Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Skeptic Ginger]

IMO you were vindicated on the first page of the first thread when nobody advocating guilt could put together a simple coherent narrative of the crime involving all three alleged perpetrators consistent with a plausible reality and at least loosely conforming to the available facts. Such a feat has still yet to be accomplished, 100,000 posts later.

 

[Numbers]

The Marasca CSC panel MR did mention Amanda's calunnia conviction and in fact justified it, IIUC. The MR also seemed to indicate no revision was possible even if ECHR ruled in Amanda's favor. (I am relying on a very rough Google translation for this.)

By addressing Amanda's calunnia conviction explicitly, and re-justifying it, the Marasca CSC panel MR has become a document relevant to the ECHR case. (Alternatively, the MR could simply have stated that the CSC had previously ruled on the matter and the Marasca panel did not have the authority to change that ruling.)

What are the implications, if any, for the ECHR for the calunnia conviction review in this Marasca panel MR?

Perhaps, if (or, better, when) the ECHR judges in Amanda's favor, the ECHR will unfavorably criticize that part of the CSC MR. But are there other opinions on the effect on the calunnia ECHR case of this section of the Marasca panel MR?

Looking into the original Italian a bit more, I see that the MR actually refers, at least where I was looking (page 20, section 2.2), to the European Court of Justice, an EU court that is not primarily a human rights court as is the ECHR (a Council of Europe court). I think in that section the MR makes some false statements about the alleged calunnia - for example, IIUC, stating that Amanda had repeated statements against Lumumba at the hearing before the GIP, and that a memoriale was a restatement of allegations against Lumumba. Even if, for the sake of argument, a memoriale were to be interpreted as a restatement against Lumumba, both memoriales were written by Amanda while she was in custody and with no access to the counsel of a lawyer. Therefore, according to ECHR case-law, Dayanan v. Turkey and Salduz v. Turkey, they can't be used against her; she was unaware of her rights.

ETA: In terms of the effect of the MR on the calunnia case when it comes before the ECHR, I suspect that the ECHR will compare the MR to the record of the actual events and find that the MR is not fully accurate, and that its reaffirmation of the calunnia conviction is as unfair as the Chieffi CSC panel calunnia conviction.

 

[Samson]

They did not upheld the calunnia charge: that was done by the Chieffi court.
The Bruno Marasca panel emphasized that guilt of calunnia is certain and cannot be questioned.



"Their" who? Bruno & Marasca have an integrity? Maybe they have some sense of justice, and since they understand Knox is guilty, they may have felt the need to pay some respect to this feeling.



Impossible to know for certain. We may even assume they just didn't want to call two guilty people "innocent", they bent to political pressure but set a kind of limit to their corruption.
Once could even imagine other factors, like avoid collision with Chieffi and Hellmann's calunnia finding, or maybe were just trying to cobble together something that looked "logical" or "moderate".

Machiavelli what was the nature of the political pressure? Was it the Italian government responding to pressure from the USA state department, and instructing the judges accordingly?

 

[Bill Williams]

The Bruno Marasca report is taking this way itself, with no need of external help. This is just what's written in the report.
I even posted pictures of the pages.
You don't trust your own lying eyes?

If you don't mind, Machiavelli, I don't trust your interpretation of things. As Annella said, you need to put your claims within the larger framework.....

I wonder how Machiavelli reconciles the Supreme Court stating that Knox and Sollecito "should have been excluded from having participated in the murder'' given the evidence!

You are the only one in Italy taking things this way. Why should I trust you when no other Italian sees it the way you do?

And once more, how is Mignini doing, being publicly humiliated like this? You should read the Italian news accounts. They're all, apparently, Pro-Knox shills.

 

[Caper]

Machiavelli = Jim Fetzer

 

[Ammonitida]

Reality:
4) the SC say anyway it is a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when the murder was committed (!)
6) the SC even points out Knox washed her hands in Meredith's blood
7) the SC report is contradictory, makes a series of factually false statmements and states series of legal idiocies.

Yeah, those false statements are number 4) and 6). That's what you're referring to, right?

Did we expect any better from the same court that inexplicably overturned Hellmann?

The Hellmann motivation is now the final word on the case (that is, two love birds maliciously persecuted by evil Mignini and his police cronies). The rest are to be forgotten.

 

[Matthew Best]

Reality:

4) the SC say anyway it is a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when the murder was committed (!)

6) the SC even points out Knox washed her hands in Meredith's blood

I think I'll wait for someone with a greater commitment to truthfulness to translate the motivation before taking these statements as gospel.

But if they turn out to be correct, there's always this:

7) the SC report is contradictory, makes a series of factually false statmements and states series of legal idiocies.

 

[zotz]

But there may be one mistake at the background: that is to assume that the Supreme Court is credible as for making "fact finding".
But in fact the Cassazione 5th section wrote a list of attacks against "investigation" which is just a series of rhetoric slogans (which is in fact the series of defensive and media slogans), against witnesses etc. While Cassazione has no power nor means to do assessments of facts in the merit: they are not in a position to say whether Quintavalle is reliable for example, or if it was a good or bad idea to calculate time of death. It's surreal for the SC to put on themselves judgements on things they didn't deal with.
I'm not sure people here really grasp how barmy and absurd this SC motivation report is. I don't think they even grasp the eregious contradictions.

This is the point I made when Nencini declared both Guede and Curatolo to be credible when he didn't hear either in person. Hellmann actually heard them give testimony on the stand. Quintavalle contradicted himself so many times that he became an embarrassment. How is it that you are unaware that taking the murder victim's body temperature is basic police procedure? How is it possible that you (and Mignini) don't know that?

Please Mach, tell us about how the President of Italy is going to reverse the Cassation ruling. I think I heard PQ say that. We need a good laugh!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Reading this news summary of the Court's report, assuming it's accurate, they can't seem to let go of the signed confession. It's hard for people to realize how false confessions occur. It's too bad, it leaves a cloud for the pro-guilt crowd to hang on to.

Instead of saying there was no evidence and leaving it at that, the court report suggests the lack of evidence was due to shoddy police work. They don't consider the confession was false even when they convicted Knox of falsely accusing Lumumba in the same confession. That's cherry picking which part of the confession was false as if no one would ever falsely admit to charges against themselves.

It also seems to be the thing Machiavelli is clinging to as evidence Knox was there when the murder occurred even though that's absurdly unlikely.

The problem of false confessions, like the problem of unreliable eye-witnesses needs more publicity.

 

[acbytesla]

Well I was mostly referring to the pro guilt posters. In fact reading through the first 10 pages or so that poster and a couple others continually bring up a point that to this day has never been truly addressed by the pro guilt crowd, which is what is a coherent narrative of the crime that involves both Knox and Sollecito plus Guede. Guede's involvement is cemented by the evidence, but a narrative involving Knox never accounts for him in a way that makes sense, why was he invited, how did Knox coordinate meeting with him, what were his actions? Why did Knox stab her roommate in front of this stranger? Why did this stranger sexually assault a woman he just saw stabbed to death? Guede's presence in the pro guilt narratives is always ethereal and elusive. He's more like a painting incidentally hanging on the wall while Knox engages in her devilry.

I originally thought they were guilty. But I was never locked into that position. Just that the police don't arrest people and charge them with murder without compelling evidence. At least that was what I thought.

It was only after reading a bunch of nonsense articles did that nagging suspicion that made me think that something wasn't right. Still, it was only after a couple of years and hanging in the shadows at TJMK, PM, IA and here did it hit me that this was all bull.

If only there was some credible evidence. Your summary Bagels is dead on why this case is nonsense.

 

[zotz]

Reading this news summary of the Court's report, assuming it's accurate, they can't seem to let go of the signed confession. It's hard for people to realize how false confessions occur. It's too bad, it leaves a cloud for the pro-guilt crowd to hang on to.

Instead of saying there was no evidence and leaving it at that, the court report suggests the lack of evidence was due to shoddy police work. They don't consider the confession was false even when they convicted Knox of falsely accusing Lumumba in the same confession. That's cherry picking which part of the confession was false as if no one would ever falsely admit to charges against themselves.

It also seems to be the thing Machiavelli is clinging to as evidence Knox was there when the murder occurred even though that's absurdly unlikely.

The problem of false confessions, like the problem of unreliable eye-witnesses needs more publicity.

When people say that an innocent person would not accuse someone falsely I think of the McMartin preschool trial. Here is some of the testimony that was seriously considered-

"It was alleged that, in addition to having been sexually abused, they saw witches fly, traveled in a hot-air balloon, and were taken through underground tunnels. When shown a series of photographs by Danny Davis (the McMartins' lawyer), one child identified actor Chuck Norris as one of the abusers. Some of the abuse was alleged to have occurred in secret tunnels beneath the school. "

Of course Amanda was not a child but she was a naive adult suffering from stress and exhaustion. The point is if someone is put under enough stress they can be pressured to say what the interrogators want to hear. This is what I was hoping that the Supreme Court would acknowledge, apparently they didn't.

 

[Mike1711]

Reality:
1) the Supreme Court does not make fact finding, and may not find people "innocent" or "guilty";
2) the Supreme Court (5th section) never suggests Knox is innocent; on the contrary only states "reasonable doubt";
3) quite on the contrary, also they emphasize that there can't be any possible question about the fact that she is guilty of calunnia
4) the SC say anyway it is a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when the murder was committed (!)
5) at least five times the report states there is anyway serious evidence against Knox and Sollecito, leading to "strong suspicion" on them
6) the SC even points out Knox washed her hands in Meredith's blood
7) the SC report is contradictory, makes a series of factually false statmements and states series of legal idiocies.

Item 1 - Clearly you are wrong as they just DID.
Item 2 - Clearly you are wrong as they say SHE WASN'T THERE.
Item 3 - On hold pending European ruling
item 4 - Nonsense. It is said that even if RS and AK were in the cottage (and they could've been there in the same way the Loch Ness Monster COULD exist), they did NOT commit murder or in no way are accessories to murder.
Item 5 - Nonsense you interpretations are deliberately distorting of reality.
Item 6 - Utter nonsense.
Item 7 - Nonsense it is your convoluted and biased interpretation which is contradictory and false.

It will be shown that your "translation" and deliberate omissions like the word "could" in "could have been at the house" where the word "could" is as vitally important in this context as it would be in a sentence stating that I "COULD" be an astronaut. Yes I could....its a one in a trillion shot, but the fact is I could. It's legal writing for saying no more than this....
Even if the two could have been at the house (despite the zero evidence) THEY DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME!
......and that is why your jaundiced bias works against your integrity. It is far better to disagree in an honest way than to lose credibility by deliberately "translating" selectively to create an interpretation not written.

 

[Planigale]

Reality:
1) the Supreme Court does not make fact finding, and may not find people "innocent" or "guilty";
2) the Supreme Court (5th section) never suggests Knox is innocent; on the contrary only states "reasonable doubt";
3) quite on the contrary, also they emphasize that there can't be any possible question about the fact that she is guilty of calunnia
4) the SC say anyway it is a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when the murder was committed (!)
5) at least five times the report states there is anyway serious evidence against Knox and Sollecito, leading to "strong suspicion" on them
6) the SC even points out Knox washed her hands in Meredith's blood
7) the SC report is contradictory, makes a series of factually false statmements and states series of legal idiocies.

Mach I thought the Italian constitution said that an individual was innocent until conviction was confirmed by cassation. Since this has not happened for the murder Sollecito and Knox are innocent according to Italian law?

 

[Planigale]

Reading this news summary of the Court's report, assuming it's accurate, they can't seem to let go of the signed confession. It's hard for people to realize how false confessions occur. It's too bad, it leaves a cloud for the pro-guilt crowd to hang on to.

Instead of saying there was no evidence and leaving it at that, the court report suggests the lack of evidence was due to shoddy police work. They don't consider the confession was false even when they convicted Knox of falsely accusing Lumumba in the same confession. That's cherry picking which part of the confession was false as if no one would ever falsely admit to charges against themselves.

It also seems to be the thing Machiavelli is clinging to as evidence Knox was there when the murder occurred even though that's absurdly unlikely.

The problem of false confessions, like the problem of unreliable eye-witnesses needs more publicity.

Yes. The defence could perhaps have made a much more robust case about this. There is a great deal of good quality psychological research on this. Mach fails to understand that an idea implanted is by definition persistent. The result of the implanting of the ideas by the police would persist resulting in the written memorial subsequently produced by Knox. It shows the clear features of someone trying to resolve two conflicting 'truths'.

I think the defence may have legitimately decided to focus on the more serious crime.

I do suspect that even if the defence show that the style of interrogation has a high risk of inducing false memories, that the police introduced 'facts' into the interrogation this would not have influenced the result. Knox did shout out something to the effect of "he did it", and these three words may be sufficient to form the basis of the case for callunia. Being 'weak minded' would not be an excuse for committing a crime.

However, Mach says a key feature of the crime of callunia is that it has to be malicious. This very much comes to the intent and state of mind of Knox. This is where the truth of the psychological science comes in, in that it is clear that with no malicious intent on the part of the subject inappropriate interrogation techniques can induce memories of non-existent events on the part of the subject. I am certain that the malicious intent should completely fail.

It should be remembered Knox could not know for certain if Lumuba was innocent or guilty. She was not present when the crime was committed, she was not with Lumumba when the crime was committed. She never said she saw Lumumba committing a crime. What she actually did was place him at the time and place of the crime.

 

[codyjuneau]

More Machiavelli tweets from calunnia trial.

Mignini spoke for 2 hours and confirmed that he arrived at 3am after the interrogation had ended. He asked no questions.

He framed the situation in law. Prosecutor just listened.

.
Excellent, Mignini can't keep his stories straight for 10 minutes let alone 2 hours.

Cody
.

 

[Samson]

This report seems very helpful to Rudy Guede. It obfuscates by suggesting other participants were present.
Rudy can now live in his mind with the following facts
1. The Kercher family think he is ok.
2. He allowed the Italian system to imprison for four years and almost imprison for 25 two people he alone is possessed of stone cold certainty of factual innocence.
3. He will soon be on work release with a history degree (question mark).
Absolutely disgraceful at every level.

 

[anglolawyer]

I doubt very much 'the Kercher family think [Guede's] OK'.

 

[Strozzi]

Machiavelli what was the nature of the political pressure? Was it the Italian government responding to pressure from the USA state department, and instructing the judges accordingly?

The US Government has never commented publicly on guilt or innocence in the Knox case. It is neutral on the matter. If it is widly or loudly claimed in Italy that the US Government interferred with (pressured) the Government of Italy to arrive at a certain verdict related to Knox, the US Government may finally be forced to take a public position. It could be forced to publicly address any allegation accusing the US Government of tampering in the matter. Will the US Embassy in Rome merely deny pressuring the Italian Government on this issue or will the Embassy go further and comment on the evidence or the quality of the police and prosecution investigation - that is the question.

If Italian guilters become very loud in accusing the US Government of influencing the verdict, the US Government may take action guilters really don't want them to take. The US Government could sponsor more interchanges between US forensic experts and their Italian counterparts. They may offer training in US forensic labs to Italian police officials. It could in the long run become more difficult for unprofessional Italian police or prosecutors to skew DNA evidence if more Italian scientists, journalists, or judges are better informed about forensic DNA.

The Italian Supreme Court's release of its motivation report is front-page news in the US. Yesterday (Monday) was a holiday in the US - Labor Day. Today (Tuesday) people return to work. I expect reporters asking questions of senior government officiaks at press conferences at the White House, Department of State, and Department of Justice to ask senior officials about the findings publicly released in the Italian Supreme Court's motivation report.

I also expect political candidates to be asked about their views. Perhaps Trump will publicly reiterate his earlier statement made 3 years ago that Knox is innocent. Perhaps he will publicly call the Italian police investigation and the prosecution corrupt. That would be headline material.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, having been US Secretary of State while Amanda was tried, wrongfully convicted, and imprisoned for four years for a crime she did not commit, will surely in front of media cameras be asked about it and will be asked to explain herself. What did you do, Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State to protect this innocent American in this Italian show trial?

Stay tuned! More US news coverage to follow.

 

[Samson]

I doubt very much 'the Kercher family think [Guede's] OK'.

Anglolawyer, it is in the public record that Mrs Kercher would like to talk to Rudy Guede.
It is in the public record that John Kercher senior refuses to talk to Amanda Knox because he has "heard all that rubbish before".
And in the public record that Stephanie Kercher says "we do not read those books" (those of Knox and Sollecito)".
Therefore my statement stands, but I regard it as fertile ground for debating the roles occupied by police and prosecutors in destroying the fabric of society when they pursue innocent citizens.
Sorry for being ponderous, but it is vital to circle these thugs.

 

[carbonjam72]

Presumption of Innocence & the principle of 'Reasonable Doubt'

But the trial of Rudy Guede is not sealed. Its papers have been available to the public for five years now. We also have some hearings on themurderofmeredithkercher.com site, including Stefanoni's hearing.

Mach, do you have any links to trial records from Guede's case? Interviews, trial transcripts, etc)?

Also, it seems that cassation had the same 'monolith' that you and we all experienced as well. Namely, that the complete absence of evidence against Knox and Sollecito in the room where Meredith was killed, makes it impossible to believe they participated in the crime, when there was so much evidence pointing only to Rudy Guede.

I would point out in particular, only Rudy's foot prints in Meredith's wet blood.

Your solution to this 'monolith' was that Amanda and Raf "immediately ran out of the room" after stabbing Meredith. Most people here, and now ISC, have interpreted this absence of evidence as proof they did not participate in the crime.

Do you think cassation was hasty in rejecting your analysis that Amanda and Raf, "immediately ran out of the room" after stabbing Meredith? Or would you now agree that your scenario disregards the presumption of innocence and the principle of reasonable doubt?