Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm astonished that this thread goes on, and even more that apparently there are people who don't understand that Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded.

Subject for discussion: Could they have been convicted on the same evidence/lack of same in the U.S. or UK? I would like to say absolutely not, but Italy isn't the only place where the innocent can get convicted.

See, for example, the Kirsten Lobato case: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/29/las-vegas-murder-kirstin-lobato-wrongful-conviction/

Some of the problems of the Italian law enforcement and judicial systems are similar to those of the US systems. But Italy has its own unique issues, such as some judges refusing to comply with Italian law or the Italian Constitution.

I don't know how many wrongful convictions there are in Italy, but the National Registry of Exonerations has tallied 2145 exonerations in the US since 1989, Each one was a wrongful conviction. And there are many other cases of alleged wrongful conviction in the US yet to be resolved.

See: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx
 
I think we are only fooling ourselves if we think this could not have happened in the US. While it is true that the first appeal acquittal would have been final, it is conceivable that lying police, a poor defense, poor forensic analyses, and a determined prosecution could have resulted in a first trial conviction.
 
Interesting that you use that example. In the U.S. it is apparently not illegal for prosecutors to offer evidence at trial that they know is or could be false.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...they-present-at-trial/?utm_term=.ce39fc33e3f3

That's an example of a higher court getting it wrong on one element, vs every single element under review.

Nothing is going to undo Chieffi for me. Of course, I admit I have a subjective position, because it is my personal belief that Amanda Knox would be in prison right now if she weren't already in the US. We have no way of determining if that's true.
 
Citation for these claims please. Specifically that:

1) Up until "quite recent(ly)" (when?), a "contemporary member of the cabinet in Italy" (what does that even mean?) could simultaneously serve as a judge;

2) Hellmann (do you mean the court presided over by Hellmann, perhaps?) was "vulnerable to political lobbying" (and who are "we" who "saw" it?);

3) That this alleged change in the rules (presuming, of course, that you can support this claim in any case.....) was "likely the direct consequence of the dud verdict in the Kercher trials".

Thank you in advance for your provision of evidence to support your (somewhat extreme and extraordinary) claims. You know that's how it works, right?


(PS: Anything along the lines of "You can read it on TJMK" will be laughably inadequate - just so you know.....)

Don't expect an answer for at least two weeks.

And probably not even then.
 
Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of Aggravated Murder after a fair trial, which was upheld on Appeal. It was a slam dunk verdict.

The acquittal was by a couple of geriatrics (the 'junior' judge,Bruno, was >80) who sat for a couple of days, giving Bongiorno two and a half days to bend their ears, whereas all the other parties were restricted to twenty minutes each to present their skeleton arguments.

Much of Bruno's scribblings, only signed off by senior Judge, Marasca after six months was heavily edited down to just 54 pages - as predicted by me, that it would be short, sweet and highly abstract, as there really was NO genuine point of law to stand on.

Marasca-Bruno rehashed issues that were res judicata (already finally settled by Chieffi Supreme Court) and hung their reasoning on 'investigative amnesia' and 'press influence' (when Italy does not proscribe this).

It is a sign of the industrial scale stupidity of the PGP that they come up with ridiculous claims which are blatantly contradicted by the facts. One of the most ludicrous claims made by PGP is there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele which is contradicted by numerous factors :-

* If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics below? The conduct of the prosecution clearly indicated the prosecution had no case or evidence.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314

* PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case. As detailed in the link below, PGP have set up a fake wiki riddled with falsehoods
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anti-amanda-knox-deceptive-wiki/

Vixen lies on an industrial scale in her posts as detailed in the posts below. The fact PGP have to resort to lying proves they don’t have a case.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306

* For the Hellman court, the defence were able to prepare appeals with powerful arguments which punched major holes in the prosecution’s case. I have provided links for these appeals below. The defence did the same in the appeal for the supreme court after the Nencini verdict. How were the defence able to do this if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

* The Hellman court and the supreme were able to rip the prosecution’s case to shreds in their motivation reports. How is this explained against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk?
 
Last edited:
Russ Faria case and alternative suspects

I'm astonished that this thread goes on, and even more that apparently there are people who don't understand that Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded.

Subject for discussion: Could they have been convicted on the same evidence/lack of same in the U.S. or UK? I would like to say absolutely not, but Italy isn't the only place where the innocent can get convicted.

Among wrongful convictions in the United States, the Russ Faria case stands out as being in most respects worse than the Knox/Sollecito case. However, in one aspect, the amount of evidence left by the alternative suspect, the Knox/Sollecito case is at least as bad, and quite possibly more egregious. Fortunately, Russ Faria was eventually exonerated, but one wonders how many other cases are out there like these two.
 
Among wrongful convictions in the United States, the Russ Faria case stands out as being in most respects worse than the Knox/Sollecito case. However, in one aspect, the amount of evidence left by the alternative suspect, the Knox/Sollecito case is at least as bad, and quite possibly more egregious. Fortunately, Russ Faria was eventually exonerated, but one wonders how many other cases are out there like these two.

One of the problems was that two weeks after the crime, the formerly unknown owner of the forensics, Rudy Guede, surfaced. At that point the logical thing would have been to arrest Guede and let Sollecito and Knox go.

The unanswered question is - why did Giuliano Mignini keep them until charging them almost a year later, charging them with a "group crime" when nearly all of the evidence eventually presented to the 1st court did not rule out a single attacker, who was Rudy Guese.

The rationale for the 1st court to rule out a break in through Filomena's window was ludicrous, and almost never trotted out by today's "guilters". The "staging" of the break-in, in Filomena's room, was never actually investigated, it was inferred and asserted. Indeed, the activity of the postal police who were nominally "in charge" of the crime scene before the grisly discovery (to be fair, at the time they'd not known it was a murder scene) made the condition of the upper floor of the cottage virtually useless forensically. Even Filomena had been allowed to go fetch her laptop from her room, even after the cottage had been (presumably) sealed.

I'm still taken with the way John Follain (in his book) described the days following Sollecito's and Knox's arrest. Follain was the one author closest to the prosecution and police, often relating their very thoughts to the reader.

On one page he relates how Mignini had thought of Knox as a liar. A few pages later he relates that Mignini felt compelled to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so. Then when Knox is finally allowed to see a lawyer, Mignini pines with regret; seeing her relieved to have some legal help Mignini sighs and has a sense of regret that, "now we'll never know the truth." Even has Follain relates it, Mignini had seen himself as offering Knox an opportunity to relieve herself of a great burden.

Mignini kept going even after Guede's arrest, and all forensic issues could have been settled. Instead, 46 days later the Scientific Police are sent back to the cottage to get something, anything that will tie Sollecito to this crime. They "discover" the bra-clasp; not in the place it had been photographed 46 days' previous. Mignini openly is baffled why Sollecito won't turn on Knox, esp. after the initial success when they'd had him at interrogation and bullied him to sign a statement conflating two evenings of the previous week.

In the US cases, specifically Milke's and Lobato's, the police had had to rely on totally bogus and phantom confessions - the real surprise of which was that they were allowed in court? But then again the compromised crime scenes of Filomena's room and the murder room (the clasp) were also allowed in court.....

..... until the Italian Supreme Court in 2015 put an end to it with acquittals.

This case could/should have ended against Sollecito/Knox once Rudy was found, and failing that should have ended with Hellmann's acquittal in 2011.
 
Last edited:
I'm astonished that this thread goes on, and even more that apparently there are people who don't understand that Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded.

Subject for discussion: Could they have been convicted on the same evidence/lack of same in the U.S. or UK? I would like to say absolutely not, but Italy isn't the only place where the innocent can get convicted.

See, for example, the Kirsten Lobato case: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/29/las-vegas-murder-kirstin-lobato-wrongful-conviction/

Some of the problems of the Italian law enforcement and judicial systems are similar to those of the US systems. But Italy has its own unique issues, such as some judges refusing to comply with Italian law or the Italian Constitution.

I don't know how many wrongful convictions there are in Italy, but the National Registry of Exonerations has tallied 2145 exonerations in the US since 1989, Each one was a wrongful conviction. And there are many other cases of alleged wrongful conviction in the US yet to be resolved.

See: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx

Among wrongful convictions in the United States, the Russ Faria case stands out as being in most respects worse than the Knox/Sollecito case. However, in one aspect, the amount of evidence left by the alternative suspect, the Knox/Sollecito case is at least as bad, and quite possibly more egregious. Fortunately, Russ Faria was eventually exonerated, but one wonders how many other cases are out there like these two.

I believe that the Knox - Sollecito case, the Russ Faria case, and the Kirsten Lobato case, are each an example of the police and prosecutor focusing on "convenient suspect(s)" and ignoring or, for the Knox - Sollecito case, including but with reduced accountability, the actual perpetrator.

For the Knox - Sollecito case, the actual perpetrator, Guede, was identified as a suspect by police because a friend of Guede's had become suspicious and notified police. The friend recorded a Skype conversation with Guede, who had fled to Germany. Apparently it was only after these events that the police acted to connect the forensic evidence to Guede.

Thus, the police and prosecutor sought to rely on their "convenient suspects" Knox and Sollecito, with Lumumba the police "convenient suspect" as the "heavy", until Guede was identified. Then, to protect the police and prosecutor from accountability for their illegal actions during the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito, the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito was continued, while the case against Lumumba was dropped while the authorities pressured him - for example, by keeping his pub closed - to discourage him from demanding full accountability for the illegal treatment he allegedly suffered from the police during arrest and custody.
 
Last edited:
I believe that the Knox - Sollecito case, the Russ Faria case, and the Kirsten Lobato case, are each an example of the police and prosecutor focusing on "convenient suspect(s)" and ignoring or, for the Knox - Sollecito case, including but with reduced accountability, the actual perpetrator.

For the Knox - Sollecito case, the actual perpetrator, Guede, was identified as a suspect by police because a friend of Guede's had become suspicious and notified police. The friend recorded a Skype conversation with Guede, who had fled to Germany. Apparently it was only after these events that the police acted to connect the forensic evidence to Guede.

Thus, the police and prosecutor sought to rely on their "convenient suspects" Knox and Sollecito, with Lumumba the police "convenient suspect" as the "heavy", until Guede was identified. Then, to protect the police and prosecutor from accountability for their illegal actions during the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito, the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito was continued, while the case against Lumumba was dropped while the authorities pressured him - for example, by keeping his pub closed - to discourage him from demanding full accountability for the illegal treatment he allegedly suffered from the police during arrest and custody.

But Knox and Sollecito weren't very convenient suspects. They were upstanding young people with solid community support. And the police had to go out of their way to plant evidence (the DNA). It would have been easier to just release them so the real mystery of the case is why they didn't.
 
The only thing I can think of is they truly did believe they were guilty of murder.
 
But on the other hand, Mignini went out of his way to keep Rudy from testifying. Something incompatible with a true belief that he was merely a witness to Knox plunging a giant broadsword into Meredith's throat.

I really don't know :boggled:
 
But Knox and Sollecito weren't very convenient suspects. They were upstanding young people with solid community support. And the police had to go out of their way to plant evidence (the DNA). It would have been easier to just release them so the real mystery of the case is why they didn't.

After buckling at his own unrecorded interrogation, one which ended with the cops/Mignini still unclear as to how he'd supposedly been involved (see Knox's "confessions")......

..... Raffaele became the most inconvenient of the two. He simply would not buckle again. He was prepared to have the whole thing descend on his own head, rather than turn on Knox.

Indeed, a clue as to how sensitive that issue had been to Mignini, Mignini highlighted that portion of Sollecito's book in suing Sollicito/Knox for defamation; as well as pushing a criminal charge on the same issue: did or did not Mignini offer Sollecito a deal for leniancy in exchange for testifying against Knox?

One of the few clues as to why Mignini simply pressed on with a non-existent case is this allegation that Mignini had offered Sollecito a deal, one which Sollecito refused.

In a sense, Mignini was fortunate that that had been thrown out by the prosecuting judge earlier in 2017. Now the specifics of it will not be aired in open court. (Same with Mignini dropping his lawsuit against S/G.)

ETA - and as bagels posted, Mignini went out of his way to prevent Guede from testifying; in the sense of exposing Guede to cross-examination.
 
Last edited:
The wrong man waltz

Step 1. Hold (possibly charge and convict) the wrong suspect.
Step 2. Identify the right suspect.
Step 3. Allege a conspiracy between the two suspects.

This is essentially what happened with respect to Billy Wayne Cope, who gave a false confession in a rape/murder case in South Carolina. Clearly a similar outline could be applied to the Knox/Sollecito case. Apparently the police also alleged staging. The jury was not allowed to hear evidence of Mr. Sanders' crime spree. Mr. Sanders' DNA was found on the victim, not Mr. Cope's. Maybe the Knox/Sollecito case would have played out differently in the United States. Yet, anyone who thinks wrongful convictions never happen in the U.S. or that when they do, they are quickly rectified, is dreaming.
 
Last edited:
There are a half dozen cases on Netflix "The confession tapes", US and Canadian.
Compelling viewing, and certainly proving all that happened in Italy happens in North America. The Teina Pora case in New Zealand is very similar also. The real killer, Malcolm Rewa is going on trial for murder for the third time in february 2018, just 26 years after the crime.
Other cases similar are Arthur Thomas, David Tamihere, Mark Lundy, Scott Watson and Ewen MacDonald (acquitted after an obviously false prosecution).
 
Now Nick van der Leek has made a veiled death threat on Twitter. Will any of the remaining guilters distance themselves from that?
 
The only thing I can think of is they truly did believe they were guilty of murder.

I think this is the most likely situation. I do not think Mignini or the police truly believed they'd arrested the wrong people and that they'd been mistaken. Instead, when Guede's fingerprints, DNA, etc. were identified, they merely incorporated him into the murder. After all, the police and prosecutor were being told by Stefanoni, Rinaldi/Boemia, etc that there was evidence placing Knox and Sollecito at the murder and Stefanoni even supplied the smoking gun...or more specifically, the murder weapon. As with most people who have already formed an opinion, they chose to accept only that evidence which supported their belief regardless of how shabby it was. However, I do believe that the police deliberately lied regarding what happened in the interrogations in order to cover their own illegal actions. Lumumba's original description of his interrogation was even worse than that of Knox and Sollecito. It only changed later to his having been "treated well". I do think there is a connection to his bar being kept closed long after he was cleared and possible threats to keep his mouth shut by the police.
 
There are a half dozen cases on Netflix "The confession tapes", US and Canadian.
Compelling viewing, and certainly proving all that happened in Italy happens in North America. The Teina Pora case in New Zealand is very similar also. The real killer, Malcolm Rewa is going on trial for murder for the third time in february 2018, just 26 years after the crime.
Other cases similar are Arthur Thomas, David Tamihere, Mark Lundy, Scott Watson and Ewen MacDonald (acquitted after an obviously false prosecution).

Don't forget the infamous Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia.
 
Now Nick van der Leek has made a veiled death threat on Twitter. Will any of the remaining guilters distance themselves from that?

Nope. They haven't distanced themselves from another notorious Canadian PGP who has done that so why start now?

Now Nicki is telling us why Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn son. Somehow, this super sleuth has managed to do what no one else could. Not only does he know what Knox and Sollecito were thinking but now also Peterson. It's amazing how many PGP are psychic.
Reading the description of his latest book in a self-promoting tweet, I get the feeling I've seen that distinct style before. But where....? Hmmmmmm
 
Last edited:
But Knox and Sollecito weren't very convenient suspects. They were upstanding young people with solid community support. And the police had to go out of their way to plant evidence (the DNA). It would have been easier to just release them so the real mystery of the case is why they didn't.

What I mean by "convenient suspect" is a person who is readily at hand and who may be readily fit into the crime, possibly with the help of a bit of police trickery.

By the police assuming a staged break-in, based on their subjective analysis of the crime scene, and contrary to the actual evidence, they essentially committed themselves to consider one or more persons resident in the cottage as the murderer or as an accomplice of the murderer. Thus, this assumption of a staged break-in eliminated the need for the police to search for an presumably unknown person whose DNA, found within Kercher's body and on her clothes and purse, was by objective analysis the murderer/rapist.

Amanda Knox was the "odd" person in the cottage, with Meredith Kercher dead - neither Italian, neither with family in Italy, neither a native speaker of Italian. Knox may have seemed culturally different and highly naive, that is unaware of her rights, and unlike the Italian flat-mates, with no lawyer, and an alibi for the time of the murder dependent on the statements of only one other person, Sollecito, whose support of her alibi could be easily defeated by charging him as a participant in the crime. Therefore Knox was a "convenient suspect" to the police. The purpose of the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito was to get them to say anything that could be interpreted as seeming to justify an arrest. Recall that the police began by interrogating Sollecito and attempting to get him to abandon his alibi for Knox.
 
Last edited:
But on the other hand, Mignini went out of his way to keep Rudy from testifying. Something incompatible with a true belief that he was merely a witness to Knox plunging a giant broadsword into Meredith's throat.

I really don't know :boggled:

A few questions with the intent to help you in your effort to connect the dots:

What were Mignini's actions in the Murder of Florence case? Why did he charge, or attempt to charge, the journalist Mario Spezi, with a crime? What was that crime? Is prior behavior of one or more persons in authority relevant to a subsequent case where there are "irregularities" in the conduct of those authorities?

What judicial officer (magistrate) is in charge of a police investigation, under Italian law?

What does the Marasca CSC panel motivation report say about the efforts by the Italian judiciary to use the result (motivation report) of Rudy Guede's fast-track trial in the Knox - Sollecito trials (in particular, the Nencini court)? What does the Italian Constitution, Article 111, state relating to testimony of alleged co-conspirators who choose not to testify?

What is the significance of police, prosecutors and judges making decisions and taking repeated and numerous actions against defendants that are contrary to law, including the fundamental constitutional law of the relevant country, Italy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom