Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

The whole knife collection is 'suspicious'. The police officer who collected the knife noticed a smell of bleach, a physical impossibility give Sollecito had bee in detention.

The officer has not been briefed on the wounds so does not know what size knife he is looking for.

He looks in the kitchen draw and picks out one knife because it looks 'clean'. Despite the fact that Sollecito is alleged to collect knives and the police have no idea what sort of blade they are looking for they only collect one kitchen knife and one pocket knife. They are either very competent or they were not really looking for the murder weapon this seems like people just going through the motions.

 

[Grinder]

The classic we did not find the evidence that Knox did it; since we know she did it the evidence must have been cleaned up. The evidence for the cleaning - there was no evidence against Knox! Or just maybe it was never there in the first place? If the absence of evidence becomes evidence in itself we are all guilty.

What is the smell of bleach? How would a policeman recognise it? How long does the smell of bleach last? (At most hours) When was the search carried out? When had Sollecito last been at home (he was in detention at the time of the search). The truth is no smell of bleach could have been present at the time the police searched due to cleaning days before. So yes in this instance the police must have been either lying or just confused.

IIRC his maid had cleaned the day before and used lyso-something. As I pointed out the police under cross admitted the small might just have eeb the smell of "clean". The smell of bleach could hang around for more than you suggest if it were left in the tub, sink or something like that. The problem for the PGP is that no bleach or bleached items were found.

What was bleached because it sure wasn't the knife.

 

[Antony]

The whole knife collection is 'suspicious'. The police officer who collected the knife noticed a smell of bleach, a physical impossibility give Sollecito had bee in detention.

The officer has not been briefed on the wounds so does not know what size knife he is looking for.

He looks in the kitchen draw and picks out one knife because it looks 'clean'. Despite the fact that Sollecito is alleged to collect knives and the police have no idea what sort of blade they are looking for they only collect one kitchen knife and one pocket knife. They are either very competent or they were not really looking for the murder weapon this seems like people just going through the motions.

Both the kitchen knife and the bra clasp were transparent conjuring tricks. The fact that these 2 items represented the crown jewels of the prosecution case demonstrates what a farce this case was from the beginning.

 

[Numbers]

The ECHR requires claimants to exhaust all internal avenues of complaint first (except for Article 3: torture). Amanda falls at the first hurdle. She didn't complain to the Police Complaints Commission in Italy, she didn't complain to the US amabassador who visited her in jail regularly, her brief, Ghirgha, denied there had been any ill-treatment and Amanda herself testified her treatment was fine. In her Prison Diary she bragged of how excellent the prison conditions were, and settled in very well (as psychopaths are known to do).

Bruno-Marasca did not throw her a crumb of comfort (their verdict was geared towards their Raff paymasters) and scathingly described her calumny as being a cover up for Rudy, co-murderer.

Epic fail.

The above post misrepresents ECHR case-law.

1. It is true that the Convention requires that domestic remedies be exhausted before a case is brought before the ECHR. However, ECHR case-law is quite clear: the domestic remedies needed to be tried are only those that are available and likely to succeed. In practice, this means that the applicant to the ECHR must have had a final decision from the highest available domestic court (or similar authority). This is exactly the situation in the case of Amanda Knox having been finally convicted of calunnia against Lumumba; this final conviction was from the CSC, and no further appeal was possible. ECHR case-law specifically states that extraordinary remedies, such as pardons from the government, are not required and are not at all considered available and practical remedies.

2. In fact, the ECHR requires exhaustion of domestic remedies even for alleged violations of Convention Article 3, with the exception only of those cases where there is an imminent potential threat of torture or to life - for example, in cases where an applicant may be extradited to a country outside the Council of Europe States where there is reputed to be essentially no protection of human rights. Such cases are addressed through interim measures, which freeze the action of the CoE State until the ECHR can examine the case and make a ruling.

In most cases involving allegations of torture in CoE States, the victim only has the opportunity to fax or write to the ECHR after commission of the torture. Thus, the alleged victim has the opportunity to work through the domestic authorities, including the courts, to seek redress, before applying to the ECHR.

3. Specifically in terms of Amanda Knox's case, she notified the Italian authorities of her mistreatment in her Memoriale 1 written and delivered to police on 6 November 2007. The obligation of the police and prosecutor at that time, upon receipt of that note, according to ECHR case-law, was to launch an independent and effective investigation of her complaint, which may have included seeking to have her fill out any official complaint form required under Italian practice or law. The Italian authorities did not fulfill those responsibilities.

Similarly, after Knox announced in court in 2009 that she had suffered mistreatment during the November 5/6 interrogation, the authorities did not conduct an effective and independent investigation of her allegations. Under ECHR case-law, that was there obligation. Instead, the authorities charged her with calunnia against the police, an obvious effort of intimidation.

Knox and her lawyers cited the mistreatment during the interrogation in each of her appeals against the calunnia against Lumumba charge, including the appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel which delivered her final conviction on that charge.

Thus, she fully exercised the exhaustion of domestic remedies according to ECHR case-law.

The other alleged remedies you write about, such as complaining to the US ambassador, are irrelevant under ECHR case-law.

 

[acbytesla]

The evidence is damning, even without Quintavalle. As Amanda was known to be an early riser (even Raff said, 6:00am) then his account has credence.

Quintavalle is of good character, impartial and has no motive to lie.

Oh, don't tell us, he's another anti-American in the sway of the evil Mignini.

It matters little that Quintavalle is of "good character". It matters little that he has no known motive to lie. The same is true of his employees. The same is true of Detective Volturno.

Studies prove that everyone is susceptible to false memories. That everyone naturally especially over time conflate and distort memories. Memory creation is not an inviolable act.

Remember that "party you’re certain you attended in high school, say, when you were actually home with the flu". Just because you remembered something doesn't actually mean it happened or in the way that you remembered it.

It’s important to point out that a false memory is different from a lie. Liars know what really happened, but claim something different. People with false memories honestly believe what they’re saying—there is no intent to deceive. They’re just wrong about what actually happened, for predictable reasons. Memory does not passively record our lives and then allow us to look up this information later, even if that’s often how it feels. Instead, remembering is a process of revising and reinterpreting the past. Because of this, we are all susceptible to outside influences that can corrupt our existing memories and even produce entirely false memories.

In fact there is a very large number of people with false memories involving September 11, another event with heavy media exposure. Including the presumptive Republican nominee swears that Muslims were publicly celebrating in New Jersey when the towrest came down.

Lots of people of very good character even 8 days after 911 had created false memories, A year later, many more people had made things up.

So the fact that Quintavalle was a business owner is irrelevant when you consider the reliability of his memory. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't make him a liar, it just makes him wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

Another classic Vixen 'the evidence shows nothing like I said it did'! You said there was a video of a pail with latex gloves and cleaning rags in Sollecito's flat. You show a video of a completely different place. Do you not bother to look at any facts? You just make stuff up.

Nonstop. An endless stream of falsehoods. A desperate ocean of nonsense and fabrications. It is far harder to find any grains of truth than it is to find the falsehoods.

I particularly enjoy when she offers citations from actual credible sources that prove she was wrong. We can add this latest video to her library of "huh" documentations. Not quite as good as when she posted the grated window to prove the window wasn't grated.

But hey, they all can't be classics.

 

[Numbers]

The defense of Amanda: "In police headquarters false confession"
In defense of Amanda they had talked last hearing defenders Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova. "The night that Amanda was brought to the police station without an interpreter, and after five hours of interrogation without a lawyer and she was made to sign the minutes, something must have gone wrong because there is neither a registration nor a video: that was a false confession ".​

Yes they spoke up 8 years after the fact how courageous. Did you see that the Italian translation had Maresca saying no more appeals - not that no civil case could be brought? Also the one paper made a point to say the criminal case was done but not necessarily civil by implication.

1. Well, your comment is interesting. They were only speaking to the press at that point, and Amanda Knox was then long out of prison and of Italy. In one of the police-recorded phone talks between Amanda and her parents, 13 November 2007, soon after her arrest, the conversation includes reference to a perception stated by Amanda's mother that if Amanda filed a formal complaint against the police, her prison conditions would worsen. Presumably Amanda's lawyer issued the warning. See:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/statements-phone-taps-prison-intercepts/

2. Your statement that the article quotes "Maresca saying no more appeals - not that no civil case could be brought" is different that what I had excerpted, which was to the effect that no more avenues remain open to the Kerchers.

Remember, the Kerchers only had a civil case.

Look at the information I posted about CPP Article 452 and 454, which preclude any new civil action or demand for damages in this case by the Kerchers, because there has been a final acquittal, and the specification was because "the accused did not commit the act".

Now, you may chose to believe that the civil actions are precluded, you may chose to not believe it, or you may be undecided. It's your right to form your own opinions.

I can only tell you what my research has indicated to me, which is in agreement with Maresca - there are no new civil actions possible for the Kerchers against Knox or Sollecito on the acts regarding the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Vixen]

It matters little that Quintavalle is of "good character". It matters little that he has no known motive to lie. The same is true of his employees. The same is true of Detective Volturno.

Studies prove that everyone is susceptible to false memories. That everyone naturally especially over time conflate and distort memories. Memory creation is not an inviolable act.

Remember that "party you’re certain you attended in high school, say, when you were actually home with the flu". Just because you remembered something doesn't actually mean it happened or in the way that you remembered it.

It’s important to point out that a false memory is different from a lie. Liars know what really happened, but claim something different. People with false memories honestly believe what they’re saying—there is no intent to deceive. They’re just wrong about what actually happened, for predictable reasons. Memory does not passively record our lives and then allow us to look up this information later, even if that’s often how it feels. Instead, remembering is a process of revising and reinterpreting the past. Because of this, we are all susceptible to outside influences that can corrupt our existing memories and even produce entirely false memories.

In fact there is a very large number of people with false memories involving September 11, another event with heavy media exposure. Including the presumptive Republican nominee swears that Muslims were publicly celebrating in New Jersey when the towrest came down.

Lots of people of very good character even 8 days after 911 had created false memories, A year later, many more people had made things up.

So the fact that Quintavalle was a business owner is irrelevant when you consider the reliability of his memory. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't make him a liar, it just makes him wrong.

Of course eye witnesses are known to be unreliable, with poor recall, reluctance to come forward. As I explained, that's why a court will look at eye-witness testimony in context with all other evidence.

Eye-witnesses nonetheless are very valuable evidence for the court as to what happened from the perspective of a passerby. It doesn't matter if they are rich man, poor man, beggar man, or thief.

 

[Vixen]

Another classic Vixen 'the evidence shows nothing like I said it did'! You said there was a video of a pail with latex gloves and cleaning rags in Sollecito's flat. You show a video of a completely different place. Do you not bother to look at any facts? You just make stuff up.

Really? You are unable to locate the police video of Raff's flat? Now I know you are taking the proverbial.

 

[Vixen]

Nonstop. An endless stream of falsehoods. A desperate ocean of nonsense and fabrications. It is far harder to find any grains of truth than it is to find the falsehoods.

I particularly enjoy when she offers citations from actual credible sources that prove she was wrong. We can add this latest video to her library of "huh" documentations. Not quite as good as when she posted the grated window to prove the window wasn't grated.

But hey, they all can't be classics.

Ad hominem is all you have.

 

[Vixen]

The above post misrepresents ECHR case-law.

1. It is true that the Convention requires that domestic remedies be exhausted before a case is brought before the ECHR. However, ECHR case-law is quite clear: the domestic remedies needed to be tried are only those that are available and likely to succeed. In practice, this means that the applicant to the ECHR must have had a final decision from the highest available domestic court (or similar authority). This is exactly the situation in the case of Amanda Knox having been finally convicted of calunnia against Lumumba; this final conviction was from the CSC, and no further appeal was possible. ECHR case-law specifically states that extraordinary remedies, such as pardons from the government, are not required and are not at all considered available and practical remedies.

2. In fact, the ECHR requires exhaustion of domestic remedies even for alleged violations of Convention Article 3, with the exception only of those cases where there is an imminent potential threat of torture or to life - for example, in cases where an applicant may be extradited to a country outside the Council of Europe States where there is reputed to be essentially no protection of human rights. Such cases are addressed through interim measures, which freeze the action of the CoE State until the ECHR can examine the case and make a ruling.

In most cases involving allegations of torture in CoE States, the victim only has the opportunity to fax or write to the ECHR after commission of the torture. Thus, the alleged victim has the opportunity to work through the domestic authorities, including the courts, to seek redress, before applying to the ECHR.

3. Specifically in terms of Amanda Knox's case, she notified the Italian authorities of her mistreatment in her Memoriale 1 written and delivered to police on 6 November 2007. The obligation of the police and prosecutor at that time, upon receipt of that note, according to ECHR case-law, was to launch an independent and effective investigation of her complaint, which may have included seeking to have her fill out any official complaint form required under Italian practice or law. The Italian authorities did not fulfill those responsibilities.

Similarly, after Knox announced in court in 2009 that she had suffered mistreatment during the November 5/6 interrogation, the authorities did not conduct an effective and independent investigation of her allegations. Under ECHR case-law, that was there obligation. Instead, the authorities charged her with calunnia against the police, an obvious effort of intimidation.

Knox and her lawyers cited the mistreatment during the interrogation in each of her appeals against the calunnia against Lumumba charge, including the appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel which delivered her final conviction on that charge.

Thus, she fully exercised the exhaustion of domestic remedies according to ECHR case-law.

The other alleged remedies you write about, such as complaining to the US ambassador, are irrelevant under ECHR case-law.

In that case, the ECHR claim was lodged too early.

 

[bagels]

Of course eye witnesses are known to be unreliable, with poor recall, reluctance to come forward. As I explained, that's why a court will look at eye-witness testimony in context with all other evidence.

Eye-witnesses nonetheless are very valuable evidence for the court as to what happened from the perspective of a passerby. It doesn't matter if they are rich man, poor man, beggar man, or thief.

The issue with Quint wasn't how reliable he is or is not. The issue is the Hellmann court ruled him unreliable. The verdict should be respected unless there's an extraordinary reason to do otherwise. The Italian Supreme Court claims to not judge the evidence, clearly they do.

 

[Vixen]

The issue with Quint wasn't how reliable he is or is not. The issue is the Hellmann court ruled him unreliable. The verdict should be respected unless there's an extraordinary reason to do otherwise. The Italian Supreme Court claims to not judge the evidence, clearly they do.

Unfortunately, due to the fact of Hellmann being found defective in virtually every area, none of it can be taken seriously. Hellmann was adjudged completely incompetent. Chieffi court in effect passed a vote of no confidence in it.

I am unsure why the PIP keep extolling Hellmann, when it was subjected to an extraordinarily high level of criticism and spiked.

 

[Numbers]

In that case, the ECHR claim was lodged too early.

No. The Convention requires ECHR claims to be lodged within 6 months of the final judgment. That was the Chieffi CSC panel finalizing the calunnia against Lumumba verdict motivation report. Knox sent in her application to the ECHR in November, 2013, within the 6 month limit.

The application could have been sent in at any time after the Chieffi panel short-form verdict up to 6 months after the Chieffi panel motivation report and be within the ECHR required time frame.

 

[Numbers]

The defense of Amanda: "In police headquarters false confession"
In defense of Amanda they had talked last hearing defenders Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova. "The night that Amanda was brought to the police station without an interpreter, and after five hours of interrogation without a lawyer and she was made to sign the minutes, something must have gone wrong because there is neither a registration nor a video: that was a false confession ".​

Yes they spoke up 8 years after the fact how courageous. Did you see that the Italian translation had Maresca saying no more appeals - not that no civil case could be brought? Also the one paper made a point to say the criminal case was done but not necessarily civil by implication.

Another point about your reasoning about this:

Suppose X states "the sky is blue". You note that X did not state the sky was NOT falling. Therefore, there is a real possibility that X is implying the sky is falling.

That's how I interpret your point.

In another news report, Maresca was reported to have stated, "there is no further avenue open" (or words to that effect).

CPP Articles 452 and 454 indicate that there is no new civil action or damages possible in a case that is an acquittal with specification "the accused did not commit the act".

Some internet poster claims a new civil action is possible. The evidence: at best, an excerpt from a CSC judgment from 2004 and 2006, claiming a difference in legal consequence between CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2, with little clarity of what the difference is, and with no context provided, from the period before CPP Article 533.1 put the BARD standard into legal effect.

Some of us are breathlessly awaiting a new civil action, others including myself are not.

 

[bagels]

Unfortunately, due to the fact of Hellmann being found defective in virtually every area, none of it can be taken seriously. Hellmann was adjudged completely incompetent. Chieffi court in effect passed a vote of no confidence in it.

I am unsure why the PIP keep extolling Hellmann, when it was subjected to an extraordinarily high level of criticism and spiked.

Hellmann was rejected by Chieffi because Quintavalle knew Amanda had blue eyes, Curatolo saw guys in white suits, and a reverse burden of proof on the DNA requiring the precise contamination vector to be proven (something impossible). In other words, Chieffi et all looked at the evidence, conducted their own little trial de novo, didn't like that Hellmann found the students innocent, and wanted the evidence re-interpreted in a way that found the students guilty.

Then a couple years later some PGP complained that M&B re-examined the evidence, while I laughed at the irony.

 

[Grinder]

1. Well, your comment is interesting. They were only speaking to the press at that point, and Amanda Knox was then long out of prison and of Italy. In one of the police-recorded phone talks between Amanda and her parents, 13 November 2007, soon after her arrest, the conversation includes reference to a perception stated by Amanda's mother that if Amanda filed a formal complaint against the police, her prison conditions would worsen. Presumably Amanda's lawyer issued the warning.

They didn't do anything about it for years. They didn't file any charges against the police. They did get the ISC to say the first two were not admissable but only for technical reasons.

2. Your statement that the article quotes "Maresca saying no more appeals - not that no civil case could be brought" is different that what I had excerpted, which was to the effect that no more avenues remain open to the Kerchers.

The IIRC was that there were no more appeals available - I don't believe you excerpted what you are saying above and yours was from an british paper. A new case wouldn't be an appeal so he wasn't saying in quote no new case could be brought. Remember the papaer also made the point of saying the criminal case was over.

Remember, the Kerchers only had a civil case.

Look at the information I posted about CPP Article 452 and 454, which preclude any new civil action or demand for damages in this case by the Kerchers, because there has been a final acquittal, and the specification was because "the accused did not commit the act".

I believe they are referring to a 530.1 acquittal. It has not been shown that an acquittal ever does not include "the accused..."

I can only tell you what my research has indicated to me, which is in agreement with Maresca - there are no new civil actions possible for the Kerchers against Knox or Sollecito on the acts regarding the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

Only he didn't say that even in the british pub. He said the case was over as translated by the brits the day after. Please provide where he said "no civil action possible"

Mach's quote from the ISC would indicate a 530.2 doesn't preclude civil action but I doubt the Kerchers want any more even if allowed.

 

[Grinder]

I believe this was Maresca's quote as translated.

Seven and a half years after the murder of Ms Kercher in Perugia, and a number of legal proceedings, Franceso Maresca, the lawyer representing the Kerchers, said yesterday: “The family is in shock after the verdict. They don’t wish to make any other declarations. I’ve had to explain to them there are now no avenues open to them. There is a great sense of bitterness.”

I went to the Italian coverage where he says no further appeals - I can see that the brits could have translated no further appeals as "no avenues..." Perhaps you can find an Italian pub where he says it's all over no further avenues possible.

You POV may be correct on Maresca but that doesn't prove there is no difference between a .1 and a .2

 

[Vixen]

No. The Convention requires ECHR claims to be lodged within 6 months of the final judgment. That was the Chieffi CSC panel finalizing the calunnia against Lumumba verdict motivation report. Knox sent in her application to the ECHR in November, 2013, within the 6 month limit.

The application could have been sent in at any time after the Chieffi panel short-form verdict up to 6 months after the Chieffi panel motivation report and be within the ECHR required time frame.

OK, thanks.

 

[Vixen]

Hellmann was rejected by Chieffi because Quintavalle knew Amanda had blue eyes, Curatolo saw guys in white suits, and a reverse burden of proof on the DNA requiring the precise contamination vector to be proven (something impossible). In other words, Chieffi et all looked at the evidence, conducted their own little trial de novo, didn't like that Hellmann found the students innocent, and wanted the evidence re-interpreted in a way that found the students guilty.

Then a couple years later some PGP complained that M&B re-examined the evidence, while I laughed at the irony.

Ah. Chieffi's in on the conspiracy now. Ri-i-ight.