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

[anglolawyer]

The Court of Cassation seems to believe that they are guilty. Luca Cheli has written a critical review of their decision.

There are some nice points in that article.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Court of Cassation seems to believe that they are guilty. Luca Cheli has written a critical review of their decision.

What has always prevented guilters from posting too much is that the evidence really doesn't support the position.

But guilters seem to believe Sollecito and Knox are guilty. Judge Massei in Dec 2009 even convicted them of these crimes, but then 90 days later issued a motivations report that, to be frank, does not support a conviction. (I could go into that at leangth if you want.)

Now the ISC, acc. to Cheli, has issued a reversal of Hellmann's decision, where they flat out get wrong what Hellmann said in his motivatioins report. One of the issues the ISC says, for instance, is that Knox confessed about Lumumba to her mother without telling the authorities. The morning Nov 6 memorial flatly contradicts that. But closer to Hallmann, Cheli says that it is "doubtful that the court of second instance really decided that this memorial was inculpatory evidence in the conviction for calumny," when the ISC says that this is what Hellmann assumed.

For me, this is why guilters don't post much... unless they camouflage their arguments with words like "osmotic", it is actually quite easy to point out - in plain reading of the various motivations issued about this - where they are simply plain wrong.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The second memoriale and the calunnia conviction

From the cited article: "First, it must be said that the Supreme Court considered it particularly important, apparently even decisive, when affirming the conviction of the crime of calumny that Knox confessed to her mother in an interview in prison on November 10, 2007 to feel remorse for the accusation to Lumumba, without having communicated that before to the investigators, thus supposedly marking “the absolute unwillingness to clarify to the investigators the false indication”.
However, the Supreme Court seems to ignore (or at least certainly neglects) the existence of the memorial written by Knox on November 7 in which she says: “I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house. I know the police will not be happy about this, but it’s the truth”. (highlighting mine)

It is fascinating that they would get this wrong. The first person to recognize the importance of the highlighted passage at JREFF was Katody Matrass, who found it in Amanda's testimony, when she was being cross examined by PM Mignini.

 

[Bill Williams]

The most clear reason why calumny is a wrongful conviction

(This is the clearest reason I've read about why the calumny conviction is a wrongful conviction - in law! At the very least, Cheli persuasively argues, it should have also been sent for retrial. My only addition is of the yellow highlighting.)

Having said that, we bring instead our attention on a point purely based on the law, which, though perhaps firmly established, as argues the ruling, in Italian law, may instead provide ample ground for an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’); in the ruling it is indeed stated that:

“It is fit to start by stating, in refutation of the claims contained in the defendant’s grounds of appeal, a principle made by this Court repeatedly that the news of crime may well be drawn from the statements of the person subjected to preliminary investigations, although ex hypothesi inadmissible for the lack of the warning according to art. 64 Code of Criminal Procedure and that therefore it is possible to correctly charge the crime of calumny to the declarer on the basis of inadmissible accusatory statements or of statements contained in an act of interrogation declared void and null.”

One might ask what is the meaning of providing guarantees and rights to the accused if in any case statements made in violation of such rights or guarantees still eventually have value for the construction of an accusation and possibly of a conviction.

In this sense, an appeal to Strasbourg for violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have consequences far beyond this single case for the Italian judicial system, since the Italian Constitutional Court, in its ruling 113/2011 has effectively paved the way to a review of those trials that have violated, according to an ECHR judgment, Article 6 of the ECHR.

There is another aspect, eminently of law, which is puzzling: in the judgment it is written that “the passage of the judgment at second instance in which it was reasoned that Knox was to be considered sure of the innocence of Lumumba, although distant from the scene of the crime is therefore manifestly illogical”.

Now, to think the worst one could say that the judges have taken for granted a conviction for murder (or at least her presence at the scene of the crime at the time of the same), but if you exclude that evil thought one cannot help but notice that, since they demolished the explanation of why the defendant could know that Lumumba was innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher (a necessary condition for the existence of the crime of calumny) if she herself was not involved (also physically) in the crime, if ever the new appeal trial should acquit Knox, one would have a conviction for calumny with no reasons underlying its fundamental element – knowledge of innocence.

Perhaps it would have been better to send back to trial the calumny conviction of Knox too…

 

[JREF2010]

I get what you're saying, but that's why I also said that the defense needs to be capable of effectively challenging DNA evidence and making sure the jury has a chance to make a reasonable judgment of the evidence.

Also, wasn't the lack of DNA evidence pointing to Knox one of the main reasons she was ultimately freed?

Raffaele made a comment that its key the court does the testing, not the defense, for obvious reasons of being neutral data.

One of the turning points for me, was the accused begging to have the knife tested by experts and encouraging the handle be removed etc..

and then when the prosecution wanted less and less study of evidence it just seemed like they were hiding something. the semen stain not being tested in a sex crime/murder...come on, the interrogation not recorded, 3 not 1 hardrives ruined, and Stefonani being obstinate refusing transparency of data, then lying on the stand about TMB and recently Napoleoini being booted off the Polizia for being dishonest... etc..etc..

the only thing left imo, is will the Italian system convict innocent kids to prison....while Rudy Guede's bs lie and fast track will have him out doing it again soon.

 

[RandyN]

Sorry to do this, but does anyone here seriously believe that the evidence demonstrates that Knox was the killer?

There were plenty of PGP people posting here until the appeal verdict of not guilty. After the two were released the vast majority of PGP slithered away understanding quite well that there simply was NO real evidence and that case was a illogical bungled corruption. Even the prosecution gave up pretending that they had real evidence near the end. Hellmann failed when he allowed Stefanoni and Comodi to attempt falsifying court records...twice and then after he caught them he swept those crimes against the court under the carpet. As thanks Comodi went outside to smoke and reported to Nick Pisa that the case was lost because the court was favoring the defense and was working against the prosecution. This comtempatable comment was also ignored. Just as Stefanoni refusal (twice) to turn over all the data the independent experts requested. Twice she emailed the judge and tried to explain that she never turned over EDF's or notes or what have you and twice Hellmann responded that she needed to comply with the experts. First time nice...second time not so nice. But he failed to hold her in contempt when he certainly could have.

I expect Hellmann and Zanetti had seen more than enough contemptible behavior so as to recognize exactly what was going on in that corrupt little S.H. called Perugia. Only a short time later Mignini sent two cars loads of goon squad police to Rome to pay a visit to the experts. The excuse that they needed a DVD that was always available right inside the Perugia courthouse could not have missed the judges attention. And the judges understood that Mignini certainly understood where that DVD could be found...his weak excuses were finally being questioned and more so being pushed into his face. Still the judges allowed this shakedown without any type of official sanction or investigation. And look how the crooks re-payed the judges for their kindness and tolerance...

Its why honest judges are walking away from that system. The Italian judicial system is corrupt and broken. Another violation for no fair trial by the ECOHR is meaningless to the Italians...they wear it as a badge and give themselves promotions and medals...shameful corrupt stupid people. Don't take my word for it...read the ISC motivation report. And I thought Massei was the stupidest judge on earth...he is looking down right less dim than others...still not a mental giant but not the dumbest rock in the box either.

 

[Antony]

(This is the clearest reason I've read about why the calumny conviction is a wrongful conviction - in law! At the very least, Cheli persuasively argues, it should have also been sent for retrial. My only addition is of the yellow highlighting.)

Having said that, we bring instead our attention on a point purely based on the law, which, though perhaps firmly established, as argues the ruling, in Italian law, may instead provide ample ground for an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’); in the ruling it is indeed stated that:

“It is fit to start by stating, in refutation of the claims contained in the defendant’s grounds of appeal, a principle made by this Court repeatedly that the news of crime may well be drawn from the statements of the person subjected to preliminary investigations, although ex hypothesi inadmissible for the lack of the warning according to art. 64 Code of Criminal Procedure and that therefore it is possible to correctly charge the crime of calumny to the declarer on the basis of inadmissible accusatory statements or of statements contained in an act of interrogation declared void and null.”

One might ask what is the meaning of providing guarantees and rights to the accused if in any case statements made in violation of such rights or guarantees still eventually have value for the construction of an accusation and possibly of a conviction.

In this sense, an appeal to Strasbourg for violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could have consequences far beyond this single case for the Italian judicial system, since the Italian Constitutional Court, in its ruling 113/2011 has effectively paved the way to a review of those trials that have violated, according to an ECHR judgment, Article 6 of the ECHR.

There is another aspect, eminently of law, which is puzzling: in the judgment it is written that “the passage of the judgment at second instance in which it was reasoned that Knox was to be considered sure of the innocence of Lumumba, although distant from the scene of the crime is therefore manifestly illogical”.

Now, to think the worst one could say that the judges have taken for granted a conviction for murder (or at least her presence at the scene of the crime at the time of the same), but if you exclude that evil thought one cannot help but notice that, since they demolished the explanation of why the defendant could know that Lumumba was innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher (a necessary condition for the existence of the crime of calumny) if she herself was not involved (also physically) in the crime, if ever the new appeal trial should acquit Knox, one would have a conviction for calumny with no reasons underlying its fundamental element – knowledge of innocence.

Perhaps it would have been better to send back to trial the calumny conviction of Knox too…

In a sense the ISC have put their finger on it: the callunia conviction cannot logically stand without a finding that Knox was at the cottage at the time of the murder - so that she would have knowledge that Lumumba was not the killer.

But they have it the wrong way round: they can't take the callunia conviction and infer from it the finding that they need to get their way, and then use that as a justification for cancelling the acquittals on the other charges. By doing so, they have demonstrated their lack of impartiality in a particularly brazen way.

 

[GreyFox]

Whats a blob ?

They have elevated luminol to the status of a definitive rather than presumptive test for blood, which is ridiculous. They rely on a bubble of forensic ignorance to protect this belief.

The DNA in these samples is more puzzling than incriminating. There is no obvious explanation, and any specific hypothesis, whether incriminating or not, is pure speculation. My preferred speculation is that the DNA came from dirty gloves. They performed the luminol tests and swabbed the results at the very end of the day, after spending many hours handling all kinds of things at the crime scene.

Right . I wouldn't trust anything they did because it's obvious they needed more evidence to fit their crazy theories.
However I just thought maybe it's possible that on one of the night before the murder the girls could have been drinking say...Vodka and Cranberry Juice and spilled it in Filomenias room leaving others to step in it. If that were the case then what's the possibility that they could have sent a sample out to be tested for chemical composition and determined what made the blob.
Once we determine it was a drink or something other than blood we can then pretty much say it happened previously and has no bearing on the case.
How the hell can you present a blob in court ? Without being able to identify the source.

 

[Diocletus]

There is another aspect, eminently of law, which is puzzling: in the judgment it is written that “the passage of the judgment at second instance in which it was reasoned that Knox was to be considered sure of the innocence of Lumumba, although distant from the scene of the crime is therefore manifestly illogical”.

Hmm. I had always assumed that if she recklessly accused Lumumba that she could be convicted of culumnia, even though she didn't have actual knowledge of his innocence. But the quote that you cite shows that the ISC disagrees: Knox had to have had actual knowledge of Lumumba's innocence in order to be guilty of this crime.

The knock against Hellman is that if Knox wasn't at the scene of the crime, as Hellman says, then Knox couldn't have had the knowledge of innocence necessary to support the conviction. In other words, the culmnia conviction is "illogical" if Knox wasn't at the scene of the crime.

But, the culumnia conviction was sustained. So, in effect, what the ISC is saying is that contrary to the findings of the court below, Knox was at the scene of the crime. Therefore, she could have known that Lumumba was innocent and the culumnia conviction is "logical."

Clowns are silly.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hmm. I had always assumed that if she recklessly accused Lumumba that she could be convicted of culumnia, even though she didn't have actual knowledge of his innocence. But the quote that you cite shows that the ISC disagrees: Knox had to have had actual knowledge of Lumumba's innocence in order to be guilty of this crime.

The knock against Hellman is that if Knox wasn't at the scene of the crime, as Hellman says, then Knox couldn't have had the knowledge of innocence necessary to support the conviction. In other words, the culmnia conviction is "illogical" if Knox wasn't at the scene of the crime.

But, the culumnia conviction was sustained. So, in effect, what the ISC is saying is that contrary to the findings of the court below, Knox was at the scene of the crime. Therefore, she could have known that Lumumba was innocent and the culumnia conviction is "logical."

Clowns are silly.

It's the reason cannibals rarely eat clowns. Why? Because they taste funny.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hmm. I had always assumed that if she recklessly accused Lumumba that she could be convicted of culumnia, even though she didn't have actual knowledge of his innocence. But the quote that you cite shows that the ISC disagrees: Knox had to have had actual knowledge of Lumumba's innocence in order to be guilty of this crime.

The knock against Hellman is that if Knox wasn't at the scene of the crime, as Hellman says, then Knox couldn't have had the knowledge of innocence necessary to support the conviction. In other words, the culmnia conviction is "illogical" if Knox wasn't at the scene of the crime.

But, the culumnia conviction was sustained. So, in effect, what the ISC is saying is that contrary to the findings of the court below, Knox was at the scene of the crime. Therefore, she could have known that Lumumba was innocent and the culumnia conviction is "logical."

Clowns are silly.

So - if the ISC is the guarantor in Italy of the law, who does one appeal to when the ISC violates the law?

I agree.... Hellmann's reasoning that Knox simply recklessly named Lumumba to relieve herself of the stress of the interrogation might apply if she'd be charged with something else. And those of us who don't live in Italy always need to be careful in interpreting calunnia, something that we don't have in our own systems.

But it seems that the ISC got the law right, and in fact should have reversed Hellmann on this conviction. For the reasons the ISC stated - except, wait for it, they didn't.

What the hellmann is going wrong?

 

[Dan O.]

How the hell can you present a blob in court ? Without being able to identify the source.

Osmoticly.

From Massei (page 306-307):

The presence of the traces revealed by Luminol, whose presence in several points in various rooms of the house cannot be explained by reference to fruit juice, bleach, various vegetables, rust, etc., appear, on the contrary, to be explained if one holds that the Luminol gave off fluorescence because of the presence of blood. In this regard, one cannot simply disregard the fact of the bloodstains that were undeniably abundantly present in Meredith's room, from which easily, or indeed inevitably, they must have been exported to other parts of the house by anyone who, coming out of Meredith's room, went into these other parts. This was seen for the footwear belonging to Rudy Guede which marked their owner’s footsteps along the corridor towards the exit from the house; it was seen for the traces found in the bathroom; it should be considered that also happened for the traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room, in the corridor, and it should be pointed out that two of these traces give a mixed biological profile of Amanda and Meredith, and the others the biological profile of Amanda alone. She, it must therefore be held, with her bare feet washed of Meredith’s blood, but on the soles of which some residue of blood must have remained, went into her own room, into Romanelli's room and passed through the corridor, and in several points in the room where she had passed, she left the traces which were discovered.​

Never mind that only one of the prints actually looks like a footprint or that unlike Rudy's shoe print trail the luminol blobs don't chain together or that DNA was only found in conjunction with a couple of them and without substrate controls you cannot show that the DNA results cooralate with the Luminol blobs and that there is a visible source of a Luminol reactive substance (rust) present in each of the areas where Luminol reacted. And that for the 6 days following Meredith's murder plus December 18th there were police incestigators walking through every room of that cottage demonstraitably steping in and disturbing the blood in Meredith's room with no evidence that they ever changed their booties.

ETA: And did anyone mention that only one of the blobs tested positive for blood and that was where one of Rudy's bloody shoe prints was also found.

 

[acbytesla]

Osmoticly.

From Massei (page 306-307):

The presence of the traces revealed by Luminol, whose presence in several points in various rooms of the house cannot be explained by reference to fruit juice, bleach, various vegetables, rust, etc., appear, on the contrary, to be explained if one holds that the Luminol gave off fluorescence because of the presence of blood. In this regard, one cannot simply disregard the fact of the bloodstains that were undeniably abundantly present in Meredith's room, from which easily, or indeed inevitably, they must have been exported to other parts of the house by anyone who, coming out of Meredith's room, went into these other parts. This was seen for the footwear belonging to Rudy Guede which marked their owner’s footsteps along the corridor towards the exit from the house; it was seen for the traces found in the bathroom; it should be considered that also happened for the traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room, in the corridor, and it should be pointed out that two of these traces give a mixed biological profile of Amanda and Meredith, and the others the biological profile of Amanda alone. She, it must therefore be held, with her bare feet washed of Meredith’s blood, but on the soles of which some residue of blood must have remained, went into her own room, into Romanelli's room and passed through the corridor, and in several points in the room where she had passed, she left the traces which were discovered.​

Never mind that only one of the prints actually looks like a footprint or that unlike Rudy's shoe print trail the luminol blobs don't chain together or that DNA was only found in conjunction with a couple of them and without substrate controls you cannot show that the DNA results cooralate with the Luminol blobs and that there is a visible source of a Luminol reactive substance (rust) present in each of the areas where Luminol reacted. And that for the 6 days following Meredith's murder plus December 18th there were police incestigators walking through every room of that cottage demonstraitably steping in and disturbing the blood in Meredith's room with no evidence that they ever changed their booties.

ETA: And did anyone mention that only one of the blobs tested positive for blood and that was where one of Rudy's bloody shoe prints was also found.

Of course the Massei osmotic explanation is silly. The idea that only blood can be tracked from one location to another is absurd. But of course, there is no reason, that the substance that makes one blob glow is the exact same substance that makes another blob glow.

Also the fact that DNA profiles were found in only a couple of locations more likely means that it isn't blood as the DNA is merely a random find. What's more, Massei's explanation refutes a scientific test "just because".

This is the kind of reasoning that makes this an immoral prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele. Not just wrongful, but immoral. If Italy judicial system follows the tenet that pretty much the Western world prescribes to which is that the burden of proof belongs to the prosecution, than leaps of logic to assign guilt is immoral.

It would probably be wrong to declare a Luminol reactive area to be blood without a confirmatory test alone. But to do so when the area tests negative with another presumptive test is down right immoral.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please note that the guilters/haters now regard last Sunday's CNN "Crimes of the Century" piece on Amanda Knox as FOA-propaganda. At the very least they should appreciate how FOA's feel when the tabloids saturated the market with the latest lurid theory from the prosecution, even before we heard a word from Sollecito or Knox.

There's an old Klingon proverb with covers this situation very well.

 

[RoseMontague]

It would probably be wrong to declare a Luminol reactive area to be blood without a confirmatory test alone. But to do so when the area tests negative with another presumptive test is down right immoral.

Exactly. And then to hide the fact that it tested negative with another presumptive test for two years, until the trial was over half way over. That probably should be criminal, in my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

Please note that the guilters/haters now regard last Sunday's CNN "Crimes of the Century" piece on Amanda Knox as FOA-propaganda. At the very least they should appreciate how FOA's feel when the tabloids saturated the market with the latest lurid theory from the prosecution, even before we heard a word from Sollecito or Knox.

There's an old Klingon proverb with covers this situation very well.

They should probably post one of The Machine's lists of errors at one of them there websites. I am sure that will get at least as much play as CNN.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Illinois and the Lovejoy case

Exactly. And then to hide the fact that it tested negative with another presumptive test for two years, until the trial was over half way over. That probably should be criminal, in my opinion.

The Illinois State Supreme Court granted Lovejoy a new trial in similar circumstances, even though the other evidence against him was strong. When it comes to issues such as these, the silence of the Court of Cassation is disturbing.

 

[anglolawyer]

The Illinois State Supreme Court granted Lovejoy a new trial in similar circumstances, even though the other evidence against him was strong. When it comes to issues such as these, the silence of the Court of Cassation is disturbing.

Ah, but please try to remember is is not for Cassation to involve itself in fact finding except when it suits them.

 

[Caper]

Ok.... is there anyone in this thread arguing that Knox was involved?

 

[RandyN]

Right . I wouldn't trust anything they did because it's obvious they needed more evidence to fit their crazy theories.
However I just thought maybe it's possible that on one of the night before the murder the girls could have been drinking say...Vodka and Cranberry Juice and spilled it in Filomenias room leaving others to step in it. If that were the case then what's the possibility that they could have sent a sample out to be tested for chemical composition and determined what made the blob.
Once we determine it was a drink or something other than blood we can then pretty much say it happened previously and has no bearing on the case.
How the hell can you present a blob in court ? Without being able to identify the source.

OK what the prosecutor (Comodi this time) did was present the jurors with a proposition. No one ever bothered to ID this blob because it worked better that it was a mystery. The prosecution claimed it was blood even though they had zero evidence to prove that. The defense was put in the position to come up with something else and they presented experts who listed all the possible triggers for luminol...fruit juice is just one...so is rust and hundreds of other substances...but this is how Comodi summed up her position.

She looked at the jurors and asked blood or turnip juice? You decide.

For my money the defense should have roared in objection because she never proved it was blood and I dont think the defense had a duty to prove what it was. But with these kind of tricks the prosecution created its whole case...smoke and mirrors. Nothing else.

But the lousy defense failed to discredit or even mention these lacks of real evidence. They allowed unchallenged Totos version that he saw the two from 9 until midnight but they failed to mine the gold from that ridiculous claim. Well Mr Toto and Mr Pignini if they are in the plaza from 9 until midnight how exactly were they involved in the murder of Miss Kercher? No one ever asked that simple relevant question. Instead they became burdened and therefore lost that point by useless talk of dates ...was it Halloween or Nov 1st and were there buses. Why not go with the witness? Ok Toto you saw them from 9 until midnight...very good. So Mignini how did they....???
Dumb stupid case allowed to continue in spite of overwhelming evidence of NOTHING!