Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[whoanellie]

If I could jump in rather late to the horse beating. In my opinion there is not a lot of wiggle room between "Amanda was present during Meredith's murder" and "Amanda is culpable". I would be amazed - but not entirely shocked given some of the rulings we have seen - if M&B truly believed that Amanda (and Rafaele?) was present but they were able to find her not guilty.

Regarding the section of the Motivation Report that Grinder has posted: " 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." - I am struck by the word "acclaimed" and have no clue as to what the original Italian was getting at. Certainly "acclaimed fact" is not a common phrase in the English language. Anyway, Amanda's presence is an "acclaimed fact" not a "fact" and I can't judge the report's meaning without understanding that one word. Grinder can demand accuracy and precision in meaning from others but sometimes doesn't always apply the same standards to himself.

As an american I am somewhat baffled by the whole idea of "judicial fact". I am not a lawyer but as far as I can tell it is not a concept that is commonly used in US law. Courts will sometimes take "judicial notice" of certain facts such as "New Year's Day 2016 is on a Friday" but I haven't seen courts rule on issues central to a case that certain findings are "fact". To me the whole idea of "judicial fact" is at odds with the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". My understanding is that Italy had adopted a BARD standard and that BARD was discussed in the M&B MR. For me, BARD and "judicial fact" are not compatible. In the US judges issue "opinions" not MR for a reason.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is in regard to the first of what is almost sure to be a flurry of meaningless posts.

All of us know the reality of voluntary interview. . . .It is a legal fiction which cops use all over the world.

Amanda also around the same age as many of the Norfolk Four with two of them seeming to share approximately her level of intelligence as well. Both Derick Tice and Eric C. Wilson are really intelligent as well.

In neither case did either their age or intelligence stop them from falsely confessing to a murder and rape.

Everybody with a few brain cells almost certainly knows that the police abused her during the interrogation. It is simply too common.

 

[Vixen]

I'd be tempted to argue that the Marasca panel assigned one of their number to read the full record/history of the DNA evidence, straight from a review of the film the Scientific Police themselves took of the December collection.

They then read how Massei convicted, mainly by taking the word of Stefanoni that she knew what she was talking about - including a prior court haring where the judge ruled that Stefanoni did not need to turn over the EDF's to the defence.

Then they read how Hellmann acquitted because there actually was a third party review of the DNA. Then the read Chieffi who said that if Hellmann was allowed to stand, that this would call into question all DNA-centric trials since 1986.

Then they read Nencini who sided with Stefanoni, but because so suspect-centric that it was patently unfair.

To convict, one has to trust Stefanoni at her word, and hold your nose watching the Scientific Police video. To acquit one listens to independent analysis like Vecchiotti.

I think that the panel member came back as said, "Look, there's no proof they were even in the murder room." Another said, "And everyone agrees that Knox was there as long as you count midmorning of Nov 2nd."

Then someone else said, "Goodness gracious, Nencini came to a manifestly illogical decision to convict, esp. on the DNA. Tell you what, whatever it is we write in the motivations report, make sure you highlight the manifest illogicality of the whole guilt-scenario by writing a synoptic amalgam of all the "truths" at all the trails. Besides, it will drive Machiavelli nuts."

The other ISC panel members say, "Who?"

As you yourself pointed out, the main headers for the acquittal - or rather the technical 'dropping of charges', as implied by section 530 para2 - were "the investigation was stunningly flawed' and 'the media attention'.

As there is no prohibition of media activity under Italian law (as there would be, say, in the UK) nor the jury/judges sequestered during the hearing (as in the UK) then it is grossly and manifestly illogical, as well as legally improper (as there are no legal constraints in the first place) for Bruno-Marasca to acquit on these grounds. The 'flawed investigation' they state is based on new DNA contamination evidence, for Massei and Nencini had rejected this claim, 'new', as it is based on Gill's submission introduced post-first and -second instance hearing, which was never cross-examined in court, and astonishingly, flawed witnesses of the defense, who were attacked by B-M as being of low character, and... introduced to the court by Raff's counsel Avv Bongiorno herself! (It was the defense fault, did you miss this?)

You tell me what is manifestly illogical.

 

[Vixen]

You are missing several points: 1) the difference between state and federal law in terms of jurisdiction; 2) the similarity between the definitions of the crime of calunnia (Italy) and the crime of false report to a public servant (Washington State); 3) the fact that extradition is based on the law of the state in which the person sought is resident, unless the crime alleged is equivalent to a federal crime (examples: counterfeiting national currency, securities fraud, terrorism, certain drug trafficking offenses).

The allegation of calunnia against the police would be closer in the US to an allegation of perjury. In Washington State, perjury is called "false swearing"; the law relating to inconsistent statements* does not apply:

CW 9A.72.040
False swearing.
(1) A person is guilty of false swearing if he or she makes a false statement, which he or she knows to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) False swearing is a gross misdemeanor.
[2011 c 336 § 392; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.040.]

And, here is the (b) section of 18 USC 1001 that you somehow forgot, which states that (a) section doesn't apply:

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

So don't keep pointing to 18 USC 1001 as somehow related to the Italian crime calunnia of testifying in court that police hit you while they interrogated you. And for which testimony there is no objective documentary contradictory evidence from the police, only there self-serving statements saying they did not.


*RCW 9A.72.050
Perjury and false swearing—Inconsistent statements—Degree of crime.
(1) Where, in the course of one or more official proceedings, a person makes inconsistent material statements under oath, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which material statement was false but only that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false.
(2) The highest offense of which a person may be convicted in such an instance as set forth in subsection (1) of this section shall be determined by hypothetically assuming each statement to be false. If perjury of different degrees would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of the lesser degree. If perjury or false swearing would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of false swearing. For purposes of this section, no corroboration shall be required of either inconsistent statement.

It wouldn't be 'false swearing' under Italian law, since defendants are allowed to lie their little heads off.

 

[Vixen]

How would you know this to be true? Are you an expert on Italian law? Perhaps you can provide the appropriate citation of Italian law that supports this conclusion?

If you provided this I might believe your argument has some merit. As it is, I think you are of course talking out your backside. Feel free to prove me wrong...if you can,

It is a fact appeal courts only deal with errors in points of law, perversity and 'in the public interest'.

You cannot appeal on any other ground and it is always based on the judge's reasoning for the verdict.

You cannot appeal on the grounds of facts.

 

[Vixen]

I don't think so Vixen. Actually it appears you don't after reading the statute. How is it perverting justice by saying the police hit her?

Her entire 'Innocence Project' and Friends of Amanda PR campaign is predicated exactly on her hoax she only framed Patrick because of police brutality and torture.

In so doing, she has attempted to ruin the careers and besmirch the characters of outstanding cops and forensics guys.

Shades of Jodi Arias' prison diary, wherein she claims that only one of the jurors was not corrupt: the one who stood against the death penalty. Everybody else in the court room, says Arias, was as bent as a nine-bob note.

 

[Desert Fox]

It wouldn't be 'false swearing' under Italian law, since defendants are allowed to lie their little heads off.

Oops, you just admitted that she is on trial for what is essentially libel and there is no criminal libel law in Washington state
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state

Edit: Actually, that likely is a pretty approximation. If it is her speeches in public and her book, it is not lying to the courts which are the issue so none of the cases I posted earlier have any bearing. It is definitely libel which is the closest approximation. Libel is generally a civil issue in the United States. There is no federal libel law and Washington state no longer has a criminal libel law. Less than half the states do and it appears to be a misdemeanor in most of those states.

Thank you for helping me think it through properly.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, your example(s) absolutely do not apply. My example of a Washington State law on false statements does apply to calunnia. Simply making a false statement to police is generally only a misdemeanor because US police (when they are performing at their best, which is not always the case) investigate all such statements for veracity. Apparently, the Italian police do not; they extract such false statements with the intent of "solving" their cases by arresting the most vulnerable or convenient suspects.

Nothing in your post has any bearing on the Amanda Knox case.

Here are my challenges to you. Find a case where: 1) someone has been extradited from the US for making a false statement, under interrogation, and where coercion was alleged, to local police; and/or 2) someone has been extradited from the US for allegedly making a false statement in testimony that claimed that the person had been physically abused by police during an interrogation.

First find me a list of US citizens who fled to the US from Italy and were charged and convicted of murder, and Italy applied for their extradition, and we'll go from there.

 

[Vixen]

I think one aspect that Vixen (and many other pro-guilt commentators) is overlooking - for whatever reason - is that in fact a higher court can rule that a lower court has made errors of law if it judges that the lower court has not applied the proper legal principles to findings of fact.

To take numerous examples in this particular case, the SC effectively ruled that many of the findings of fact of the lower courts were invalid, since these lower courts did not (in the opinion of the SC) apply the correct rules of assessment to evidence and testimony. For example, the evidence and testimony presented in two lower courts clearly indicated that Curatolo was at best an unreliable witness, and at worst a total shambles, a fantasist, a man whose mental faculties were grossly distorted by long-term substance abuse, and/or a liar. There was enough evidence in front of the SC to enable it to make that judgement without ever having to hear Curatolo in person to assess his credibility. Therefore, the SC ruled (correctly) that Curatolo's testimony should have been totally disregarded by any court in its determination on this guilt of Knox/Sollecito. In effect, the SC is indirectly contradicting a finding of fact of a lower court, but on the correct basis that the law was misapplied when the lower court made its improper finding of fact. Likewise Quintavalle. Likewise Capezzali.

The exact same situation applies to pretty much every single piece of forensic evidence in this case. The SC had in front of it ample evidence that virtually every one of Stefanoni's "results" ranged from unreliable to downright inadmissible, and that much of the other forensic work (foot print and shoe print analysis, anyone?) was so riddled with gross error as to make it fundamentally unreliable. So the SC was able to rule, correctly, that the lower courts erred hugely in the incorrect weight they gave to the prosecution's presentation of the forensic evidence (and at the same time, the lower courts gave incorrect lack of weight to such things as the (devastating) Conti/Vechiotti Report - a report which, it has always to be remembered, was commissioned and controlled by the court itself!).

Are you seriously claiming that Micheli, Massei and Nencini who spent years as serious criminal law judges and practising criminal law barristers (unlike, you note, Bruno or Marasca) do not know how to treat evidence in their fact finding?

 

[bagels]

First find me a list of US citizens who fled to the US from Italy and were charged and convicted of murder, and Italy applied for their extradition, and we'll go from there.

How about a list of all the people on death row whose names starts with S as long as we're looking up data irrelevant to this case.

 

[Grinder]

Regarding the section of the Motivation Report that Grinder has posted: " 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." - I am struck by the word "acclaimed" and have no clue as to what the original Italian was getting at. Certainly "acclaimed fact" is not a common phrase in the English language. Anyway, Amanda's presence is an "acclaimed fact" not a "fact" and I can't judge the report's meaning without understanding that one word. Grinder can demand accuracy and precision in meaning from others but sometimes doesn't always apply the same standards to himself.

I've asked for Italian speakers to rework the translation. I've referred to the "legal" analyst for FOA Cheli. I've produced machine translations showing that a key word "hypothetical" translates as assumptions and asked for a better translation.

You left off the most significant part of the quote in which M&B state that the lower court judge's assessment of this aspect was "certainly acceptable" which comes after "acclaimed fact".

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​

So they not only specify that judge reasoning was certainly acceptable but on the point of her being there.

This section followed the repeat of Chieffi's statement that presence at the cottage at the time doesn't prove involvement in murder. I don't see why M&B needed to go on and state her presence was a reasonable conclusion.

As an american I am somewhat baffled by the whole idea of "judicial fact". I am not a lawyer but as far as I can tell it is not a concept that is commonly used in US law. Courts will sometimes take "judicial notice" of certain facts such as "New Year's Day 2016 is on a Friday" but I haven't seen courts rule on issues central to a case that certain findings are "fact". To me the whole idea of "judicial fact" is at odds with the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". My understanding is that Italy had adopted a BARD standard and that BARD was discussed in the M&B MR. For me, BARD and "judicial fact" are not compatible. In the US judges issue "opinions" not MR for a reason.

The "judicial fact" is to taken as circumstantial evidence in other trials - this I believe is mentioned in Chieffi when criticizing Hellmann. I have compared the "judicial facts" to a coroner's inquest ruling. If a coroner rules a death was murder that ruling will used as circumstantial evidence in the following murder trial. I'm sure they are not exactly the same but seem compatible to me.

 

[bagels]

Her entire 'Innocence Project' and Friends of Amanda PR campaign is predicated exactly on her hoax she only framed Patrick because of police brutality and torture.

In so doing, she has attempted to ruin the careers and besmirch the characters of outstanding cops and forensics guys.

Shades of Jodi Arias' prison diary, wherein she claims that only one of the jurors was not corrupt: the one who stood against the death penalty. Everybody else in the court room, says Arias, was as bent as a nine-bob note.

Luckily for her, her claims of police brutality that night were corroborated by two other people, including the person she was allegedly trying to frame. And the police have not released one second of interrogation tapes or one sentence of transcripts from these events to counter these multitude of claims from the people in their custody. But at this point Amanda's miracles are common place. I fully expect her to feed 5000 from two fish next.

 

[Vixen]

Nice work and the top one is almost exactly what Amanda is charged with and the sentence range was much more than a year.

Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Patricia M. Ferrick, Special Agent in Charge of the New Haven Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, announced that EDWARD MINERLY, 52, of Ansonia, waived his right to indictment and pleaded guilty today in Hartford federal court to one count of making a false report of police brutality to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

According to court documents and statements made in court, on May 18, 2013, officers with the Derby Police Department arrested MINERLY on an outstanding probation violation warrant. On May 31, 2013, MINERLY called the New Haven Federal Bureau of Investigation and spoke with an FBI special agent. In the call, MINERLY alleged that Derby Police officers had recently arrested him for a probation violation and, upon placing him in a holding cell, commenced taunting him, subjecting him to flashing lights and tipping him backwards out of his wheelchair. MINERLY also alleged that Derby Police officers kicked him in the head, arms and upper body.

On June 6, 2013, an FBI special agent interviewed MINERLY in person at a Bridgeport hospital where MINERLY had been admitted. MINERLY again made allegations similar to those made on May 31, 2013, namely, that Derby Police officers had arrested him and, after placing him in a holding cell, picked him out of his wheelchair, threw him into a wall, flashed the lights on and off, and kicked him in the head and beat him.

In pleading guilty today, MINERLY admitted that the statements he made to the FBI alleging physical abuse by members of the Derby Police Department after his probation violation arrest were false.

“The Department of Justice is committed to investigating and prosecuting civil rights abuses by members of law enforcement,” stated U.S. Attorney Daly. “We are equally committed to prosecuting false reports of police brutality as these reports not only waste valuable federal law enforcement resources, but they have the potential to indelibly stain the police department and its officers that are unfairly maligned.”

MINERLY is scheduled to be sentenced by Senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello on February 10, 2015, at which time he faces a maximum term of imprisonment of five years and a fine of up to $250,000.

This matter is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Henry K. Kopel and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Gustafson.​

​

There is also the slightly different case of Susan Smith who framed a bushy-haired stranger. AIUI she was only charged with murder, or it could be wiki have abbreviated the charges, or even the court.

From wiki:

Susan Leigh Vaughan Smith (born September 26, 1971) is an American convict who was sentenced to life in prison for filicide. Born in Union, South Carolina, she is a former student of the University of South Carolina. On July 22, 1995, she was convicted of the drowning deaths of her two sons, 3-year-old Michael Daniel Smith and 14-month-old Alexander Tyler Smith.[2]

The case gained worldwide attention shortly after it developed, due to her false claim that a black man carjacked her and kidnapped her two boys. Her defense attorneys, David Bruck and Judy Clarke, presented expert testimony that she suffered from mental health issues that impaired her judgment when she committed the crimes.

 

[Vixen]

This is in regard to the first of what is almost sure to be a flurry of meaningless posts.

All of us know the reality of voluntary interview. . . .It is a legal fiction which cops use all over the world.

Amanda also around the same age as many of the Norfolk Four with two of them seeming to share approximately her level of intelligence as well. Both Derick Tice and Eric C. Wilson are really intelligent as well.

In neither case did either their age or intelligence stop them from falsely confessing to a murder and rape.

Everybody with a few brain cells almost certainly knows that the police abused her during the interrogation. It is simply too common.

It is a logical fallacy to say that because "an intelligent person of Amanda's age once made a false confession, therefore we can conclude this is what happened here".

Each case is based on its own merits.

 

[Bill Williams]

Her entire 'Innocence Project' and Friends of Amanda PR campaign is predicated exactly on her hoax she only framed Patrick because of police brutality and torture.

In so doing, she has attempted to ruin the careers and besmirch the characters of outstanding cops and forensics guys gals.

Shades of Jodi Arias' prison diary, wherein she claims that only one of the jurors was not corrupt: the one who stood against the death penalty. Everybody else in the court room, says Arias, was as bent as a nine-bob note.

Wow, there's no inflamed or prejudicial language here!

Start with one.... where is there any allegation of torture? It's hard to know how to respond to much a strawman post...... didn't even get the gender of Patrizia Stefanoni (the DNA gal) right.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is a logical fallacy to say that because "an intelligent person of Amanda's age once made a false confession, therefore we can conclude this is what happened here".

Each case is based on its own merits.

Both Saul Kassim and John Douglas did exactly that - judged this case on its own merits. They came to vastly different conclusions as you.

And your credentials are.......?

 

[Vixen]

Oops, you just admitted that she is on trial for what is essentially libel and there is no criminal libel law in Washington state
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state

Edit: Actually, that likely is a pretty approximation. If it is her speeches in public and her book, it is not lying to the courts which are the issue so none of the cases I posted earlier have any bearing. It is definitely libel which is the closest approximation. Libel is generally a civil issue in the United States. There is no federal libel law and Washington state no longer has a criminal libel law. Less than half the states do and it appears to be a misdemeanor in most of those states.

Thank you for helping me think it through properly.

The Florence (Rome_?) court hearing the calunnia charge, have ordered her book WTBH to be translated into Italian, so yes, that is part of the prosecution complaint.

 

[Desert Fox]

Her entire 'Innocence Project' and Friends of Amanda PR campaign is predicated exactly on her hoax she only framed Patrick because of police brutality and torture.

In so doing, she has attempted to ruin the careers and besmirch the characters of outstanding cops and forensics guys.

Shades of Jodi Arias' prison diary, wherein she claims that only one of the jurors was not corrupt: the one who stood against the death penalty. Everybody else in the court room, says Arias, was as bent as a nine-bob note.

Doesn't matter if she is lying because you have already admitted that it is not due to lying to the police or lying to the court, it is lying to the public.

That is libel, which is usually a civil matter in the United States. As well, there are no federal or Washington state criminal libel laws. Therefore, even if the Italian clowns have their circus, there can be no extradition.
In a way, I actually would like the Mignini to try to request extradition because it will just make him look even worse than he already does.The reason why I don't favor it is because Amanda (and Raff) have simply been through too much.

 

[Vixen]

Wow, there's no inflamed or prejudicial language here!

Start with one.... where is there any allegation of torture? It's hard to know how to respond to much a strawman post...... didn't even get the gender of Patrizia Stefanoni (the DNA gal) right.

Article 3 (Torture) is cited in the ECHR application.

 

[Vixen]

Both Saul Kassim and John Douglas did exactly that - judged this case on its own merits. They came to vastly different conclusions as you.

And your credentials are.......?

Saul Kassim's findings are based on long-term torture sessions. Amanda originally claimed she was 'interrogated for 53 hours with tag teams of police coming in at her every hour'.

Kassim was deceived and you note he has now distanced himself from her acordingly.

Even Good Samaritans have had their reputations tarnished by this Great Hoax.