Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Antony]

only a fantasy, but what a polygraph/lie-detector test would tell us about the interrogation...

Let's not go there. "Lie detectors" are pseudo-science.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course, the fall back position to this is, "Well she was convicted as a liar by the Supreme Court and it's now final!"

Not if she appeals to the ECHR. Just looking very briefly at some of the guidance, it seems the failure to afford access to a lawyer in the interrogations is capable of being regarded as denial of the right to a fair trial.

What I am not saying too loudly right now, because I do not know it for sure for myself, is that there are still legal remedies within Italy itself. The issue is that Knox, herself, has exhausted her appeals and has no right, as of 26 March 2013, to apply for an overturning of this. I am assuming, and am open to correction (Machiavelli) is that any Supreme Court is free to overturn any former ruling it has made. (I'd be the first to concede, though, that this is a longshot - albeit theoretically possible.)

However, that is not to say that it cannot be overturned. I had this conversation about the Stephen Truscott case here in Canada, which might be considered a loose parallel, where .....

On April 26, 1966, the Government of Canada referred the Truscott case to the Supreme Court of Canada. Five days of evidence were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in October 1966, followed by submissions in January 1967. That evidence included the testimony of Truscott, who had not testified at the 1959 trial. British pathologist Professor Keith Simpson was invited by the Canadian government to review the forensic evidence.
On May 4, 1967, the Supreme Court (Hall J. dissenting) held that, if Truscott's appeal had been heard by the court, it would have been dismissed

Note that it was the Government of Canada which initiated the review... not Truscott. Is there a similar entity which would have standing with the Italian Supreme Court?

Back in Canada, on May 4th of that year, there was even new evidence that the Supreme Court heard - one difference is that in Italy, they'd have to kick it back down to the appeal's level to hear the evidence. Apparently not so in Canada.

At the end of this in 1967, the Canadian SC voted 8-1 ruling that the original jury came to the lawful decision.

It took until 2007 until a court lower to the Supreme Court overturned the conviction. However, the court stopped short of declaring Truscott's factual innocence.

Please, I should not be pretending to be an expert on Italian law, I am patently not... Machiavelli is already the sleep-deprivation expert here and I don't want to compete with him on that, but this is how it has been explained to me.

The issue is that Knox now has no right of appeal once the SC has signed off on it. But that does not (theoretically) end it in Italy either. And this is before appealing to the ECHR.

 

[Supernaut]

Since I've been temporarily banned from Injustice in Perugia because I'm SO rude, I'll ask a couple of rhetorical questions here;

Q. Given that Guede had so much blood on his pants that he was unable to get the water he was rinsing them with to run clear, then how did he walk to the batroom from Meredith's room leaving no trace - no shoe or foot prints?

A. He rolled up his pant legs and took his shoes off FIRST. Duh.

Q. How did Guede come to have so much blood on his pants and shoe in the first place?

A. Because when Meredith collapsed face-down between his legs after he cut her throat, nicking the carotid artery, she grabbed and clung to his right shin, pressing the arterial bleeder against it, and he stood there and enjoyed the sensation of living warmth on his skin for some seconds, becoming sexually aroused. Duh.

 

[Supernaut]

I'm NOT sorry if my words are DISTURBING to some of you.

Wake up!

 

[Dan O.]

I'm NOT sorry if my words are DISTURBING to some of you.

Wake up!

How's this for a wake up call:

I've just come to the realization that we shouldn't be trying to solve what happened behind the closed door of Meredith's bedroom when Rudy Guede murdered her. There is only one person that needs to remember exactly how Meredith died. Rudy Guede has probably never seen the blood evidence from the bedroom. Mignini can't risk Rudy breaking down and confessing when confronted by the horror of what he has done. But confronting this evidence is what Rudy must do. Rudy Guede must make a complete analysis of what happened in that room accounting for every splattering of blood before he is even considered for parole. And every time he gets the facts wrong someone should whack Mignini on the back of the head and tell him that his boy is a stupid liar. The friends of Meredith Kercher should demand this in her memory.

 

[Alt+F4]

But confronting this evidence is what Rudy must do. Rudy Guede must make a complete analysis of what happened in that room accounting for every splattering of blood before he is even considered for parole.

I agree with you on the moral point but I just don't see this happening. He has nothing to lose by claiming innocence while the other two cases drag on. I doubt he ever tell the truth as to what happened that night.

 

[JREF2010]

Let's not go there. "Lie detectors" are pseudo-science.

I know, it cant hold up, and people can manipulate the data.... is it any worse than Edgardo Giobbi's method? Or Commodi?

Actually the whole court system leaves a lot of room for improvement...

Now Im confused and skeptical, wondering "what really does prove the truth?"
Witnesses? DNA ? Confessions? Blob/ luminol prints to interpret?

I suppose DNA is the best we have for now, but then look what Stefonani did with her sketchy DNA work, which C&V destroyed.

The Judges ...hmm? The Jurors?

Who can prove the truth?

Or is all this really guess work, preponderance of the evidence Migninni gathered? yikes...

 

[Alt+F4]

I know, it cant hold up, and people can manipulate the data.... is it any worse than Edgardo Giobbi's method? Or Commodi?

It can be good as an investigative tool, and the technology is getting better at preventing manipulation. I still think it's better than person-on-person manipulation.

 

[Supernaut]

[Alt+F4 spazzed out and buried this post, so I'm re-posting it]

Q. Given that Guede had so much blood on his pants that he was unable to get the water he was rinsing them with to run clear, then how did he walk to the batroom from Meredith's room leaving no trace - no shoe or foot prints?

A. He rolled up his pant legs and took his shoes off FIRST. Duh.

Q. How did Guede come to have so much blood on his pants and shoe in the first place?

A. Because when Meredith collapsed face-down between his legs after he cut her throat, nicking the carotid artery, she grabbed and clung to his right shin, pressing the arterial bleeder against it, and he stood there and enjoyed the sensation of living warmth on his skin for some seconds, becoming sexually aroused. Duh.

 

[Alt+F4]

Does this sound hilarious to anyone else? Did they really need to "raid" the flat? Surely, this is a translation issue?

Oh yeah, I thought the same thing. "Flat" and "Cops" just don't go in the same story/article.

Does anyone know what are "plasters" are?

Band-Aids.

 

[Grinder]

Circumstantial evidence is probably the best in general. Eye witnesses in the tight circumstances are better but as we all know in fast moving situations people get it wrong too often.

In this case I think that the ICSI actually didn't mess up the DNA collection as much as most of us here, including myself, have been saying. What they assumed is what PIP and others have been saying: for a murder as violent as this one, in a relatively small room (certainly enough room for 4 people) and with a victim that fought DNA should have been found in abundant quantities. They never even thought that they needed to collect and transport evidence using LCN DNA protocol. I mean really, would any CSI team go into this murder and say: we believe the perps may have only left touch DNA.

After they lost the Raf shoe print and nothing but Rudi came back they were stuck. I know the knife was tested earlier but by that time no DNA from the kids had shown up in the lab's tests of the murder room's evidence.

The collection and transportation validates the opinion that abundant DNA should have been found as per Locard et al.

 

[anglolawyer]

What I am not saying too loudly right now, because I do not know it for sure for myself, is that there are still legal remedies within Italy itself. The issue is that Knox, herself, has exhausted her appeals and has no right, as of 26 March 2013, to apply for an overturning of this. I am assuming, and am open to correction (Machiavelli) is that any Supreme Court is free to overturn any former ruling it has made. (I'd be the first to concede, though, that this is a longshot - albeit theoretically possible.)

However, that is not to say that it cannot be overturned. I had this conversation about the Stephen Truscott case here in Canada, which might be considered a loose parallel, where .....



Note that it was the Government of Canada which initiated the review... not Truscott. Is there a similar entity which would have standing with the Italian Supreme Court?

Back in Canada, on May 4th of that year, there was even new evidence that the Supreme Court heard - one difference is that in Italy, they'd have to kick it back down to the appeal's level to hear the evidence. Apparently not so in Canada.

At the end of this in 1967, the Canadian SC voted 8-1 ruling that the original jury came to the lawful decision.

It took until 2007 until a court lower to the Supreme Court overturned the conviction. However, the court stopped short of declaring Truscott's factual innocence.

Please, I should not be pretending to be an expert on Italian law, I am patently not... Machiavelli is already the sleep-deprivation expert here and I don't want to compete with him on that, but this is how it has been explained to me.

The issue is that Knox now has no right of appeal once the SC has signed off on it. But that does not (theoretically) end it in Italy either. And this is before appealing to the ECHR.

It is a requirement of 'admissibility' of an application to the ECHR that the appellant should have exhausted all remedies in the member country. The fact that a member country possesses powers of review which can be exercised even after a final appeal does not mean the remedies have not been exhausted. Even if the SC retains residual jurisdiction to overturn its own decision on calunnia at some future point, it would seem to me that Amanda has reached the end of the line in Italy. If so, she has six months to appeal, starting either from the announcement of the decision or publication of the motivation, I am not sure which, although I think it would be the former.

The circumstances of the interrogation would seem to afford good grounds especially now Machiaelli has blurted out that she was strongly suspected before it began , a major error on his part and one which will be relied upon hereafter. Of course, Mach always has the fall back position that she wasn't a formal suspect but I just checked and it appears the ECHR is not down the rabbit hole like Italy so I don't expect that one to play too well, but who knows?

Mach, the statute of limitations has not run out for one of your about-turns so if you want to give us a page of Cassazione authority on the special meaning of 'suspect' and 'strongly' now would be good.

 

[Dan O.]

Circumstantial evidence is probably the best in general. Eye witnesses in the tight circumstances are better but as we all know in fast moving situations people get it wrong too often.

Eye witnesses can provide valid information. But you have to take into account the statistics that show eye witnesses often get facts wrong. If you find two eye witnesses that independently provide the same details then there is a much stronger case that those details are factual. However, if time has elapsed and the details in question had been reported through rumors of news reporting, there is a higher probability that the reports have contaminated the witness testimony.

 

[anglolawyer]

Eye witnesses can provide valid information. But you have to take into account the statistics that show eye witnesses often get facts wrong. If you find two eye witnesses that independently provide the same details then there is a much stronger case that those details are factual. However, if time has elapsed and the details in question had been reported through rumors of news reporting, there is a higher probability that the reports have contaminated the witness testimony.

What statistics Dan?

 

[Bill Williams]

It is a requirement of 'admissibility' of an application to the ECHR that the appellant should have exhausted all remedies in the member country. The fact that a member country possesses powers of review which can be exercised even after a final appeal does not mean the remedies have not been exhausted. Even if the SC retains residual jurisdiction to overturn its own decision on calunnia at some future point, it would seem to me that Amanda has reached the end of the line in Italy. If so, she has six months to appeal, starting either from the announcement of the decision or publication of the motivation, I am not sure which, although I think it would be the former.

The circumstances of the interrogation would seem to afford good grounds especially now Machiaelli has blurted out that she was strongly suspected before it began , a major error on his part and one which will be relied upon hereafter. Of course, Mach always has the fall back position that she wasn't a formal suspect but I just checked and it appears the ECHR is not down the rabbit hole like Italy so I don't expect that one to play too well, but who knows?

Mach, the statute of limitations has not run out for one of your about-turns so if you want to give us a page of Cassazione authority on the special meaning of 'suspect' and 'strongly' now would be good.

I think that's the point. It's not that there is not some remedy in the host country, it's that the person wrongfully convicted has no right to apply for a remedy in that country.

Machiavelli, rather than arguing this with you, is off getting his bona fides straight as a sleep-therapist.

 

[Dan O.]

What statistics Dan?

Take your pick: http://www.google.com/search?q=eyewitness+accuracy+statistics

 

[anglolawyer]

Take your pick: http://www.google.com/search?q=eyewitness+accuracy+statistics

Maybe we can get Bayes theorem working with that stuff.

 

[Bill Williams]

Go to sleep.

 

[Mary_H]

How's this for a wake up call:

I've just come to the realization that we shouldn't be trying to solve what happened behind the closed door of Meredith's bedroom when Rudy Guede murdered her. There is only one person that needs to remember exactly how Meredith died. Rudy Guede has probably never seen the blood evidence from the bedroom. Mignini can't risk Rudy breaking down and confessing when confronted by the horror of what he has done. But confronting this evidence is what Rudy must do. Rudy Guede must make a complete analysis of what happened in that room accounting for every splattering of blood before he is even considered for parole. And every time he gets the facts wrong someone should whack Mignini on the back of the head and tell him that his boy is a stupid liar. The friends of Meredith Kercher should demand this in her memory.

There is nothing anyone can do to control Rudy's thoughts or behavior. If we demand satisfaction from Rudy, we basically are putting ourselves in the same position the cops were in with Amanda and Raffaele. "You must confess! You WILL confess!" It doesn't get anybody anywhere useful; it just sets everyone up for a fall.

I never think there is any justice on this earth for a murder victim like Meredith. Reparations can be made to her family, but they will never be made whole, nor will their questions ever be fully answered. It's a waste of time to hope for the impossible.

 

[Dan O.]

There is nothing anyone can do to control Rudy's thoughts or behavior. If we demand satisfaction from Rudy, we basically are putting ourselves in the same position the cops were in with Amanda and Raffaele. "You must confess! You WILL confess!" It doesn't get anybody anywhere useful; it just sets everyone up for a fall.

You misunderstand. Nobody should be shouting at Rudy demanding a confession. We just want his explanation of what happened that fit the facts. He'll be given tea and cakes if it will help him remember.