Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Wow. Fifteen posts in a little over an hour!

 

[Vixen]

Judge: However where the result is negative I’m given to understand that it’s almost certain that it is not [blood]?
Patrizia Stefanoni(Official in charge of the Forensic Genetics Investigations section in the Rome Forensic Police): Yes, it’s not blood, it is not, yes.



Rudy Guede scouted the cottage to burglarize it.

Evidence: he's captured alone on CCTV by the cottage over 30 minutes before Amanda learns she wont be working and Raffaele learns he wont be giving his friend a ride.

Rudy Guede smashed the upper bedroom window with a large rock, climbed up using the metal bars below, and inside made a mess tossing some clothes around.

Evidence: Rudy Guede was released by the police two weeks prior following an arrest connecting him to a burglary at a law office which featured a window smashed by a large rock perched above climbable metal bars below, with clothes thrown around on the floor inside.

Meredith came home and Rudy attacked her with a small penknife and sexually assaulted her, he attempted to clean blood on or near the body using towels he gathered from the bathroom.

Evidence: Meredith was stabbed three times, all three wounds and a bloody imprint left by the murder weapon are compatible with a small penknife. Meredith's underwear was forcefully stripped from her body, inside her genitals is Rudy's DNA. Next to her body is his bloody palm print and 8 of his bloody footprints. Rudy made written statements to going into the bathroom to retrieve towels claiming there was "so much blood." A footprint compatible with his foot was found on the bathmat.

Rudy fled the bedroom and most likely returned to retrieve Meredith's keys when faced with the double deadbolt lock on the front door blocking his escape.

Evidence: his 8 additional bloody footprints leaving the bedroom down the hall suggesting he walked out then came back at a different point in order to lock Meredith's door.

It's a relatively simple and straight forward crime scene.

'Evidence' rejected by Massei and Nencini, who had a 360 degree view of all the evidence put before them, not just PIP soundbites and spin.

 

[Kaosium]

Okay let's parse this out a bit.

First they say that being at the cottage when Meredith was murdered does not mean she was involved in the murder. While technically true, it seems quite the stretch. They then go on saying with "this premise" we accept as

"an acclaimed
fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial,
in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young
Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard
her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid
down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no
more of it.​

in which they explain why the court ruled and in a positive way. They certainly don't in any way say this with but rather quite supportive. Then if that isn't clear enough they add

" On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial
from which this appeal is being heard] is certainly acceptable concerning this part of
the accused’s account, based on the plausible consideration that it was she who first
mentioned a possible sexual motive for the murder and spoke about the victim’s
harrowing scream, when the investigators still did not have the results of an
examination of the body or of the post-mortem, nor witness information taken later
regarding the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (statements from Capezzali
Nara, Monacchia Antonella and others)​

They are clearly discussing evidence. They are clearly saying Nencini was not off his head to come to that conclusion.

He wasn't, at least on the basis of those 'facts' leading to that conclusion. The mistake here is you think that validates those 'facts' when instead the reality is the ISC cannot do that and knows that--as should everyone (of relevance) who reads that report.

They had already made the point the work of the ILE sucked and after they reviewed the case and the evidence made the determination the case was not made. Yet for some reason after undoing Nencini they felt a need to pat him on the head?

That doesn't make any sense, does it? However it does make sense if you know the ISC is simply taking those 'facts' at face value and cannot make a determination of the validity of those 'facts.' All they are doing is giving an example of better logic on Nencini's part on the 'facts leading to the correct conclusion' question, not validating those specific 'facts' because how in the hell are they supposed to know?

I put up M&B on the money. They determined that the kids didn't steal the money because the crime didn't exist.

Also illogical and contradictory is the argument that, in an attempt to give
substance to those disagreements (moreover belied by other testimonies), he does
not hesitate to retrieve the hypothesis of the theft of money and credit cards that
Kercher would allegedly have blamed on Knox, in spite of the fact that Knox, as well
as Sollecito, had been acquitted for the charge of theft, limited to the
aforementioned goods, because “the fact does not exist”
​

It appears they made a ruling based on what they thought of the evidence of the money being stolen.

That's a legal argument, this was a major stuff-up by Nencini, the sort that made me wonder at times whether he was mailing it in on purpose.

Raffaele and Amanda were not convicted of the theft of the money and credit cards by Massei, Hellmann--or anyone else. Nencini cannot use that in his motivations to support anything. My guess is he got confused by Raffaele and Amanda being convicted for the theft of the phones and forgot that they'd actually been acquitted on that charge for the other items by Massei and never convicted by anyone else. He could have, (presenting evidence etc) but didn't, but instead did try to rely upon it to support an argument in his motivations.

Ouch.

Yes (may I have a jelly bean?) The multiple attacker fact started with Micheli in Rudi's FT trial but didn't become a "judicial fact" until the ISC ruled. Btw, when the question of whether A&R had representation in trial that produced the "multiple attacker fact" came up here I made the case that they had because it's included in the MR. The kids' defense did present experts during Rudi's trial as it was concurrent with their preliminary hearing. They most likely didn't have standing in the appeals.

This was one of Mignini's cleverest tricks. Whatever else he may be he's a master of the game.

Well it doesn't seem to work that way. M&B changed the verdict based on their analysis of the evidence. The Giordano court could have reviewed the evidence of multiple attacker in the same way but they didn't.

You're forgetting that the prosecution opened up the can of worms of 'manifest illogicality' which required more scope on this issue, but it doesn't extend to the details of the validity of every single piece of evidence, it's more along the lines of whether the facts lead to the conclusions, not what you're assuming it is.

Actually they took it from Chieffi.

Yes, that makes sense too.

 

[Vixen]

They usually don't try to extradite college girls for a crime transparently committed by the town burglar based on a statement they beat out of her. The US State Department cables showed they considered the matter closed with Hellmann. And why wouldn't they? Hellmann corrected the mistake of Massei. The PGP think Hellmann was an anomaly on the path to justice. His court was the inevitability of history correcting itself. It was the Cheiffi court throwing a monkey wrench into the natural path that deviated from the standard course. In Italy where no blood means blood and witnesses that saw nothing saw everything it worked temporarily, but I really doubt it could have sustained itself. You can't hold something like that up forever.

The USA has one of the most draconian human rights records for prisoners in the world (second only to China in death penalties). It shows what a jaundiced eye you have when looking at Italy, which bends over backwards for the defendant and has a prison population thirty times lower than the USA. Even Amanda said the prison was 'swell'.

 

[Desert Fox]

Treaties between countries work both ways. Italy extradited a bunch of US armed forces guys some years back, and by mutual agreement the US Secretary of State will seriously consider any Italian State request for extradition. The latest offense is a felony and the judge will rubber stamp it on autopilot. Full stop. Period.

What were the names of those members of the US military who were extradited?

Italy tried to get Mario Lozano extradited and the Us said "nope." Same with Abu Omar case, 22 CIA and military operatives were tried in absentia because the US would not extradite them. With the Cavalese cable car disaster, there does not appear to have been a request for extradition but the US still did everything "in house."

 

[Vixen]

Numbers, letter e) specifies that the SC can assess only the judge's report plus only the specific pieces of trial documentation mentioned in the reason for appeal and attached to the file.
Thus, they do not assess the evidence.
They don't have the evidence.
They only have small, specific bits of trial documentation at best.

Assessing evidence is a different concept in procedure. Implies the judge's right of calling witnesses, interrogate them, order tests, hear cross questionings and confrontation, and access the whole file, including all trial files and non-written material deposited with the court.
An assessment about whether piece of evidence could be decisive does not go though anything of that kind. Would be based on summary presentation of one party and counter argument. They won't see almost anything about the trial file. Assessment of evidence is a concept out of reach for SC.

That's right. A Supreme Court judge NEVER gets to (for example) hear a cross-examination of a witness, the police or an expert witness. They do not examine exhibits. They never get to read witness statements.

In this case, the quality of the police investigation was never assessed by any court so it is hard to imagine how they could legitimately annul the charges simply on Bongiorno's say so.

 

[Desert Fox]

Wishful thinking. Italy cannot let the police charge expire. It is not like a slander charge or newspaper libel (for example, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, Oggi or Raff). Amanda has made extremely serious allegations against the police. They are now obliged to make an appearance and answer the charges. It's not something they can ignore.

In general, even if you take the worst interpretation, what Amanda did is not considered a crime in the United States.

Let us say that I was a Saudi woman who went to the United States and Saudi Arabia requested extradition for the crime of having sex with another woman. Since it is not a crime in the US, teh state department would say "Nope."

 

[Numbers]

I believe you and Mike 1711 have both made the point very clear.

I have added more explicitly a brief summary of the frame-work around the apparently confusing sections, which may help some better understand what the CSC was attempting to state.

I believe that, despite the relative brevity of the Marasca CSC panel MR, it suffers from a certain discursiveness that reduces its clarity in a number of sections. For example, in Section 9, there is a lengthy argument essentially stating that requiring a verdict of guilty only if there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not contrary to the Italian legal tradition.

There are a number of posts continuing to reflect confusion on the topic of the subsections of Section 9 in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report. Apparently the posters don't comprehend that the subsections of the hypotheses claiming evidence of guilt are from the Nencini court MR, the prosecution, or earlier pro-guilt motivation reports, and not those of the Marasca CSC panel.

In other words, some posters are merely getting things wrong on the internet about the source of the hypotheses; those posters are not finding some meanings - hidden or not - about guilt or partial guilt opinions of the Marasca CSC panel.

To understand those "confusing subsections" of Section 9, it is critical to read them in the context of the beginning subsections or introductory subsections of Section 9 as well as Section 10.

The point that the Marasca CSC panel makes is that examination of these competing hypotheses that they mention in Sections 9.3 and later subsections of 9 convince them that there is no coherent inference of guilt relating to the charges of murder/rape against Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito that may be drawn from the hypotheses. The Marasca CSC panel goes so far as to state that even if Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage - presumably at a relevant time to the murder - there is no evidence that they participated in the murder/rape, and thus cannot be guilty of those crimes. If the CSC thought that any allegation of a crime arose from those hypotheses, they would have mentioned that, and referred the case to a lower court for trial on the new charges, as allowed by Italian procedural law.

To understand the phenomenon of those who are seeking the "secret" or "real" feelings of the CSC judges in Section 9, or claiming that the CSC discussing these hypotheses somehow suggests either some measure of guilt or the Marasca CSC panel's opinion of such guilt, I suggest an analogy:

"The War of the Worlds" is an episode of the American radio drama anthology series The Mercury Theatre on the Air. It was performed as a Halloween episode of the series on Sunday, October 30, 1938, and aired over the Columbia Broadcasting System radio network. Directed and narrated by actor and future filmmaker Orson Welles, the episode was an adaptation of H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds (1898). It became famous for allegedly causing mass panic, although the reality of the panic is disputed as the program had relatively few listeners.[3]

The first two-thirds of the one-hour broadcast was presented as a series of simulated news bulletins, which suggested an actual alien invasion by Martians was currently in progress. Compounding the issue was the fact that the Mercury Theatre on the Air was a sustaining show without commercial interruptions, adding to the program's realism. Popular legend holds that some of the radio audience may have been listening to Edgar Bergen and tuned in to "The War of the Worlds" during a musical interlude, thereby missing the clear introduction that the show was a drama, but recent research suggests this only happened in rare instances.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_o ... o_drama%29

Those who interpret the discussion of the hypotheses in the Marasca CSC panel MR as indicating guilt of Knox or Sollecito for anything, in spite of the actual words of the motivation report, are similar to those* who listened to the 1938 radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds", but even having heard that it was a radio drama (as announced at the beginning and end of the program), were convinced that it was an accurate, real news report of the invasion of Earth by Martians.

* Whether real or imagined persons.

 

[Vixen]

I don't speak or read Italian. Nor do I think I need to understand the BM motivation and decision. The simple reason for that is that I understand "context". One can derive what a word means from its context in a sentence or a paragraph or a confusing phrase in its context in a paragraph or page.

The same goes for the motivation. BM acquitted Amanda and Raffaele. That is definitive. Machiavelli, Vixen and others are essentially saying this is not so. They are saying that the motivation is saying is saying that Amanda was there during the murder and she washed her hands in Meredith's blood. This impossible to believe given the context of the motivation and the reaction of the press. It is far more believable that it is a hypothetical.

As has been pointed out, if it actually said that Amanda was there and washed her hands in Merddjth's blood, don't you think that would be headlines all over the world?

As it is, the only people trying to twist the meaning of the motivation are the usual suspects. The same clan of crazies who think down is up a d the earth is not round.

The choice is simple, we can keep listening to Machiavelli dietrology or listen to the sound of silence of the world press. Wake me up when it is in the New York Times.

The thing is, in the UK a judge's verdict is the end of the matter and there is no written reasons, unless one of the parties asks for it, with a view to appealing.

My guess is, having had the press release from Reuters and Associated Press the verdict was overturned, the UK press, at least assumed the only issue was the 'media attention' and 'stunningly flaws in the investigation' = straight from the short Reuters report, not realising there were actually back pages that incriminate Amanda in particular very badly.

 

[Kaosium]

That's right. A Supreme Court judge NEVER gets to (for example) hear a cross-examination of a witness, the police or an expert witness. They do not examine exhibits. They never get to read witness statements.

In this case, the quality of the police investigation was never assessed by any court so it is hard to imagine how they could legitimately annul the charges simply on Bongiorno's say so.

They didn't, they had the Conti-Vecchiotti report which strung up the ILE by their own petard. They took the statements from Stefanoni and co from the Massei court where they detailed their procedures, methods and standards and then C&V presented the evidence (usually video) they were lying and/or mistaken about how they conducted their forensic investigation.

 

[Numbers]

Wishful thinking. Italy cannot let the police charge expire. It is not like a slander charge or newspaper libel (for example, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, Oggi or Raff). Amanda has made extremely serious allegations against the police. They are now obliged to make an appearance and answer the charges. It's not something they can ignore.

In general, even if you take the worst interpretation, what Amanda did is not considered a crime in the United States.

Let us say that I was a Saudi woman who went to the United States and Saudi Arabia requested extradition for the crime of having sex with another woman. Since it is not a crime in the US, teh state department would say "Nope."

Desert Fox makes an important point here.

What the Italian authorities accuse Amanda Knox of doing is stating in open court in Italy that the police hit and threatened her during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007. She repeated that statement about alleged police abuse in each of her appeals to the Italian courts. The Italian authorities in prosecuting for calunnia against the police claim that she made those claims to protect herself from a charge of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

Thus, the Italian authorities are prosecuting her on charges of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police - aggravated since the Italian authorities claim it was committed it was done to cover up the alleged calunnia against Patrick Lumumba, and continuing because she stated it in court and in her appeals.

Even if Amanda Knox were finally definitively convicted in Italy on these charges, it would have no effect on her in the US, in part because Knox has lodged a complaint with the ECHR against Italy for the wrongful conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. Furthermore, there is no US equivalent to the Italian crime of "calunnia" in terms of description of the act and potential sentence*. Both must correspond in order for extradition to even be considered, according to the extradition treaty between the US and Italy.

Furthermore, the fact that the Italian authorities never effectively investigated Knox's allegations of abuse will also be understood as indicating there was no probable cause for them to charge her with calunnia against the police, and any conviction would be thus have no meaning in the US.

However, one must remember that trials in Italy last a very long time, and that a charge such as calunnia, even though it can carry a maximum sentence of many years of imprisonment, has a statute of limitations. It is likely that the ECHR will address Knox's complaint against Italy, or the statute of limitations will expire, before a definitive final CSC ruling will occur.

* (ETA) That is, the alleged crime would need to be a felony (sentence more than one year) in each country. "Calunnia" in this case cannot be filing a false police report (no report was filed) nor can it be perjury (Amanda established that she was hit and threatened by writing that in her Memoriale 1, which cannot be overcome by the police because they have not produced any contemporaneous recording of the interrogation, and with Memoriale 1 there is evidence that Amanda believed her statement in court to be true, thus it is not perjury in the US).

 

[Vixen]

I agree with that, Grinder. On the face of it, an admission by a suspect they were there as well as a (supposed) knowledge of facts they shouldn't have known is certainly acceptable as regards to help leading to a determination the suspect was at the scene of a crime.

That doesn't mean I think she was though, or that I accept the validity of the evidence she was, especially if it wasn't my duty to determine that and I never evaluated that evidence.

They know that too, it's a basic underlying property of their system that they don't evaluate evidence (in that fashion), but just accept it at face value. Note the difference between evaluating the validity of a piece of evidence (in this case Amanda's 'gift' note and the scream 'evidence') and evaluating whether the 'facts' (evidence) lead to the correct conclusion. They're taking on the second meaning here of 'evaluating evidence' they cannot possibly do the former.

As for why this distinction is important, look at the depiction of Amanda's gift note and read the original (again) and recall that the part they paraphrased was preceded by:

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

and followed by:

"But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked. But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:"

Does that sound like a definite admission on her part of being there? Or was it a cherry-picked passage outside the context of the rest of the note which instead says how unsure she is of everything and explains why that may have occurred?



Incidentally, the source of errors made is likely either Nencini or the prosecution appeal, not necessarily the ISC itself. They're responding to those documents, not running an independent investigation into the case. They rely upon factual determinations made by the lower courts, in this instance Nencini, and cannot possibly do that for themselves for both legal and logistical reasons, there being no possibility they can evaluate each and every piece of evidence in the case, they must rely upon what the finders of fact determined, and that's the lower courts.

A direct statement by a defendant is treated as pretty much prima facie evidence (cf Ruth Ellis testifying she 'wanted to kill' the victim= summary hangman's noose).

 

[Vixen]

I'd be done with this case too but somebody out there thinks blood negative DNA negative stains, witnesses that saw nothing when questioned just after the crime, bloodless kitchen knives that don't match wounds or imprints, and a crime scene overflowing with the presence of a known armed burglar who had a history of identical break-ins to that found at the scene, somehow adds up to two random students grown adults being guilty. We can't let people be wrong on the internet

FIFY

 

[Vixen]

The difficult part is that news outlets, seemingly, have moved on. We are the ones who haven't.

In the weeks before the M/B acquitals in March, Italian news media was filled with Raffaele's story - about judging the case against him by the evidence against him, and forget Amanda. Turns out that the case against Raffaele was the legal-linkage of evidence against Amanda to apply to Raffaele whether it did or not.

That, in short, was the basis of Raffaele's appeal to Section 5, as well as the content of his media presence in those days.

My reading of the media in Italy in the days' past the acquittal itself, as well as since the M/B report is overwhelming acceptance of this... with 3 possible exceptions. None of the exceptions, though, scream that ISC has been hijacked with an unconstitutional hijacking of the law.

There it sits, and it is, apparently, only us still down the rabbit hole.

Raff was on book tours promoting his book. Possibly in North America its hard to tell the difference between PR and genuine news. However, it's worth knowing how to distinguish between 'press releases' which make up 40-60% of a newspaper and genuine news, then you'd realise Raff's books is PR, not news.

 

[Vixen]

The Italian Supreme Court of Appeal is clear....

How did the lower courts extrapolate from presence in location to participation in murder?

The determination was that it is a non sequitur.

End of case.

Nonsense. The grounds of appeal was never 'non sequitur', which is always a false premise and never valid legal grounds for appeal anyway.

 

[Numbers]

That's right. A Supreme Court judge NEVER gets to (for example) hear a cross-examination of a witness, the police or an expert witness. They do not examine exhibits. They never get to read witness statements.

In this case, the quality of the police investigation was never assessed by any court so it is hard to imagine how they could legitimately annul the charges simply on Bongiorno's say so.

This statement is false.

The CSC is entitled by Italian procedural law to read any motivation report or any document of the proceedings, including testimony, if that is related to the alleged defect in the case as specified in the appeal: CPP Article 606.1 (e).

The CSC authority to review a case appealed to it extends beyond the immediate issues raised in an appeal, but includes all issues raised ex officio at any stage of the proceedings and those which could not have been raised at the appeal stage: CPP Article 609, paragraphs 1 and 2.

 

[Vixen]

That ruling will not result in more jail time however. . . . .

It will not result in more jail time...because...?

As a second offence, I would say it was a dead cert.

 

[Vixen]

What is the penalty she will suffer if convicted?

AIUI maximum penalty is either six or seven years, depending on whether it's deemed 'aggravated'. (Done with a view of perverting justice; the prior one a Rudy cover up.)

 

[Vixen]

What were the names of those members of the US military who were extradited?

Italy tried to get Mario Lozano extradited and the Us said "nope." Same with Abu Omar case, 22 CIA and military operatives were tried in absentia because the US would not extradite them. With the Cavalese cable car disaster, there does not appear to have been a request for extradition but the US still did everything "in house."

IIRC it was the 22 CIA operatives. Did they not get extradited?

 

[Bill Williams]

Twenty-five posts in two one-hour periods.