Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RandyN]

Rep 140 could be considered evidence that somebody cleaned the front of the bathroom door, causing a long drip with blood/water down the inner side panel of the door. It is certainly an odd place for blood to be found. Another theory is that somebody with bloody clothes/towel may have rubbed against it as they entered the bathroom or that it is not a "drip" at all, just a defect or natural streak in the wood/stain on the door that had a spot of blood on it. I will post the pictures.

The problem with a cleanup here is why clean the door and not the very obvious light switch? There is also what appears to be a fingerprint in blood at the outer edge of the circle on the light switch picture that I was curious about. I would appreciate any thoughts on this you may have.

Given the location on the door my best guess would be that this is blood from Rudys bloody pant leg (it’s the right height) either before or after he rinsed it. I do not see why or how this indicates any cleaning of the door at all. I don’t think the outer door was cleaned… it never got dirty in the first place.

I’ve always suspected that what Macayummi calls a clean up in the bathroom did somewhat occur except that in my view what happened is that Rudy threw towels down on the floor. I think the girls kept their personal towels in their own rooms and I think Rudy used the towels from MK room first as a walkway (its just one step) to get to the bathroom and then as a place to stand as he cleaned himself up. His partial footprint on the bath mat was an accidental off balance foot placement while his foot was being cleaned. After he put his shoe back on he disposed of the towel evidence by wiping them in MK blood to cover any trace he may have left. This is why he had to come up with a story about trying to save Meredith with towels and would be reason they are found blood soaked.

My best guess for the light switch is that Rudy groped around in the dark to turn on the light. It took him a couple of tries to find the switch and he never realized how blood covered his hand was or he simply was in such an agitated state to be unable to be fully aware of signs he was leaving. I mean the guy didn’t flush...so how fastidious could he have been?

 

[davefoc]

...
This would be an entirely different situation, as the Supreme Court is not a finder of fact, but merely of law, it could only require that the case be remanded to the lower courts for yet another trial, which would be a violation of the double jeopardy clause. ...

On technical grounds I was leaning to katy_dd's view on this, but this argument sounds like it might be the winning one to me.

One thing that seems a little strange about all the is the use of the term Supreme Court. In the US very few cases are actually heard by the US Supreme Court. Is the Italian Supreme Court actually a group of courts at the same level that actually review every decision where there is an appeal after the second trial. As a practical matter what's going on here? How many cases are actually appealed to the Supreme Court and how often is a not guilty verdict overturned and often is a guilty verdict overturned? Do the Italians have anything analogous to the American Supreme Court?

Wikipedia has an article that answers some of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation_%28Italy%29

It sounds like it functions quite a bit differently than the US Supreme Court. More like a combination of the federal district appeals courts and the US Supreme Court. I might have to look around if I wanted more details. It sounds like one of these judge panels makes a decision and that's it, but that doesn't sound quite right because how would uniform interpretation be enforced?

ETA2: The Italians also have this:
Constitutional Court of Italy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Italy

 

[Antony]

LOL. Lay off the crack.

IMO Mach has a point in that the mere fact that Curatolo was on heroin at the time, doesn't in itself invalidate his testimony. There is a lot of nonsense, ignorance and prejudice spread about on the subject of recreational drugs; after all, the guilters (and even Judge Massei!) have been trying to make Amanda and Raff's use of cannabis to mean something as to their guilt, entirely without basis.

Of course, the rest of the circumstances surrounding Curatolo just highlight how desperate Machiavelli is. In particular, for Toto's testimony to mean anything, we would have to accept the prosecution's fanciful ToD - otherwise it just proves that AK and RS were not there when Meredith was attacked.

 

[RandyN]

In a pure academic scenario, if Hellmann's verdict is rejected by the Supreme Court, a new trial will take place, and at that stage no extradition will be requested. Amanda Knox will be simply demanded to be present to the first trial hearing, and if she doesn't come, she will be declared contumace ("absent") and tried in absentia.
Only at the very end, if convicted in absentia and if the last verdict is confirmed in a fifth round by the Supreme Court, extradition request will be submitted.

A request which would then be laughed all the way back to Italy.

Remember that complaints about this case have long ago been delivered to the State Department, The President, The Senate and The House....and I’m certain Cantwell left no room for doubt about the nature of the Italian Judicial system as it relates to this case. Heck, I bet Berlusconi would even testify that it is impossible for Knox to get a fair trial.

And we can always do a review of the findings regarding violations charged against Italian Courts by The European Court Of Human Rights...where we would find that Italy is the worst offender of all tracked countries.

Due Process and Double Jeopardy aside I think the right to a fair trial would be an issue and the proof of that would be the case itself. How great to replay Mignini channeling a dead priest about a satanic 4 knifed sex game that ends in a crime with no evidence, no witness, and no motive...and just for laughs lets make that last little thing (you know the nothing part) a mitigation for a life imprisonment to include a long period of isolation because the motive was nothing.

Oh yes… and all that witch talk and she-devil stuff...that’s going to go over really well here too. Added to the failure ...no refusal to provide an attorney ...to notify the consulate, to jail for a year without charge, and lets not forget that trick that Mignini and Massei used in order to completely ignore the Italian Supreme Court ruling in the first trial.

I wonder if The Supremes will consider that little transgression as they deliberate Migninis appeal documents? (I bet in the end he doesn’t have the balls to even file an appeal)

So good luck with that extradition there Yummimac….wouldn’t it be hilarious if that request to extradite landed on Judge Heavey’s desk?

My guess is that Hellmann was brought in to clean up this mess created by a bumbling prosecutor and to put an end to Italys embarrassment taking place in front of the whole world. That appeared in his tolerance and patience with all the sins tried and failed by the prosecution.

The police send thugs to Rome to shake down the Independent Experts for a DVD that was always available to them at the court house in Perugia….NOTED.

Stefanoni refuses to supply the Electronic Data Files until the judge is forced to order her to do so and then that she does so one day before the expert report is due…..NOTED

Comodi pulls a control data sheet out of her sleeve but it has the wrong dates and file numbers but she persists and so the judge gives her an hour to find the correct file but she can not. NOTED

How many tricks can an Italian judge ignore before he decides enough? This judge was patient and overly fair to the prosecution which thanked him by attacking the experts he picked and calling him prejudiced against the prosecution . LOL…good one. I’m certain he will cross the T’s and dot the I’s and there will be no case to made about the procedures in this correct verdict.

But on a brighter note... I’m excited about Migninis upcoming appeal in November in his own little abuse of office case…lets see if he who laughs last laughs best.

 

[Kaosium]

On technical grounds I was leaning to katy_dd's view on this, but this argument sounds like it might be the winning one to me.

One thing that seems a little strange about all the is the use of the term Supreme Court. In the US very few cases are actually heard by the US Supreme Court. Is the Italian Supreme Court actually a group of courts at the same level that actually review every decision where there is an appeal after the second trial. As a practical matter what's going on here? How many cases are actually appealed to the Supreme Court and how often is a not guilty verdict overturned and often is a guilty verdict overturned? Do the Italians have anything analogous to the American Supreme Court?

Wikipedia has an article that answers some of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation_%28Italy%29

It sounds like it functions quite a bit differently than the US Supreme Court. More like a combination of the federal district appeals courts and the US Supreme Court. I might have to look around if I wanted more details. It sounds like one of these judge panels makes a decision and that's it, but that doesn't sound quite right because how would uniform interpretation be enforced?

The Supreme Court of Cassation is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the law, that's where uniformity comes from, unlike common law which is based on precedent. The civil law court judges of Italy like Giancarlo Massei have wide latitude in interpreting the law in their courts, but they are all subject to the Supreme Court. For example Massei's curious decision to allow Patrick's calunnia charge to run concurrently with the murder charge before the same jury despite the statements being disallowed by the Supreme Court might well, and still might, cause consternation in those hallowed halls. Had the murder conviction been repeated, then they might have had something to say about the logic of that decision as you can see below. Also basic things like the reasonable doubt standard which should have been applied by the prosecutor and the prosecution withholding evidence ('we didn't need it to make our case'--Comodi) might also have come under fire.

Here's a quick overview of it

The highest appellate Court in Italy is the Court of Cassation. The role of the judges of this Court is limited to reviewing the decisions of an inferior court on points of law. The Court cannot therefore judge on the merit of the sentence. Nevertheless, it has often been argued that one of the reasons for which the sentences are brought before the Court of Cassation is the illogical reasoning of the judge when giving the motivation for the decision. Recently, even the President of the Court of Cassation criticised such attitude, and recommended that his colleagues avoid repeating this overlap between judging on the facts and judging on points of law.

It should be noted that the Court of Cassation does not only has the competence to evaluate whether the correct procedures were used, but also whether the criminal provisions were correctly applied when making the decisions. In fact, the Court of Cassation has the extremely important function of providing a uniform and homogeneous interpretation of the law. This does not mean, however, that its decisions can be used as a precedent for other cases. Since the Italian legal system does not use common law, the single judge must, when interpreting a law, decide on the objective meaning of that law. However, de facto, the decisions of the Court of Cassation do in some way influence the decisions of judges on similar cases. This is because a future decision that might be contrary to a law that has been considered uniform and constant by the Court of Cassation would have a high likelihood of being annulled by the Court.

ETA2: The Italians also have this:
Constitutional Court of Italy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Italy

Yes, that's different as you seem to have realized, here's a quick non-wiki explanation for anyone else also interested:

There is ample literature on the use of foreign law by Italian Supreme Courts.
One should bear in mind that in Italy there are three “Supreme” Courts: the
Court of Cassation (Corte di cassazione) for civil and criminal matters; the State Council (Consiglio di Stato) for administrative matters and the Constitutional Court (Corte costituzionale) for judicial review. The studies that have been carried out many concern the case law of the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court.

With regard to the former, one should underline that comparisons with other Supreme Courts might be misleading given the fact that in the Italy all citizens have a right to lodge an appeal in the Court of Cassation and therefore the latter delivers a significant number of decisions every year. Notwithstanding that the judgments of the Court of Cassation are well reasoned (twenty pages being the average length), given the fact that it has to deliver between twenty and thirty thousand judgments there is little space for citing foreign case law.

That's one of those things you read and go 'that's not possible!'--or at least I do. Then I remember what I'm dealing with. I wonder how many clerks they have working around the clock to get all this done?

At any rate, the vagaries of other justice systems don't matter when considering something like this for extradition, just like other countries consider their own laws for extradition treaties as well, like what I mentioned earlier and also the Polanski case. Otherwise why would there ever be a fuss about something like this, they'd be handed over without any consideration just because an extradition treaty partner asked for them, but we all know that's not how it goes. Legal technicalities wouldn't matter anyway, and even before that the US has a 'probable cause clause' to all our treaties regardless, and requires evidence that there's good reason to believe the accused committed the crime, that's absolutely missing in this case, were the nature of that 'evidence' to reach an American court I don't think you could stifle the laughter!

 

[Caper]

Stefanoni refuses to supply the Electronic Data Files until the judge is forced to order her to do so and then that she does so one day before the expert report is due…..NOTED

Comodi pulls a control data sheet out of her sleeve but it has the wrong dates and file numbers but she persists and so the judge gives her an hour to find the correct file but she can not. NOTED

None of that matter. Knox is a proven liar.

 

[Kaosium]

None of that matter. Knox is a proven liar.

Isn't it funny that despite knowing the Hellmann Court will have to write a Motivations supporting the conviction on the calunnia charge no one will even try to develop one that might pass muster with a rational mind?

 

[Diocletus]

IMO Mach has a point in that the mere fact that Curatolo was on heroin at the time, doesn't in itself invalidate his testimony. There is a lot of nonsense, ignorance and prejudice spread about on the subject of recreational drugs; after all, the guilters (and even Judge Massei!) have been trying to make Amanda and Raff's use of cannabis to mean something as to their guilt, entirely without basis.

Of course, the rest of the circumstances surrounding Curatolo just highlight how desperate Machiavelli is. In particular, for Toto's testimony to mean anything, we would have to accept the prosecution's fanciful ToD - otherwise it just proves that AK and RS were not there when Meredith was attacked.

I don't really think of heroin as a recreational drug, and certainly not as used by Curatalo. Be that as it may, Curatalo told Hellmann that he was on heroin at that time. No way on God's green earth could or would Hellmann use Curatalo's testimony.

 

[Diocletus]

Only at the very end, if convicted in absentia and if the last verdict is confirmed in a fifth round by the Supreme Court, extradition request will be submitted.

And then a US Federal judge will look at what happened and pronounce Italy guilty. Caso chiuso.

 

[RoseMontague]

I liked this comment from Stefano Nazzi:

But then, what should Amanda Knox? To live recluse? Hiding? She was acquitted, not having committed the crime. Can go to a friends house like millions of other kids in the world? But Italy is this: stay at home, dressed in black, please. Only in this way will leave you in peace.

L'unica cosa vera da fare per onorare la memoria di Meredith Kercher è cercare la verità. The only real thing to do to honor the memory of Meredith Kercher is to seek the truth.

http://www.kronaka.it/

 

[Machiavelli]

You are quite correct. The treaty does not require that she be a "factual suspect" in order for its protections to be triggered. Knox was not free to leave (the police have admitted that someone was tasked with making sure she didn't leave). That is the definition of being detained. So she was "detained in any other manner," triggering the obligation to inform her of her right to speak to the American Consulate and to honor any request to exercise that right. The treaty is quite clear: if she is detained in any manner and the police are aware she is a foreign national, she must be informed of her right to speak to the consulate.

Absolutely not. The possibility or less to leave a country is not a legal status, certainly not a status of detention. There is no granted individual right to leave a country at any moment on free will; also the English girls Merediths' roommates were in the same way prevented from leaving, but they were not detained and did not gain any special right or warrant because of this.
Every free citizen has an obligation to comply with police and magistrates requests, and this does not imply a legal nor consulate assitance. The status of freedom is not equivalent to a total freedom to do what you want in every moment. The possibility to leave then must be actually verified or denied on a possible attempt to leave or to disattend obligations in any other way, then the status of detention may intervene, not before.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh Dear

I will stick with my post. I think my track record regarding the facts has been pretty good on this board.

Why all these arguments and....errrrr....'incorrect information' (again)..... about extradition and double jeopardy ????

"It is Over".....

Remember ? ?

All those arguing guilt...... "were wrong"

Remember ? ?

 

[Diocletus]

Absolutely not. The possibility or less to leave a country is not a legal status, certainly not a status of detention. There is no granted individual right to leave a country at any moment on free will; also the English girls Merediths' roommates were in the same way prevented from leaving, but they were not detained and did not gain any special right or warrant because of this.
Every free citizen has an obligation to comply with police and magistrates requests, and this does not imply a legal nor consulate assitance. The status of freedom is not equivalent to a total freedom to do what you want in every moment. The possibility to leave then must be actually verified or denied on a possible attempt to leave or to disattend obligations in any other way, then the status of detention may intervene, not before.

Leave the country? How about the possibility of leaving the police station first? She couldn't because she was in a custodial interrogation. No one cares about your faux distinction between de facto and de jure suspects, a disingenuous device that appears to be created for the sole purpose of allowing the police a period of time to abuse people they suspect or know committed crimes.

 

[Diocletus]

That's true. Hellmann did say that those arguing guilt were wrong. He got you there, Bruce.

 

[Machiavelli]

Leave the country? How about the possibility of leaving the police station first? She couldn't because she was in a custodial interrogation. No one cares about your faux distinction between de facto and de jure suspects, a disingenuous device that appears to be created for the sole purpose of allowing the police a period of time to abuse people they suspect or know committed crimes.

Well, to me, it's that no one cares about what you care. This is the law, the law was respected and enforced, this is what matters, not what you care about. These legal devices are accepted by all European and international organs, they are not under dispute (by comparison the legal devices employed by the USA instead are under international dispute).
So if you claim that a violation of rights was found, ot that thre was a violation of law, you are plainly stating the false.

 

[Osterwelle]

How much they would have been of help does not cure the violation.

Of course not, but it shows that the US embassy didn't really cover itself with glory here...

What is interesting is that on the day the Italian cops informed the embassy, the Italian authorities got possession of a document stating that the cops had abused the prisoner.

Amanda's "gift" to the police or is this something else?

I would certainly hope that if this had been brought to the embassy's attention, it would have been cause for grave concern.

I'm pretty sure they received this information eventually. Don't know if it caused "grave convern" but it certainly didn't cause any useful action...

But it wasn't brought to the embassy's attention, which to me is a tacit admission that the cops did abuse the prisoner.

Don't know, too much is unclear about the embassy's involvement and who told who, so I wouldn't put too much weight on that argument. The "forgotten" video/audio record of the interrogation is what's really fishy to me...

-
Osterwelle

 

[pilot padron]

Since you see a need to endlessly quote this

That's true. Hellmann did say that those arguing guilt were wrong. He got you there, Bruce.

(Which BTW reminds me of how propaganda influences the masses of 'less informed' with simpleton sequences of self perpetuating restatements.)

Maybe you need reminding (or possibly informing) about Judge Hellman's comments after his in Court TV cameras were off.
__________________________________
Amanda Knox judge says she may have 'been responsible' after all

Judge says acquittal of US student and Rafaelle Sollecito was based on 'truth created in the proceedings'.
But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible
________________________________

But surely you knew that.

You also surely know that repeatedly arguing by using propaganda like spin about "exoneration, completely vindicated, etcccc" is grossly inaccurate, even if the Final Appeal had been decided.
Which you may also need informing... has not.

This style is easily seen for what it is; an agenda driven, spin biased argument that gets little relevance from informed readers.
But these arguments do usually manage to garner the usual mindless "atta boy" or two, if that is the objective.

ETA:
In the interests of a Forum that extols endlessly the necessity for minute accuracy, Judge Hellman never used the words that you seem so enraptured with, and keep repeating.
He did however use the *exact* words I have referenced above:They may be responsible

 

[Machiavelli]

...

Of course, the rest of the circumstances surrounding Curatolo just highlight how desperate Machiavelli is. In particular, for Toto's testimony to mean anything, we would have to accept the prosecution's fanciful ToD - otherwise it just proves that AK and RS were not there when Meredith was attacked.

What some people seem to not understand, or not accept, is that Curatolo's testiomony can never work as an evidence of their alibi, because their alibi is that they were at Raffaele's apartment.
Curatolo's testimony would only prove they are lying about their alibi. And a false alibi is evidence of guilt. The fact that they are not there is - based on Curatolo's testimony and the medical opinions - not only qustionable on logical grounds due to uncertainity about ToD and about timings of Curatolo's testimony, but also legally of little value. Because you don't have to be in a specific place in order to be guilty of a charge, you only have to be responsible of an event. Whether their responsibility consists in stabbing Meredith or doing other activities such as covering things up, to me, only a secondary matter. The first logical step is finding proof of involvement and responsability, dynamic is a secondary step. It's obvious that if both are not in the murder room at the moment of the fatal stabbing, it would be difficult to describe a dynamic of the murder. But nonetheless a false alibi like this one cannot be considered an evidence of non-responsibility.

 

[RoseMontague]

The possibility to leave then must be actually verified or denied on a possible attempt to leave or to disattend obligations in any other way, then the status of detention may intervene, not before.

I get it. She has to attempt to escape and not succeed before she is officially detained. Of course, makes perfect sense. What a racket.

 

[RoseMontague]

What some people seem to not understand, or not accept, is that Curatolo's testiomony can never work as an evidence of their alibi, because their alibi is that they were at Raffaele's apartment.
Curatolo's testimony would only prove they are lying about their alibi. And a false alibi is evidence of guilt. The fact that they are not there is - based on Curatolo's testimony and the medical opinions - not only qustionable on logical grounds due to uncertainity about ToD and about timings of Curatolo's testimony, but also legally of little value. Because you don't have to be in a specific place in order to be guilty of a charge, you only have to be responsible of an event. Whether their responsibility consists in stabbing Meredith or doing other activities such as covering things up, to me, only a secondary matter. The first logical step is finding proof of involvement and responsability, dynamic is a secondary step. It's obvious that if both are not in the murder room at the moment of the fatal stabbing, it would be difficult to describe a dynamic of the murder. But nonetheless a false alibi like this one cannot be considered an evidence of non-responsibility.

I think the fact that you are desperately clinging to Curatolo's testimony as somehow credible makes anything else you say about the case less credible.