Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[davefoc]

Hey Bill, thanks fort fishing this out.

First question I have, is whether Massei is referring to the semen stain at the edge of the pillow case, or the one showing Rudy stepped in wet sperm?

My guess is Massei is referring to the (presumed) sperm stain on the pillow case edge, since the one that's was stepped in while wet can be dated to the crime.

My reading of Massei here, and the judges, is that they "already know" Knox and Sollecito are guilty, so they don't need more evidence to convict. And since a plausible explanation that the sperm could have been deposited at an earlier time can't in their minds be refuted, there's no reason to test the stain, because it might be confusing to the lay judges and give the defendants an unfair chance to evade justice by introducing an element of doubt.

I don't believe this is a conscious bias, but I do believe it is a bias for guilt. The judges believe the defendants are guilty, and intend to give them a fair process, before judging them guilty. But the judges know they will convict before the trial even starts, its just a process of making sure that no contrary evidence to guilt is allowed into the process, so as to make the conviction clean and unambiguous to the lay jurors.

That's why the job of prosecutor should be separated from investigator, and why this trial in particular should have been moved far, far away from Perugia. It was only when an unbiased judge was brought in, that the evidence in the case was actually examined, and it then fell apart.

The point I'm trying to make, if it isn't clear yet, is that the judges, Massei in this case, don't have to actively collude with the prosecution to help railroad two innocent defendants, as happened here. All the judges need to do, is not recognize their bias, and suppress the defendants ability to have a defense, leaving only the prosecution to put forward a case.

So BIG conspiracy isn't necessary. TINY conspiracy is probably necessary to some degree. The truth is, the whole rotten police department all belongs in jail, including the phony lab techs and bogus experts that lied to support the prosecution's case.

Your theory implies unsophisticated judges with an extraordinarily low degree of introspection. If you are correct the judges had decided that Sollecito was guilty so that more evidence against him wasn't necessary and more evidence against Guede would be confusing to the jurors.

But they also had to realize that even if they "knew" Sollecito was guilty the evidence against him hung by a thread that might not hold against appeal. Not testing something that would have made their judgment appeal proof if it turned out to be that of Sollecito seems strange in the extreme.

And there is the unlikely but never completely ruled out existence of another perpetrator. How could these judges make a decision to eliminate any possibility of ever identifying that individual?

Perhaps some of what you suggest is possible, but my take on this is that the judges were afraid to go against Mignini here who realized that more evidence against Guede would make his case even shakier.

I also think the suppression of this evidence needs to be seen in the context of the other suppressed evidence. Mignini knew that the downstairs crime scene evidence had been suppressed and some of the rape kit evidence had been suppressed. His case was in danger of blowing up at any time if independent judges started digging into what was going on. I think Mignini judged correctly that his best strategy was to just use his power to block every attempt to delve into the suppressed evidence and that I think is what he did.

ETA: I also don't rule out the possibility of a quid pro quo involving Mignini, Guede and his lawyer that Mignini would limit the scope of the investigation so as to not release the most damning evidence against Guede in return for Guede's cooperation against AK/RS.

ETA2:It is in the range of possible that Mignini revealed the results of the semen test to the judges and they knew the results when they decided to not allow further testing.

 

[zotz]

This does not explain Nencini and his partner-judge, or the Florence popular judges. Nencini did not even follow the dictates of the 2013 ISC reversal of the acquittals. All three of the outstanding issues the 2013 ISC said needed referral back to the lower court went the defences' way - Nencini even invented out of whole cloth things which were not put to the court by Crini, the new prosecutor.

How do you explain the Nencini court? Nencini was willing to send the kids to prison for a quarter century on Rudy Guede's testimony, and no one else's. Rudy is the sole source of the "they filled over the rent money", and in that same story Rudy said it was Meredith who let him in, and that the two of them had had consensual sex.

Despite how Machiavelli defended Nencini's critique of Conti/Vecchiotti (over against favouring Stefanoni), Nencini exhibited a particular brain-freeze over the DNA discussion - giving what can only be said to be a suspect-centric evaluation, and waving away contamination with the flick of a hand.....

How do you explain Nencini?

Remember that Judge Micheli acquitted Guede of theft while Knox and Sollecito were convicted of theft. The Guede ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court which makes his theft acquittal a judicial truth. However Meredith's money, phones, and credit cards were stolen. So logically Nencini could use the theft of Meredith's rent money as a possible motivation since the first court had already decided that it was Knox and Sollecito that committed the theft. And the Supreme Court gave credit to Guede for his contrition when he apologized to the Kerchers thereby at least partially giving credence to Guede's version of the crime. They cited his contrition in contrast to Knox as part of the reason for reducing his sentence to 16 years.

 

[Planigale]

Hey Bill, thanks fort fishing this out.

First question I have, is whether Massei is referring to the semen stain at the edge of the pillow case, or the one showing Rudy stepped in wet sperm?

My guess is Massei is referring to the (presumed) sperm stain on the pillow case edge, since the one that's was stepped in while wet can be dated to the crime.

My reading of Massei here, and the judges, is that they "already know" Knox and Sollecito are guilty, so they don't need more evidence to convict. And since a plausible explanation that the sperm could have been deposited at an earlier time can't in their minds be refuted, there's no reason to test the stain, because it might be confusing to the lay judges and give the defendants an unfair chance to evade justice by introducing an element of doubt.

I don't believe this is a conscious bias, but I do believe it is a bias for guilt. The judges believe the defendants are guilty, and intend to give them a fair process, before judging them guilty. But the judges know they will convict before the trial even starts, its just a process of making sure that no contrary evidence to guilt is allowed into the process, so as to make the conviction clean and unambiguous to the lay jurors.

That's why the job of prosecutor should be separated from investigator, and why this trial in particular should have been moved far, far away from Perugia. It was only when an unbiased judge was brought in, that the evidence in the case was actually examined, and it then fell apart.

The point I'm trying to make, if it isn't clear yet, is that the judges, Massei in this case, don't have to actively collude with the prosecution to help railroad two innocent defendants, as happened here. All the judges need to do, is not recognize their bias, and suppress the defendants ability to have a defense, leaving only the prosecution to put forward a case.

So BIG conspiracy isn't necessary. TINY conspiracy is probably necessary to some degree. The truth is, the whole rotten police department all belongs in jail, including the phony lab techs and bogus experts that lied to support the prosecution's case.

I agree.

I think part of the bias is that the prosecutor directs the investigation against an individual. What should have happened is that the police should be allowed to investigate a crime, and present the evidence to the prosecutor. Of course I recognise there needs to be interaction between police and prosecutor to ensure sufficient evidence is collected, and I recognise that police can become suspect centric in their investigation rather than crime centred. E.g. The investigation of Colin Stagg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

 

[Planigale]

Remember that Judge Micheli acquitted Guede of theft while Knox and Sollecito were convicted of theft. The Guede ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court which makes his theft acquittal a judicial truth. However Meredith's money, phones, and credit cards were stolen. So logically Nencini could use the theft of Meredith's rent money as a possible motivation since the first court had already decided that it was Knox and Sollecito that committed the theft. And the Supreme Court gave credit to Guede for his contrition when he apologized to the Kerchers thereby at least partially giving credence to Guede's version of the crime. They cited his contrition in contrast to Knox as part of the reason for reducing his sentence to 16 years.

If you read the ISC comments on this they verge on being critical of Mignini. They say they are forced to accept the acquittal because the prosecution never presented evidence about the theft. Essentially my understanding is that although the theft charge was laid Mignini never pursued this in court.

 

[Planigale]

I apologise for posting something from the mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...achel-Nickell-sent-acquitted-Colin-Stagg.html
It is interesting in that it parallels the persisting belief by the Kercher's of Knox's guilt and the part that private police assurances of guilt played in this. I suspect that if Guede had benn identified later and subsequently convicted it may have been easier for the Kercher's to change their view of Knox. As it is there is no 'new' information to make them change their views.

 

[davefoc]

I apologise for posting something from the mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...achel-Nickell-sent-acquitted-Colin-Stagg.html
It is interesting in that it parallels the persisting belief by the Kercher's of Knox's guilt and the part that private police assurances of guilt played in this. I suspect that if Guede had benn identified later and subsequently convicted it may have been easier for the kerchief's to change their view of Knox. As it is there is no 'new' information to make them change their views.

There are similarities but it doesn't bode well for a Kercher change of heart. Somewhat ironically, I think, the fact that there is so little evidence against AK/RS makes an epiphany like this less likely in this case. There is already overwhelming evidence of a single killer. There is no new evidence likely to be unearthed that will make it less likely that AK/RS are innocent. Perhaps if inside information began to be leaked about Mignini's shenanigans and the suppressed evidence Kercher would be forced to reevaluate his view but I kind of doubt it. His ideas about this murder seem to have become inculcated into his being and it's not clear to me how anything is going to change that.

 

[carbonjam72]

MarAsca!

D'oh!

 

[carbonjam72]

Guide to saying sorry...

I apologise for posting something from the mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...achel-Nickell-sent-acquitted-Colin-Stagg.html
It is interesting in that it parallels the persisting belief by the Kercher's of Knox's guilt and the part that private police assurances of guilt played in this. I suspect that if Guede had benn identified later and subsequently convicted it may have been easier for the Kercher's to change their view of Knox. As it is there is no 'new' information to make them change their views.

This is a good form letter for wrongful convictions:

In a private letter to Mr Stagg, which begins 'Dear Colin', Mr Hanscombe said:

'I am sorry for the ordeal that you have endured during virtually the whole length of this very sad affair, and any part that I might have had personally to make it worse.
'I had been led to believe by officers of the Metropolitan Police that they considered you responsible for my partner's death. I know now that you were, and are, an innocent man who was mistakenly charged. I wish you a long, happy and productive life.'
Mr Stagg, 46, said: 'It was a really kind gesture. I know how difficult it must have been for him to make. Understandably he spent years hating me.
'To him I was the man who destroyed the love of his life.

'After all those years it must have been very hard to come to terms with the proof that I was innocent. I accept his apology with gratitude. It means a lot to me.'

Here are some differences though -

1. Time to Reflect - Both Mr Hanscombe & Mr Stagg were relatively young. There may be hope for the younger Kerchers to do something like this, but I think its too late and the grief is too deep for John Kercher Sr, and Arline Kercher to come to terms with their mistaken beliefs. If it happens, it will be with the younger generation, and I actually think that's likely to happen at some point, probably after the parents have passed away, sad to say.

2. Independent Review Panel - In the UK, there appears to be an independent review mechanism. IIRC, Italy has nothing like this.

3. Criminalizing Criticism of Police & Courts - This doesn't seem to happen in public in Italy. Whereas in the UK and certainly the US, its something of a national sport.

4. New Evidence - As DaveF noted, there was 'new evidence' (DNA), including a confession. And moreover, there was an extraordinary series of similar crimes by the same defendant (86 sex crimes???), so there were many more people similarly situated with respect to this perpetrator. Ms Kercher was likely Rudy's first murder victim. However, if Rudy commits another similar act after he's released, that's when I'd look for the Kercher's to accept responsibility for their participation in vilifying two innocent people and the hatred they've directed and encouraged at them.

 

[Numbers]

Hey Bill, thanks fort fishing this out.

....

My reading of Massei here, and the judges, is that they "already know" Knox and Sollecito are guilty, so they don't need more evidence to convict. And since a plausible explanation that the sperm could have been deposited at an earlier time can't in their minds be refuted, there's no reason to test the stain, because it might be confusing to the lay judges and give the defendants an unfair chance to evade justice by introducing an element of doubt.

I don't believe this is a conscious bias, but I do believe it is a bias for guilt. The judges believe the defendants are guilty, and intend to give them a fair process, before judging them guilty. But the judges know they will convict before the trial even starts, its just a process of making sure that no contrary evidence to guilt is allowed into the process, so as to make the conviction clean and unambiguous to the lay jurors.

....

Your theory implies unsophisticated judges with an extraordinarily low degree of introspection. If you are correct the judges had decided that Sollecito was guilty so that more evidence against him wasn't necessary and more evidence against Guede would be confusing to the jurors.

But they also had to realize that even if they "knew" Sollecito was guilty the evidence against him hung by a thread that might not hold against appeal. Not testing something that would have made their judgment appeal proof if it turned out to be that of Sollecito seems strange in the extreme.

And there is the unlikely but never completely ruled out existence of another perpetrator. How could these judges make a decision to eliminate any possibility of ever identifying that individual?

Perhaps some of what you suggest is possible, but my take on this is that the judges were afraid to go against Mignini here who realized that more evidence against Guede would make his case even shakier.

I also think the suppression of this evidence needs to be seen in the context of the other suppressed evidence. Mignini knew that the downstairs crime scene evidence had been suppressed and some of the rape kit evidence had been suppressed. His case was in danger of blowing up at any time if independent judges started digging into what was going on. I think Mignini judged correctly that his best strategy was to just use his power to block every attempt to delve into the suppressed evidence and that I think is what he did.

ETA: I also don't rule out the possibility of a quid pro quo involving Mignini, Guede and his lawyer that Mignini would limit the scope of the investigation so as to not release the most damning evidence against Guede in return for Guede's cooperation against AK/RS.

ETA2:It is in the range of possible that Mignini revealed the results of the semen test to the judges and they knew the results when they decided to not allow further testing.

I suggest that it is important to realize the significant connections between the judges, prosecutors (who are also judges, in the same branch of government and subject to the same oversight or lack thereof), and police (who become agents of the prosecutor whenever there is a case to be investigated). Furthermore, the Italian system only recently - after 1988 - was converted to an adversarial system, where the judge is supposed to be a neutral referee between the prosecutor and defense counsel. Before that, the judge was supposedly a "fair" prosecutor also, supposedly seeking the "truth" but relying on the prosecution's case file. The court trial was somewhat of a formality in the earlier system. Memories of that system remain and are seen in the Knox-Sollecito case.

The other point is that the police and prosecutor committed crimes and their colleagues the judges, in many cases, wished to protect them from prosecution by letting the statute of limitations run out. The crimes include but may not be limited to: threatening and assault to obtain false statement to the judiciary (CP Art. 377-bis), illegal (false) arrest (CP Art. 606), and kidnapping (false imprisonment) (CP Art. 605). This is an explanation for the arbitrary and absurd motivation reports from Massei, Chieffi, and Nencini.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's the Supreme Court motivation concerning disgraced detective Monica Napoleoni. Napoleoni, Gubbiotti and Squarta were accused of abusive access to the SID. Not Zugarini, since she didn't have the credentials, although sometimes they say she accessed too. The 3 were suspended for possibility of repeating the crime and of polluting the evidence. They appealed to the Court of re-examination but they failed, they appealed to the SC and the SC was nitpicking and annulled the court order for Gubbiotti and Squarta. But not for Napoleoni.

It says on page 8:

"The ruling from the Court of Perugia concentrates on the position of Napoleoni and on the circumstances indicating her personal dangerousness"

"Napoleoni was rightly identified as the creator of the criminal design to the realization of which the three would have collaborated"

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...e-28-Nov-2013-Napoleoni-Gubbiotti-Squarta.pdf

 

[Grinder]

Here's the Supreme Court motivation concerning disgraced detective Monica Napoleoni. Napoleoni, Gubbiotti and Squarta were accused of abusive access to the SID. Not Zugarini, since she didn't have the credentials, although sometimes they say she accessed too. The 3 were suspended for possibility of repeating the crime and of polluting the evidence. They appealed to the Court of re-examination but they failed, they appealed to the SC and the SC was nitpicking and annulled the court order for Gubbiotti and Squarta. But not for Napoleoni.

It says on page 8:

"The ruling from the Court of Perugia concentrates on the position of Napoleoni and on the circumstances indicating her personal dangerousness"

"Napoleoni was rightly identified as the creator of the criminal design to the realization of which the three would have collaborated"

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...e-28-Nov-2013-Napoleoni-Gubbiotti-Squarta.pdf

Thanks. Can't find the Barbie thing.

ETA - See you took down the Barbie link. Could you give a description of what he said.

 

[MichaelB]

Thanks. Can't find the Barbie thing.

ETA - See you took down the Barbie link. Could you give a description of what he said.

The Barbie face of an angel anal scene vid got blocked by youtube and dailymotion.

 

[Grinder]

From Pete of the dark side - just for you Numbers - translation of part of suit against Maori or so says PQ.

the judgment of the [Florence] court of remand would have been impugnable only for reasons not regarding the points already decided by the Court of Cassation [in 2013], according to the very clear disposition of Article 628, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

From this it follows that the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, called on to decide the merits of the appeals brought by the accused against the decision of the court remanded to, would have had to consider as inadmissible the [RS and AK] appeals presented in violation of the second paragraph of Article 628 Criminal Procedure Code and, in any case, would have had to rigorously conform with the points already decided by the First Chamber and with all the questions of law decided by the same, -- the latter constraint, as constituted by the jurisdiction of sole legitimacy, being understood --, for defect pursuant to Article 606 Criminal Procedure Code and limited to the grounds proposed by the appellants (Article 609 Criminal Procedure Code).

.... the Court of Cassation cannot, therefore, ever adopt decisions on the merits and issue orders of acquittal under Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

....two chambers of the same Court of Cassation, the First (the one competent for proceedings in homicide matters, whose decision of annulment is definitive and who had identified and decided questions of law in a definitive and un-retractable manner) and the Fifth (who would have had to decide the appeals presented only on grounds of legitimacy of the defendants’, constrained by what had already been definitively decided by the First) have handed down two absolutely divergent decisions and the second had annulled the Florentine decision, positively excluding any remand and acquitting the defendants pursuant to Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

The Fifth Chamber’s reasons have not yet been handed down and we await their contents becoming known. It cannot be denied, in any case, that the decision of the Fifth Chamber, is a decision that is not only absolutely unforeseeable and anomalous but that it positively constitutes a unicum [singular object in defiance] of the jurisprudence of the Court of legitimacy.

In any case, Amanda Knox has already been definitively convicted for the calunnia against Patrick Diya Lumumba.

 

[davefoc]

[See above]

This seems to be consistent with one of Vixen's claims, but I may not understand it. Vixen's claim was that the ISC acted illegally when it set aside the AK/RS conviction because all it could do was refer the case for further review to a lower court.

It seems doubtful that this was the case since it seems like the ISC didn't refer the case to a lower court and there doesn't seem to be some great constitutional dispute going on in Italy right now over the issue.

But maybe Vixen was right on this? Or maybe I don't know what that stuff Grinder quoted meant?

I wonder about this in the US. Can the supreme court find an individual innocent? Certainly courts can decide that jeopardy has attached and since a guilty verdict didn't happen the case is over against an individual. But could the US Supreme court decide on the merits of the evidence that somebody was innocent and find for a defendant in such a way that they were officially found innocent?

 

[Kauffer]

From Pete of the dark side - just for you Numbers - translation of part of suit against Maori or so says PQ.

the judgment of the [Florence] court of remand would have been impugnable only for reasons not regarding the points already decided by the Court of Cassation [in 2013], according to the very clear disposition of Article 628, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

From this it follows that the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, called on to decide the merits of the appeals brought by the accused against the decision of the court remanded to, would have had to consider as inadmissible the [RS and AK] appeals presented in violation of the second paragraph of Article 628 Criminal Procedure Code and, in any case, would have had to rigorously conform with the points already decided by the First Chamber and with all the questions of law decided by the same, -- the latter constraint, as constituted by the jurisdiction of sole legitimacy, being understood --, for defect pursuant to Article 606 Criminal Procedure Code and limited to the grounds proposed by the appellants (Article 609 Criminal Procedure Code).

..... the Court of Cassation cannot, therefore, ever adopt decisions on the merits and issue orders of acquittal under Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.
....two chambers of the same Court of Cassation, the First (the one competent for proceedings in homicide matters, whose decision of annulment is definitive and who had identified and decided questions of law in a definitive and un-retractable manner) and the Fifth (who would have had to decide the appeals presented only on grounds of legitimacy of the defendants’, constrained by what had already been definitively decided by the First) have handed down two absolutely divergent decisions and the second had annulled the Florentine decision, positively excluding any remand and acquitting the defendants pursuant to Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

The Fifth Chamber’s reasons have not yet been handed down and we await their contents becoming known. It cannot be denied, in any case, that the decision of the Fifth Chamber, is a decision that is not only absolutely unforeseeable and anomalous but that it positively constitutes a unicum [singular object in defiance] of the jurisprudence of the Court of legitimacy.

In any case, Amanda Knox has already been definitively convicted for the calunnia against Patrick Diya Lumumba.

They've done it before.

These guys are going to be so upset when the ECHR rules in Amanda's favour. Then they'll argue it makes no difference to anything - she'll always be a felon. And then they'll find out they're wrong about that too.

 

[Bill Williams]

This seems to be consistent with one of Vixen's claims, but I may not understand it. Vixen's claim was that the ISC acted illegally when it set aside the AK/RS conviction because all it could do was refer the case for further review to a lower court.

It seems doubtful that this was the case since it seems like the ISC didn't refer the case to a lower court and there doesn't seem to be some great constitutional dispute going on in Italy right now over the issue.

But maybe Vixen was right on this? Or maybe I don't know what that stuff Grinder quoted meant?

I wonder about this in the US. Can the supreme court find an individual innocent? Certainly courts can decide that jeopardy has attached and since a guilty verdict didn't happen the case is over against an individual. But could the US Supreme court decide on the merits of the evidence that somebody was innocent and find for a defendant in such a way that they were officially found innocent?

We'll find out in two days that Vixen is dead wrong.

Cassaizione can rule on the facts of a case, esp. those facts which it finds were improperly/illegally found.

The only difference is that Cassazione cannot itself declare a conviction - it can in that case only refer the troubling facts back to the sppeals level.

But Cassazione can, and in the case did, outright acquit without referring back. This is de facto rejecting both the corpus of facts, as well as the way those "facts" were assembled to convict.

As we have found out, Cassazione can otherwise do what it wants, aside from these two constitutional caveats.

 

[Samzilla]

Given the discussion from a few pages back that the 90 day deadline can be extended, did the other motivation reports come out within 90 days?

 

[Vixen]

They've done it before.

These guys are going to be so upset when the ECHR rules in Amanda's favour. Then they'll argue it makes no difference to anything - she'll always be a felon. And then they'll find out they're wrong about that too.

ECHR is dead in the water.

 

[Dougm]

ECHR is dead in the water.

Are you going for the record for "statements proven wrong on ISF"? If so, you are doing an awesome job so far!

The statement above is, at best, an opinion. There have been many well researched posts here by Numbers and Kauffer that indicate a real chance of success for Amanda's case at the ECHR.

 

[Wattson]

ECHR is dead in the water.

Under what grounds?