Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

530.1 means there is no evidence at all of guilt, and might be some evidence of innocence. Not necessarily proof of innocence, but there might be evidence of innocence. However there must be no evidence still pointing in the direction of the suspect.
530.2 means there is evidence of guilt but this it is insufficient to reach certainity, or is contradicted by an equivalent evidence of innocence.

In this case my evaluation is that could never be not possible to argument that there is no evidence at all. Moreover there is at least one piece of circumstantial evidence - the calunnia - which is still in place. Moreover we have Hellmann's statement by which the prosecution does not deserve criticism, and there were more than enough elements to indict them: "Se fossi stato nei pubblici ministeri avrei fatto esattamente la stessa cosa: loro avevano elementi più che sufficienti per indagare questi due ragazzi". "Non si può parlare di responsabilità dei pm" . It seems he reaffirms there is evidence against them.

The prosecutors had probable cause based on the clasp and knife, so I can certainly see where Hellmann was coming from with that comment.

The problem is that now that the clasp and knife are gone, there is no other evidence probative of guilt. There is just a bunch of evidence that doesn't prove anything, either because it is not identifiable to the defendants (e.g., "footprints") or because the evidence could have been created at any time (e.g., DNA in the sink).

So, I think 530.1 is a possibility if it is as you define.

Your point about callunia I find interesting, though. If it is 530.1, then this means that the jury did not believe the false accusation to be evidence of Knox's own guilt. This is further support for the fact that the Motivations will tell us that there may be evidence of some coercion, but that Knox did not prove that the coercion was sufficient to justify the false accusation. That would be an interesting outcome given the fact that she was denied counsel.

 

[katy_did]

I don't really know about this 530.1/2 distinction. But, an alibi would be absolute proof of innocence. And, there is an alibi at play here.

I'm not sure there's anything totally conclusive: while the timing makes their involvement very unlikely, it's not impossible they started 'Naruto' playing, grabbed the knife in one hand and Rudy in the other, raced over to the cottage and stabbed Meredith.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Did you know that in Mignini's conviction, the Procura of Florence who indicted him and the victims of his alleged crime are the same people?
And, do you know that not even one piece of evidence and not one accusation argument is about Mignini? All "evidence" is against Michele Giuttari. Mignini was convicted, literally, because he did not side with the judge against Giuttari in the trial.
Do you know that the verdict is pending before the Supreme Court even if it is just a first instance trial?
Did you read that sentencing report?

OK, but for what crimes was he convicted (I understand both in first instance and appellate court by now)?

But anyway, did you consider that in this case there is a prosecution office, another prosecutor, a prosecutor general, and a chief prosecutor: all the highest authorities of Public Ministers in Umbria, all aligned in the accusation line?

That's telling, because if the case have been strong on the merits of evidence, there'd have been no reason for such strange demonstrations of solidarity.

Amanda Knox is not just a convicted liar. She was a proven liar even before, she is a person who had told lies since day one.

That's your opinion, which I think is wrong and biased by your blind trust in Mignini. The court clearly established that the facts are very different from what you believed so strongly. The bathmat footprint cannot be identified as Sollecito's, the break-in wasn't staged, From Amanda's and Raffaele's behaviour guilt cannot be inferred. I hope you will re-evaluate your beliefs some day.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

I'm not sure there's anything totally conclusive: while the timing makes their involvement very unlikely, it's not impossible they started 'Naruto' playing, grabbed the knife in one hand and Rudy in the other, raced over to the cottage and stabbed Meredith.

You know the cameras that captured Meredith coming home? (or so most observers believe) - why didn't those cameras capture those three too?

 

[CDHost]

Howdy all. Just to throw my $.02 in on the whole innocent of murder guilty of calumnia thing...

I'd use the analogy with perjury. Is it possible to perjure onself in a crime without having commit the underlying criminal act. And the answer is "of course"

Mark Furhman did not murder Nicole Brown Simpson but did perjure himself during the trial.

Lil Kim perjured herself regarding where she and friends were to protect those friends from being charged in a shooting. She herself had nothing to do with it.

Marion Jones lied about BALCO's tax fraud to avoid admitting she was getting performance enhancing drugs from them.

I could keep going. People lie under oath about cases all the time without personal being the one responsible for the underlying crime. I think Amanda's statement from the 5th is so obviously confused as to obvious lack then mens rea to be a sworn statement. Anyway my $.02.

 

[katy_did]

530.1 means there is no evidence at all of guilt, and might be some evidence of innocence. Not necessarily proof of innocence, but there might be evidence of innocence. However there must be no evidence still pointing in the direction of the suspect.
530.2 means there is evidence of guilt but this it is insufficient to reach certainity, or is contradicted by an equivalent evidence of innocence.

Thanks. In that case I think Hellmann's words don't actually rule out 530.1.

In this case my evaluation is that could never be not possible to argument that there is no evidence at all. Moreover there is at least one piece of circumstantial evidence - the calunnia - which is still in place. Moreover we have Hellmann's statement by which the prosecution does not deserve criticism, and there were more than enough elements to indict them: "Se fossi stato nei pubblici ministeri avrei fatto esattamente la stessa cosa: loro avevano elementi più che sufficienti per indagare questi due ragazzi". "Non si può parlare di responsabilità dei pm" . It seems he reaffirms there is evidence against them.

Not necessarily: he could be saying that the evidence Mignini was presented with by the police was more than enough evidence to investigate them. Things like the 112 call, the missing sweatshirt, Raffaele's shoe print in Meredith's bedroom, Amanda's shoe print on the pillow, the kitchen knife, and the bra clasp. It all looked terribly convincing, and you can't really blame Mignini for investigating them; it's just that it all turned out to be either bogus or later discredited.

In terms of the calunnia, I think it really depends on how they explain the conviction in the motivations. If they conclude that while it was a result of pressure from the police, but not sufficient pressure to lead her to make the accusation, they could find her guilty of the calunnia without it having any impact on the murder charge.

 

[RWVBWL]

Did you know that in Mignini's conviction, the Procura of Florence who indicted him and the victims of his alleged crime are the same people?
And, do you know that not even one piece of evidence and not one accusation argument is about Mignini? All "evidence" is against Michele Giuttari. Mignini was convicted, literally, because he did not side with the judge against Giuttari in the trial.
Do you know that the verdict is pending before the Supreme Court even if it is just a first instance trial?
Did you read that sentencing report?

I trust Mignini and I see absolutely no reason to distrust him, I can only see reasons for trusting him.
On the other hand, the Associazione Nazionale Magistrati of Umbria has issued and signed unanimusly a document of solidarity expresing total support of him, and the Supreme Council of Magistrates had promoted him.
But anyway, did you consider that in this case there is a prosecution office, another prosecutor, a prosecutor general, and a chief prosecutor: all the highest authorities of Public Ministers in Umbria, all aligned in the accusation line? They all accuse Knox and Sollecito. Nobody has ever taken distance from Mignini, never in any occasion. Moreover, there is a chain of 20+ judges who took part in building the accusation.

Amanda Knox is not just a convicted liar. She was a proven liar even before, she is a person who had told lies since day one.

Hi Machiavelli,
Thanks for this posting,
I will keep it in mind as I read further about this case we discuss, 1 of the reasons why I like to read of both sides of the story.

So you seem to trust Prosecutor Mignini, and the previous findings of guilt in the 1st trial. A question for you:

Why then did Judge Hellmann's Appeal Court set Amanda Knox free?
Political pressure? Economic pressure? Tourism pressure?

What would make a court set both Raffaele and Amanda free, in your own opinion? I Look forward to your reply soon, before the motivation report comes out...
Peace,
RW


PS - The other day I asked you if indeed that was a semen stain as you had mentioned so on PMF.org. Your reply to me here on JREF was I don't know. Would you elaborate a bit further for me? For on 1 website it is a semen stain, on another it says differently...
Thanks, RW

 

[Machiavelli]

This is not true and sheer nonsense. Why are you twisting facts?

Neither Aviello nor Alessi provided any alibi to AK or RS.

Actually, they did. Italian jurisprudence as a concept of alibi, quite literal to the word "alibi" = elsewere (not here).
Any argument that talks about a person being not in the place when the crime took place is an alibi. This was contanied in Aviello and Alessi's second-ahd accounts.
Moreover, it is worth to point out that Alessi and in particular Aviello's testimonies came out at a specific moment of the trial, having a specific function: they were needed to counter-balance the definitive Casazione ruling on Rudy Guede's verdict, which became a piece of evidence indicating that the crime was committed by more than one person. Because of this new evidence of a "multiple-assailants" scenario, the defence called new witnesses that would make it become compatible with Sollecito's absence.

 

[CDHost]

They told lies when they explained what they were doing that evening; their account of that night and the following morning, besides being not credible on many aspects, has been proven false.

Not really. I think a fair description is they were knocked off their original story during interrogation and after that stuck by it. Basically they were at Raffaele's apartment as confirmed by his neighbor. They spent the night:

1) Watched a movie
2) Had sex
3) Smoked weed
4) Read / played on the computer

I don't see how that has been contradicted now that the anti case has fallen apart.

 

[katy_did]

You know the cameras that captured Meredith coming home? (or so most observers believe) - why didn't those cameras capture those three too?

Unfortunately it was a camera that was activated by cars/people moving in the parking lot, so not constantly filming; they could have gone into the cottage at a moment when the camera wasn't active.

 

[Diocletus]

A valid alibi is evidence of innocence.

An unproven or failed alibi is no evidence.

A false alibi is evidence of guilt.

Jurisprudence defines the alibi as: "a defensive argument by which a defendant maintains his being not present on the location of the crime".

In this case there is a false alibi at play (maybe more than one false alibi). They told lies when they explained what they were doing that evening; their account of that night and the following morning, besides being not credible on many aspects, has been proven false.

There is no false alibi.

The alibi is that they were at Sollecito's at the time of the crime.

Amanda Knox made two "statements" indicating that she was at the scene of the crime. However, these statements are inadmissible. Therefore, they cannot be used to falsify the evidence that Knox and Sollecito were at Sollecito's place at the time of the crime.

What anybody says about where the defendants were the next morning is irrelevant to the alibi, since is not probative of where the defendants were when the crime was actually committed.

 

[katy_did]

Moreover, it is worth to point out that Alessi and in particular Aviello's testimonies came out at a specific moment of the trial, having a specific function: they were needed to counter-balance the definitive Casazione ruling on Rudy Guede's verdict, which became a piece of evidence indicating that the crime was committed by more than one person. Because of this new evidence of a "multiple-assailants" scenario, the defence called new witnesses that would make it become compatible with Sollecito's absence.

But wasn't the ruling on Guede only released last December, while the defence had asked for Alessi/Aviello to be heard in the appeal documents submitted the previous April or May? Or do you mean a different ruling?

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Machiavelli,
Thanks for this posting,
I will keep it in mind as I read further about this case we discuss, 1 of the reasons why I like to read of both sides of the story.

So you seem to trust Prosecutor Mignini, and the previous findings of guilt in the 1st trial. A question for you:

Why then did Judge Hellmann's Appeal Court set Amanda Knox free?
Political pressure? Economic pressure? Tourism pressure?

Sorry but I cannot elaborate on this.
For sure, I cannot comment further before reading the sentencing report.

What would make a court set both Raffaele and Amanda free, in your own opinion?

In case of judicial corruption, one of these two forces is required to play: money or massonry. They are required but they are not sufficient.

PS - The other day I asked you if indeed that was a semen stain as you had mentioned so on PMF.org. Your reply to me here on JREF was I don't know. Would you elaborate a bit further for me? For on 1 website it is a semen stain, on another it says differently...
Thanks, RW

I think you have mistaken my words. When I say "semen stain" I mean to address a topic, I do not mean the object must be ontologically a semen stain. It was called a probable semen stain by Stefanoni, first, then by Vinci. It was claimed to be a probable semen stain by the defenses. Thet's why I address the claim as "the semen stain". But it was never tested to prove whether it was a semen stain. I can't tell for sure what is it.

 

[smkovalinksy]

For what exactly was Mignini convicted?

How can you trust a prosecutor convicted of some sort of abuse of office?

Here is what he was convicted of, and the answer to your question is, you can't: 21 of his false indictments of journalists and high officials - some of whom he accused of occult activities - were thrown out:

Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor who secured the conviction last month of the American student Amanda Knox for the murder of her British flatmate Meredith Kercher, was handed a 16-month prison sentence yesterday for “abuse of office” in a separate murder investigation.

Mignini was convicted by a Florence court of exceeding his powers by tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings between 1968 and 1985.

Mignini said that he was astonished by the sentence. “My conscience is clear, I know I did nothing wrong” he told reporters. He continues his duties while awaiting the result of an appeal.

Knox’s family are now expected to argue that Mignini’s conviction undermines his credibility.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

 

[Diocletus]

Moreover, it is worth to point out that Alessi and in particular Aviello's testimonies came out at a specific moment of the trial, having a specific function: they were needed to counter-balance the definitive Casazione ruling on Rudy Guede's verdict, which became a piece of evidence indicating that the crime was committed by more than one person. Because of this new evidence of a "multiple-assailants" scenario, the defence called new witnesses that would make it become compatible with Sollecito's absence.

No. Aviello/Alessi were called so that the judge can say this in the Motivations:

"The crime could have been committed by Guede, or by Guede and others as suggested in the Guede proceedings. If it was Guede and others, this is no proof that Knox and Sollecito participated in the crime, as the other participants could have been anybody. Indeed, we have testimony that Guede himself has stated that Knox/Sollecito were not there and that he committed the crime in cooperation with people other than Knox/Sollecito."

 

[Machiavelli]

But wasn't the ruling on Guede only released last December, while the defence had asked for Alessi/Aviello to be heard in the appeal documents submitted the previous April or May? Or do you mean a different ruling?

Of course, but the Cassazione ruling on Guede makes his appeal verdict become definitive. The Cassazione verdict was anticipated. It was predictable thus that the appeal verdict would have become definitive.

 

[Diocletus]

I think you have mistaken my words. When I say "semen stain" I mean to address a topic, I do not mean the object must be ontologically a semen stain. It was called a probable semen stain by Stefanoni, first, then by Vinci. It was claimed to be a probable semen stain by the defenses. Thet's why I address the claim as "the semen stain". But it was never tested to prove whether it was a semen stain. I can't tell for sure what is it.

I understand that Comodi said in closing arguments that it was a semen stain, but that it was an "old" semen stain, so they didn't test it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Actually, they did. Italian jurisprudence as a concept of alibi, quite literal to the word "alibi" = elsewere (not here).
Any argument that talks about a person being not in the place when the crime took place is an alibi. This was contanied in Aviello and Alessi's second-ahd accounts.

If you want such a definition, suit yourself. But in this circumstances I don't see any evidence to call it "false" alibis

Moreover, it is worth to point out that Alessi and in particular Aviello's testimonies came out at a specific moment of the trial, having a specific function: they were needed to counter-balance the definitive Casazione ruling on Rudy Guede's verdict, which became a piece of evidence indicating that the crime was committed by more than one person.

Really? That's rather poor (and frankly bizarre) piece of evidence, I'd say

Because of this new evidence of a "multiple-assailants" scenario, the defence called new witnesses that would make it become compatible with Sollecito's absence.

Didn't they rather call them for the "alibi"?

 

[CDHost]

Actually, this division between "proven innocent" and "innocent" should be abolished from any law, since it violates the former suspect's right to be viewed as innocent in case he or her is found not guilty. It also a violation to human rights in article 6 of the European Convention. Italian law should also get rid of this bizarre calunnia business, since it seems to be used unfairly, suppress a free debate and free speech.

Italian justice is certainly in need of reform, not to say there are no problems elsewhere in the world, of course.

Would you agree?

I don't agree in fact I kinda like the idea of

not guilty = unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
innocent = proven by preponderance of the evidence to be innocent

People not convicted have a presumption of innocence which is far from being able to prove innocence. Further proof of innocence might carry with it financial compensation.

As for calunnia I'm not sure what the essential elements of that law are when practiced properly. I do think Mignini should be the Italian equivalent of disbarred for extreme prosecutorial abuse. I'm not sure he is demonstrating proper use of calunnia.

 

[Katody Matrass]

In case of judicial corruption, one of these two forces is required to play: money or massonry. They are required but they are not sufficient.

The third requirement is a satanic cult