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

[Molinaro]

It is being reported on CNN that Amandax Knox has decided to not return to Italy to attend the new trial.

 

[RoseMontague]

It seems some folks are confused with the concept of internet discussions sites discussing a case and offering admittedly well informed but obviously partisan points of views, if one goes on a pro-innocent site one gets a group of people with a collective view of their interpretation of the case and of course the opposite is true of pro-guilt sites. However, there is a world of difference between a discussion and a court case, I have no doubt that most people posting here wouldn’t last 5 minutes in court attempting to present the evidence as they do here and this explains to me at least the gulf between pro-innocence view and how defence teams have functioned in court.

It was an interesting article and the author is honest by stating upfront he is pro-innocence, a quote.

The author has no legal training, except for what he taught himself while following this and other cases, so the approach will be based primarily on logic and on the fundamental principles of law, on which any person of good will may inform himself quite easily.

Moreover, in order to sweep away any misunderstanding or ambiguity, it is hereby clearly stated that the author is firmly pro-innocence in this case, and yet I will try to be as much as possible objective and neutral, presenting logical arguments that are the most widely shared as possible.

It is recognized, however, that complete objectivity is in general extremely difficult and probably impossible for someone who is definitely lined up on one side in a debate of this kind.


End quoute.

As I have stated before I am not ready for justice being administered via internet discussion sites, sure people should discuss their point of view and if they wish to research the whatever evidence is available but this is by no means a court of law.

This is a discussion board. Most people with an opinion on the case like to discuss that opinion. My opinion is that the Italian Supreme Court made a mockery of justice with their ruling. Luca lays it out very clearly in his article. It doesn't take a lawyer or a court of law to form an opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is being reported on CNN that Amandax Knox has decided to not return to Italy to attend the new trial.

This piece also misreports that Knox can be compelled to attend.

No one can be compelled to attend their own trial, esp. if they are sending representation.

The only thing a state has a right to, is eventually to be able to hold such a trial in the absence of a defendant. A defendant does not have the right to de facto cancel the trial through simple non-attendance.

This article says that Knox could be extradited to attend. No. If found guilty by some future Supreme Court ruling, perhaps in 2016, she could face extradition then - and the U.S. would not extradite her. Period.

 

[Molinaro]

... she could face extradition then - and the U.S. would not extradite her. Period.

On what is that conclusion based?

 

[Bill Williams]

On what is that conclusion based?

It's my bias. I agree with Jeffrey Toobin on CNN, who is one of their legal analysts. Me, I am no expert to be sure so don't listen to me, I am not a primary source, just someone somewhere up in the bleachers.

Me, I am taken with the double-jeopardy aspects of this as Italian standards potentially conflict with how US courts would interpret an extradition request from Italy.

Please note - even with a treaty in place, extraditions are "requests". At the very least an Italian lawyer would need to come before an American judge to explain what "osmotically" means in relation to this potential double-jeopardy conflict.

And this is before considering that extradition is essentially a political act, not a legal one. I am not an American myself, but my read of the way the tide has turned in America about Amanda Knox, it would be political suicide for a State Department to honour such a request.

These are my opinions only - your mileage will vary.

 

[RandyN]

.
Here is one that I did not know about.

According to this article, the prosecution 'lost' the video of the search that resulted in the bra clasp being found.

Then they 'found' it, but did not tell the defense.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5298060/Raffaele-Sollecito-fixes-computer-equipment-in-Meredith-Kercher-murder-trial.html

They sure are good at forgetting, losing, destroying, divining, misrepresenting, and hiding things, in Perugia. But of course there is never a need for independent experts because the police ones are ... infallible.
.

Hummm, I find this all a little illogical since the defense was supposedly sitting outside in a van viewing by remote the dog and pony show being put on by the Romans.

Consider the reliable source...another Brit tab...

 

[RandyN]

.
I suspect that when a bomb threat phone call occurs, the police are trained to contact the bomb squad, who immediately trace the number of the phone that made the call. The police claim it was a boy's prank call, but were never required to prove it. Imagine if it was actually Meredith's Italian phone with Filomena's SIM card, registered to the cottage, that made that phone call. Imagine. It might explain why a half hour later there was a car in the cottage's driveway and another across from the driveway. Maybe a lot of other things also.

Maybe one day, we will see the official telephone record for that bomb threat phone call.
.

Glad to see you still thinking outside the box.

And I totally agree. Some things are just a little to coincidental to be poo pooed away ...especially when the poo is coming from the Italian police or prosecutor.

Fine if it was an innocent prank ...who did it and what was his punishment? Easy. Not so easy to simply hide the facts that police were roaming around the night of the murder in the exact lawn and perhaps within feet of stolen phones of the murder victim.

Maybe nothing...but it sure feels like something. Even after 5 years I dont like the prank excuse...or at least the expectation that I should simply believe people who have shown thru their actions to be liars. That would be the police, the prosecutor and several super witnesses etc....

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs#45

I suggest you contact JREFF member komponisto for a better translation.

"I cannot affirm that RG is the only one who knows what happened that night." But he added: "He certainly knows and hasn't said. Perhaps the two [other] accused . . . also know."

 

[anglolawyer]

Glad to see you still thinking outside the box.

And I totally agree. Some things are just a little to coincidental to be poo pooed away ...especially when the poo is coming from the Italian police or prosecutor.

Fine if it was an innocent prank ...who did it and what was his punishment? Easy. Not so easy to simply hide the facts that police were roaming around the night of the murder in the exact lawn and perhaps within feet of stolen phones of the murder victim.

Maybe nothing...but it sure feels like something. Even after 5 years I dont like the prank excuse...or at least the expectation that I should simply believe people who have shown thru their actions to be liars. That would be the police, the prosecutor and several super witnesses etc....

It is indeed fishy but also very hard to construct a character with a motive to bring the police to Lana's place. The object must have been to get them to find the phones and then the body. But what a funny way to do it. The cops might not find the phones or they might find them but do nothing about them until the morning.

Here's a CT - the cops were running Guede as an informer on the drug scene. They were also aware of his crime spree. They had to pull strings to get him out of the Milan school thing. Then he murders Meredith only days after they let him walk. Major embarrassment. They needed to control the evidence so they contrived an excuse for searching for the phones but they couldn't be found in the dark. The cars parked near the apartment were unmarked police cars belonging to shadowy individuals who needed to take a look around. There are way too many problems with this though:

1 how did they know about the murder
2 how did they know it was Rudy (maybe he burgled the place on the orders of the cops running him)
3 how did they know where he dumped the phones
4 what did they do at the apartment (they were going to check for evidence but found her door locked and didn't want to break it down and couldn't find a locksmith willing to come out that late )
5 how come Guede was caught
6 how come he hasn't blabbed

I bet Cody can do better.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

citation, please

Cuki, Please provide a link to your quotations.
EDT
Do you mean this article at The Guardian? Here is a link to another article which states: "So, maybe they know, too, but as far as we (the jury) go, they didn't," he added.

 

[Bill Williams]

Cuki, Please provide a link to your quotations.

This would be helpful as a suggestion. I'm not sure I even "get" what cukki's trying to say.... what am I missing?

A link would be helpful.

 

[Dan O.]

This would be helpful as a suggestion. I'm not sure I even "get" what cukki's trying to say.... what am I missing?

A link would be helpful.

Ciki's message is clear enough. This is a defense against having one's own ideas attacked. By only posting what others have said, any attack would be against the other's ideas and not one's own. Also, it shows an apparent belief that any random message written by somebody else is better than anything one could have to say for themself. Such low self esteme cannot be healthy.

 

[codyjuneau]

It is indeed fishy but also very hard to construct a character with a motive to bring the police to Lana's place. The object must have been to get them to find the phones and then the body. But what a funny way to do it. The cops might not find the phones or they might find them but do nothing about them until the morning.
...

.
The key point is that if the bomb threat call was made with Meredith's Italian cell phone, then there is no need for the police to go to Lana's house, or to find the cell phone, in order to obtain the address of the cottage.

The police would certainly trace the call made to Lana, then match the calling number to the registered owner's address. Within minutes of Lana reporting the call the police would have the caller's name and address (Filomena because it was her SIM). The police would also have a duty to find and investigate the caller.

Perhaps one day we will see the official record for that bomb threat phone call.
.

 

[Dan O.]

The possibility remains that the bomb thread call was real and just coincidental. The approaching sirens would be a strong motivation to immediately ditch the phones.

 

[acbytesla]

I really thought it was interesting reading Coulsdon full throat endorsement of government officials over well educated lay people. What's true is that I don't understand Italian law. But I am thoroughly convinced that the ISC doesn't understand or at least doesn't respect Italian law.

They seemed with this decision to determine that Italian law had nothing to do with what specific statutes are but whatever their mood is at a particular time.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I really thought it was interesting reading Coulsdon full throat endorsement of government officials over well educated lay people. What's true is that I don't understand Italian law. But I am thoroughly convinced that the ISC doesn't understand or at least doesn't respect Italian law.

They seemed with this decision to determine that Italian law had nothing to do with what specific statutes are but whatever their mood is at a particular time.

Oh just for the sake of accuracy I didn’t mention government officials or make any comment about anyone’s level of intelligence. Like others I quoted extracts from Mr Cheli article that suited the point I was making about objectivity or bias.

Imagine the indignation amongst pro-innocence posters here if someone and written an article who wasn’t a lawyer and stated she believed Raffaele and Amanda were culpable and essentially agreed with the Supreme Court motivations with supporting arguments.

One other question, Mr Cheli mentions ECHR as others have done, does ECHR have the power to overturn a member states Supreme Court ruling?

Do you or anyone else know whether Raffaele and Amanda will be attending their appeal next month?

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh just for the sake of accuracy I didn’t mention government officials or make any comment about anyone’s level of intelligence. Like others I quoted extracts from Mr Cheli article that suited the point I was making about objectivity or bias.

It's what I liked about Cheli's piece. He put his credentials up front.

Imagine the indignation amongst pro-innocence posters here if someone and written an article who wasn’t a lawyer and stated she believed Raffaele and Amanda were culpable and essentially agreed with the Supreme Court motivations with supporting arguments.

I would have tried to curb my initial, knee jerk reaction to pillory this hypothetical guilter... and eventually would avoid bursting a blood-vessel in my eye to ask this person:

- what the heck "osmotically" means?
- why did the ISC make rulings, essentially, on evidence when everything I have read (and I can read, not Italian, but I trust a broad range of English translations) says that the ISC does not rule on facts of a case...​

And I would try my best to put aside my natural outrage at these bonehead sorts of opinions and listen, rather than swamp them with my own rhetoric.

One other question, Mr Cheli mentions ECHR as others have done, does ECHR have the power to overturn a member states Supreme Court ruling?

From Wikipedia......

In final judgments the Court makes a declaration that a contracting state has violated the Convention, and may order the contracting state to pay material and/or moral damages and the legal expenses incurred in domestic courts and the Court in bringing the case. The Court's judgments are public and must contain reasons justifying the decision. Article 46 of the Convention provides that contracting states undertake to abide by the Court's final decision. On the other hand, advisory opinions are, by definition, non-binding. The Court has to date decided consistently that under the Convention it has no jurisdiction to annul domestic laws or administrative practices which violate the Convention. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is charged with supervising the execution of the Court's judgments. The Committee of Ministers oversees the contracting states' changes to their national law in order that it is compatible with the Convention, or individual measures taken by the contracting state to redress violations. Judgments by the Court are binding on the respondent states concerned and states usually comply with the Court's judgments.

To my reading this is unclear if the Court actually has the teeth to undo a national court decision - but can award damages if the national decision is deemed as unjust. Anecdotally, the ECHR only hears 18%-20% of cases which someone brings to it... and only "overturns" 3% of all cases sent to it. I may have the figures wrong, but the rate is in this sort of ballpark.

It is clear that the ECHR has chosen not to annual laws or procedures in member countries, but to me it is unclear just how "binding" a reversal might be. I would imagine that if Sollecito's and Knox's case(s) fall within that 3%, that Italy would perhaps take some action to formally annul some hypothetical conviction - or a real conviction if you count calunnia against Knox.

As we have seen, the Italian Supreme Court can pretty much do what it wants at any particular sitting... so it is not out of the question that a future session of the ISC may overturn a previous ISC's session's ruling and cite the ECHR as the reason, and I have also heard that the full sitting of the ISC can always reverse the decision of a smaller "committee" of the ISC; like the one which annulled Hellmann's acquittals even without the ECHR.

That's the best I can do for now.

Do you or anyone else know whether Raffaele and Amanda will be attending their appeal next month?

Amanda will not. Raffaele has not said, as far as I know.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh just for the sake of accuracy I didn’t mention government officials or make any comment about anyone’s level of intelligence. Like others I quoted extracts from Mr Cheli article that suited the point I was making about objectivity or bias.

Imagine the indignation amongst pro-innocence posters here if someone and written an article who wasn’t a lawyer and stated she believed Raffaele and Amanda were culpable and essentially agreed with the Supreme Court motivations with supporting arguments.

One other question, Mr Cheli mentions ECHR as others have done, does ECHR have the power to overturn a member states Supreme Court ruling?

Do you or anyone else know whether Raffaele and Amanda will be attending their appeal next month?

Well, obviously, none of the people "commenting" have anything to do with the legal outcome in Italy. That is a given. Italy doesn't care about justice. They do however care about the justice system.

I'll grant you that those who write pro guilt articles will have their opinions dissected and critically demolished by those who have come to a pro-innocence position. And that is fine. The guilters have not shied from posting their opinions in the last couple of years either.

The difference Coulsdon...is that we are right.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's what I liked about Cheli's piece. He put his credentials up front.

Couldn’t agree with you more, I found his honesty and openness refreshing, nice that folks here helped out with translations.

I would have tried to curb my initial, knee jerk reaction to pillory this hypothetical guilter... and eventually would avoid bursting a blood-vessel in my eye to ask this person:

- what the heck "osmotically" means?
- why did the ISC make rulings, essentially, on evidence when everything I have read (and I can read, not Italian, but I trust a broad range of English translations) says that the ISC does not rule on facts of a case...​

And I would try my best to put aside my natural outrage at these bonehead sorts of opinions and listen, rather than swamp them with my own rhetoric.

Well I don’t know, Mr Cheli has written an article and states his reasons for his conclusion I would love to see a rebuttal and compare, if only for the sake of discussion; similarly I would like to see other Supreme Court motivations where an appeal has been annulled to determine whether you and others are correct about this particular motivations, you know try to be objective.

To my reading this is unclear if the Court actually has the teeth to undo a national court decision - but can award damages if the national decision is deemed as unjust. Anecdotally, the ECHR only hears 18%-20% of cases which someone brings to it... and only "overturns" 3% of all cases sent to it. I may have the figures wrong, but the rate is in this sort of ballpark.

It is clear that the ECHR has chosen not to annual laws or procedures in member countries, but to me it is unclear just how "binding" a reversal might be. I would imagine that if Sollecito's and Knox's case(s) fall within that 3%, that Italy would perhaps take some action to formally annul some hypothetical conviction - or a real conviction if you count calunnia against Knox.

As we have seen, the Italian Supreme Court can pretty much do what it wants at any particular sitting... so it is not out of the question that a future session of the ISC may overturn a previous ISC's session's ruling and cite the ECHR as the reason, and I have also heard that the full sitting of the ISC can always reverse the decision of a smaller "committee" of the ISC; like the one which annulled Hellmann's acquittals even without the ECHR.

That's the best I can do for now.

Amanda will not. Raffaele has not said, as far as I know.

Well I believe ECHR is the only other European institution the moves even slower than the Italian justice system, but this of course assumes a great deal at the moment given that the appeal hasn’t even started.

 

[Bill Williams]

Couldn’t agree with you more, I found his honesty and openness refreshing, nice that folks here helped out with translations.


Well I don’t know, Mr Cheli has written an article and states his reasons for his conclusion I would love to see a rebuttal and compare, if only for the sake of discussion; similarly I would like to see other Supreme Court motivations where an appeal has been annulled to determine whether you and others are correct about this particular motivations, you know try to be objective.


Well I believe ECHR is the only other European institution the moves even slower than the Italian justice system, but this of course assumes a great deal at the moment given that the appeal hasn’t even started.

There comes a point where "objectivity" is simply a reason not to decide. Anyway, you know I'd find SOMETHING to criticize, so here it is just so that you don't think I've gone all Martian on you again.

The calunnia conviction could very well be at the ECHR now... however, some say that even it is not "final" in the sense that the "punishment" depends on conviction or acquittal on the larger charges.

The other thing I forgot to say is that enforcement of decisions is often a different kettle of fish than the decision itself. I mean look at it this way... if the ECHR does the sane* thing and "overturns" the calunnia decision, and Italy refuses to overturn it - does Germany-France-and the UK send in Special Forces troops to surround the ISC building in Rome?

(* please read my remarks about the myth of objectivity!)