Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Kaosium]

This argument has never been convincing to me.

That a comparable case has never been found for people 'conspiring' together spontaneously like that with people they barely knew or hadn't even met (without gang or cult affiliations) is worth noting because even amongst murderers that behavior would be basically unique.

You later addressed the fact that they never squealed on each other, which I find to be the much stronger point. If the three of them had been involved together in the killing, one or more would have started talking early on. There has never been a credible reason given why the three would all keep mum, when turning state's witness would certainly lighten that person's sentence.

Not recording wasn't why the Corte Suprema di Cassazione wouldn't allow it in the first trial. They didn't allow it because as a witness one can't make a statement that can be used against yourself. [/quote]

However, why was it presented to the court as a 'witness' statement when they clearly suspected Amanda of the crime and set up an interrogation session with twelve cops in the middle of the night? To avoid the restrictions that would have been required, such as her having a lawyer present and it being taped. Making it a 'witness statement' was an attempt to bypass those restrictions, which are in place to combat tactics like those used on Raffaele and Amanda.

The Supreme Court threw it out because the cops didn't obey the requirements for it to be used against her, however they most definitely did use it against her in Matteini's Court and the press, and you've got to figure they must know what the law is, being as they're police and prosecutors. Mignini's rationalization and gaming of this Byzantine system by pretending it was a 'witness' statement and having it disallowed on those grounds, which would still allow it to be used against Amanda in the slander trial was bought into by Massei, it doesn't have to be accepted by anyone else.

You've been going through the early days lately, did they call that a 'confession' or a 'witness statement' at the time they first announced it?

The second statement made to Mig was thrown out because at that time she was a suspect and she was entitled to an attorney and that session was required to be recorded.

Which he attempted to bypass by pretending it was a 'spontaneous declaration.' It wasn't that either, any more than the first one was a 'witness statement.' Both statements were disallowed by the Supreme Court because they didn't follow Italian law in order for them to be used against Amanda, that did in fact include more than that they weren't recorded, but because they weren't recorded (and no lawyer was present) they couldn't be legitimate suspect statements anyway, and what Mignini did was attempt to get them into the trial and save his police from being disciplined by pretending both of them were other than what on the face of it ought to have been definite suspect statements.

So while it's technically true that the first was presented a 'witness statement' and the other a 'spontaneous declaration,' that simply serves to protect them from ever having to produce a tape of the night's festivities and was a partially successful attempt to get as much of their content into the trial under Massei's tender auspices. Since the context of the twelve police in the middle of the night and (most of) the other witness statements being recorded suggests they damn well were interrogating her as a suspect at that point and even if it was a witness statement it was being recorded, if it wasn't taped that's damned curious to begin with. It's the sort of thing that needs tortured explanations such as this to hide the fact Amanda's rights were violated and the tapes that ought to show who's telling the truth about this aren't required.

My point here is that it had to be a 'witness statement' because there was no tape and no lawyer, and it had to be a 'spontaneous declaration' because there was no tape and no lawyer, otherwise Mignini has to tell the Supreme Court (in his 'brief' or whatever they call it) his police violated the rights of Amanda and Raffaele and the whole thing should be thrown out, do you suppose that was going to be his legal strategy?

No, his legal strategy was to pretend that the first was a 'witness statement' (which the EBA says is not an uncommon practice amongst police and prosecutors in Italy) and the second a 'spontaneous declaration.' As a result they were rejected on those grounds which still allowed Mignini to backdoor them into the trial with Massei's complicity.

If you're dubious, just stop and think about it: is that first statement of Amanda's actually a 'witness statement?' Does the context in which it was obtained suggest that? Did their reaction to receiving it suggest they were getting a simply witness statement? Was it announced to the world as a 'witness statement' or was it considered a suspect's confession? Do you honestly suppose they didn't tape that one witness session after their interest in bugging just about everything Raffaele and Amanda said? Why don't they have to produce the tape? Oh, they said it was a 'witness statement' and they weren't 'required'--even though they did with (just about) all the rest of them. Do you suppose they really didn't tape this one witness session because they 'weren't required by Italian law' or that they pretended it was a 'witness statement' so they wouldn't have to produce the tape?

To protect their asses and to get as much against Amanda as they could they simply gamed the Italian legal system which is what they presented to the Supreme Court. It didn't quite work perfectly, but it worked a helluva lot better if they'd told them the truth!

 

[smkovalinksy]

Reading TJMK can be hazardous to your health - it should be a required statement on the site.

They can write whatever they want in an appeal. That doesn't mean that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione will accept all those arguments.

Since Mach says he won't be commenting, we can't ask him, but I assume that much of this appeal is for local consumption. Galati gets to make Mignini, Massei, and others in Perugia happy by putting their theories back in the press.

On a another site it was said by Yummi that this appeal by Galati and Maresca will put on the record what "the facts" of this case really were, for all of time. He also asked that a public letter be written backing the prosecution. It sure seems he has a vested interest in the case.

Yes, I suppose he does. I do wonder if the Court of Cassation in Rome will give this all the green light, as it seems to be simply an attempt to turn back the clock pre-Hellmann. So much for a one-day argument in a closed room based on the narrowest of technical grounds, as CNN said the prosecutorial appeal would be in Oct. In any case, If Rome gives this the go-ahead, I do not envy Amanda or Sollecito. Although free, they will be in limbo and anxiety.

 

[komponisto]

They always appeal

I am not certain how Ms. Knox was supposed to anticipate that the prosecution would appeal, but her negotiations were prior to the Valentine's day offensive from the prosecutors.

halides1,

From everything I understand about the way the Italian justice system operates, it would have been highly unusual for the prosecution not to appeal to the Cassazione. Although in theory they could have declined to do so, in practice all cases in Italy are expected to pass through all three levels of judgement as a matter of routine. (I've made this point a number of times here and on IIP.)

The same goes for Amanda's calumny case, about which there was likewise some ill-founded speculation here before that she might not appeal. Not appealing is very uncommon in Italy because all appeals are heard (in extreme contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, which only grants certiorari in something like 1% of cases submitted to it).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The contents of Filomena's room

1. Why would she name him at all?

2. Do you have any citations supporting your contention regarding Filomena's room?

3. I am willing to concede that Guede has a vested interest in implicating others, but that isn't a reason to dismiss what he says. He placed them at the scene.

jhunter1163,
1. If it makes no sense for a hypothetically innocent Amanda to name Lumumba, then it also makes no sense for a hypothetically guilty Amanda to name him, IMO. I think it is an even-odds bet that the police knew that Amanda had run into Patrik earlier that day. The two had also exchanged text messages on the night of 1 November, and it is difficult to believe that the police did not know everything about this exchange by 5 November.
2. Candace Dempsey (Murder in Italy) used both Amanda's email of 4 November and Raffaele's diary as two of her sources for her account. On page 59 she wrote, "He said...then they went into Filomena's bedroom...." Amanda's email mentioned Filomena's computer. I do not have a citation that pertains directly to whether or not Amanda told Raffaele about the computer. However, in one of threads, I seem to recall that Filomena also had a camera which was also visible. Dempsey mentioned a camera in the kitchen (p. 63), but I do not know whether or not this was Filomena's.

Dempsey (page 61) gives the text of Raffaele's 12:54 call to the Carabinieri. The police asked him how he knew a burglar had entered through the window. Raffaele responded, "They didn't take anything."

EDT
My quote from Dempsey (page 61) left out some of what Raffaele said, and the way it presently reads is confusing. I will try to fix this tonight, but I don't have Murder in Italy in front of me at the moment. The gist of it is that Raffaele said that there were signs (presumably the rock and the broken window. Then he said that nothing was taken. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Dan O.]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me ...:

1... To my mind,

3. ...Yes, I know

This is what causes these threads to push into rule violation territory. We are not allowed to analyze the mental processes of other posters. Can you show what makes these points valid without inserting yourself into the discussion?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no appeal of the mitigation

halides1,

From everything I understand about the way the Italian justice system operates, it would have been highly unusual for the prosecution not to appeal to the Cassazione. Although in theory they could have declined to do so, in practice all cases in Italy are expected to pass through all three levels of judgement as a matter of routine. (I've made this point a number of times here and on IIP.)

komponisto,

That is very interesting. Yet the prosecution did not appeal Guede's sentence reduction which was granted at the appeal level. I am not referring to the 1/3 fast track reduction, but the reduction of 6 years (I think it is called mitigation, but I am not sure). What do you think this means?

 

[smkovalinksy]

More general than I had understood it to be allowed to be...

So through Maresca, the Kercher family is part of this appeal. And now Hellmann's perspective of "reasonable doubt" and indeed his conditions for review, are called into question:

Elsewhere, the prosecution's appeal has claimed that only pro-defense theories were considered.

I guess I took (too) seriously the CNN report of a one day appeal behind closed doors, which would allow for only the most narrow and technical disputes.

This, conversely, is vast, general, comprehensive, and highly insulting to Hellmann. Sigh.......

Amid book deal hoo-ha, lawyers in Florence launch legal bid to overturn Knox and Sollecito acquittal
BY Andrea Vogt

The crucial court filings mark the final critical phase of one of Europe's longest-running, highest-profile murder trial sagas.

"We are petitioning against the decision of the Court of Appeals of Perugia and are optimistic it will be admitted to the Court of Cassation for review," said Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca in Florence. Prosecutor General Giovanni Galati filed the same appeal – or ‘recourse’, to be more accurate - in Perugia, amid a throng of reporters.

The 112-page document focuses on ten points of law, but mainly focuses on a perceived misapplication of reasonable doubt and the controversial decision by the appeals court to allow an independent review of just two contested pieces of forensic evidence.

"The knife and the bra clasp were just two scientific elements of many," Maresca said. "We believe that either everything should be re-evaluated, or you say the court is able to judge for itself. This was a huge contradiction."

They also maintain that the Court of Appeals mistakenly applied reasonable doubt to singular pieces of evidence, when it was intended to apply to the whole case.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...-appeal-against-knoxs-acquittal#ixzz1mZ6EfWqG

 

[komponisto]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

Have you read the Hellmann-Zanetti report? Each of the points you raised is addressed therein.

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

The third sentence is factually incorrect, as others have pointed out. As for the second, what makes you so sure (especially given that you were mistaken about the timing)? Have you considered an alternative hypothesis, such as that adopted by the Hellmann court?:

...t is understandable that Amanda Knox, yielding to pressure and fatigue, would have hoped to put an end to that situation by giving her interrogators that which, in the end, they wanted to hear: a name, a murderer.

But why Patrick Lumumba, exactly? Because the police had found, on Amanda Knox’s phone, the message “see you later”, sent by her to Lumumba on the evening of November 1; which could also mean she actually intended to see him later to go somewhere, maybe to the house on Via Della Pergola — whence the insistent questioning about that message, its meaning, and its intended recipient.

By “giving up” [Dando "in pasto"] that name to those who were interrogating her so harshly, Amanda Knox probably hoped to put an end to that pressure, now a true torment after long hours, while adding details and constructing a brief story around that name would certainly not have been particularly difficult, if for no other reason than that many details and inferences [illazioni] had already appeared in many newspapers the next day, and were circulating all throughout the city, considering the modest dimensions of Perugia.

[...]

This Court therefore finds that Amanda Knox had indicated Lumumba as the perpetrator only because, at that moment, it appeared to be the quickest and easiest way to put an end to the situation in which she found herself, her interrogators having insisted on an explanation of the message she sent to him.

(This, by the way, is not my own view. My own view is that the police had succeeded in convincing the distressed Amanda, temporarily, that something like the story told in her statements was actually true.)

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

The confusion of Filomena's room with Meredith's has been noted by others. As for the "nothing had been taken from the room", Hellmann and Zanetti have it right:

One final argument offered to support the theory that the burglary was staged is the fact that Raffaele Sollecito, in the phone call he made to request the intervention of the Carabinieri, said that nothing had been taken: how would he be able to say — it is argued — that nothing had been taken before an accurate inspection had been done by those who lived in the house? And the answer is that he could do so precisely because he knew very well that it was only a mise-en-scène, having [himself] been its creator [artefice] together with Amanda Knox.

This Court does not find that argument meaningful. The statement “they didn’t steal anything” was a spontaneous response, dictated by the fact that Amanda Knox, on an initial cursory examination after she had already entered the house, had not found that any important things were conspicuously missing, and at any rate, if they had been the ones to carry out the staging and to call the Carabinieri to portray their surprise at what had happened and their innocence of the murder, they would certainly have been more shrewd and Raffaele Sollecito would not have spontaneously answered “they didn’t steal anything”.

Finally:

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

Here is what the report has to say:

So, also in substantive terms [sotto il profilo sostanziale], the indication of responsibility contained in the letter submitted does not represent the result of an account described in detail of a real story, witnessed [constatata] by the author [Guede] and reported in its particulars, but only the expression of a personal conviction, based on evidence unknown to us [basati su quali elementi non è dato sapere], there being an absence of statements made in this trial by Rudy Guede.

[...]

Also the Corte di Assise di Appello that judged Rudy Guede...considered Rudy Guede to be an unreliable person, and this certificate of unreliability [patente di inattendibilità] can be [considered] confirmed in light of his conduct in the current trial, where he confirms writing the letter, in which he implicated Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the perpetrators of the crime and, however, in an entirely ambiguous way: instead of providing details, he refuses to respond on the facts of that night, affirming that this has always been his thought and that “…it’s not up to me to decide who murdered Meredith…”

 

[Matthew Best]

Have you read the Hellmann-Zanetti report? Each of the points you raised is addressed therein.



The third sentence is factually incorrect, as others have pointed out. As for the second, what makes you so sure (especially given that you were mistaken about the timing)? Have you considered an alternative hypothesis, such as that adopted by the Hellmann court?:



(This, by the way, is not my own view. My own view is that the police had succeeded in convincing the distressed Amanda, temporarily, that something like the story told in her statements was actually true.)



The confusion of Filomena's room with Meredith's has been noted by others. As for the "nothing had been taken from the room", Hellmann and Zanetti have it right:



Finally:



Here is what the report has to say:

Blah, blah, blah. Mere details.

They look guilty.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The law does not prevent the admission of new evidence on appeal in the absolute, but requires the filing of specific motivations for the admission (motivations that Hellmann's court failed to provide). Motivations that must have some requirements. New evidence can be introduced only if a specific requirement is acknowledged.

Hellmann provided quite clear motivations for the appointment of the court experts - to determine the existence of evidence claimed by the prosecution, a claim which was disputed by the defence.

The evidence introduced is not called "call an independent expert", it is called "introducing new evidence", which implies that whatever the evidence is - might well be a new expert's opinion - this will not be considered like anything "independent", it will be instead be just new evidence taking the shape of a point on some of the parties, and it cannot just be allowed to be there as a "third" thing, a conclusive opinion on others opinions to solve the issues. Instead if introduction of new evidence is opened, the evidence must be of symmetrical kind. Means any party has a right to "reply" presenting their own evidence and this means the evidence must be introduced simmetrically, as an opportunity for all the parties to reply. So if the defence demands new evidence on item X and Y, and this evidence is deemed necessary with legitimate motivations, then the accusation parties will have to be allowed to introduce evidence on points X and Y as well.

But that's not the case. The testing had been conducted in the presence of the parties. Court appointed experts reported their findings. Prosecution was allowed to bring new experts to refute it, Hellmann let Stefanoni explain herself one more time on the stand. No one denied prosecution the right to respond with counter-evidence, which they in fact gave.

To me it is obvious that the C&V does not serve at all purposes of seeking the truth, since does not add absolutely anything to the altready known facts. All findings and opinions of C&V report were already known and had already been submitted by the defense in the first trial. Just for this it's obvious the appointing of new experts was illegitimate.

But that's simply not true. The court appointed experts not only resolved the disputed question but also cast light on other issues like the fact that Stefanoni destroyed evidence (was it misconduct or extreme incompetence?) or that she lied about the testing she did (the quantification issue).

I don't think the prosecution will go far in the Supreme Court which such arguments.

 

[Bill Williams]

One final argument offered to support the theory that the burglary was staged is the fact that Raffaele Sollecito, in the phone call he made to request the intervention of the Carabinieri, said that nothing had been taken: how would he be able to say — it is argued — that nothing had been taken before an accurate inspection had been done by those who lived in the house? And the answer is that he could do so precisely because he knew very well that it was only a mise-en-scène, having [himself] been its creator [artefice] together with Amanda Knox.

The penny did not drop for me until this, which I've already read three or four times.

Is THIS all there is in the, "Knox and Sollecito knew details of the crime only the perp would know," department?

Also, I had someone say to me without smiling, that, "Knox knew a foot was sticking out of the closet! How would she know that?"

Also, the "she ****-ing bled to death...."

Are these three "it"? Please, please tell me you have not been persecuting an innocent only on these three things! Please PM me if you don't want to deal with this in the forum.

 

[Grinder]

That a comparable case has never been found for people 'conspiring' together spontaneously like that with people they barely knew or hadn't even met (without gang or cult affiliations) is worth noting because even amongst murderers that behavior would be basically unique.

It just isn't a strong point to me. If there was real forensic evidence that R & A were at the murder scene at the time of the murder or if one of Raffaele's pocket knives had Meredith's DNA, the above argument would be laughable.

Had someone that played a clown killed 30 boys and buried them under his house before Gacy?

While I agree that the Mignini theory is far fetched and there is absolutely no evidence that they were together, I just don't think the "it would be unique" argument is powerful.

The Supreme Court threw it out because the cops didn't obey the requirements for it to be used against her, however they most definitely did use it against her in Matteini's Court and the press, and you've got to figure they must know what the law is, being as they're police and prosecutors. Mignini's rationalization and gaming of this Byzantine system by pretending it was a 'witness' statement and having it disallowed on those grounds, which would still allow it to be used against Amanda in the slander trial was bought into by Massei, it doesn't have to be accepted by anyone else.

I'm pretty sure the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ruled the 1:45 statement was not allowed because it was made by an informed person. As a statement accusing Patrick it would always be available for the calunnia trial but they shouldn't had the two cases tried together.

It wasn't ruled out because it wasn't recorded. Of course, I think she was a suspect at that time and they misrepresented it. I was commenting on the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ruling that you had said was because it wasn't recorded, which I think is incorrect.

You've been going through the early days lately, did they call that a 'confession' or a 'witness statement' at the time they first announced it?

They called it a confession or an accusation, but that has nothing to do with the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ruling, which I was addressing.

My point here is that it had to be a 'witness statement' because there was no tape and no lawyer, and it had to be a 'spontaneous declaration' because there was no tape and no lawyer, otherwise Mignini has to tell the Supreme Court (in his 'brief' or whatever they call it) his police violated the rights of Amanda and Raffaele and the whole thing should be thrown out, do you suppose that was going to be his legal strategy?

Just as Galati is trying to appeal on grounds that aren't allowed, prosecutors and defense attorneys attempt to get courts to help their cases even if they know odds are slim.

 

[RWVBWL]

She was told that the police had hard evidence that Patrick had killed Meredith and that she was there. They did have her say what "they knew to be correct" after she buckled, according to the police chief. Why wouldn't she have pointed towards Rudy, since she left his evidence? At that point if she were guilty, why wouldn't she buckle and tell the truth?

Yes, if it is exactly as reported his statement is a bit odd. However, to be fair, Filomena noticing immediately that her make-up was missing is just as odd. Raffaele looked in the room and saw the computer and a few other things that made him think nothing was taken.

Perhaps, he was asked if anything was taken and he answered that he didn't know or that he hadn't noticed anything missing. He seems and seemed like a nervous Nelly and might have just blurted out stuff when talking to 112.
<snip>

Hi Grinder,
I had not heard that Filomena had some make-up missing.
Can you tell me where you read this?

I'm asking,
just for the sake of playin' devils advocate from a PGP point of view or whatever the heck you wanna call it,
might Amanda have taken the make-up to cover up that scratch that most of those guilter folks seem to think Meredith caused on Amanda's neck in her life ending struggle with her?

You know the 1, it's what I believe, as do many others, is a hickey...

But the logical part of me says na, Amanda didn't steal Filomena's make-up, for if she was worried about that scratch Meredith caused, why would'nt she have just worn Raffaele's yellow scarf to hide it when dealing with the cops? Speaking of which, why did Raf wear a scarf, was he too tryin' to hide something? For some reason I don't think so...

Anyways, just wondered about Filomena's missing make-up...
See ya, RW

 

[Kaosium]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

Actually she didn't name him almost immediately, that's not true. Amanda and Raffaele reported the crime about 1 PM on November 2nd, 2007. From then until ~6:00 AM November 6th she'd spend 53 of those 89 or so hours with the police, either answering questions at the cottage, Raffaele's or at the police station in interviews, or awaiting her turn. She spent a total of 40 or so of those hours in the Questura itself. Of that time at least 14 of those hours were in one of those rooms, probably more like ~18. The night of the Fifth Raffaele and Amanda walked in at 10:15, Raffaele went immediately to be interviewed, Amanda went to the waiting area and spoke to Filomena.

At a little after 10:30 (I think the call was placed at 10:29 and it took four minutes or so) Amanda would hang up with Filomena saying the police wanted to talk to her, and we'd find out that would be because Raffaele had 'dropped' her alibi, and she'd go into that little room for the last time. Raffaele's statement in which he says they went out to the square that night and parted there and she went to Le Chic and he returned hope ~9 PM would be timed and dated 10:40 November 5th, suggesting Ficarra and Napoleoni approached Amanda to ensure she didn't leave as soon as they heard that, which would make sense as it implies Amanda was lying about her alibi the whole week.

Her first statement was signed at 1:45 AM November Sixth, which is about three hours from the time she was approached and they started with her. She did say in court that they didn't start being harsh with her until a while into her interview, and being as the interpreter didn't get there until ~12:30 that's probably not unlikely, but even if the final phase only took an hour, there was plenty of prologue which was already starting to take its toll. Amanda was exhausted, at that point it had been about 85 hours since the murder and she'd been with them about 49 of those hours. Saying that the last hour was the only one that counted is kinda like pretending that the last floor is what does a person in when they fall from a hundred story building. That might be where the dramatic splat takes place, but the other 99 floors certainly contributed and the mess wouldn't be as big--or have occurred at at all--if it wasn't for the other ninety-nine!

However even if that wasn't so, what makes you think that Amanda trying to 'get the spotlight off herself' was why those statements were signed? That's what the police said after the fact, at the time they said she 'buckled and gave a version of the facts we knew to be correct.' On the other hand, in Amanda's note written to police contemporaneously, Amanda says she was told they had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene, that Raffaele said she went out that night and told her to lie (not quite on the latter) and that they threatened and hit her and she was terribly confused about everything she signed and what happened that night and no longer was sure what was the truth.

So there's two versions of that night's events, what the police said and what Amanda said. Her version doesn't change and is compatible with what can happen when an exhausted person is lied to and browbeaten into submission under police interrogation. Theirs on the other hand doesn't fit with their actions that night at all, and doesn't fit with their actions or statements directly afterward. If Amanda was trying to throw suspicion off herself, it obviously didn't work being as it got her arrested, but even if she did, why on earth did they ever believe it if they had no other reason to think Patrick involved like they'd pretend afterward in court? Why didn't it occur to them that Amanda might be trying to mislead them, and isn't it pretty obvious who she might be trying to protect if that were the case? They have Raffaele cooling his heels in another room and they never even ask him about the murder? Why was that? Why did they let Amanda off with just 'not being sure' if Raffaele was there in the statements? Why didn't they ask Raffaele?

Why instead of following up on this 'new' information did they completely forget about Raffaele, whose shameless public cuddling of Amanda would become the talk of three nations, when it was pretty much obvious there would have to be a man involved for the rape part, they must have guessed she didn't do that part. Who was the obvious one for her to be protecting, as it's clear they didn't believe her about anything else in the 'confession' why did they accept Patrick's inclusion without doubt? My guess is cops in Italy are aware that sometimes criminals will lie, thus if she really accused Patrick out of the blue and they had no reason to suspect him otherwise, wouldn't at least one of them wonder if she might be trying to distract them from her and Raffaele who they specifically called in to interview that night?

After the second statement at 5:45 AM on November Sixth the cops would go out and arrest Patrick and interrogate him all day long, then pack the three of them up in a ten car sirens-blazing lights-flashing police convoy and parade through the streets of Perugia like they caught a mafia don and announce 'case closed.' Does that fit with what the cops would have done if all they had on Patrick was some offbeat foreign exchange student's delirious ramblings? They refused to believe anything Patrick said, they even found a 'witness' to his bar being closed when it wasn't, and yet they still arrested him for murder, paraded them through the streets and announced 'case closed?'

So even if you think Amanda was trying to 'throw them off' by sending them after the one person (outside herself and Raffaele) who she would have reason to believe had an alibi for the night, (being as the texts they exchanged about him being at work and her not having to was the main subject of the interrogation) why did they fall for it so easily and completely 'forget' that she might have been lying about that when they thought she was lying about everything else?

Also, if you believe Amanda was trying to finger Patrick, then in reality she must have been trying to protect Rudy. Why'd she go and do that when if she was involved she must have deliberately left all Rudy's evidence at the cottage and instead of cleaning up (at least the obvious stuff not in the murder room) she instead led police right to it? Why'd she go and do that, pointing out the evidence he left and not cleaning it up but taking the chance of bringing major suspicion on herself by accusing someone else?

If she wanted to throw them off the track she didn't have to tell them she was there and get herself arrested too! That makes a liar out of her for saying differently the rest of the week! She didn't have to try to pretend she saw someone she would know wasn't there and the police couldn't find evidence of that she had every reason to think was working and would almost certainly have someone who could alibi him. She could have said she suspected him, or he told her something, or she saw something (afterward) that caused her to think he was involved, but giving them an easily falsifiable story is about the stupidest thing she could do, and considering they wouldn't believe her about anything else, why would a guilty Amanda have any expectation they'd believe her about this?

While at the outset it might sound plausible that Amanda might have accused someone else to throw someone off her trail, it just doesn't fit at all with the situation at the time. It does however fit with the cops initially thinking Amanda was complicit with Patrick in the murder, Raffaele was simply someone who helped her later, and them putting the screws to her all night long to get a 'confirmation' of their theory. Then afterward realizing they could 'use it' as more 'evidence' of Amanda being guilty even if Patrick wasn't. Otherwise they'd have to admit their bizarre theory that Mignini just made up with no evidence to support it wasn't true, and they'd made a massive mistake arresting them all off those barely coherent statements and parading around town as well as posturing for the international media.

It was easier (and safer!) to pretend it was all Amanda's fault, and as long as it was, they could still be right.

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

I suspect you're conflating a couple different contentions here. Raffaele didn't say anything about stuff being taken from Meredith's room, he told the Carabinieri when he called that 'nothing had been taken' and was probably referring to the fact he saw Filomena's camera and computer in plain view. He might also have been trying to suggest that their reason for calling wasn't just the evidence they saw of a break-in, but that someone in the household wasn't answering the phone, they'd found blood, and her door was locked and they were concerned.

The guilty interpretation suggests that this shows 'foreknowledge.' However that comes with the assumption that Raffaele would be involved in staging a break-in, not taking anything, and then tell the police that despite the fact it would turn out something had highly likely been taken: Meredith's rent money, ~400 Euros if I recall correctly, which is probably what Rudy used to get to Germany.

The other contention you may have juxtaposed here is that Amanda said in conversations after the murder regarding things about what happened even though she didn't look into the murder room. That's true, however she was at the scene where everyone was talking about it and she picked up some things that were true, such as Meredith having her throat cut, and some things that were not, such as her body being in the closet with the foot sticking out.

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

He also didn't name them either. After the murder talking on the Skype with his friend, unbeknownst to him the police were monitoring it, he said that Amanda wasn't involved, and suggested at first Raffaele wasn't, then allowed that was possible. After a few months in prison he claimed that the guy he originally described that didn't really match Raffaele might have been him, and that he heard someone that might have been Amanda.

After Amanda and Raffaele's original verdict where the defense position was to present the more likely scenario of Rudy doing it alone, a criminal by the name of Alessi who is notorious in Italy for killing a toddler in a botched kidnapping attempt, wrote a note to the court saying that he and a few others had heard Guede admit in prison to them that Raffaele and Amanda weren't there. Shortly thereafter another note, supposedly written and signed by Guede, said that Alessi was a liar and a monster, Rudy had nothing to do with it than he said, and everyone should blame Raffaele and Amanda as the Italian courts did. He didn't exactly say they were there and gave no details. The handwriting on the note doesn't look much of anything like the handwriting on his diary, and the words used don't suggest a petty criminal of dubious education. You can compare and contrast them if you like, I or someone else can dig up the scans which have been posted in the thread.

At the appeal Rudy's 'testimony' more or less amounted to sitting there while that letter was read in court. He didn't seem too enthused about the whole thing. My guess is he didn't write it, his lawyer or Mignini did as a 'response' to Alessi's contention, which would also become testimony at the appeal. It's of little value outside that context, as it amounted to little more than sticking to his story of not being the murderer but someone else doing it, and using Raffaele and Amanda as the 'someone else' without actually saying they did it, but agreeing with the court's verdict, a court process which--thanks to Mignini and Maresca--has been very kind to him.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just a side note, Via Sarah Snyder:

Knox sells memoir rights to Harper Collins for close to $ 4 Million

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...said-to-acquire-rights-to-amanda-knox-memoir/

 

[Grinder]

Hi Grinder,
I had not heard that Filomena had some make-up missing.
Can you tell me where you read this?

You thought I just made this up, didn't you and this was a test. Well I don't know where I first read it but...

The biggest single objection to the prosecution's colourful theory was found on the floor of the bedroom occupied by one of the two young Italian women who also shared the flat, Filomena Romanelli. It was a rock, measuring approximately 8in by 6in by 6in, which had been used to smash her window. What is more, there was evidence of a burglary: Romanelli's possessions had been gone through, although nothing was missing except, perhaps, some makeup.

from the Guardian

I'm asking, just for the sake of playin' devils advocate from a PGP point of view or whatever the heck you wanna call it, might Amanda have taken the make-up to cover up that scratch that most of those guilter folks seem to think Meredith caused on Amanda's neck in her life ending struggle with her?

From what PGP say, Amanda was such a slob and low-life she didn't know how to use soap much less makeup but Rudy - definitely a possible user.

But the logical part of me says na, Amanda didn't steal Filomena's make-up, for if she was worried about that scratch Meredith caused, why would'nt she have just worn Raffaele's yellow scarf to hide it when dealing with the cops? Speaking of which, why did Raf wear a scarf, was he too tryin' to hide something? For some reason I don't think so...

Anyways, just wondered about Filomena's missing make-up...
See ya, RW

I'm wondering why the kids didn't shave their hair saying it was in sympathy with Meredith, when in fact it was to hide drug use.

The ILE screwed up the drug tests apparently because the PGP theories on the kids' drug use just keeps on coming.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hellmann provided quite clear motivations for the appointment of the court experts - to determine the existence of evidence claimed by the prosecution, a claim which was disputed by the defence.

His motivations are plainly illegitimate. He was not allowed to determine “evidence claimed by the prosecution” by using another expert witness, first of all because it is not “evidence claimed by the prosecution”, this was an appeal, the evidence was already discussed and established by a court. In order to introduce new evidence into the discussion of this kind of points, a judge requires specific kind of motivations, you cannot call an expert just for the purpose of sorting out things between defence and prosecution cause you’re ignorant of the topic; especially evidence that has already gone through a court judgement. Hellmann’s motivations, besides illegitimate, are also unspecific and void, in fact inexistent.

But that's not the case. The testing had been conducted in the presence of the parties. Court appointed experts reported their findings. Prosecution was allowed to bring new experts to refute it, Hellmann let Stefanoni explain herself one more time on the stand. No one denied prosecution the right to respond with counter-evidence, which they in fact gave.

This is absolutely the case. All parties were allowed to bring their experts, but this is not the same of fulfilling the duty to allow the same counter evidence on the point, whereas the law expressly concedes the right to present the proof a contrario, not just to debate the evidence presented with your expert witnesses. The court denied the party the right to present counter evidence of the kind requested such as an expert’s report or a further test.

But that's simply not true. The court appointed experts not only resolved the disputed question but also cast light on other issues like the fact that Stefanoni destroyed evidence (was it misconduct or extreme incompetence?) or that she lied about the testing she did (the quantification issue).

This is how FOA dream things to be. There isn’t any such thing as an expert entrusted with the power of judging other experts admitted by the law, although I understand this is precisely what people here would like to be made to Stefanoni.
In fact, the truth is that all the claims about the Police and Stefanoni’s work that are found in C&V report, were already present in the defence submissions. There is nothing new. There is no new information compared to what was already known. There is no new claim compared to what already known (except minor claims).

A further point.
It is also false that Stefanoni lied. In fact, the claims that she had “lied” as you read them in the C&V report are also the same, identical claims that were already presented by the defence in the Massei’s trial. And, you can think whatever you like about Stefanoni, but the fact is that these claim by C&V are a repetition of known facts and thus they cast absolutely no light at all.
You say that Stefanoni lied, I say this is false. Stefanoni did not lie and was absolutely truthful, however she did not disclose her information in the preliminary hearing. She disclosed it in the trial, and she disclosed only truthful and correct information, which was deposited in her report. When she was asked about quantification in the preliminary hearing, she did not lie on the quantity but instead she answered she did not know, and then she said that it could be an amount of the kind of hundred picocrams. But she said “could” and “maybe”, and also said she did not have the datum with her.

You may not like her strategy of not disclosing data in the earlier judicial phase, but this is a matter of your dislikes. You project your own idea of how an expert should act like in any occasion in your likes.

Instead, in order to state that an expert “lied”, you have to meet a precise meaning by the law, that requires the expert to state or disclose false data, or state false facts about the matter of their research. The only experts who stated false facts are C&V: they stated that the negative controls tests did not exist. They based their argument about contamination regarding the knife on this false assumption. They were stating the false.

What Stefanoni did was not at all stating false data (nor to destroy evidence), it was just not disclosing data at a certain stage; when questioned at the trial she disclosed data and the data was truthful, and deposited truthful data. What C&V did, instead, is indeed stating false data.

 

[Machiavelli]

Fine. But can you provide the relevant citation in the criminal code? I find the idea that a judicially-appointed expert has the same standing as one giving testimony for one of the parties decidedly odd.

I can't really answer to you in lines. If you are interested in competent opinions on these legitimacy issues, then you should just read Galati's appeal. It's the only reasonable thing to do, in order to focus this topic, instead of discussing with me, as the document also provides reference to procedure code and Supreme Court sentences (referenced parts are all in Italian, I can't do much to summarize that).

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Kaosium]

It just isn't a strong point to me. If there was real forensic evidence that R & A were at the murder scene at the time of the murder or if one of Raffaele's pocket knives had Meredith's DNA, the above argument would be laughable.

No, it would probably make it unique. It would also suggest Raffaele and Amanda were very different types of people than they are, which is what the prosecution alluded to with the aid of the fertile imaginations of the tabloids.

Had someone that played a clown killed 30 boys and buried them under his house before Gacy?

Yes, someone like that, a Gacy-type person. Not your run of the mill type of criminal, a monster. Point being these are rare, saying that Amanda and Raffaele suddenly turned into them for a few moments because of cannibus intake/comic books/jealousy/catty comments/whatever is an extraordinary contention.

While I agree that the Mignini theory is far fetched and there is absolutely no evidence that they were together, I just don't think the "it would be unique" argument is powerful.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This one was like saying they had a Gacy--but no twenty bodies. It was missing the evidence that it could have happened. Rudy puts himself at the scene, by his own admission and the amount of DNA left there. What has Amanda and Raffaele suddenly conspiring with him for no discernible reason? Mignini's instance that Amanda and Raffaele still had to be involved despite the paucity of evidence they could have been.

That goes for the basic prosecution contention that Amanda and Raffaele were active participants in a rape-murder with Rudy Guede. The three of them had basically six days and one introduction between them all. People just don't spontaneously decide to engage in a spot of rape-murder with virtual or total strangers, six days of snuggling doesn't count for much.

I'm pretty sure the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ruled the 1:45 statement was not allowed because it was made by an informed person. As a statement accusing Patrick it would always be available for the calunnia trial but they shouldn't had the two cases tried together.

It wasn't ruled out because it wasn't recorded. Of course, I think she was a suspect at that time and they misrepresented it. I was commenting on the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ruling that you had said was because it wasn't recorded, which I think is incorrect.

What I'm getting at is since they didn't follow the law for interrogating suspects with the cameras and the lawyer, they called it a 'witness statement' and a 'spontaneous statement' when in fact the 1:45 AM statement itself is the result of a suspect being interrogated in violation of her rights. Since the law wasn't followed, it was deemed inadmissible as what it was which was Amanda's 'confession.' This is the reason they arrested Amanda, right? It was a bigtime deal and everything! It wasn't really supposed to be a 'witness statement' was it? That's just legal tricks, the point was those were deemed inadmissible as what they were intended to be, that is evidence against Amanda and Raffaele because the police didn't follow Italian law. A big part of that is the cameras which would show just who is telling the truth about how those statements were developed.

The statements were deemed inadmissible as evidence against Raffaele and Amanda because the cops didn't follow Italian law in their development, right? Which would have included the lawyer and the camera tape? The specific why is a slightly different question, do you see what I mean? That they determine the first statement is really a 'witness' statement is just the legal detail. It wasn't supposed to be a witness statement, it was supposedly Amanda's confession. It was disallowed as such as the laws for that weren't followed, which would have included a lawyer and a tape of the questioning.

They called it a confession or an accusation, but that has nothing to do with the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ruling, which I was addressing.

I wonder if we're talking about the same thing though. Look at it this way: for a suspect's statements to be admissible under Italian law they have to be made with a lawyer and a tape of the questioning. That didn't happen with Amanda, right? Thus there was no way that under Italian law those statements would be admissible, and one of those reasons is the lack of tapes. I happen to think this is a very important part of determining who is telling the truth about an account of what happened, the 'hard evidence' as it were. So that's why I mention it and not the legal details. If they had the tape (and it corroborated their account) it wouldn't be a witness statement' would it? Since those tapes don't exist they have to call it something else, and as such it was deemed inadmissible.

Just as Galati is trying to appeal on grounds that aren't allowed, prosecutors and defense attorneys attempt to get courts to help their cases even if they know odds are slim.

Yes they do, but don't let them obfuscate with minutia!

 

[Grinder]

If the Corte Suprema di Cassazione sends the case back to the appeals court, A & R will have a pile of cash to hire lawyers, experts and whatever they need. Ironically if the Corte Suprema di Cassazione does send it back it will increase the interest in the book or books and even offer a chance for sequels. The publishing house would welcome an ongoing trial and persecution.

Right now people sending protests to Harper Collins will only please them in knowing how much interest there is.