Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Amanda texted Mez to try to arrange a Halloween evening. Mez wrote back, I'm going out with friends. What are your plans? xx Love you.

Amanda then sent her text after text, which Mez skillfully avoided. It is unmistakeable Mez snubbed her. Amanda was left with nothing to do in her cat custume and even had to wander the streets alone.

Sure, Mez was too nice to be rude, but it's clear she didn't want to invite Amanda. As Amanda was hinting heavily and asking outright, Mez could easily have told her where her group of friends were going.

As for the kisses and love you's, that is a very girly thing, and means absolutely nothing.

Luv you, Hunxx
Click to expand...

How many?
 
Numbers said:
The following is a refutation of a point made some time ago by Machiavelli that a formal complaint in Italy's system would be a requirement for an ECHR judgment about police mistreatment of Amanda during her interrogation.

Yet another ECHR case of interest:
Grinenko v Ukraine 33627/06 15-11-2012

Grinenko maintained that Ukraine had violated his rights under Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty, prohibition against arbitrary detention), and 6 (right to a fair trial) in the course of a criminal case: an allegation that he had ordered a murder for hire.

1. Before the ECHR, Ukraine's defense was that Grinenko's application for violation of Article 3 was inadmissible because he had not followed proper procedures for a complaint in the Ukrainian justice system. He had repeatedly mentioned his compliant in court proceedings, but had not filed the appropriate formal complaint with the authorities.

Relevance: Amanda complained of police mistreatment in court but apparently did not file the formal complaint required in Italy.

ECHR judgment: State authorities must take action whenever there is any credible allegation of mistreatment by State agents, and statements by an alleged victim in court are adequate to bring such allegations to the level of requiring an effective investigation. Failure of Ukraine to conduct an effective investigation was thus a violation of Convention Article 3. See para. 61-63.

The above is an excerpt from a 4-point post on http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3161. That post explores several parallels between the Grinenko case and Amanda's application to ECHR. The ECHR judged that Ukraine had violated Grinenko's Convention rights, including Article 6.1 with 6.3c, and I have no doubt that ECHR will also issue a judgment in Amanda's favor.
Click to expand...

Are you sure this is a parallel case? In which way? Facts here are as follows:

The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Kharkiv.

On 17 November 2004 I. and D.K. were arrested on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of V., a businessman working in Kharkiv. Both suspects were questioned. D.K. admitted his involvement in the crime and said that the applicant had initiated the plot and agreed to pay for the crime.

On 19 November 2004 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, I. and D.K. on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of V.

The investigative authorities submitted the following account of events. The applicant’s father and V. were business partners. The applicant was well acquainted with V. and persuaded him to enter into a deal with R. R. then swindled V., causing him serious financial damage. V. suspected the applicant of collusion with R., and their relationship seriously deteriorated. The applicant then decided to arrange the murder of V. For this purpose, the applicant met D.K., who lived in Kyiv and offered to assist him in arranging the murder of V. The applicant wired money to D.K. to buy a gun. D.K. started to look for a gun and an assassin to hire. He met I., who suggested that he speak to Yu.K. as a possible assassin. When they met, Yu.K. asked D.K. for information about V. and gave him a list of questions. The applicant provided some of the answers to D.K. He also gave D.K. some money to be transferred to Yu.K. After Yu.K. had received the information and the money, he refused to commit the murder and approached the law-enforcement authorities.

At about 11 p.m. on 20 November 2004 the police arrested the applicant at his apartment in Kharkiv, took him to the police station in Kharkiv and then escorted him to Kyiv (about 450 kilometres away).

During that night and the morning of 21 November 2004 the applicant was allegedly beaten by police officers to make him confess to the crime. According to the applicant, the police officers placed a gas mask over his head and blocked the access to air; they also hung him up by handcuffs fixed to his wrists. He had no access to a doctor in that period.

In the morning of 21 November 2004 the applicant’s father hired a lawyer from Kharkiv, N.B., to represent the applicant.

Between 8.10 a.m. and 11.05 a.m. on that date a police officer questioned the applicant as a witness in the case. The questioning was carried out without a lawyer. Before being questioned the applicant had been warned that refusing to give evidence and giving false evidence were criminal offences. At the same time he was apprised of Article 63 of the Constitution, which provides that a person is not liable for refusal to give evidence regarding himself or herself and his or her relatives.

During questioning the applicant admitted that he had asked D.K. to find someone who could murder V. in exchange for money. D.K. had answered in the affirmative and they had agreed a price and the terms. They later met in Kharkiv to inspect the locality. D.K. had taken part of the payment from the applicant. Subsequently, D.K. had been arrested and the plan to murder V. had fallen through.

After questioning, the applicant wrote a confession and submitted it to the police officer who had questioned him. According to the applicant, he wrote a confession, as dictated by a police officer, to avoid any further ill-treatment.


http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1939.html
 
Vixen said:
Are you sure this is a parallel case? In which way? Facts here are as follows:

The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Kharkiv.

On 17 November 2004 I. and D.K. were arrested on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of V., a businessman working in Kharkiv. Both suspects were questioned. D.K. admitted his involvement in the crime and said that the applicant had initiated the plot and agreed to pay for the crime.

On 19 November 2004 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, I. and D.K. on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of V.

The investigative authorities submitted the following account of events. The applicant’s father and V. were business partners. The applicant was well acquainted with V. and persuaded him to enter into a deal with R. R. then swindled V., causing him serious financial damage. V. suspected the applicant of collusion with R., and their relationship seriously deteriorated. The applicant then decided to arrange the murder of V. For this purpose, the applicant met D.K., who lived in Kyiv and offered to assist him in arranging the murder of V. The applicant wired money to D.K. to buy a gun. D.K. started to look for a gun and an assassin to hire. He met I., who suggested that he speak to Yu.K. as a possible assassin. When they met, Yu.K. asked D.K. for information about V. and gave him a list of questions. The applicant provided some of the answers to D.K. He also gave D.K. some money to be transferred to Yu.K. After Yu.K. had received the information and the money, he refused to commit the murder and approached the law-enforcement authorities.

At about 11 p.m. on 20 November 2004 the police arrested the applicant at his apartment in Kharkiv, took him to the police station in Kharkiv and then escorted him to Kyiv (about 450 kilometres away).

During that night and the morning of 21 November 2004 the applicant was allegedly beaten by police officers to make him confess to the crime. According to the applicant, the police officers placed a gas mask over his head and blocked the access to air; they also hung him up by handcuffs fixed to his wrists. He had no access to a doctor in that period.

In the morning of 21 November 2004 the applicant’s father hired a lawyer from Kharkiv, N.B., to represent the applicant.

Between 8.10 a.m. and 11.05 a.m. on that date a police officer questioned the applicant as a witness in the case. The questioning was carried out without a lawyer. Before being questioned the applicant had been warned that refusing to give evidence and giving false evidence were criminal offences. At the same time he was apprised of Article 63 of the Constitution, which provides that a person is not liable for refusal to give evidence regarding himself or herself and his or her relatives.

During questioning the applicant admitted that he had asked D.K. to find someone who could murder V. in exchange for money. D.K. had answered in the affirmative and they had agreed a price and the terms. They later met in Kharkiv to inspect the locality. D.K. had taken part of the payment from the applicant. Subsequently, D.K. had been arrested and the plan to murder V. had fallen through.

After questioning, the applicant wrote a confession and submitted it to the police officer who had questioned him. According to the applicant, he wrote a confession, as dictated by a police officer, to avoid any further ill-treatment.


http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1939.html
Click to expand...

How is this relevant to the point Numbers was making?
 
zotz said:
The good vs. evil line that the guilters want to hand us gives comfort to some people, probably including the Kerchers. For them, Amanda represents a malignant force that they believe in. It is a way to rationalize tragedy in a manner that makes sense to a moral person. The truth t
Mez died a meaningless death at the hands of a single, deranged individual leaves a cold, hollow feeling in our hearts. It makes no sense from a moral perspective. I think this is one of the strongest reasons for the appeal of the pro-guilt point of view. The problem with their theory is that anyone with common sense can tell that Amanda doesn't fit their description of an evil luciferina. No matter how many complaints they come up with about Amanda's behavior, mostly from people that didn't know her, no one has come up with a single instance of Amanda's hostility or even unfriendliness towards Mez or anyone else. It must have exasperated Mignini. You can tell in interviews, by his questions, that he really wanted to show Amanda's dark side. But it just isn't there.
Click to expand...


That is not the finding of the pathologist nor the courts.

The courts are fact and evidence based, and are nothing to do with abstract concepts of good and evil. Amanda's own defense did not argue psychopathology: mental illness or personality disorder.

As the forensic psychiatrist stated in the Sweat and Matt case, it is pointless trying to ascribe motive as their brains are wired differently.
 
Kauffer said:
Only after Amanda was imprisoned by Matteini, on p.96, does John Kercher write negatively about her: "We knew that Meredith had not got on with Knox. Meredith had expressed irritation to both Arline and I and her friends in Perugia at Knox's personal habits,...
Click to expand...

Kercher wrote this? I thought he was a journalist - you'd expect him to know the difference between a subject and an object.
 
MDDVS said:
How is this relevant to the point Numbers was making?
Click to expand...

Grinenko confessed to the crime he was guilty of? Police forcibly put a gasmask over his head, cut off his air supply and hung him up by the wrists with handcuffs, allegedly.

Are you claiming Amanda's treatment is on a par? Article 3: actual torture?

Under Article 3, a complaints process is not required.

Under Article 6, right to a fair trial (I can't see how it could have been fairer), does require a complaint lodged.

Is there any medical evidence?
 
Vixen said:
That is not the finding of the pathologist nor the courts.

The courts are fact and evidence based, and are nothing to do with abstract concepts of good and evil. Amanda's own defense did not argue psychopathology: mental illness or personality disorder.

As the forensic psychiatrist stated in the Sweat and Matt case, it is pointless trying to ascribe motive as their brains are wired differently.
Click to expand...

All but one expert who testified in this case agrees that Kercher's murder is consistent with a single attacker.

Additionally, the absence of any physical evidence against Amanda in Kercher's room rules her out. Similarly, an inconsistent appearance of Raffaele's sub-source DNA in a multiple mixed sample, without the presence of any other physical trace of him in the room, rules him out too.

I continue to challenge you to find one independent CSI or forensic scientist unconnected with the case who would be prepared to argue from the forensic evidence in this case that anyone other than Guede was present in the room with Kercher when she was killed. Not one, in eight years, has come forward to do so.
 
Vixen said:
Amanda waited an hour before replying and then followed it up just minutes later with yet another text.

As you know, the convention in text/letter/email is to await a reply before writing again, so you can see the desperation.
Click to expand...

Waited an hour then texted again? Are you sure?

The Text Messages: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Amanda-Knox-Text-Messages.pdf

Amanda: 19:59:39 Che fai stasera? Vuoi incontrare? Hai un costume?
Meredith: 20:04:53 Si ho un ma devo andare a casa di una amica per cena.che cosa e tuo programma? x
Amanda: 20:06:51 Vado alle chic per un po e dopo. chi sa? Forse ci vediamo? Mi chlama.
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
It is interesting to see the claims made about a person who it is alleged must have committed a violent, messy crime, when the physical evidence proves it impossible that the person was at the scene when the crime occurred and in fact proves the person was elsewhere during the victim's time of death. Not even one scratch or scrape on her her body, yet some people insist she had to be there so they can believe and disseminate nasty interpretations about the person.
Click to expand...

Do you think it is a fair fight for one person to have their arms wrenched behind their back and three against one, including two men? The infamous Joanna Dennehy also had male accessories, as did Myra Hindley and Rose West.

Are you sure Amanda had no injuries? A bright red scratch on her neck (hickies are bruises) and a lower earring wrenched off?

Why was Amanda bleeding on the night of the murder?
 
You're embarrassing yourself Vixen. Just stop. Forget everything you think you know about the case.....which is nothing anyways. Maybe start over by reading Murder in Italy by Candace Dempsey to get the overall jist of the facts then read the case files and trial transcripts and come back and debate in good faith.

And learn to provide citations when you make claims.
 
Vixen said:
Do you think it was "nice" to put up a card advertising Mez' room as vacant, using her date of death as the phone number?

I recognise that writing!
Click to expand...


That writing looks decidedly like my ex's, like my sister & brother in laws handwriting and REALLY like most other Italian relatives. Also, there is absolutely no way Amanda could have produced that note in perfect Italian. It IS in perfect Italian btw.
Just astounding that you posted this BS and worse, you actually believe it! Have to wonder if you are familiar with being/feeling embarrassed. If so, now is the time to have it kick in.
 
Vixen said:
Amanda waited an hour before replying and then followed it up just minutes later with yet another text.

As you know, the convention in text/letter/email is to await a reply before writing again, so you can see the desperation.
Click to expand...

No, you are dreadfully wrong. Amanda replies once to Meredith's reply to her. She does this within two minutes at just before 20:07.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Tables-of-Telephone-Activity.pdf

Why are you doing this, vixen? What are you trying to achieve?

There are no "text after text" activities.
 
Kauffer said:
All but one expert who testified in this case agrees that Kercher's murder is consistent with a single attacker.

Additionally, the absence of any physical evidence against Amanda in Kercher's room rules her out. Similarly, an inconsistent appearance of Raffaele's sub-source DNA in a multiple mixed sample, without the presence of any other physical trace of him in the room, rules him out too.

I continue to challenge you to find one independent CSI or forensic scientist unconnected with the case who would be prepared to argue from the forensic evidence in this case that anyone other than Guede was present in the room with Kercher when she was killed. Not one, in eight years, has come forward to do so.
Click to expand...


That's not true. That's misquoting by omission. Eleven experts agreed it was a multiple attack but concurred it was remotely possible it could be just one.

Profazio confirmed Raff's DNA on the bra clasp was a very strong sample.
 
MichaelB said:
Waited an hour then texted again? Are you sure?

The Text Messages: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Amanda-Knox-Text-Messages.pdf

Amanda: 19:59:39 Che fai stasera? Vuoi incontrare? Hai un costume?
Meredith: 20:04:53 Si ho un ma devo andare a casa di una amica per cena.che cosa e tuo programma? x
Amanda: 20:06:51 Vado alle chic per un po e dopo. chi sa? Forse ci vediamo? Mi chlama.
Click to expand...

Mez' text was circa 19:00. You have got the sequence wrong. At 20:00-ish:-


“What are you doing this evening? Want to meet up? Got a costume?”[ 1] The staccato questions came on the heels of repeated texts which reflected the urgency Amanda felt to be part of Meredith’s party. With no immediate response, Amanda texted again a few minutes later, “I’m going to Le Chic and after who knows? Maybe we’ll meet up? Call me.”Now the doubt had really started to set in—”who knows”and “maybe we’ll meet up.”Amanda was pleading.

From Andrew Hodges As Done Unto You
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Grinenko confessed to the crime he was guilty of? Police forcibly put a gasmask over his head, cut off his air supply and hung him up by the wrists with handcuffs, allegedly.

Are you claiming Amanda's treatment is on a par? Article 3: actual torture?

Under Article 3, a complaints process is not required.

Under Article 6, right to a fair trial (I can't see how it could have been fairer), does require a complaint lodged.

Is there any medical evidence?
Click to expand...

You just don't understand the European Convention or the court's jurisprudence. Being struck by a police officer in an interrogation is an Article 3 violation.

Article 6 concerns - right to a fair trial - extend to the period before the trial takes place and includes the circumstances of interrogations.

Amanda had a right to a lawyer, a right to silence , an independent interpreter. There is prolific case law on these points. The narrow basis for limitation of these rights, for example when national security concerns might prevail, do not apply here.

Moreover, Amanda's compelled statements were the sole basis of her calunnia conviction. This is a further violation of Article 6.

Go and do some reading.
 
Numbers said:
Ken Dine,

You've done a good analysis here.

The problem with the view expressed that Giobbi was puffing about planning to call both in, is that that is not all that he said. He also said that he planned to have the police conduct the interrogations of both at "the same time" (which, again for the literalists, doesn't mean "simultaneously" as in some physics experiment, but in the way police break the alibis of alleged conspirators, questioning one to get a breakdown, then confronting the other). And that is exactly what the police did. And there was no "innocent" reason for the police to "invite" Amanda from the corridor where she was attempting to do homework into an interrogation room. She had already been interviewed, and she had not come to the station intending to give a statement about Lumumba or anyone else.

ETA: It's been suggested by others, specifically pmop on IIP forum, that the reason the police scolded Amanda for being at the station was not that they actually objected to her being there, but that they used the scolding as a method of psychological pressure. They also likely knew that Amanda was dependent on Raffaele, then in an interrogation room, for transportation (he had an Audi), especially at night, and that she had become frightened since Meredith's body had been discovered. After, Amanda's bedroom was next to that of Meredith's, her new friend as well as flat-mate.
Click to expand...

I don't think for a second anyone would take Giobbi seriously if he weren't saying something which seemed to support their existing theory. We have proof that he lied on another occasion for the exact reason he lied here; there's testimony which contradicts him from everyone else involved in the interrogations, the police and Amanda and Raffaele and the police. Why believe this bloviating liar over everybody else?

Personally I think the cops were getting a bit desperate after Hicham Khiri's alibi came through. They had Raffaele saying he brought a knife to the police station and that the cops were stupid, and thought they had a lead, so called him in (that's why Raffaele himself thinks he was called in). Then they found Amanda text message and it confluence their hunch... Tired, inexperienced cops under a lot of pressure. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom