Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

If the police and prosecution are looking for a "convenient suspect" any statement or any knife will do.

Did the police question Raffaele about this "suspicious" statement"? Where is the witness statement where they attempt to draw him out on this "so-suspicious" statement?

Do you really not understand what it was like on the 2nd in any way shape or form? They were looking for the killer(s). They interviewed all sorts of people into the night. Look at the interview record.

Btw what is the statute of limitation on possession of stolen property.

 

[Grinder]

So since somethings were stolen does that then exonerate him?

No. And he wasn't framed in the common definition. He answered in a way that would make a reasonable LE officer suspicious. As facts came out the level of suspicion should have subsided for the remark.

What do you think he could have said that would have been suspicious?

When a person like Raf makes a slip what sort of slip would that be?

 

[Grinder]

Calling 911 in the EU is itself a suspiscious act. Where do they think they are, America?!

You got the point.

 

[Grinder]

We'll have to agree to disagree Grinder. I see it as totally meaningless. Amanda had probably been in Filomena's room a few times before that day. She made a cursory observation. You might say they were jumping the gun making that observation. but it is proof of nothing.

Do you really not see the difference between proof and suspicious behavior?

What could he have said that the PLE could think by your standards suspicious?

 

[Grinder]

If the police and prosecution are looking for a "convenient suspect" any statement or any knife will do.

Did the police question Raffaele about this "suspicious" statement"? Where is the witness statement where they attempt to draw him out on this "so-suspicious" statement?

Where are his interviews? Have they been released?

Please check your logic on this. Someone in my family called to report a fire, and had no idea what caused it. Turns out somebody had a grill with hot coals too close to their building. The grill was not visible from a distance. Was that fire, resulting from a grill with hot coals placed too close to a building, a mistake or intentional? And why would someone who simply sees flames on the side of a building be "suspicious" for calling it in?

If a person calls in a fire and says it is an arson fire but couldn't know it was arson do you think that might raise some suspicion?

My guess is that it wouldn't raise suspicion if it were Raf.

Please give me a statement that would be suspicious that Raf could have made.

I really don't think you all could think anything he said or did could be suspicious.

 

[Grinder]

What information is available about the stolen merchandise trial of Rudi?

When was that trial known to the general public and when to the defense teams?

 

[acbytesla]

Do you really not see the difference between proof and suspicious behavior?

What could he have said that the PLE could think by your standards suspicious?

Then you misunderstood my original post that started this discussion . I said it doesn't prove anything and it doesn't.

 

[Vixen]

1. Read the appeals. Of course the appeals claim that the defendants did not commit the crimes. You are mistaken in what you state about the appeal grounds. The appeals are available on the site listed below.

See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

Please document your statement on the appeals being restricted to Curatolo and 36(i). Are you referring to the appeals of Knox and Sollecito to the CSC?

2. The CSC would have based their opinion on the appeals and the court documentation. The appeals included some new information, including Professor Peter Gill's expert opinions from his book on the DNA evidence in the case. The motivation report will, it is expected, explain the CSC reasoning to conclude that the defendants did not commit the criminal act.

That would be most irregular. If this is so, ISC have acted completely ultra vires and outwith their jurisdiction, as the prosecution were presented with no opportunity to cross examine Dr Gill - who in any case did not examine the evidence first hand and has a vested interest, not declared - or to present a counter expert witness.

It really is a disgrace, if this is the case. Thoroughly bent and a discredit to their profession.

 

[Numbers]

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.

You have made good points here. Also, on IIP, poster Katody has pointed out that the CPP Art. 620 para. 1a is only meant to apply to charge B, carrying the knife.

I believe that is a reasonable and conservative view of what the CSC intended here. I may have overreached in thinking ("momentarily") that the initial CPP Art. 620 para. 1a reference applied to the whole despositivo.

Also, CP Art. 61 para. 2 only applies to aggravating circumstances in general:

2) the offense to back them or conceal another, or to achieve or secure for himself or for other product or profit or the price or the impunity of another offense

Source: http://www.diritto.it/codici/articolo/4281113-codice-penale-circostanze-aggravanti-comuni
Google translated

So indeed, I would agree that CPP Art. 620 para. 1L and CPP Art. 530 para. 2 must be referring specifically to the aggravating circumstances of the calunnia charge. The aggravating circumstances would only make sense if Amanda Knox were guilty of the murder or some other crime, so CP Art. 61 cannot remain.

This leaves a little mystery about the rest of the charges. The terminology "the accused did not commit it {the criminal act}" is found in CPP Art. 530 para. 1. So that would seem to be applied to charges A, D, and F, but there is ambiguity, as you point out. It could be that CPP Art. 530 para. 2 from the previous clause is meant to apply. I suggest that there is no real difference, in the sense that "insufficient evidence" includes "no reliable evidence of guilt" and that because of the presumption of innocence, any acquittal based on defects in evidence (including no reliable evidence) must mean that legally the criminal act was not committed by the accused.

We need to see the Marasca CSC panel motivation report to more fully understand the reasoning. They may decide not to mention the procedural law violations in order to save face or avoid conflict. The Hellmann court MR did not explicitly state that there were procedural law violations, although it came close in its statements about the Nov. 5/6 interrogation of Amanda Knox.

Thanks for your post, which has helped clarify the meaning of the dispositivo.

ETA: There is still the little mystery as to whether the CSC panel meant to apply CPP Art. 620 para. 1L or para. 1A to the charges A, D, and F. The more conservative view would be that they intended to apply para. 1L.

 

[Grinder]

Then you misunderstood my original post that started this discussion . I said it doesn't prove anything and it doesn't.

Well sort of.

Originally Posted by MDDVS View Post
Not only that, but what purpose would saying "nothing was stolen" have for a guilty Amanda?

No purpose. It doesn't prove anything. Just like cartwheels and shopping for underwear or a kiss, or a swivel of the hips and "Ta da" The so called behavior evidence is absurd.

So you say it would serve no purpose which is a bit of an understatement as it would and did serve them badly. It raised legitimate suspicion.

Now just saying it doesn't prove anything is fine until you combine it with completely unrelated acts to the crime.

You ignored before but if he was guilty and the PLE had just ignored the statement what would the ILE critics say about that?

If it turned out he did it, would you change your opinion on what was suspicious on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Not sure why any decent person would want to publicly flaunt their sex life and underwear.

Must be attention hungry.

 

[RoseMontague]

Make-up stolen from F's room.

IIRC, she said maybe some make-up was missing. I don't think that was established as fact.

 

[Numbers]

That would be most irregular. If this is so, ISC have acted completely ultra vires and outwith their jurisdiction, as the prosecution were presented with no opportunity to cross examine Dr Gill - who in any case did not examine the evidence first hand and has a vested interest, not declared - or to present a counter expert witness.

It really is a disgrace, if this is the case. Thoroughly bent and a discredit to their profession.

Professor Gill was not a witness. Portions of his book were presented as part of the defense appeal, by Raffaele's lawyers.

The defense appeal documents are by law reviewed by the prosecution, and conversely. The prosecution appeal would thus be enabled to counter any defense argument, including that relating to Professor Gill's book.

There is no information available to date on whether such information was considered in any way by the CSC panel.

 

[acbytesla]

Well sort of.



So you say it would serve no purpose which is a bit of an understatement as it would and did serve them badly. It raised legitimate suspicion.

Now just saying it doesn't prove anything is fine until you combine it with completely unrelated acts to the crime.

You ignored before but if he was guilty and the PLE had just ignored the statement what would the ILE critics say about that?

If it turned out he did it, would you change your opinion on what was suspicious on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.

It serves no purpose in proving the guilt of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. It is neither probatiive or exculpatory. As a juror, I would not find it helpful in any way in coming to a decision.

 

[Kauffer]

Not sure why any decent person would want to publicly flaunt their sex life and underwear.

Must be attention hungry.

How was she flaunting her "sex life and underwear"? She was buying underwear. You've done that, right? You've made some very peculiar claims today - apparently the act of buying underwear renders a woman euphoric and in and of itself is a public advertisement of her sex life. Very peculiar.

 

[Vixen]

You have made good points here. Also, on IIP, poster Katody has pointed out that the CPP Art. 620 para. 1a is only meant to apply to charge B, carrying the knife.

I believe that is a reasonable and conservative view of what the CSC intended here. I may have overreached in thinking ("momentarily") that the initial CPP Art. 620 para. 1a reference applied to the whole despositivo.

Also, CP Art. 61 para. 2 only applies to aggravating circumstances in general:



Source: http://www.diritto.it/codici/articolo/4281113-codice-penale-circostanze-aggravanti-comuni
Google translated

So indeed, I would agree that CPP Art. 620 para. 1L and CPP Art. 530 para. 2 must be referring specifically to the aggravating circumstances of the calunnia charge. The aggravating circumstances would only make sense if Amanda Knox were guilty of the murder or some other crime, so CP Art. 61 cannot remain.

This leaves a little mystery about the rest of the charges. The terminology "the accused did not commit it {the criminal act}" is found in CPP Art. 530 para. 1. So that would seem to be applied to charges A, D, and F, but there is ambiguity, as you point out. It could be that CPP Art. 530 para. 2 from the previous clause is meant to apply. I suggest that there is no real difference, in the sense that "insufficient evidence" includes "no reliable evidence of guilt" and that because of the presumption of innocence, any acquittal based on defects in evidence (including no reliable evidence) must mean that legally the criminal act was not committed by the accused.

We need to see the Marasca CSC panel motivation report to more fully understand the reasoning. They may decide not to mention the procedural law violations in order to save face or avoid conflict. The Hellmann court MR did not explicitly state that there were procedural law violations, although it came close in its statements about the Nov. 5/6 interrogation of Amanda Knox.

Thanks for your post, which has helped clarify the meaning of the dispositivo.

So it has not been found "the petitioners did not commit the act" after all except for the additional aggravating matter in the calunnia charge.

I predict the MR will be mediocre, dull, short and very, very abstract, as the ISC has demonstrated very little incisive legal reasoning. Pareto did say 80% are chaff. Poor, poor Meredith getting the chaff.

 

[RoseMontague]

Not sure why any decent person would want to publicly flaunt their sex life and underwear.

Must be attention hungry.

In court he said it was not unusual behavior for a couple in love shopping for underwear, which doesn't look quite as skimpy as some have made it out to be. Maybe it's an Italian thing shared by a brash American with an Italian lover.

In any case I understand her desire to buy fresh underwear that was also pleasing to Raffaele.

 

[Bill Williams]

By Grinder's thinking as demonstrated in his post, this would make the postal police behavior suspicious.

That's just dumb. The PP observed glass on top of clothing AND were told by the owner of the stuff in the room nothing was stolen. Hope you're not buying Bill's Follain account because it's not even what Follain reported.

Generally, Grinder, I am siding with you on the issue of "suspicious" vs. "indicative of guilt."

Yet, let's at least begin with what John Follain reported, the one author who was closest to the very thoughts of the police/PLE.

Page 67 is where he reports on this:

Paragraph one - Follain buys in whole cloth Battistelli's claim that he and "a colleague" arrived at the cottage a little after 12:30 pm. (This is totally wrong, even Judge Massei in 2009 has them arriving "just before 1 pm," and just before Filomena herself arrived.

Paragraph two - Raffaele realizes these two are not from the Carabinieri and asks them as such.

Paragraph three - Battistelli confirms he is postal police.

Paragraph four - Raffaele tells them he/Amanda are waiting Carabinieri because, "he thought there must have been a burglary" (Follain's words).

Paragraph five - "To Battistelli, Amanda and Raffaele looked surprised and embarrassed by his arrival; both spoke in a low voice." Follain really-does want that to sound "suspicious" about the two; yet in the two previous, short paragraphs Raffaele had just admitted to confusion as to who B. and his colleague were. This is the problem with suspicion, isn't it... without a larger context suspicion is no more than that. This paragraph ends with Raffaele/Amanda taking them into the cottage to show them the condition of Filomena's room. (Note to self: guilty people would have told the PP that there was nothing wrong, that they would return Meredith's phones to her, and send the cops on their way.)

And now, Paragraph six - "'I don't think this is a robbery, it looks more like a put-up job to me,' Battistelli said."

Paragraph seven - "Amanda and Raffaele said nothing."

It would be great, and even better, to put Follain's account side by side with Battistelli's trial testimony. Even Judge Massei found Battistelli, in the main, unreliable - witness the timing of their arrival!

One the face of it, Battistelli's paragraph six remark COULD have referred to an insurance fraud - not knowing whose room this was, and (at the time) NOT knowing if anything really had been stolen or not - not really - B. could have been thinking that, as the basis of his suspicions.

The owner of the room had not yet arrived to confirm or deny anything missing. And even then, on what basis would the PP believe Filomena?

Yet Follain tries to make even that seem far fetched - trying to belabour what for Follain is obvious - Amanda and Raffaele did this thing. Follain in writing his book is suspect-centric. They "said nothing" because as Follain tries to imply, they are now realizing their faking-of-a-break-in was not having its desired effect.

Follain is a weasel.

 

[Kauffer]

That would be most irregular. If this is so, ISC have acted completely ultra vires and outwith their jurisdiction, as the prosecution were presented with no opportunity to cross examine Dr Gill - who in any case did not examine the evidence first hand and has a vested interest, not declared - or to present a counter expert witness.

It really is a disgrace, if this is the case. Thoroughly bent and a discredit to their profession.

Not at all. It's a citation. Crini cited David Balding for the prosecution. He wasn't cross examined. C and V cited Locard. He wasn't cross examined either. In fact, at the time, he was dead.

 

[Vixen]

Professor Gill was not a witness. Portions of his book were presented as part of the defense appeal, by Raffaele's lawyers.

The defense appeal documents are by law reviewed by the prosecution, and conversely. The prosecution appeal would thus be enabled to counter any defense argument, including that relating to Professor Gill's book.

There is no information available to date on whether such information was considered in any way by the CSC panel.

We know all the barristers were given twenty minutes each by ISC, whilst Avv Bongiorno for Raff was given all morning. No doubt she and Judge Bruno (whom she extricated from mafia charges IIRC) exchanged a nod and a wink.