Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dougm]

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

I think that sometimes we PIP tend to panic just because someone writes a pro-guilt article, even if it makes no sense. I have read the article in question, and the author combines the standard PG arguments in the Knox case (which have been refuted), with a vague charge that innocence groups, including the Innocence Project, do more harm than good. I find it hard to believe that many serious thinkers will accept her arguments.

 

[Numbers]

From a summary, accessible from the ECHR home page, on the Turbylev Case:

Confession made during police interview in the absence of a lawyer and following ill-treatment should not have been admitted as evidence


In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Turbylev v. Russia (application no. 4722/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, both on account of Mr Turbylev’s ill-treatment and on account of the ineffective investigation into the related complaints, and a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance).

The case concerned Mr Turbylev’s complaint of having been ill-treated in police custody and of the unfairness of the criminal trial against him, in which his statement of “surrender and confession”, made as a result of his ill-treatment and in the absence of a lawyer, was used as evidence.

The Court found that the admission of the statement as evidence had rendered Mr Turbylev’s trial unfair. The absence of a requirement, under Russian law, of access to a lawyer for a statement of “surrender and confession” had been used to circumvent Mr Turbylev’s right as a de facto suspect to legal assistance. This situation had resulted from the systematic application of legal provisions, as interpreted by the domestic courts. Moreover, in failing to conduct an independent careful assessment of the “quality” of the statement as evidence, and instead relying on the investigative authority’s findings, the domestic courts had legalised the police officers’ use of a statement of “surrender and confession” to document Mr Turbylev’s confession obtained as a result of his inhuman and degrading treatment after his apprehension on suspicion of having committed a crime.

_____

I emphasized the "de facto suspect" comment as related to the argument by some that Amanda Knox was not a "legally-defined suspect" under Italian law during the interrogation and thus not subject to the procedural protections of Italian law for suspects and accused persons or to ECHR case-law protections under the Convention. Such arguments are baseless. The ECHR case-law and Convention protections apply on a "de facto" basis. As indicated in VQA Giobbi's testimony, Amanda Knox was a suspect before she was interrogated, and her interrogation was an intentional police action that he had initiated.

BTW, it would appear that any person resident in Italy that questions the veracity of VQA Giobbi's testimony may be charged with calunnia by the Italian authorities, based upon the actions of Italian authorities in charging Amanda Knox with calunnia against the police for her statements in court.

 

[JihadJane]

Thanks for book recommendations up-thread. Here's my review of Waiting To Be Heard:

Kafka rools!

 

[Grinder]

I think that sometimes we PIP tend to panic just because someone writes a pro-guilt article, even if it makes no sense. I have read the article in question, and the author combines the standard PG arguments in the Knox case (which have been refuted), with a vague charge that innocence groups, including the Innocence Project, do more harm than good. I find it hard to believe that many serious thinkers will accept her arguments.

I do find it intreresting how many of the PGP believe that all convicted people must be guilty. They seem to hate the IP work and don't believe any of the exonerated are actually innocent.

 

[Strozzi]

Numbers, your summary of legal issues raised in the ECHR review of the Russian case prompt me to consider the following:

Statements made by Amanda and Raffaele in the nighttime interrogations without benefit of legal warning or access to an attorney would not be admissible in the criminal case against them in court. Mignini knew this, and this is why he approached Amanda immediately afterwards posing as a "notary" to listen to any "spontaneous" statement she might want to make. He wanted to re-do for the record in a legally-compliant manner what had been elicited from her under duress by Napoleoni's team in the interrogation.

I wonder if this did not end there - if this is a real reason Mignini kept Amanda and Raffaele isolated from a lawyer for several days until just minutes before they were brought before a judge. Mignini may have been hoping one or both of them would make further "spontaneous" admittable statements during those several days.

Another benefit to Mignini in keeping Amanda incommunicado from a lawyer for several days is that it prevented the possibility that a lawyer (or objective doctor) might be able to observe any sign (bruising) that she had been struck by officer Ficarra in the interrogation. Any verifiable observation that she had been struck would have compounded things for the police and Mignini and further undermined his case.

Mignini is very clever in manipulating evidence and legal procedures to get what he wants.

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

Sometimes I get the feeling that Grinder thinks I am the Oracle at Delphi. Truly, I am not. Any reasonable person would know that.

I, too, wish Grinder would answer the rhetorical question first. With all that he contributes to this forum - a valuable and mostly laser-insightful dude - every once in a while he lobs one in from left field.

Maybe he's Jackie?

 

[Bill Williams]

That would make him Dr. Groden.

LOL! Only in Italy, dude, only in Italy.

 

[Methos]

I do find it intreresting how many of the PGP believe that all convicted people must be guilty. They seem to hate the IP work and don't believe any of the exonerated are actually innocent.

I think it goes a bit further with the hardcore PGP, their POW is that any person arrested must be guilty, police officers are decent people they wouldn't arrest an innocent person, would they?

If a case goes to trial it's another confirmation, because prosecutors are decent people, no prosecutor would bring an innocent person to court, would they?

And lastly: if there is a "guilty" verdict, that's the final confirmation, because as (self proclaimed) lawyer "Some Alibi" wrote some time ago on TJMK:

I am sure that we all agree that no jury, in any murder case, given the awesome responsibility of adjudicating on (young) people’s lives for a multi-decade period of imprisonment, condemns people lightly.

So in this mindset wrongful convictions don't exist, just to think about the possibility is too scary to think about...

 

[Methos]

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.

Just for the record, that's Prof Introna, expert for Raffaele Sollecito's defense...

 

[Methos]

I think that sometimes we PIP tend to panic just because someone writes a pro-guilt article, even if it makes no sense. I have read the article in question, and the author combines the standard PG arguments in the Knox case (which have been refuted), with a vague charge that innocence groups, including the Innocence Project, do more harm than good. I find it hard to believe that many serious thinkers will accept her arguments.

I think that Liz Houle and Cali on Justice4ever are just pretty p... o... by the Loyola Law School announcement for the luncheon in December (and the fact that Amanda Knox was well recieved at the two other innocence project events she attended).

They have tried their very best to convince (mostly) themselves that "convicted liar" (they so love that phrase) Amanda Knox is somehow "tainting" the innocence project brand by letting her attend and even speak.

What they don't seem to realise is that anybody interested in/dealing with/fighting against wrongful convictions will see the calunnia conviction for what it is, a wrongful one. Failing to realise this, they are still dreaming of (or perhaps even trying to get) one of their PGP heroes to show up at that event to ask Amanda some "tough questions"...

 

[Dougm]

I think it goes a bit further with the hardcore PGP, their POW is that any person arrested must be guilty, police officers are decent people they wouldn't arrest an innocent person, would they?

If a case goes to trial it's another confirmation, because prosecutors are decent people, no prosecutor would bring an innocent person to court, would they?

And lastly: if there is a "guilty" verdict, that's the final confirmation, because as (self proclaimed) lawyer "Some Alibi" wrote some time ago on TJMK:

So in this mindset wrongful convictions don't exist, just to think about the possibility is too scary to think about...

I wonder what many of them think about the police killings in the case of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddy Gray? I don't like to lable them generically as a group on other cases, but given the above midset ...

 

[Dougm]

I think that Liz Houle and Cali on Justice4ever are just pretty p... o... by the Loyola Law School announcement for the luncheon in December (and the fact that Amanda Knox was well recieved at the two other innocence project events she attended).

They have tried their very best to convince (mostly) themselves that "convicted liar" (they so love that phrase) Amanda Knox is somehow "tainting" the innocence project brand by letting her attend and even speak.

What they don't seem to realise is that anybody interested in/dealing with/fighting against wrongful convictions will see the calunnia conviction for what it is, a wrongful one. Failing to realise this, they are still dreaming of (or perhaps even trying to get) one of their PGP heroes to show up at that event to ask Amanda some "tough questions"...

They better start getting used to it. Amanda Knox is now, by and large, viewed as a victim of a wrongful conviction. That is pretty clear by the media coverage, both in the US and in Europe. There are still a few crackpots out there clinging to a hope something will change that, but it's really not going to happen at this point. Even in Italy the reports are taking the "what the heck happened here?" slant.

 

[Methos]

I wonder what many of them think about the police killings in the case of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddy Gray? I don't like to lable them generically as a group on other cases, but given the above midset ...

Self defense..., remember given that mindset each and every police officer is a decent person, none of them would shoot or harm anybody if it wasn't absolutely necessary...
(Just for the record: I think that most police officers fit the above description, but sadly not "each and every" :-( )

 

[sept79]

I wonder what many of them think about the police killings in the case of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddy Gray? I don't like to lable them generically as a group on other cases, but given the above midset ...

The 6'5", 300 pound Michael Brown who committed a strong armed robbery of a convenience store, walked in the middle of a street, continued to walk in the middle of the street when told to move to the side by a police officer, struggled for the police officer's weapon when told again to move to the side of the street, continued to struggle resulting with the police officer being struck in the face and the weapon being discharged, ran from the police officer, stopped and charged the police officer before being shot by said police officer?


Is that the Michael Brown being referenced?

 

[Methos]

They better start getting used to it. Amanda Knox is now, by and large, viewed as a victim of a wrongful conviction. That is pretty clear by the media coverage, both in the US and in Europe. There are still a few crackpots out there clinging to a hope something will change that, but it's really not going to happen at this point. Even in Italy the reports are taking the "what the heck happened here?" slant.

The "funny" thing about it is, that the still standing calunnia conviction and the ongoing sattelite trials are just a confirmation that Amanda Knox is a victim of a wrongful conviction (at least to people who are able to use that organ between their ears as intended ;-) ...

 

[Dougm]

The 6'5", 300 pound Michael Brown who committed a strong armed robbery of a convenience store, walked in the middle of a street, continued to walk in the middle of the street when told to move to the side by a police officer, struggled for the police officer's weapon when told again to move to the side of the street, continued to struggle resulting with the police officer being struck in the face and the weapon being discharged, ran from the police officer, stopped and charged the police officer before being shot by said police officer?


Is that the Michael Brown being referenced?

Is there another one involved in a controvery with the police? Not that I am aware of.

Wasn't weighing in on any of these cases, but was wondering if people who assume that police, prosecutors, judges, etc. are always right because they are well intended -- what would they think of these cases? Just assume the police must be right, because, well, they are police?

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, your summary of legal issues raised in the ECHR review of the Russian case prompt me to consider the following:

Statements made by Amanda and Raffaele in the nighttime interrogations without benefit of legal warning or access to an attorney would not be admissible in the criminal case against them in court. Mignini knew this, and this is why he approached Amanda immediately afterwards posing as a "notary" to listen to any "spontaneous" statement she might want to make. He wanted to re-do for the record in a legally-compliant manner what had been elicited from her under duress by Napoleoni's team in the interrogation.

I wonder if this did not end there - if this is a real reason Mignini kept Amanda and Raffaele isolated from a lawyer for several days until just minutes before they were brought before a judge. Mignini may have been hoping one or both of them would make further "spontaneous" admittable statements during those several days.

Another benefit to Mignini in keeping Amanda incommunicado from a lawyer for several days is that it prevented the possibility that a lawyer (or objective doctor) might be able to observe any sign (bruising) that she had been struck by officer Ficarra in the interrogation. Any verifiable observation that she had been struck would have compounded things for the police and Mignini and further undermined his case.

Mignini is very clever in manipulating evidence and legal procedures to get what he wants.

I agree that your inferences are reasonable. I also believe that the motivation for Raffaele being kept in solitary confinement for a long period was to induce him to make false statements.

Keeping a person in custody without that person's contact, immediately upon the beginning of the custody, with a lawyer is another violation of ECHR case-law (Dayanan v Turkey 7377/03).

 

[Grinder]

Sometimes I get the feeling that Grinder thinks I am the Oracle at Delphi. Truly, I am not. Any reasonable person would know that.

I, too, wish Grinder would answer the rhetorical question first. With all that he contributes to this forum - a valuable and mostly laser-insightful dude - every once in a while he lobs one in from left field.

Maybe he's Jackie?

That seems to be a violation and you know perfectly well I'm not Jackie.

In the past you have provided insights into the thoughts of Amanda and Raf. Recently when Anglo and others were discussing what proof of Amanda being at Q's would mean, you explained that it wouldn't mean a thing because Amanda would have just forgotten she had been there.

Whenever someone suggests that there were reasons for the PLE to suspect them it is my recollection that you are of the opinion that there was nothing.

Now Raf seems to be saying that there may have been cause and I was hoping you could provide insights not available to all.

 

[carbonjam72]

I think that Liz Houle and Cali on Justice4ever are just pretty p... o... by the Loyola Law School announcement for the luncheon in December (and the fact that Amanda Knox was well recieved at the two other innocence project events she attended).

They have tried their very best to convince (mostly) themselves that "convicted liar" (they so love that phrase) Amanda Knox is somehow "tainting" the innocence project brand by letting her attend and even speak.

What they don't seem to realise is that anybody interested in/dealing with/fighting against wrongful convictions will see the calunnia conviction for what it is, a wrongful one. Failing to realise this, they are still dreaming of (or perhaps even trying to get) one of their PGP heroes to show up at that event to ask Amanda some "tough questions"...

Which hobo will be catching a rail car to attend?

 

[Bill Williams]

That seems to be a violation and you know perfectly well I'm not Jackie.

Apologies. Apparently not very funny. Oh well.

In the past you have provided insights into the thoughts of Amanda and Raf. Recently when Anglo and others were discussing what proof of Amanda being at Q's would mean, you explained that it wouldn't mean a thing because Amanda would have just forgotten she had been there.

Whenever someone suggests that there were reasons for the PLE to suspect them it is my recollection that you are of the opinion that there was nothing.

It is not apparent to me why any of this is gleaned from having access to "their thoughts". As for the latter, you may be recollecting wrong, because initially it was reasonable to suspect ANY keyholder that one of the ways to access the cottage was through the locked door. My view is that that suspicion would reasonably be set aside fairly quickly, which it was not. However, I don't get why this speculation makes it seem I have access to anyone's thoughts.

Now Raf seems to be saying that there may have been cause and I was hoping you could provide insights not available to all.

The best I can do is perhaps provide a page number in his book - in his book, it seems, everyone has access to his thoughts.

Right now Raffaele seems to be saying that Amanda did dumb things. In his book, Raffaele says (IIRC) that he could see that Amanda's behaviour in the questura, while he himself was not troubled by it, was attracting attention of some of the female cops. I have never read him interpret this as a reason why Amanda should be suspected of murder and I don't read him that way now. In his book, he also recounts the dumb things he did, like speak at the Mattieni hearing. With 20/20 hindsight he now realizes how that played into the hand of those fomenting this injustice upon him.

It's in the book!

Once again, you seem to be answering your own question, using me as a foil. You seem to think that Raffaele is now saying that suspicion about Amanda was deserved. Me, I don't read it that way..... but it would be easier if you'd take me out of it and express a point of view regardless.