Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Ours is not a case of unrecorded detention, Numbers.

If I understand the Fartushin case, the ECHR is making the point that Fartushin went to the police station in response to his being called by telephone to appear there as a witness, and his entry was logged in as a witness.

After an amount of time (about 30 hours) in which he was interrogated without a lawyer and without being read his rights (not told he had the right to remain silent), and subject to inhuman and degrading treatment, his status was changed to "suspect" and the detention continued.

The Article 5 violation in the Fartushin case, IIUC, is that he was detained falsely as a witness when he should have been termed a "suspect" from the beginning and provided the rights of a suspect.

 

[anglolawyer]

If I understand the Fartushin case, the ECHR is making the point that Fartushin went to the police station in response to his being called by telephone to appear there as a witness, and his entry was logged in as a witness.

After an amount of time (about 30 hours) in which he was interrogated without a lawyer and without being read his rights (not told he had the right to remain silent), and subject to inhuman and degrading treatment, his status was changed to "suspect" and the detention continued.

The Article 5 violation in the Fartushin case, IIUC, is that he was detained falsely as a witness when he should have been termed a "suspect" from the beginning and provided the rights of a suspect.

Thank you. So how are you relating that case to this one? That case lacks the twist that, during the detention, something happened that could arguably be said to have altered his status. Maybe there is something in the report about that.

 

[Numbers]

Thank you. So how are you relating that case to this one? That case lacks the twist that, during the detention, something happened that could arguably be said to have altered his status. Maybe there is something in the report about that.

If the ECHR accepts Giobbi's testimony, then the police intent was for Amanda and Raffaele to both be subjected to questioning - and she in particular was suspected of involvement in the murder by Giobbi. Giobbi had formed or supported the opinion that the breakin was staged, based on professional police opinion, and Amanda had a key, and, in his opinion, the weakest alibi. There is no reason for the ECHR to not take his testimony on this aspect at face value; he was a top-ranking police officer specially assigned to the case.

There is a difference in the Fartushin case in that the police "forgot" he was in their custody, and claimed he was arrested on the street on the day after he was brought in for questioning. However, there apparently was no indication he had been logged out of questioning as a witness, and he had witnesses who claimed he had not been released. So there are some differences.

ETA: 49. The {Russian} Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 5. ----- That is, Russia agreed that the police had violated the Convention in their detention procedures.

 

[Strozzi]

Also unexplained, is if Amanda did indeed inflict the death blow to Meredith while she was being restrained by Guede and Raffaele, is how the blood spurting from that fatal neck wound managed to MAGICALLY pass through Amanda's body when Meredith aspirated blood spray on the wall and wardrobe closet from that fatal blow? Since Amanda didn't have a spot of blood on her, nor did she leave any evidence of herself behind in Meredith's bedroom, I guess the only logical conclusion is that Amanda is indeed a witch?

If she isn't a witch who had used magic that night to evade the CCTV cameras and all the blood (etc), then Amanda clearly isn't guilty.

The fact referred to in my yellow-highlighting above - that aspirated blood sprayed on the wall from the mortal neck wound (with nobody in between) is consistent with Meredith's attacker being behind her, not in front of her.

Vixen recently referred to the absence of (attacker) DNA under Meredith's fingernails, which Vixen interprets to mean that Meredith must have been attacked/restrained by multiple attackers. Vixen also recently pointed out that Meredith's arms were wrenched backwards. In response, I pointed out that both of those facts - no DNA under Meredith's fingernails and her arms wrenched backwards - are consistent with Rudi having gotten behind her.

It is obvious that Meredith was attacked/grabbed/stabbed/held from behind. For if he was in front of her, Meredith would have gotten a piece of him - she would have scratched or clawed him.

 

[Ken Dine]

Also unexplained, is if Amanda did indeed inflict the death blow to Meredith while she was being restrained by Guede and Raffaele, is how the blood spurting from that fatal neck wound managed to MAGICALLY pass through Amanda's body when Meredith aspirated blood spray on the wall and wardrobe closet from that fatal blow?

The fact referred to in my yellow-highlighting above - that aspirated blood sprayed on the wall from the mortal neck wound (with nobody in between) is consistent with Meredith's attacker being behind her, not in front of her.

I agree that Guede had attacked Meredith from behind, but the prosecution's theory was that Guede and Raffaele had held Meredith while Amanda slit her throat from the front, as depicted in Mignini's re-enactment cartoon.

With both Guede and Raffaele holding Meredith from behind (or even from the side), it doesn't seem likely that Amanda could have squeezed in there to attack Meredith from behind.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the prosecution's re-enactment theory.

Vixen recently referred to the absence of (attacker) DNA under Meredith's fingernails, which Vixen interprets to mean that Meredith must have been attacked/restrained by multiple attackers. Vixen also recently pointed out that Meredith's arms were wrenched backwards. In response, I pointed out that both of those facts - no DNA under Meredith's fingernails and her arms wrenched backwards - are consistent with Rudi having gotten behind her.

I generally agree, except that I'm not so sure Guede would have had to wrench Meredith's arms backwards as he went for her throat.

It is obvious that Meredith was attacked/grabbed/stabbed/held from behind. For if he was in front of her, Meredith would have gotten a piece of him - she would have scratched or clawed him.

Personally, I feel that Guede fairly quickly had stuck his pen-knife into Meredith's neck (from behind), which would have quickly taken the fight right out of her.

Neither Ron Goldman nor Nicole Brown Simpson had managed to scratch OJ Simpson as Simpson slaughtered both of those adults with a knife, and probably OJ had attacked them both from the front.

Likely, OJ walked up to them smiling with the knife behind him, and when he got close enough he struck Ron Goldman first, which took the fight out of Ron. OJ's shocked ex-wife was likely frozen with fear, so he stabbed her next. The attack didn't take very long.

Despite being in a condo complex in close proximity to many neighbors, no neighbor heard any screaming or shouting from Simpson's victims.

The only trace of Simpson left at the condo crime scene were the bloody sole prints of Simpson's Bruno Magli shoes. Simpson denied owning Italian Bruno Magli shoes (rather rare in the USA), but then later they found video of Simpson at a USC football game wearing his Bruno Magli shoes.

 

[Dougm]

I agree that Guede had attacked Meredith from behind, but the prosecution's theory was that Guede and Raffaele had held Meredith while Amanda slit her throat from the front, as depicted in Mignini's re-enactment cartoon.

With both Guede and Raffaele holding Meredith from behind (or even from the side), it doesn't seem likely that Amanda could have squeezed in there to attack Meredith from behind.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the prosecution's re-enactment theory.




I generally agree, except that I'm not so sure Guede would have had to wrench Meredith's arms backwards as he went for her throat.




Personally, I feel that Guede fairly quickly had stuck his pen-knife into Meredith's neck (from behind), which would have quickly taken the fight right out of her.

Neither Ron Goldman nor Nicole Brown Simpson had managed to scratch OJ Simpson as Simpson slaughtered both of those adults with a knife, and probably OJ had attacked them both from the front.

Likely, OJ walked up to them smiling with the knife behind him, and when he got close enough he struck Ron Goldman first, which took the fight out of Ron. OJ's shocked ex-wife was likely frozen with fear, so he stabbed her next. The attack didn't take very long.

Despite being in a condo complex in close proximity to many neighbors, no neighbor heard any screaming or shouting from Simpson's victims.

The only trace of Simpson left at the condo crime scene were the bloody sole prints of Simpson's Bruno Magli shoes. Simpson denied owning Italian Bruno Magli shoes (rather rare in the USA), but then later they found video of Simpson at a USC football game wearing his Bruno Magli shoes.

Someone (I believe someone working for the defense) did a reenactment of Meredith's murder several years ago, around the time of the first instance trial. He showed how the killer likely grabbed Meredith across the face/mouth from behind, holding her face with one hand, and stabbing her with the other. It's consistent with the bruises and wounds, and would have been an efffective way to control her, kill her, and not have her be able to scratch the killer with her nails.

We'll never know, but the most likely scenario to me is that Guede had her in this fashion from behind, was threatening her and controlling her, and she either screamed, kicked, or both, and he stabbed to stop the screaming. Just speculation of course, but the reenactment showed how easy it would be for him to have committed the murder from behind.

PS -- Re: the Bruno Magli shoes. OJ told the cops he never would have owned "those ugly ass shoes". Too bad he forgot about the magic of video recording!

 

[Grinder]

Someone (I believe someone working for the defense) did a reenactment of Meredith's murder several years ago, around the time of the first instance trial. He showed how the killer likely grabbed Meredith across the face/mouth from behind, holding her face with one hand, and stabbing her with the other. It's consistent with the bruises and wounds, and would have been an efffective way to control her, kill her, and not have her be able to scratch the killer with her nails.

We'll never know, but the most likely scenario to me is that Guede had her in this fashion from behind, was threatening her and controlling her, and she either screamed, kicked, or both, and he stabbed to stop the screaming. Just speculation of course, but the reenactment showed how easy it would be for him to have committed the murder from behind.

PS -- Re: the Bruno Magli shoes. OJ told the cops he never would have owned "those ugly ass shoes". Too bad he forgot about the magic of video recording!

Hendry the accident reconstruction engineer (usually car crashes) is who you are thinking of.

Interesting that the proof of his owning those shoes was a photo-shopped video of him on the sidelines . Seriously, strange they didn't find where he had bought them.

Of course, the jury saw through the police misconduct and declared him innocent (para #1 ).

The other option to prevent defensive wounds and wounds to the attacker(s) would be?

It's almost as if Rudi read Hendry's work before the murder.

 

[Dougm]

Hendry the accident reconstruction engineer (usually car crashes) is who you are thinking of.

Interesting that the proof of his owning those shoes was a photo-shopped video of him on the sidelines . Seriously, strange they didn't find where he had bought them.

Of course, the jury saw through the police misconduct and declared him innocent (para #1 ).

The other option to prevent defensive wounds and wounds to the attacker(s) would be?

It's almost as if Rudi read Hendry's work before the murder.

Ah Grinder, you are usually much more precise than this! I fear the vagueness of my post led you astray.

No, it was not Ron Hendry that I was thinking of -- there was a guy that made a video of it that I personally thought was pretty compelling, at least at the time. Given that the case is over and we all have been discussing it for years, I have gotten lazy tracking stuff down, but will look to see if I can find it.

Re: OJ. Don't recall the photoshopped image the cops had of him in the shoes, but I DO recall that they found the guy at Nordstrom, who testified he sold OJ Bruno Magli's! But that is off topic.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah Grinder, you are usually much more precise than this! I fear the vagueness of my post led you astray.

No, it was not Ron Hendry that I was thinking of -- there was a guy that made a video of it that I personally thought was pretty compelling, at least at the time. Given that the case is over and we all have been discussing it for years, I have gotten lazy tracking stuff down, but will look to see if I can find it.

Re: OJ. Don't recall the photoshopped image the cops had of him in the shoes, but I DO recall that they found the guy at Nordstrom, who testified he sold OJ Bruno Magli's! But that is off topic.

Speaking off topic, one of the things entered at the OJ trial as evidence was a photo of Simpson in a suit, midstride, in a suit and those shoes crossing the endzone of a football field.

The endzone had been painted in the home team colours, so that tthe paint-surface almost perfectly reflected the tread of the shoe - as the foot was raised.....

The dream team of lawyers brought in a photo "expert" to prove that the photo had been faked; therefore useless as evidence.

I cannot remember if there were others, but a key witness they presented was Robert Groden, the guy who first brought the Zapruder film (JFK assassination) to the Geraldo show in 1975. That was the first time the Z. film had been seen in public.

After that Groden marketed himself as a photo expert. But he was destroyed at the OJ trial on cross-examination when he revealed he once worked in a photo lab as a technician - the limit of his expertise.

 

[Numbers]

ECHR case: TURBYLEV v. RUSSIA 4722/09 06/10/2015

In this case, the ECHR found that Russia in its police and judicial procedures had violated the Convention rights of Turbylev, who was suspected, charged, and convicted of robbing a jewelry store along with others.

The Convention articles violated were Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment, substantive and procedural) and Article 6.1 with 6.3c (conviction based on a confession coerced during an interrogation without a lawyer).

This case illustrates strong features of ECHR jurisprudence: its consistent conformance to precedence, and it adaptation to new cases with new facts to expand precedence. A new feature in this case was that the Russian police coerced Turbylev to sign a "voluntary" statement of "surrender and confession" during the initial interrogation and mistreatment (which included medically observable injuries to his head, back, and knees; he was punched, kicked, and his head slammed into a wall). On the day after giving this statement, and his first interrogation in the presence of his lawyer Turbylev repudiated the statement of surrender and confession, stating that he had made it because of coercion and mistreatment.

The statement of surrender and confession has a special status under Russian procedural law, in that it is accepted as a confession by the suspect without a lawyer's counsel. It may be somewhat parallel to the "spontaneous statement" encountered in Italian procedural law in the AK - RS case. There are similarities in the abuse of Italian procedural laws in the justifications by the Italian courts of their use of Amanda Knox's interrogation statements and statements during her custody without a lawyer in her conviction for calunnia of Patrick Lumumba.

However, the ECHR did not accept in the Turbylev case that the statement of surrender and confession was voluntary, nor did it accept that it was a knowing and valid waiver of legal counsel.

For more information on this case, see:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3162
or the ECHR HUDOC database.

 

[Methos]

[...]

No, it was not Ron Hendry that I was thinking of -- there was a guy that made a video of it that I personally thought was pretty compelling, at least at the time. Given that the case is over and we all have been discussing it for years, I have gotten lazy tracking stuff down, but will look to see if I can find it.

[...]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5rTyO_TsjA
from 1:13 min.

 

[analemma]

That monster "eluoH ziL" (Reversing this to prevent a google match) has a really inaccurate recent article in the "renimaxE" that condemns the work of Innocence projects in general and the case at the top of this forum in general.
I think that I will use reversals in my posts for the crackpots and liars and their publican to prevent google hits on the forum.
DO NOT CLICK THIS ARTICLE: I would not want it to get popular on the search engines, since it it basically a bunch of lies.
This b*tch seems to think that everyone is guilty of everything and the police and prosecutors have gods word emanating from their rear ends.
Basically, it says that the Innocense Projects are groups of money hungry lawyers who just want to get murders and criminals out of jail.
She sites a bogus study by a couple of crackpots and some off the wall statements by a hanging judge to support her attacks.
Joseph Goebbels would have been proud to write this article about the "dangers of reasonable doubt".
Stay away from this article.
Analemma

 

[Grinder]

After that Groden marketed himself as a photo expert. But he was destroyed at the OJ trial on cross-examination when he revealed he once worked in a photo lab as a technician - the limit of his expertise.

That would make him Dr. Groden.

 

[Grinder]

From the Italian Vanity Fair:

Do you regret to have known Amanda? "Well, I would say no. These are questions that one arises. Basically Amanda made ​​enough stupid mistakes, but not the main cause of all that I have lived. If the guardians of justice had been more professional, the story would be very different. " Even today, after the final acquittal, some people have doubts, some say that, after all, on a knife and on the clasp of the bra Meredith was his DNA. "The forensic science has completely disregarded any scientific methodology on the collection, repertazione and DNA analysis. It was all very rough and led to contradictory results that have no relationship to reality.

Bill any idea what he means about Amanda making mistakes?

 

[Grinder]

However, the ECHR did not accept in the Turbylev case that the statement of surrender and confession was voluntary, nor did it accept that it was a knowing and valid waiver of legal counsel.

For more information on this case, see:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3162
or the ECHR HUDOC database.

Perhaps I've missed it, but are there any cases where no visible evidence of being hit still were heard and found in the complainants favor?

 

[anglolawyer]

From the Italian Vanity Fair:

Do you regret to have known Amanda? "Well, I would say no. These are questions that one arises. Basically Amanda made ​​enough stupid mistakes, but not the main cause of all that I have lived. If the guardians of justice had been more professional, the story would be very different. " Even today, after the final acquittal, some people have doubts, some say that, after all, on a knife and on the clasp of the bra Meredith was his DNA. "The forensic science has completely disregarded any scientific methodology on the collection, repertazione and DNA analysis. It was all very rough and led to contradictory results that have no relationship to reality.

Bill any idea what he means about Amanda making mistakes?

Why expect Bill to know? I guess he means things like using his kitchen knife rather than one not on the landlord's inventory, not cleaning his foot print off the bathmat, brazenly showing up at Quintavalle's the next morning and flashing those blue eyes at him, inviting Guede over etc etc. What do you think he means?

 

[Numbers]

Perhaps I've missed it, but are there any cases where no visible evidence of being hit still were heard and found in the complainants favor?

I am not aware of any such cases, but they may exist.

In its judgments, the ECHR has indicated that methods of coercion that do not leave physically or medically-detectable signs on a person's body or that are psychological fall under Article 3.

The wording of Article 3 includes the prohibition of torture, inhuman treatment, and degrading treatment.

 

[Numbers]

Why expect Bill to know? I guess he means things like using his kitchen knife rather than one not on the landlord's inventory, not cleaning his foot print off the bathmat, brazenly showing up at Quintavalle's the next morning and flashing those blue eyes at him, inviting Guede over etc etc. What do you think he means?

And here I thought he meant Amanda's mistake was not calling and hiring a lawyer on Nov. 2, 3, or 4 as Raffaele should have told her was necessary to protect yourself from the police in Italy. And as Raffaele should have done.

Or as the police should have told Amanda and Raffaele, had the police not violated Italian procedural law, the Italian Constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

[acbytesla]

Speaking off topic, one of the things entered at the OJ trial as evidence was a photo of Simpson in a suit, midstride, in a suit and those shoes crossing the endzone of a football field.

The endzone had been painted in the home team colours, so that tthe paint-surface almost perfectly reflected the tread of the shoe - as the foot was raised.....

The dream team of lawyers brought in a photo "expert" to prove that the photo had been faked; therefore useless as evidence.

I cannot remember if there were others, but a key witness they presented was Robert Groden, the guy who first brought the Zapruder film (JFK assassination) to the Geraldo show in 1975. That was the first time the Z. film had been seen in public.

After that Groden marketed himself as a photo expert. But he was destroyed at the OJ trial on cross-examination when he revealed he once worked in a photo lab as a technician - the limit of his expertise.

There were hundreds of photos of OJ wearing those shoes taken with executives etc at that game.

 

[Dougm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5rTyO_TsjA
from 1:13 min.

Thanks, Methos! Your detective skills are unmatched!

Although we will likely never know for sure, I found this explanation seemed to match the evidence. Some people wonder how Meredith could have been controlled and then killed by a single assailant? This shows how, and it also would explain the bruising she had to the face/mouth area. To me, it is consistent with Guede holding MK from behind, threatening her with a knife. When she screamed, squirmed, kicked, etc., he stabbed her to make that stop.