to Calumnia.

In fact, his writing makes the point that the police would be suspicious.

I do agree that his comment while legitimately suspicious wasn't in the end probative of staging.

Thanks for posting Hellmann's text on this.
I agree with Hellmann and disagree with your view. Raffaele's statement was based on his non-professional judgment. He was not a CSI and neither he nor Amanda had conducted a thorough search. He wouldn't even know all of what should have been in the flat.

 

[Wattson]

That is what he told the world's media. If he changed his story, he's a liar.

You wouldn't be so ignorant of the "FACTS" if you'd just take the time to read the official court documents and the judge's motivation reports.

 

[Wattson]

Thanks for posting Hellmann's text on this.
I agree with Hellmann and disagree with your view. Raffaele's statement was based on his non-professional judgment. He was not a CSI and neither he nor Amanda had conducted a thorough search. He wouldn't even know all of what should have been in the flat.

I agree and I also agree with Bill that even the postal police noted that nothing appeared to have been stolen.

 

[RoseMontague]

That is what he told the world's media. If he changed his story, he's a liar.

Yep, he said didn't recognize them until later and then sold the footage (which was not his to sell) and was being sued for doing so.

Here's a pretty good capture of the underwear in question. A lot more coverage than a standard thong from what I am seeing.

 

[js202]

You wouldn't be so ignorant of the "FACTS" if you'd just take the time to read the official court documents and the judge's motivation reports.

Again, complete credulity. To think that one of Murdoch's rags would have resorted to manufacturing quotes (and from an Italian in idiomatic English). For shame!

 

[MDDVS]

The list of stupid stuff like cartwheels are not suspicious but the "nothing is stolen" was. Lumping them together is a technique to diminish the legitimate one or ones.

Do you believe any behaviors can be suspicious?

I wouldn't say "nothing was stolen" was suspicious. I'd say it was a mistery: "Why did someone break in and stole nothing?".

Yes, behaviours can be suspicious. In my opinion, for a behaviour to be suspicious it must be out of character.

For example, Guede deciding to travel to Germany a few days after the crime even though he has no business or family there (I think!) is suspicious.

 

[acbytesla]

While the last five have little to no value in any way, stating something that couldn't be know always raises a flag. In more advanced societies the police keep details quiet a long as they can or until they have solved the crime. In this case everything was released which allowed Rudi to know what to say in some cases.

While I agree with this. Amanda or Raffaele saying "nothing is stolen" is not that, but an observation that they believed at the time they said it. And it turned out to be wrong. Either way, it is meaningless. It doesn't qualify as knowledge that they shouldn't have known. So in fact it is the same as the other things I listed. It is not a clue. It has no significance. It is meaningless.

 

[RoseMontague]

While I agree with this. Amanda or Raffaele saying "nothing is stolen" is not that, but an observation that they believed at the time they said it. And it turned out to be wrong. Either way, it is meaningless. It doesn't qualify as knowledge that they shouldn't have known. So in fact it is the same as the other things I listed. It is not a clue. It has no significance. It is meaningless.

Was it established that anything was stolen from Filomena's room? That is what Amanda was referring to when she spoke to Filomena and what Raffaele was referring to when he talked to the cops (undoubtedly hearing it earlier from Amanda).

 

[Ken Dine]

So in other words it is Numbers' Theory (or, to please our American cousins across the pond, Numbers's Theory).

You are presupposing that in any clean up scene, sodium hypochlorite will be used, the perp will go on his or her hands and knees and scrub the stain with a "swirling" action.

Ever thought of submitting your thesis for peer review?

Just to correct the record, over here in America if the possessive word already ends in an 'S', then we just add the possessive apostrophe with no need to add a 2nd 'S' to the word.

Your response is full of misstatements and false inferences of the information in my post. Your post does not recognize that I have used the word "may" which means in this context the possibility of using sodium hypochlorite-water solution. I have indicated the possibility that a cleanup could include a mop.

The swirling pattern is the artifact of the motion of the cleaning object (which may be a sponge, cloth, towel, mop, etc.) over the stain. The position of the cleaner depends on the cleaning object; if a mop, obviously the person will be standing. In the US, mops generally have sponges or, historically, cloth, cleaning objects at the contact.

We use all types of mops here in America, from sponge mops to braided string mops (of the type I once used in the Navy –– ugh!)

The stain is hydrated by whatever cleaning fluid is used (one could try simply water) and largely picked-up by the cleaning object. Residual hemoglobin, not visible to the unaided eye, is left on the surface that has been cleaned. The "swirls" (and typically smearing or enlarging the area producing luminol chemiluminescence) are the result of the motion of the cleaning object over the stain.

I suggest anyone interested in this topic and uncertain of the truth read some forensic textbooks which often have some discussion of this well-known area. Note that the citation reference I supplied was published in 1973. This information is not new. What is significant is not the misapprehensions of posters on ISF or other fora, but the apparent lack of knowledge or intentional ignorance of the Italian authorities on this matter.

If a mop had been used by Amanda & Raffaele, then I doubt if they would have been sophisticated enough in forensics to have adequately cleaned the mop to remove any trace blood that would have been transferred to the mop in the course of using it to wipe away blood from a floor. Surely, the mop was tested.

Guede likely did do a cursory clean-up in the small bathroom and the hallway floor in between the bathroom and Meredith's bedroom since both Meredith's and Amanda's bathroom towels were later found in Meredith's bedroom.

That's why after Amanda took her shower that morning, when she reached for her towel it was gone, so dripping wet she shuffled on the blue bathmat to reach her room to grab another towel.

One towel was very bloody and Guede likely used that towel to cover the bloody mess he had caused as he raped Meredith. After cleaning up in the bathroom, Guede likely grabbed the 2nd towel to wipe away any water and blood on the floor before throwing the towel into Meredith's bedroom and locking the door, and in the process he must have inadvertently stepped into some of her blood before leaving via the front door.

It wouldn't have taken Guede more than 30 seconds to dry the floor using the towel before leaving, and he likely wanted to leave the cottage (outside of Meredith's bedroom) as tidy as possible to allow him more time to flee.

Just speculation, but something like that likely did happen.

As for this "Vixen" 'Guilter' creature who suddenly appeared out of nowhere spouting Harry Rag type of nonsense, could "Vixen" be his sock-puppet? Of course, Harry Rag is someone's sock-puppet too, but most 'Guilters' hide behind multiple layers of anonymity.

 

[Katody Matrass]

That is what he told the world's media. If he changed his story, he's a liar.

It's because the masons got to him before the trial and threatened to perform a satanic orgy.

Also, the witch made Mignini into a pig with her Pacific Northwest sorcery, he got better, but only barely. Seeing this, anyone would chose to lie to save skin.

 

[acbytesla]

That is what he told the world's media. If he changed his story, he's a liar.

So which time did he lie vixen? When he was being paid by the tabloids or when he was testifying in court?

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for posting Hellmann's text on this.
I agree with Hellmann and disagree with your view. Raffaele's statement was based on his non-professional judgment. He was not a CSI and neither he nor Amanda had conducted a thorough search. He wouldn't even know all of what should have been in the flat.

Numbers as with many here you seem not to be able to put yourself into the time space of the 2nd, 3rd etc.

Having a 911 caller say nothing was stolen when the room hadn't been closely checked is a suspicious statement. Had he said "I don't know" or "nothing we noticed" or even "I don't think so" those wouldn't have been suspicious.

Is there anything a 911 caller on this scene could have said that would have been legitimately suspicious?

They thought the break in was staged from the beginning as BW has let us know. Filomena even thought it was an odd burglary as nothing was missing. So they have a stage burglary that was reported by a person that couldn't supposedly know nothing was stolen and certainly didn't call it in as a staged event yet knew nothing was missing.

Hellmann doesn't address whether his remark was suspicious only that it wasn't in the end evidence of him being involved in staging, which makes sense.

 

[Kauffer]

I do not see how they can argue that, as no new evidence to the effect "the petitioners did not commit the act" was presented at the appeal and indeed, I am not sure it was pleaded, the appeal grounds being restricted to Curatolo and 36(i).

What do you mean by "appeal"? There was plenty of new evidence at the appellate level in substance, all of it exonerating in character, from independent forensic expert analysis to the demolishing of Curatolo on the stand. 36i, which the Chiefi court regarded as decisive, produced nothing incriminating. The knife owner's girlfriend's DNA was identified. No surprises there - just like her DNA in her own bathroom was not incriminating or surprising.

 

[Grinder]

I agree and I also agree with Bill that even the postal police noted that nothing appeared to have been stolen.

You may agree but it was Filomena that said that. The PP had the victim check her room. They did not declare that nothing appeared stolen.

 

[carbonjam72]

I read the "dispositivo slightly differently...

Here is the text of the dispositivo (brief summary of CSC judgement), as posted by MichaelB earlier on ISF:

Quote:
PURSUANT TO C.P.P. ARTICLE 620 LETTER A); ANNULS THE RULING UNDER APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIME UNDER CHARGE B) OF THE RUBRIC BECAUSE THE CRIME IS EXTINCT BY PRESCRIPTION;

PURSUANT TO C.P.P. ARTICLES 620 LETTER L) AND 530, PARAGRAPH II; EXCLUDING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER C.P. ARTICLE 61 N.2 IN RELATION TO THE CRIME OF CALUMNY,
ANNULS THE RULING UNDER APPEAL WITHOUT REMAND WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIMES UNDER CHARGES A), D), AND E) OF THE RUBRIC BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT;

RECALCULATES THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER AMANDA MARIE KNOX FOR THE CRIME OF CALUMNY AS THREE YEARS OF CONFINEMENT.

The authority for the CSC ruling in the brief summary of judgment consists of CPP Article 620, Annulment without referral.

The importance of the specific sub-paragraphs (all under paragraph 1); Annulment because:

A: The prosecution should not have been started or continued

This suggests that the CSC Marasca panel will acknowledge in their Motivation Report that the prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was wrongful.

L: In any other case in which the CSC believes the referral (to a lower court) is superfluous.

This suggests that the CSC Marasca panel will acknowledge in their MR that any referral to a lower court would be superfluous and the CSC considers that it should proceed to a final determination of sentence or other necessary decisions.

It is the use of CPP Article 620 1a that most strongly suggests that the CSC Marasca panel considers Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito totally factually innocent of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher. And, of course, the text says clearly that "the petitioners did not commit the act". We are all awaiting the Motivation Report to understand how much the judgment relies on an analysis of the procedural errors in this case compared to the total lack of reliable evidence against the defendants.

ETA: Kauffer, thanks for your help on this and all your valuable posts.

I think I read this a little bit differently. I think the ISC is referring to each of the charges separately, and applying different codes to the different charges.

I tried to make this more clear by adding in a line spacing to separate the way I see the court as handling the issues, one at a time.

The first issue the court addresses is charge B (which IIRC is transporting a knife). The ISC is applying 620 (a) the prosecution should not continue - due to statute of limitations.

The second issue the court address is the charge of aggravated calunnia - applying 620 (L) and 530 (paragraph II), under C.P. 61 N 2 for crime of calunnia. Here, I can't tell if this could be interpreted as "insufficient evidence" as regards the charge of aggravated calunnia only.

The third issue the court addresses are the main charges A (murder), D (Staged break-in), and F (theft) (IIRC), and annuls the conviction of Nencini due to the finding that "the Petitioners did not commit the act". This is an unambiguous statement that Knox and Sollecito are factually innocent of these charges. This is clearly not a finding of 'insufficient evidence' of these charges, the court concluded they didn't do it - end of story.

(There is no statement in this regard as to whether the break-in was staged, simply that Amanda and Raf did not commit an act of staging a break-in or deflecting an investigation. IIRC, Hellman acquitted on this charge on the basis that the crime did not exist (because the break-in was real), and that may have been a contributing factor to the ISC reversal in 2013, but in any event, its doesn't appear clear from this ruling whether the ISC will take a factual position on whether the break-in was staged, or simply assert that the defendants committed no such act, and the conjecture that the break-in was staged is only an unproven theory, neither definitively correct or incorrect in the view of this ISC panel).

The fourth issue is the recalculation of Amanda's sentence for Calunnia conviction to 3 years, adjusted down from Nencini's verdict of 4 years. The only issue the court appears to have definitively addressed in this regard, is to reject Nencini's finding of aggravation, and therefore eliminating the enhancement of sentence as a result. This does not appear to be a statement regarding the validity of the the original calunnia conviction, since technically that finding was not before this cassation panel. That previous conviction has been finalized, and is now in the formal province of the ECHR - not withstanding my own hope that ISC will reach back and erase that illegal result.

The only question I have, is the use of a comma, instead of a semi-colon after the word calunnia, just before the court addresses the three main charges left (A, D, and F). The statement only reads correctly with a semi-colon, IUAM. Otherwise, I may be completely wrong about everything.

Anyway, that's how I read the short document, and what it foretells in regard to the coming ISC motivation report.

 

[Bill Williams]

Di Rinaldi, the shopkeeper, for it is he, said, "Their behaviour struck me as very odd. They were laughing and joking as they were holding up the underwear and the girl kept saying she was going to wear it before they had sex. When I realised it was them, and the fact that the poor girl had only been found the day before, their behaviour struck me even more as unusual."

Again, you are getting "facts" from tabloid news. Read his court testimony.

That is what he told the world's media. If he changed his story, he's a liar.

Given the way these posts unfold, it is important always to check back on the thread of the quotes.

What is missed here is that one of the problems this case always had - was that the early popular-narrative was firmly in the hands of the tabloid press: the Nick Pisa's, the Barbie Latza Nadeau's of the world. Tabloid "journalists" hounded the locals for something, anything. Shopkeeper Quintavalle is a case in point, who didn't remember anything the week-following the horrid murder.....

,,,,,, but a year later was suddenly remembering all sorts of things, at the instigation of a tabloid writer.

Back to this thread in question: how on earth does anyone know what the tabloids were told? That's the problem with setting this up as an either/or - either he lied to the press or lied in court.

Guilters seem to have learned nothing from this case. Guilters take tabloid coverage as gospel, guilters think Giuliano Mignini is pure as the driven snow - rather than the architect of this wrongful prosecution.

The "behaviour" about the buying of underwear is the most lame part of guilterland. The cottage and all her possessions were behind crime-scene tape. The buying of the underwear is covered in both Raffaele's and Amanda's books. It is a complete non-issue, except for those trying to make something out of nothing.

Read the court transcript. Forget the tabloids. Learn something.

 

[Grinder]

While I agree with this. Amanda or Raffaele saying "nothing is stolen" is not that, but an observation that they believed at the time they said it. And it turned out to be wrong. Either way, it is meaningless. It doesn't qualify as knowledge that they shouldn't have known. So in fact it is the same as the other things I listed. It is not a clue. It has no significance. It is meaningless.

It isn't meaningless and in fact was a reasonable phrase to focus on. It's the 2nd of Nov. A woman was just found murdered. Ask you cop buddy if they look at the people that find a crime or call it in. Ask him if they listen to the 911 tape for clues.

Of course knowing that a break in had resulted in nothing taken is an odd piece of information. Can his remarks be explained or rationalized? Sure.

But it was the 2nd. Meredith had just been found. They were looking for any clue. The guy that called in a "real" break in said nothing was stolen.

If a guy called in an arson fire and said there was no sign of arson would that be suspicious?

What could Raf have said that would be suspicious? I think with you guys he could have said there may be a dead person with their foot showing and you would compare it to cartwheels and Ta-da.