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

[Grinder]

Sometimes comments from elsewhere deserve a hearing here.

The "burglary gone wrong" argument fails as soon as you realise that Guede had to be inside the cottage before Meredith came home for it to work. Or you have to create a clueless Meredith who didn't notice the sound of a 4 kg boulder sailing through the window and the attendant shaking of the floorboards as it crashed to the ground.

Then you have an almost equally clueless Meredith who arrives home and doesn't notice the broken window or the burglar himself. She goes straight to her room and ignores all signs of a crime in progress. In other words, Meredith behaves (in this scenario) just as Knox presents herself in her "discovery" sequence. Sure, there is someone ransacking your roommate's bedroom looking for women's clothing to steal but it doesn't matter.

Women's clothing? Oh well!

Rudy broke in as demonstrated by the superb English documentary and after entry pulled the shutter closed (lining up the glass on the ledge) and when Meredith walked in she saw the cottage as it normally looked. She was still hungover from the night before as Lalli found and other pathologists confirmed that she had a full drink in her at death. This would have made missing a detail such as a shutter askew even more likely.

Rudy either was on the pot or heard Meredith put the keys in the door and hid. He could have entered and looked around and returned to f's room when MK entered and he jumped her.

Maybe a PGP here can defend the above statement.

 

[Machiavelli]

But it's worth remembering that, as you say, the defence were arguing there should be major consequences for the violations - that the pre-trial detention order be revoked, for example - and so when the judges ruled on the defence objections, they weren't only considering whether the violations did actually occur, but also on whether the results of those violations should be those for which the defence were arguing.

The question of whether the documents exist is a straightforward one: either they were filed or they weren't; either the defence received copies at the appropriate time or they didn't. The question of what the consequences should be for those violations is a more complicated one. It seems to me much more likely that the judges disagreed on the latter point than on the basic factual question of whether the documents were there at all, something which could be very easily checked.

Actually the judges agreed that there was no violation that would have any consequence. The basic "factual question" in fact - if you mean: question whith any relevance, a question which would make sense and have a logical consequence to claim an abuse or complain about Mignini - is whether there was an undue behaviour, an actual abuse, a factual violation of the law and of human rights.
What comes out, is that the judges agreed there wasn't anything of this sort. I think you can understand that the lack of submission of a file subsequently to the order, on this case won't change the course of events, nor changes the factual existence of the basic grounds on which the order was taken, and won't change Matteini's decision (which was, to end effects of the order), unless Mignini submitted a document requiring an extension of the cautional delay.
The judges rejected the defence theory that the lack of motivation would cause nullity of the hearing or of arrest order or of order of cautionary measures. Matteini in fact also stated that it was within the powers of the Public Minister to decide on art. 104 during the hours prior to the hearing. He is not required to actually submit a written motivation to the judge unless he is seeking validation from the judge, but the decision per se is not impugnable; a judge validation would have an effect to enforce the measure subsequently to the judge hearing, but there is no need of "retroactive" validation. On these grounds, irrelevance, the defence objection was rejected by all courts.

 

[Briars]

The red herring is the phones being turned off not that they were dragged in. No one says they were dragged in so that is a straw man. Someone upthread said it was Frank, and it isn't all that important. They asked Raf in and the two were together at all times except during class. She would not want to be alocene with a murderer on the loose.

Once again you mention finishing dinner, this time you add "late". Why does it matter that it was late or that he ate a dessert?



Are you trying to be funny? How would they know if people were turning off their phones and when? Do you think under the circumstances people that normally turned their phones off might now leave them on?

Discussions in the past indicated that a phone being turned off doesn't leave a trail. A phone turning on would.

You must be aware that supporters claim he was called to the station at a late hour. I am saying the choice to arrive at 10 was Sollecito's.



Amanda was not called and was left in the hall for some time before

 

[Diocletus]

Actually the judges agreed that there was no violation that would have any consequence. The basic "factual question" in fact - if you mean: question whith any relevance, a question which would make sense and have a logical consequence to claim an abuse or complain about Mignini - is whether there was an undue behaviour, an actual abuse, a factual violation of the law and of human rights.
What comes out, is that the judges agreed there wasn't anything of this sort. I think you can understand that the lack of submission of a file subsequently to the order, on this case won't change the course of events, nor changes the factual existence of the basic grounds on which the order was taken, and won't change Matteini's decision (which was, to end effects of the order), unless Mignini submitted a document requiring an extension of the cautional delay.
The judges rejected the defence theory that the lack of motivation would cause nullity of the hearing or of arrest order or of order of cautionary measures. Matteini in fact also stated that it was within the powers of the Public Minister to decide on art. 104 during the hours prior to the hearing. He is not required to actually submit a written motivation to the judge unless he is seeking validation from the judge, but the decision per se is not impugnable; a judge validation would have an effect to enforce the measure subsequently to the judge hearing, but there is no need of "retroactive" validation. On these grounds, irrelevance, the defence objection was rejected by all courts.

Well, if Mignini felt so strongly about how Knox shouldn't have a lawyer, then why did Mignini tell Bob Graham that Mignini shouted this after the 1:45 statement: "Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney!".

 

[Diocletus]

Actually the judges agreed that there was no violation that would have any consequence. The basic "factual question" in fact - if you mean: question whith any relevance, a question which would make sense and have a logical consequence to claim an abuse or complain about Mignini - is whether there was an undue behaviour, an actual abuse, a factual violation of the law and of human rights.
What comes out, is that the judges agreed there wasn't anything of this sort. I think you can understand that the lack of submission of a file subsequently to the order, on this case won't change the course of events, nor changes the factual existence of the basic grounds on which the order was taken, and won't change Matteini's decision (which was, to end effects of the order), unless Mignini submitted a document requiring an extension of the cautional delay.
The judges rejected the defence theory that the lack of motivation would cause nullity of the hearing or of arrest order or of order of cautionary measures. Matteini in fact also stated that it was within the powers of the Public Minister to decide on art. 104 during the hours prior to the hearing. He is not required to actually submit a written motivation to the judge unless he is seeking validation from the judge, but the decision per se is not impugnable; a judge validation would have an effect to enforce the measure subsequently to the judge hearing, but there is no need of "retroactive" validation. On these grounds, irrelevance, the defence objection was rejected by all courts.

So basically, the rule that is being applied for purposes of this case is that it was perfectly fine for Knox to be denied a lawyer, without stated cause, for the entire 3+ days between arrest and prior to her detention hearing.

We'll see about that.

ETA: Article 6 … will normally require that the accused be allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer already at the initial stages of police interrogations. However this right, which is not explicitly set out in the Convention, may be subject to restrictions for good cause. The question, in each case, is whether the restriction, in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, has deprived the accused of a fair hearing”; and, after examining the circumstances of the case: “Under such conditions the concept of fairness enshrined in Article 6 … requires that the accused has the benefit of the assistance of a lawyer already at the initial stages of police interrogation. To deny access to a lawyer for the first 48 hours of police questioning, in a situation where the rights of the defence may well be irretrievably prejudiced, is … incompatible with the rights of the accused under Article 6 …”

Hmm. Let's see. Did anything happen between 1:45 and the Matteini hearing that prejudiced Knox in the trial? Why yes. There were the 5:45 statement and the Memoriale. Both of which, I believe, have been used against her by dictate of the supreme court, and neither of which would have happened if she had had a lawyer. Sounds unfair to me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What the police were thinking on 4-5 November

You must be aware that supporters claim he was called to the station at a late hour. I am saying the choice to arrive at 10 was Sollecito's.

From what I have read, he police were not happy to even let them finish eating. You are making stuff up with respect to why the police called them in. On the other hand Sollecito was given a business card for a lawyer the previous day, which is pretty good evidence that they were strongly suspected at that point. We know (thanks to Malkmus) that reporters were told that arrests were imminent sometime on the 5th, and we know (again thanks to Malkmus) that there is a news account on 5 November to suggest that witnesses will shortly be converted into suspect. My take on this is that Amanda came in before they expected her to do so. In other words, the police knew what they were going to do that night (arrest them), even if the fine details of the script had to be changed at the last minute.

 

[Briars]

What have I made up be specific please. Your post as to the reason for calling Sollecito that night and whether an arrest was coming is just your opinion. I'm sure the police were surprised that Sollecito considered dessert more important than coming in earlier. That is not opinion BTW. I haven't heard about arrests coming on the 5th and don't know who Malkmus is please cite anything that can show where this was the case.

 

[LondonJohn]

From what I have read, he police were not happy to even let them finish eating. You are making stuff up with respect to why the police called them in. On the other hand Sollecito was given a business card for a lawyer the previous day, which is pretty good evidence that they were strongly suspected at that point. We know (thanks to Malkmus) that reporters were told that arrests were imminent sometime on the 5th, and we know (again thanks to Malkmus) that there is a news account on 5 November to suggest that witnesses will shortly be converted into suspect. My take on this is that Amanda came in before they expected her to do so. In other words, the police knew what they were going to do that night (arrest them), even if the fine details of the script had to be changed at the last minute.

This is exactly what I think as well. In my opinion, the police's/PM's original strategy & plan for that evening/night was as follows:

1) I think the PM/police decided at some point in the afternoon of the 5th that they had figured out the salient facts of the murder. I think they decided that Knox was directly involved, along with the person with whom she had exchanged text messages on the night of the murder (whom they may have surmised was Lumumba but might well not have known for sure if Lumumba's phone was pre-pay).

2) I think they decided that Sollecito was either directly involved as well, or that he was covering for Knox because he was enamoured of her. I think they viewed Sollecito as weak, bookish, vague and pliable - especially when separated from Knox.

3) I think they therefore decided that Sollecito was the "weak link" who could trigger a domino effect of confessions and arrests.

4) The plan therefore was firstly to bring in Sollecito on his own. They figured he would be relatively easy to crack, and - at the very least - to admit that Knox had not been with him on the night of the murder. Perhaps he might even directly implicate Knox, and maybe even confess to his own involvement.

5) Whichever of these expected outcomes occurred, the police/PM would now have sufficient probable cause to arrest Knox (even the lowest-success outcome - Sollecito telling police that Knox was not at his apartment that night - would justify Knox's arrest owing to her previous insistence that she was at his apartment). I think the police had their high-profile arrest squad primed and ready to go and grab Knox from Sollecito's apartment, and that such a visible, lights-and-sirens-blazing action was exactly what the police were looking for as a demonstration to the public and the media of their skill, competence and speed.

6) Knox, having been hauled in to the Police HQ, would hopefully break down after being confronted with Sollecito's abandonment of her, and confess all. She would reveal the identity of the "third man", whom the police would then go out and grab in a similar manner.

7) The above scenario would give the police and PM sufficient ammunition to arrest and detain all three and to remand them in front of a judge. I think that the PM/police imagined that within a short time period, a combination of the forensics results from the cottage and evidence they would discover in the homes of the suspects would - coupled with the hoped-for confession evidence - give them everything they needed to prove their "case closed" in court at a future trial.


That's what I think the police and PM planned to do that evening/night, and why they planned it in that way. Of course, they had to tweak the plan when Knox accompanied Sollecito to the Police HQ, but otherwise it all appeared to go as planned. Unfortunately for the PM/police, the expected forensics didn't materialise - indeed, they indicated an entirely different man - Lumumba turned out to have a solid alibi, and Knox recanted her "confession/accusation". By that point, of course, face had to be saved and confirmation bias was working its ugly magic...

Right, the C5 prog has started. Later.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh deary me....

The first "question" in the C5 prog - could Guede have acted alone - barely touched upon an extremely important possibility: can a fit young man with a large, sharp knife, frighten and control a slight woman through threat and fear?

The prog's entire examination was based upon the sole question of whether a man could hold a struggling woman with one hand while wielding a knife with the other. They surmised - quite reasonably - that this would be very difficult without there being some sort of fightback/defence wounds on the victim.

Their *ahem* "expert" did concede that it's plausible that the victim froze with fear after being confronted with the knife - but that was immediately completely glossed over!

In my mind, it's absolutely plausible - probable even - that Meredith would have become compliant when confronted by and aggressive, knife-wielding Guede. I think she would have reasoned logically that to resist would likely have resulted in Guede using the knife on her automatically. It's critical to remember that Meredith would have had no inkling that things were going to play out to culminate with her own death: had Guede said from the outset "I'm going to assault you then kill you", then she likely would have fought back since she would have reasoned she had nothing to lose.

However, it's clearly possible (in my view) that Meredith reasoned that her "least bad" option was to comply and not to resist, since she might have thought that Guede was going to (perhaps) tie her up then take some belongings and leave. I think that Meredith might have finally realised that Guede intended to sexually assault or rape her and started to resist, at which point Guede already had his knife at her throat and stabbed her.

The prog looks very far from promising in its intellectual rigour.

And while I've been writing this, they've utterly botched the broken window element. Not even the prosecution claim the window was broken by throwing a rock from inside the room to out with the window closed.

And the guy has just easily climbed up to Filomena's sill, and easily opened the shutters, by using the grate on the window below. All while barely touching the intervening wall. At least that puts one canard to rest - the guy took about 2 seconds to get up there.

 

[katy_did]

Right, the C5 prog has started. Later.

Wow. Not overly impressed with the program so far overall, but I think we can safely say that Channel 5 just shattered the myth that the window was difficult to climb up to... They deserve some credit for being the first to actually try it! (Sollecito's lawyer in his suit and dress shoes aside)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

correction

What have I made up be specific please. Your post as to the reason for calling Sollecito that night and whether an arrest was coming is just your opinion. I'm sure the police were surprised that Sollecito considered dessert more important than coming in earlier. That is not opinion BTW. I haven't heard about arrests coming on the 5th and don't know who Malkmus is please cite anything that can show where this was the case.

You can search my posts here or Malkmus's posts at Websleuths to find the links which support what I said. You wrote, "I think the police were able to see if and when either defendants were in a habit of turning off their phones." What is the source of your information for this belief? Calling it made-up was incorrect on my part; it seems as if you were simply stating your opinion.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow. Not overly impressed with the program so far overall, but I think we can safely say that Channel 5 just shattered the myth that the window was difficult to climb up to... They deserve some credit for being the first to actually try it! (Sollecito's lawyer in his suit and dress shoes aside)

Exactly, Did you also notice that the guy's feet were barely half way up the grating on the lower window as his fingers reached the sill of Filomena's window? The guy then pulled himself up from that position, but in fact it would have been even easier (if a second or two longer) to "walk" his feet further up the lower window grate to the top horizontal bar, meaning that his arms would now be sufficiently bent that he could very likely then have levered himself straight up onto the sill.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Wow. Not overly impressed with the program so far overall, but I think we can safely say that Channel 5 just shattered the myth that the window was difficult to climb up to... They deserve some credit for being the first to actually try it! (Sollecito's lawyer in his suit and dress shoes aside)

I agree, skipping over important issues, don’t think anyone is going to be happy with this this TV programme, sensationalist, but hey it’s Channel 5.

 

[LondonJohn]

Footprint analysis that may be very interesting coming up

 

[Grinder]

What have I made up be specific please. Your post as to the reason for calling Sollecito that night and whether an arrest was coming is just your opinion. I'm sure the police were surprised that Sollecito considered dessert more important than coming in earlier. That is not opinion BTW. I haven't heard about arrests coming on the 5th and don't know who Malkmus is please cite anything that can show where this was the case.

Why isn't that an opinion? Did someone tell you differently?

The police knew what was correct and knew that A & R were lying. Since they knew that Amanda had met Patrick at the cottage before he killed her, it is not opinion but fact that they intended to arrest them.

You forgot to tell us how the police could track the defendants phone usage.

 

[LondonJohn]

As many of us have known for years, the footprint "analysis" done by the goons at the Italian forensic department was utterly flawed. I and others have posted repeatedly here before that the reference prints obtained by the police were of minimal value when comparing to the bathmat print. One of the reasons was the whole issue of weight distribution (of which moving vs standing is an element), and the others are the medium in which the print is made and the surface onto which the print is deposited.

The bathmat print is of no evidential value against Sollecito (and nor is it against Guede in particular). It would be interesting if Sollecito's defence team could get in touch with the forensic podiatry specialist from the programme (or any other expert forensic podiatrist) and spell this out to the court.

It was riling to see Mignini in interview at the start of the segment stating unequivocally that it was Sollecito's print that was found on the bathmat. That's simply incorrect, and provably incorrect by the application of good science.

"Millimetre accuracy"....? My posterior.....

 

[Matthew Best]

The program is rubbish so far, but the demonstration of the climb to the window was excellent, and totally convincing. I presume nobody will now be suggesting that it couldn't be done by Guede?

Hah! I'm only joking! Of course they will still insist it couldn't be done. Their beliefs are impervious to evidence like this.

 

[LondonJohn]

The program is rubbish so far, but the demonstration of the climb to the window was excellent, and totally convincing. I presume nobody will now be suggesting that it couldn't be done by Guede?

Hah! I'm only joking! Of course they will still insist it couldn't be done. Their beliefs are impervious to evidence like this.

Here comes the fragrant Nara!

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Footprint analysis that may be very interesting coming up

Foot analysis like everything else in this “TV show” is only relevant if the court decides on further analysis. I am disappointed not because of some of the conclusions but it is so sloppy and lacking in detail.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm far from convinced about the absolute scientific rigour of the sound pressure test that came back with the result that it was "impossible" for Capezzali to have heard Guede running up the iron stairs. They did place the equipment within her room, with the window closed as it was, and we must remember of course that Guede was wearing rubber-soled tennis shoes that night. It would appear that it would have been extremely hard for Nara to have heard Guede running on the stairs.

It's a shame that they were not able to conduct tests using point-of-origin within Meredith's room. I firmly believe that they would have easily shown that it was extremely highly unlikely for Capezzali to have heard the fabled "scream of death" from within her bedroom.

The prog interesting concludes with both advocates opining that it's a shame that both the prosecution AND the defence could and should have conducted these tests. I assume therefore that they are unaware that the defence was prevented from conducting many such tests.....

All in all, a shoddy piece of work, but with a few genuinely interesting and illuminating gems.