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

[Wildhorses]

Really; are you all surprised?

Didn’t the Supreme Court uphold all of the prosecutions points of appeal back in March?

A lot of the regular posters here simply ignored the fact that Galati was an ex Supreme Court judge, in fact some ridiculed the appeal document.

I guess we'll have to wait for a detailed translation of the motivations as the devil is always in the detail.

The other, shall I say circumstantial events which were hidden in plain sight were for example:

The abuse of office charges against Mignini have been completely wiped, there is no Monster of Florence case unless Florentine police start with another investigation.

Mignini has been promoted for crying out loud, Galati is his boss!

Anyway, I’m off to Happy Valley (Coulsdon) to find a sheep or two!

Well, when you put it that way the outcome is less surprising.

I don't pretend to understand the Italian legal system. I assumed the SC would uphold Hellman's verdict and stopped worrying about Knox and Sollecito. I had/have no way of knowing how often verdicts are challenged by a vigorous Galati-style appeal.

I did not know Galati had been a SC judge. Had I, I'd have been a lot less optimistic.

I knew Mignini prevailed over abuse of office charges and had been promoted. It didn't surprise me. I've always been skeptical of the idea that he'll be "brought down" someday.

I dimly recall a post about Galati becoming Mignini's boss, but at the time didn't ponder the significance.

I noticed how Galati's appeal framed disagreement with Hellman's opinions as violations of procedure. I wasn't fooled. His beef was the verdict, not the procedure -- and I foolishly hoped the SC would see it that way. But I'm starting to understand how the system works. If Galati's appeal was the SC's formal introduction to the Knox/Sollecito trial, it was indeed obvious how the wind would blow.

I agree the SC report makes the next judge's job easier. Galati's appeal made the SC judge's job easier as well. He knew what he was doing.

 

[RoseMontague]

Lurker and first time poster here. Rose Montague says:



Not sure how much this helps, but I've been able to locate the following report from Agenzia Giornalistica Italia from March 9, 2001, which run through Google Translate comes out as follows:

Nice, thank you. Welcome to the board.

 

[anglolawyer]

“Contamination must be proven with certainty not supposition.” SC
As other posters have mentioned already, I find it absolutely incredible that the SC has made this statement. If this was the case, you wouldn't have to bother with ANY of the forensics guidelines about collection and storage and testing. You might as well rock up at the crime scene with a used tissue for swabbing, empty coca cola bottles for sample collections, and a roll of scotch tape for fingerprint analysis! (Which they basically did do with the wrapping paper).
I am really very interested, if any of the Italian-reading posters can help me out, if any legal scholars in Italy have talked to the press about this statement or the verdict more generally?
If the top legal scholars are not shouting loudly about this, then Italy's truly screwed. I am going to do some research and start contacting some academics directly, to ask their opinions. If the academic community let rubbish like this stand, then their standing in the international academic community will be irrevocably damaged, surely?
Has the Supreme Court in effect just set a precedent that police are under no obligations at all to use proper forensic methodology? (Do precedents get set in this way in Italy? Does this contradict any point of statute in Italian law?). Defending yourself against a criminal case under these circumstances will be almost impossible. Also, there's a wider point of law at stake, where they are in effect turning the whole burden on it's head; that the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's not reasonable to doubt the validity of evidence when proper forensics guidelines were clearly not followed, then perhaps there is nothing that even counts as reasonable doubt, and we're left with a situation where literally all the prosecution has to do is prove that it was possible? I'd be up in arms (not literally) about this if I was Italian.

Have those stupid nuts really said this? That contamination must be proved 'with certainty'? LOL. The worse the better. Looks like they are going out of their way to give the ECHR a good laugh. Let's make a list of infractions preventing a fair trial in this case:

1 no lawyer at the interrogations contrary to law (fatal to the calunnia conviction and probably the whole case) - Machiavelli will give evidence for the defence.
2 collateral estoppel (findings in Guede's case binding in this one)
3 no or no adequate defence funding
4 inadequate disclosure
5 monitoring of privileged communications
6 double jeopardy
7 use of defamation claims against defendants inhibiting the defence
8 reversal of the burden of proof

That's off the top of my head. Bound to be others.

I would add that preventive detention was procured by fraud on 08 Nov 2007 and/or unlawfully by preventing the defendants from having timely access to a lawyer. That engages the right to liberty as well as to fair legal process.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Single attacker versus multiple attackers

"Moreover, for any well-trained and experienced homicide investigator or an FBI profiler, determining whether a crime scene represents one or multiple offenders is one of the most basic skills. Few scenes are ambiguous on this point, and this was not one of those." Link to John Douglas and Mark Olshaker's article here.

 

[yimyammer]

“Contamination must be proven with certainty not supposition.” SC
As other posters have mentioned already, I find it absolutely incredible that the SC has made this statement. If this was the case, you wouldn't have to bother with ANY of the forensics guidelines about collection and storage and testing. You might as well rock up at the crime scene with a used tissue for swabbing, empty coca cola bottles for sample collections, and a roll of scotch tape for fingerprint analysis! (Which they basically did do with the wrapping paper).
I am really very interested, if any of the Italian-reading posters can help me out, if any legal scholars in Italy have talked to the press about this statement or the verdict more generally?
If the top legal scholars are not shouting loudly about this, then Italy's truly screwed. I am going to do some research and start contacting some academics directly, to ask their opinions. If the academic community let rubbish like this stand, then their standing in the international academic community will be irrevocably damaged, surely?
Has the Supreme Court in effect just set a precedent that police are under no obligations at all to use proper forensic methodology? (Do precedents get set in this way in Italy? Does this contradict any point of statute in Italian law?). Defending yourself against a criminal case under these circumstances will be almost impossible. Also, there's a wider point of law at stake, where they are in effect turning the whole burden on it's head; that the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's not reasonable to doubt the validity of evidence when proper forensics guidelines were clearly not followed, then perhaps there is nothing that even counts as reasonable doubt, and we're left with a situation where literally all the prosecution has to do is prove that it was possible? I'd be up in arms (not literally) about this if I was Italian.

Its really astonishing to me that PGP don't find issues like this (which there are many in this case) the least bit concerning.

Even if I thought she was guilty, the actions of ILE and the prosecution would make me want to throw this case out in order to make the point that you cannot conduct an investigation/prosecution like this even if you want to secure a conviction, even if the person is guilty.

There seems to be more concern for procedure, manipulation & saving face than a genuine regard & search for the truth

In my apparently bizarro point of view, this should be troubling regardless of whether one thinks she is innocent or guilty, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[yimyammer]

Don't be so hard on yourselves, you guys did get a couple of things right.

I am not trying to be "right", I'm trying to divine the truth in this crazy case and I'm perfectly fine with letting it take me wherever it should.

Everything is so topsy-turvy in this case, I'm not sure what the truth is anymore

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I am not trying to be "right", I'm trying to divine the truth in this crazy case and I'm perfectly fine with letting it take me wherever it should.

Everything is so topsy-turvy in this case, I'm not sure what the truth is anymore

That is the main problem with this case, no one seems to be able to get all the facts right, Amanda even screwed up in her own book, every book that has been written on this murder has mistakes in them, how hard can it be you would wonder, how is someone to know what the truth really is.

I know when I posed the problem with Rudi's footprints leaving Meredith's room, a lot of people here tried to explain what may have happen, every single one of their replies were pretty far fetched, however, if Amanda were to be innocent, then Rudi must have walked back to that room somehow undetected. Well, there may be a good answer I read elsewhere that no one here has come up with, the door to Meredith's room may be able to be locked, while open from the inside, that would solve that problem, but is it true, I don't know.

 

[Grinder]

I would be very interested in these other cases in which Curatolo gave evidence: what were the facts; what did he testify; when did he first come forward and in what circumstances; who were the principal investigating officers and/or PM; how prominently did his testimony feature in the motivation; did he solve a problem for the prosecution etc?

Yes. I appreciate Rose's mega efforts to get something to us. Over the years, and this Curatolo story preceded the appeals, I too repeated his involvement but had never seen details.

I would hope that the defense gave significantly more details especially if he was a key witness and if his testimony followed a similar pattern.

Matt get on this

 

[yimyammer]

That is the main problem with this case, no one seems to be able to get all the facts right, Amanda even screwed up in her own book, every book that has been written on this murder has mistakes in them, how hard can it be you would wonder, how is someone to know what the truth really is.

I know when I posed the problem with Rudi's footprints leaving Meredith's room, a lot of people here tried to explain what may have happen, every single one of their replies were pretty far fetched, however, if Amanda were to be innocent, then Rudi must have walked back to that room somehow undetected. Well, there may be a good answer I read elsewhere that no one here has come up with, the door to Meredith's room may be able to be locked, while open from the inside, that would solve that problem, but is it true, I don't know.

Your footprint scenario is another maddening example of something none of us can know with any certainty and I don't think its reasonable or in the best interest of society at large to convict a person based on a bunch of speculation and what-ifs.

In you're scenario, there could be countless explanations for it, some would support guilt, some would support innocence but being an impartial observer, how would one know which one is the truth?

(& I agree with the unlikelihood that the door was locked with the feet positioned in such an awkward direction, so I'm not being dismissive of your perspective)

 

[Grinder]

That is the main problem with this case, no one seems to be able to get all the facts right, Amanda even screwed up in her own book, every book that has been written on this murder has mistakes in them, how hard can it be you would wonder, how is someone to know what the truth really is.

I know when I posed the problem with Rudi's footprints leaving Meredith's room, a lot of people here tried to explain what may have happen, every single one of their replies were pretty far fetched, however, if Amanda were to be innocent, then Rudi must have walked back to that room somehow undetected. Well, there may be a good answer I read elsewhere that no one here has come up with, the door to Meredith's room may be able to be locked, while open from the inside, that would solve that problem, but is it true, I don't know.

The explanations weren't far fetched. You refuse to look at the facts. There is no reason that Rudi couldn't have returned to the murder room with shoes that no longer left any trace. Whether the last of the blood wore inside the house or outside it is certainly possible therefore probable that the shoes with Rudi moving them returned to the room and this time he was careful not to step in the blood.

Rudi himself said he returned to the room with the towels.

 

[Grinder]

Your footprint scenario is another maddening example of something none of us can know with any certainty and I don't think its reasonable or in the best interest of society at large to convict a person based on a bunch of speculation and what-ifs.

In you're scenario, there could be countless explanations for it, some would support guilt, some would support innocence but being an impartial observer, how would one know which one is the truth?

(& I agree with the unlikelihood that the door was locked with the feet positioned in such an awkward direction, so I'm not being dismissive of your perspective)

And even Italian law says that if there are two explanations the court must take the one that points to innocence.

 

[Bill Williams]

That is the main problem with this case, no one seems to be able to get all the facts right, Amanda even screwed up in her own book, every book that has been written on this murder has mistakes in them, how hard can it be you would wonder, how is someone to know what the truth really is.

I know when I posed the problem with Rudi's footprints leaving Meredith's room, a lot of people here tried to explain what may have happen, every single one of their replies were pretty far fetched, however, if Amanda were to be innocent, then Rudi must have walked back to that room somehow undetected. Well, there may be a good answer I read elsewhere that no one here has come up with, the door to Meredith's room may be able to be locked, while open from the inside, that would solve that problem, but is it true, I don't know.

The explanations weren't far fetched. You refuse to look at the facts. There is no reason that Rudi couldn't have returned to the murder room with shoes that no longer left any trace. Whether the last of the blood wore inside the house or outside it is certainly possible therefore probable that the shoes with Rudi moving them returned to the room and this time he was careful not to step in the blood.

Rudi himself said he returned to the room with the towels.

Exactly.

And it's amazing how many folk find this "full of mistakes" thing so compelling. If Raffaele and Amanda had written identical books, they would have been accused of collusion.

I appreciate that Mr. Holmes has a theory he wishes to defend. But as you imply, Grinder, his theory is somewhat dependent on assuming he only went through the doorway twice, once to go in to commit a crime, and once to exit to lock the door. He himself on the other hand admits to going through that doorway at least four times.

So in a way I agree with SH's assessment, "That is the main problem with this case, no one seems to be able to get all the facts right." (I believe this to be a fair paraphrase of Sherlock's meaning!)

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The explanations weren't far fetched. You refuse to look at the facts. There is no reason that Rudi couldn't have returned to the murder room with shoes that no longer left any trace. Whether the last of the blood wore inside the house or outside it is certainly possible therefore probable that the shoes with Rudi moving them returned to the room and this time he was careful not to step in the blood.

Rudi himself said he returned to the room with the towels.

Oh, were the towels hanging out on the front gate, I wasn't aware, that might explain it as well then. Sorry, not.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Exactly.

And it's amazing how many folk find this "full of mistakes" thing so compelling. If Raffaele and Amanda had written identical books, they would have been accused of collusion.

I appreciate that Mr. Holmes has a theory he wishes to defend. But as you imply, Grinder, his theory is somewhat dependent on assuming he only went through the doorway twice, once to go in to commit a crime, and once to exit to lock the door. He himself on the other hand admits to going through that doorway at least four times.

So in a way I agree with SH's assessment, "That is the main problem with this case, no one seems to be able to get all the facts right." (I believe this to be a fair paraphrase of Sherlock's meaning!)

Exactly, and the worst part is even something you think is a known fact, may not be at all, it's maddening.

 

[Grinder]

Oh, were the towels hanging out on the front gate, I wasn't aware, that might explain it as well then. Sorry, not.

Oh didn't you hear? The SC discovered a crack addict that just came forward and has given testimony that he saw Curatolo in the plaza and towels on the gate the night that the disco buses were running.

They have also told the Florentine court that must explain the shoe print of Rudi and the locked door. Apparently you have focused on a key issue, not.

ETA - it is difficult to get facts straight when people use fiction writer's fake quotes and their own fake evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

That is the main problem with this case, no one seems to be able to get all the facts right, Amanda even screwed up in her own book, every book that has been written on this murder has mistakes in them, how hard can it be you would wonder, how is someone to know what the truth really is.

I know when I posed the problem with Rudi's footprints leaving Meredith's room, a lot of people here tried to explain what may have happen, every single one of their replies were pretty far fetched, however, if Amanda were to be innocent, then Rudi must have walked back to that room somehow undetected. Well, there may be a good answer I read elsewhere that no one here has come up with, the door to Meredith's room may be able to be locked, while open from the inside, that would solve that problem, but is it true, I don't know.

Go for it Sherlock, show us the facts. There are a set of well marked footprints each with a separate label. You tell us the order of those steps. Tell us where the next step would be. Tell us why there is no marker for that next step.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Go for it Sherlock, show us the facts. There are a set of well marked footprints each with a separate label. You tell us the order of those steps. Tell us where the next step would be. Tell us why there is no marker for that next step.

It makes no difference at all if the door can be locked while open from the inside, and so far, that is the only intelligent answer I have found to that question, and like I said, I have no Idea if Meredith's door is like that.

 

[Bill Williams]

ETA - it is difficult to get facts straight when people use fiction writer's fake quotes and their own fake evidence.

I am reporting you to the True Crime Writers Association (TCWA.COM) for equating their genre with fiction. You're entitled to your opinion, but.... lessee what's the second part of that?

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh didn't you hear? The SC discovered a crack addict that just came forward and has given testimony that he saw Curatolo in the plaza and towels on the gate the night that the disco buses were running.

They have also told the Florentine court that must explain the shoe print of Rudi and the locked door. Apparently you have focused on a key issue, not.

ETA - it is difficult to get facts straight when people use fiction writer's fake quotes and their own fake evidence.

In keeping with the solemnity of the process so far, each side should only be allowed to call crack addicts to give evidence in Florence.

 

[Dan O.]

How many Antonio Curatolo's are there in Italy? I found references to 2. But seeing as one died in a helicopter crash in 2000 and the other was employed in 2007, neither could be our park resident.