Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dougm]

I realize people welcome Mach back, thinking he has some insight into what is going on with the Italian courts that we don't. While I certainly don't have any issue with him posting here, or anywhere else, I think it is clear that his "insight" is pretty much limited to cherry picking the version of the law, procedures, value of decisions, etc. that he wants to be valid.

We all do that to a certain extent, but I would never indicate that my version of what I want to happen, or what I hope a decision means or doesn't mean, is a certainty.

It looks pretty clear to me that the Italian SC does have the authority to do what they did, and that is only being challenged by a very few who have a vested interest in creating a version of the case in public that does not make them look bad. And these are also people who have been consistently wrong in their predictions of what is legal, what courts have authority to do, and what the ultimate decisions of the court will be. They make pronouncements with such certainty that many people believe them. But it looks to me that they just take the version of the situation they wish was true, and proclaim it to be such, with certainty.

I am no expert on Italian law, but I fully expect all this business about the motivation to be taking too long to be a bunch of nothing. They have taken over 90 days before. The court already declared their decision, and now just needs to provide the written rationale for it.

I'll believe any reports to the contrary when they actually happen, and not before.

 

[Planigale]

There is evidence of sexual assault. There was anal dilation of 2-3cm.

From Mignini's notes at the pre-trial page 50.



And in the Massei report on page 121:

You rather make my point for me.
1) There is not agreement whether there was evidence of anal sex or constipation.
2) Even if the former the trauma is compatible with consensual intercourse. The presence of ecchymoses as opposed to lacerations would actually favour the former, but the definition of rape is not based on the violence of the sex act but upon consent.

 

[JREF2010]

You rather make my point for me.
1) There is not agreement whether there was evidence of anal sex or constipation.
2) Even if the former the trauma is compatible with consensual intercourse. The presence of ecchymoses as opposed to lacerations would actually favour the former, but the definition of rape is not based on the violence of the sex act but upon consent.

Seems the Guilters team divides and splits sides, on the consent topic.

 

[Bill Williams]

I sense that you have nothing to back the claim that "Everyone else in a country of 61M people seems to have moved on seemingly happy that their judiciary finally got it right and averted complete embarrassment...."

I am interested in how the verdict is playing in Italy and when you make a pronouncement as you did I would expect you could provide some backing for it.

No, I must confess I would have been shocked if you could have anything beginning to substantiate: Everyone else in a country of 61M people seems to have moved on seemingly happy that their judiciary finally got it right and averted complete embarrassment

Do you have a couple articles in mainstream Italian pubs at least?

Let me then amend my claim under the weight of this devestating logic.

61m minus Mignini, Napoleoni, Nencini and Massei. Heck even Donnino and Chiacchiara won't take my calls. "Perugian murder case, what Perugian murder case? "

I'm sure with a little thought we can get it down to 60,999,950.

 

[christianahannah]

It seems to me that their pre-trial hearing (where they must have been represented) and Guede's fast track trial are two separate things. Even if they had representatives attend Guede's trial, they were not the ones being charged in that trial, so they clearly were not able to defend against specific charges.

I don't know. I had thought the three were together during all hearings but I'm not certain of this. If I can find a reference to this I will link.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by specific charges.

eta: I found an article from the Daily Mail which says the three were being tried together (sorry for the Daily Mail - the English articles search quicker than the Italian articles). Will try later to reference an Italian article concerning the hearings/trial.

Guede, who admits being at the scene has opted for a fast track trial as he fears a pact between the two others against him and his case is being heard alongside theirs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-blade-knife-suspects-home-says-expert.html

 

[Grinder]

I realize people welcome Mach back, thinking he has some insight into what is going on with the Italian courts that we don't. While I certainly don't have any issue with him posting here, or anywhere else, I think it is clear that his "insight" is pretty much limited to cherry picking the version of the law, procedures, value of decisions, etc. that he wants to be valid.

I am no expert on Italian law, but I fully expect all this business about the motivation to be taking too long to be a bunch of nothing. They have taken over 90 days before. The court already declared their decision, and now just needs to provide the written rationale for it.

I'll believe any reports to the contrary when they actually happen, and not before.

I'm waiting as well but Mach did call a number of things correctly in the past. He was sure Hellmann would vacated and that the charges for wire tapping against Mignini would amount to nothing. Much to the chagrin of certain posters here that were sure Mignini would soon be in jail.

I don't doubt that this decision is unusual in Italy.

 

[Ken Dine]

I would look at the lack of significant defensive wounds as number one.

I just checked and lack of defensive wounds in knife murders is actually rather common – see the below UK study.

I've also included an article concerning Nicole Simpson's savage knife murder, and she also had few defensive wounds on her hands.

Also what the prosecution claimed and I don't agree with, the footprints "in blood", the bathmat print (not a match to anyone and certainly could have been Guede's), ...

As for the blue bathmat, if the footprints were Raffaele's, then why did Amanda & Raffaele lead the postal police directly to that blue bathmat?

If Amanda & Raffaele had killed Meredith, they certainly would have ditched the bathmat instead of leading police directly to it.

It's insane how 'Guilters' can turn obvious exculpatory evidence around to claim it's instead evidence of guilt!

the "staged" break in and the statement of Amanda's putting herself there.

Assuming arguendo that the break-in was staged, Filomena could have done it, too.

While the police claim to have heard Amanda's "spontaneous" admission that she was there, even Italy's Supreme Ct said her admission (such as it was) couldn't be used against her in her murder trial, but it was used anyway during Lumumba's concurrent slander case against Amanda.

I still don't understand how Lumumba's civil case against Amanda for slander could result in a 3 year prison sentence?

The above is not intended to reflect my position but to say that the experts saying it could have been one doesn't hold much weight against the other "fact" they believed.

I understand you're only playing Devil's Advocate with your above points.

I've asked Mach what would have happened if Guede had been convicted and the report said he did it alone. Would that have set the kids free?

It seems a single-attacker ruling would have done that. Of course, in the Italian legal system where Guede's attorney and the prosecution seemingly stipulated to multiple assailants (since that would be advantageous to both sides), there wasn't any chance that Guede's trial judge would have made a single-attacker determination.

In any event, as this UK study proves, many homicide victims don't exhibit defensive wounds:

Hunt and Cowling (1991) found that defence wounds were found in only 15% of those who exhibited a single stab wound, but were seen in 54% of those with multiple stab wounds.

Karlsson (1998) identified defensive injuries in 41% of homicide victims, but not at all in suicides.
[ ]

Homicidal or aggressive cutthroat injuries can usually be differentiated from suicidal ones by considering the wounds and associated features in context.

Most homicidal cutthroat injuries are inflicted from behind the victim, and the head is pulled back to expose the throat.

A right-handed assailant will inflict a wound from left to right, starting off high (as may be seen in self-inflicted wounds), and running more horizontally to the point of termination. However, there will be no hesitation marks, and wound is often ragged due to relative movement of assailant and victim.

There may also be signs of defensive injuries e.g. to the hands and arms, or bruising on the chest wall or shoulders from being forcibly restrained or pinned against a wall or floor etc (DiMaio and DiMaio 1993).

Where the assailant targets the throat from in front of the victim, the (often horizontally oriented) wounds are caused by slashing movements. Where the wounds are found on the chest, they can be seen as a pattern of horizontal, vertical or circular injuries.

Green (1978) indicated in his research into stab wounds that although it could be argued that a single wound was accidental, the action of removing a knife from a body required considerable effort, and therefore a victim with more than 1 wound could be argued to represent a situation where the assailant was more intent on doing serious harm, thus helping to negate a defence of accident.


Read more: http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/wounds/sharp-force-trauma/patterns-of-sharp-force-trauma/

Nicole Simpson's Grisly Death Described To Jury
June 08, 1995|By Jessica Seigel, Tribune Staff Writer.
[ ]

"I would say she died within a few minutes, probably less," said Lakshmanan, who added that the entire attack probably lasted only a few minutes, as indicated by the few defensive wounds on her hands.

"These kinds of altercations can take place pretty rapidly," he said.

Read more: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...dr-lakshmanan-sathyavagiswaran-nicole-simpson

 

[Diocletus]

I don't know. I had thought the three were together during all hearings but I'm not certain of this. If I can find a reference to this I will link.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by specific charges.

eta: I found an article from the Daily Mail which says the three were being tried together (sorry for the Daily Mail - the English articles search quicker than the Italian articles). Will try later to reference an Italian article concerning the hearings/trial.

Guede, who admits being at the scene has opted for a fast track trial as he fears a pact between the two others against him and his case is being heard alongside theirs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-blade-knife-suspects-home-says-expert.html

I believe that Guede's fast-track trial was for some reason combined with the Knox/Sollecito arraignment. However, among other problems, it wasn't their "trial" (it was only a preceding to see if they could be tried), they had incomplete disclosure from the prosecution, and they couldn't appeal.

 

[Dougm]

I believe that Guede's fast-track trial was for some reason combined with the Knox/Sollecito arraignment. However, among other problems, it wasn't their "trial" (it was only a preceding to see if they could be tried), they had incomplete disclosure from the prosecution, and they couldn't appeal.

What he said.

 

[Dougm]

I'm waiting as well but Mach did call a number of things correctly in the past. He was sure Hellmann would vacated and that the charges for wire tapping against Mignini would amount to nothing. Much to the chagrin of certain posters here that were sure Mignini would soon be in jail.

I don't doubt that this decision is unusual in Italy.

I would have to go back, but I don't think his prediction record is any better than it would be throwing darts at a board full of options. It seems to me he has predicted the worst for Knox and Sollecito at every turn, and that has happened roughly half the time.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

Me, I avoid predictions all together, because I have no idea what will happen. I was surprised by both acquittals, not because I don't agree with them, but because I was surprised someone was willing to stand up to the craziness over there.

 

[Planigale]

I just checked and lack of defensive wounds in knife murders is actually rather common – see the below UK study.

I've also included an article concerning Nicole Simpson's savage knife murder, and she also had few defensive wounds on her hands.




As for the blue bathmat, if the footprints were Raffaele's, then why did Amanda & Raffaele lead the postal police directly to that blue bathmat?

If Amanda & Raffaele had killed Meredith, they certainly would have ditched the bathmat instead of leading police directly to it.

It's insane how 'Guilters' can turn obvious exculpatory evidence around to claim it's instead evidence of guilt!




Assuming arguendo that the break-in was staged, Filomena could have done it, too.

While the police claim to have heard Amanda's "spontaneous" admission that she was there, even Italy's Supreme Ct said her admission (such as it was) couldn't be used against her in her murder trial, but it was used anyway during Lumumba's concurrent slander case against Amanda.

I still don't understand how Lumumba's civil case against Amanda for slander could result in a 3 year prison sentence?



I understand you're only playing Devil's Advocate with your above points.




It seems a single-attacker ruling would have done that. Of course, in the Italian legal system where Guede's attorney and the prosecution seemingly stipulated to multiple assailants (since that would be advantageous to both sides), there wasn't any chance that Guede's trial judge would have made a single-attacker determination.

In any event, as this UK study proves, many homicide victims don't exhibit defensive wounds:

The answer is Callunia is a criminal conviction not a civil offence. There used to be in England an offence of criminal slander that could result in imprisonment. Callunia is more nearly equivalent to perjury - making false statements to official authorities, rather than slander.

In Italy a civil case is heard alongside the criminal. So civil compensation is awarded to the injured parties as a result of the criminal conviction. This is why they are interested parties, they have an interest in making the accused looking as wicked as possible to maximise their compensation. Thus the Kerchers were awarded damages, as was Lumumba.

 

[christianahannah]

I believe that Guede's fast-track trial was for some reason combined with the Knox/Sollecito arraignment. However, among other problems, it wasn't their "trial" (it was only a preceding to see if they could be tried), they had incomplete disclosure from the prosecution, and they couldn't appeal.

Oh, I know Amanda and Raffaele was a preliminary hearing but I think they did put on somewhat of a defense to refute the evidence they had been given thus far.

 

[Dougm]

I don't know. I had thought the three were together during all hearings but I'm not certain of this. If I can find a reference to this I will link.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by specific charges.
eta: I found an article from the Daily Mail which says the three were being tried together (sorry for the Daily Mail - the English articles search quicker than the Italian articles). Will try later to reference an Italian article concerning the hearings/trial.

Guede, who admits being at the scene has opted for a fast track trial as he fears a pact between the two others against him and his case is being heard alongside theirs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-blade-knife-suspects-home-says-expert.html

Perhaps inartful wording. I was just saying that, when a court is called, they read specific charges against the person, and they get to answer specifically to the charges against them. They don't just get to attend a trial where charges are filed against another person, yet don't get to answer to those charges. It is inherently unfair.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's not difficult to have an appeal heard in the US since you merely need to file an appeal. Unlike in Italy, many appeals are published and form the basis of 'stare decisis', which is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent, and these written appellate decisions come the closest to Italy's system of a Motivation Report, but appellate decisions are much shorter, some only a page or 2 long, but others can be over 20 pages.

You should look at the cases of the Norfolk Four and Ryan Ferguson.
Another good one was Marty Tankleff.

One that really bugs me is the conviction of Thomas James Barton
He was convicted of garbage yet nothing seems able to overturn it.

 

[Kauffer]

You should look at the cases of the Norfolk Four and Ryan Ferguson.
Another good one was Marty Tankleff.
One that really bugs me is the conviction of Thomas James Barton
He was convicted of garbage yet nothing seems able to overturn it.

I was looking at the Tanklef case the other day. He's recently qualified as a lawyer specialising in wrongful convictions. Like our case, the police still think he's guilty. The case against Ferguson was jaw droppingly awful.

 

[Grinder]

I would have to go back, but I don't think his prediction record is any better than it would be throwing darts at a board full of options. It seems to me he has predicted the worst for Knox and Sollecito at every turn, and that has happened roughly half the time.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

Me, I avoid predictions all together, because I have no idea what will happen. I was surprised by both acquittals, not because I don't agree with them, but because I was surprised someone was willing to stand up to the craziness over there.

I was referring more to Mignini's case and other PIP pipe dreams for charges against this or that. He was pretty good on Hellmann as well.

Of course he always wishes for guilt. IIRC he has also predicted correctly on evidence allowed etc.

He was not alone in recognizing the significance of the calunnia unlike a certain PIP.

 

[Grinder]

The answer is Callunia is a criminal conviction not a civil offence. There used to be in England an offence of criminal slander that could result in imprisonment. Callunia is more nearly equivalent to perjury - making false statements to official authorities, rather than slander.

In Italy a civil case is heard alongside the criminal. So civil compensation is awarded to the injured parties as a result of the criminal conviction. This is why they are interested parties, they have an interest in making the accused looking as wicked as possible to maximise their compensation. Thus the Kerchers were awarded damages, as was Lumumba.

I would say closer to false reporting of a crime. Perjury doesn't need to involve another person Calunnia does. A false report of a crime at least could result in another person being charged.

Filing a false police report can lead to multiple criminal consequences. Many states call this charge "false report to a peace officer." It is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction.

 

[Planigale]

I would say closer to false reporting of a crime. Perjury doesn't need to involve another person Calunnia does. A false report of a crime at least could result in another person being charged.

Filing a false police report can lead to multiple criminal consequences. Many states call this charge "false report to a peace officer." It is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction.

Yes the English equivalent is wasting police time - a criminal offence. That would have been a better comparison you are right.

 

[Desert Fox]

I was looking at the Tanklef case the other day. He's recently qualified as a lawyer specialising in wrongful convictions. Like our case, the police still think he's guilty. The case against Ferguson was jaw droppingly awful.

The police still pretend to believe that the Norfolk Four are guilty as well.

 

[davefoc]

Read this from Chieffi's report, Dave:

"Therefore the decision under appeal can be criticized for the flaw alleged [by the prosecution] of violating the law, and for the defect of inadequate reasoning, in the crucial passage of the reconstruction of the event which deals with the presence of multiple perpetrators in the crime, in the residence to which – aside from the victim – only Knox had access on that horrific evening. This is a factor which should certainly not be automatically understood as proof, but which constitutes a significant segment in the narrative reconstruction of the crime, to be assessed together with the other pieces of evidence. On this point too, the new judge must carry out a detailed examination which adheres more closely to the requirements of the law, as well as an assessment of the information seen in the context of the broader osmotic presentation of the [rest of the ] evidence."

Unless Chieffi said that his reasoning was based in any way on the conclusions of the Micheli pre trial hearing/fast track trial it seems like the criticism of that process with regard to the first AK/RS is not well founded. Although it was the hearing that also bound them over for trial and they seem not have been able to cross examine witnesses or present evidence. This seems like a questionable practice, in particular because according to what I've read in this thread Italy doesn't have a bail system.

I took a look at the Chieffi report (I found it after I realized that Chieffi is spelled with two f's). This seems like a pretty telling point on the above:

Therefore the chat with his friend Giacomo Benedetti could not be used as a basis for overturning the rigorously detailed discussion by the judges of first instance identifying the time of death, or at least not without clashing with the facts established in the trial in which Guede was the defendant and which concluded by convicting him, despite what he had revealed in the chat, which was raised [by the appeal court] to be a standard of measurement [indicating the time of death].

If I understand this paragraph correctly it sounds like Chieffi based part of his reasoning on the results of Guede's trial. That strikes me as something that should have been illegal without any discussion necessary. The use of evidence against an individual without their ability to cross examine the source of that evidence is a disgusting aspect of the Italian legal system if it was allowed.

As to the substance of the Chieffi paragraph that you quoted: It sounds like he is instructing the trial court to reexamine the evidence with regard to the multiple attacker theory and then consider the rest of the case evidence (osmotically?) to figure out if there were multiple attackers. On the surface this sounds like an order to engage in circular analysis. Something like: Analyze the multiple attacker evidence and then using using the rest of the evidence available decide if there were multiple attackers and tacitly once you've determined there were multiple attackers use that to interpret the other evidence in such a way that Knox was guilty which can then be used to shore up the multiple attacker theory.

As it is, I have a strong opinion about the multiple attacker theory which colors my interpretation of whatever Chieffi said with regard to this. I think it is beyond belief stupid. I would pay money to see one of these idiots take on an attacker with the strength and size advantage Guede had over Kercher. There are a few things that I find really disgusting about this case and this nonsense is one of those things. I was on the wrestling team in high school and I have a very good understanding of what happens when two people fight where one of those people has an overwhelming strength advantage. The "fight" is over in an instant and the stronger person is in complete control of the weaker person. The weaker individual might have some outs if they can grab a weapon of some kind but in any kind of close quarters situation where that isn't the option of a weapon or flight the "fight" will be over before it has begun. Now throw in the fact that the individual with the overwhelming strength advantage has a knife and that person may well have quickly restrained the victim using his overwhelming strength advantage the argument that there weren't defensive wounds found and therefore there had to be multiple attackers is just plain nuts.

And, of course, the little detail that there is zero evidence of multiple attackers at the crime scene makes it such that this theory was never worthy of a moments consideration. And yet here we are years later and some people still are staking a good part of their belief in the guilt of AK/RS on this. Truly disgusting.

And that paragraph also goes strongly to the issue of the suppressed evidence. Chieffi has concluded that if there were multiple attackers then only Knox could have been present. Really what happened to Sollecito? Or more importantly how can he say who was present when the prosecution was allowed to suppress evidence regarding the semen stain, the rape kit and the downstairs crime scene? Did he get a personal divine visitation that allowed him to draw conclusions without evidence?