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

[Diocletus]

But you wrote:


The hearing transcript is the October 8, 2008 transcript (I believe) but more importantly it is the "chancellery records of what was deposited that day" that I want to see. I am not interested in testimonies of anyone who states the negative controls were in the case file. I am interested in the actual proof they were in there so we can put this whole issue to rest. It would be a feather in the cap for the PGP if they really were in the case file, but the only way to show this is through the official chancellery record, backed up by the 08/10/08 transcript.

It is obvious the prosecutors in Italy can casually assert something to be true, without it necessarily being so. This is why those chancellery records are crucial.

How about if they just show the controls? They could say something like this: "here are the controls. See: they were stamped by the clerk in 2008 when they were deposited".

But, they don't do this. So we know that "they were deposited" is a lie.

 

[Samson]

Vogt twitters....
as I read it, Maresca states theres a 1000 scenarios to this crime, I thought there was only 500+.

Apparently the Kercher family are very sure of one of them. This is the reason this appeal rehearing is happening, driven proactively by this family.

I would be very keen for more analysis of this document, and how Maresca operates, and John Kercher, and the financial motivation if any.

I typed this from the PDF file months ago.

REPUBLIC OF ITALY
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE SUPREME COURT
FIRST PENAL SECTION
COMPOSED OF Ill.mi Sigg.ri Magistrati:
Dr SEVERO CHIEFFI -President
Dr MASSIMO VECCHIO -Council Member
Dr GIUSEPPE LOCATELLI -Council Member
Dr PIERA MARIA SEVERINA CAPRIOGLIO -Recording Member
Dr GIACOMO ROCCHI -Council Member

has pronounced the following
JUDGEMENT
On the appeal proposed by:

THE PROCURATORE GENERALE FOR THE APPEAL COURT OF PERUGIA
KERCHER STEPHANIE ARLINE LARA. DOB 21/07/1983
KERCHER ARLINE CAROL MARY, DOB 11/11/1945
KERCHER JOHN ASHLEY DOB 21/10/1976
KERCHER LYLE DOB 03/07/1979
KERCHER JOHN LESLIE N. IL 11/12/1942
against

AMANDA KNOX MARIE DOB 09/07/1987
SOLLECITO, RAFFAELE DOB 26/03/1984
Also:
AMANDA KNOX MARIE DOB 09/07/1987

against the judgement in. 10/2010 APPEAL COURT of PERUGIA of 03/10/2011

Taking account of the facts, the judgement and the appeal,
heard in PUBLIC HEARING on 25/03/2013, proceedings recorded by
Councillor Dr PIERA MARIA SEVERINA CAPRIOGLIO

Hearing in person Procurator General Dr Miji RIELLO
Which has concluded with the rejection of the petition by KNOX; annulling the judgement in
relation to Headings A,B,C,D,E, and concerning heading F, annulment limited to the aggravating
factors which relate to the act,Glu2cp (hand-written, barely legible)

 

[Strozzi]

No, no. Just a moment, you are very wrong here. This is not a suggestion: it is a fact that the drug dealer had phone contacts with Knox. Because in fact, he was investigated and charge of drug dealing because of these phone contact. I mean the police found him and they investigated him because they found his number in Knox's phone traffic. That was the element on which they started an investigation which lead them to find out three drug dealers.

You are really trying to make something out of nothing.

Machiavelli, the fact that Knox had the phone number of a guy in her phone or even called him once or a few times means nothing. It does not show that their relationship involved drugs or that she knew he was involved in any way with drugs. It would not surprise me that she had the phone number of various Italians and non-Italians in her phone list. (Don't forget that she had the phone number of her Italian housemate Laura in her phone. Laura possessed drugs in the house.)

In Seattle Knox worked several part-time jobs. Good for her! When she got to Perugia she wanted to find a part-time job. An acquaintanance mentioned it to a friend who told a bar owner that an American girl was interested in waiting tables. She was tasked to hand out bar flyers to foreign students and wait tables two nights per week. I commend her for finding a parttime job that put her in contact with Italian people. The fact that she had a phone number of a guy means nothing. Show proof that she knew the guy was involved with drugs.

Are you aware that Kerscher had the phone number of a drug grower and dealer in her phone list? I am referring of course to her non-committed Italian boyfriend who lived downstairs. In fact, Kerscher was watering his marijuana plants when he was out of town and that makes her a pot grower.

If you have the phone numbers of various Italian acquaintance in your cell phone, it is likely that one of them has been involved in some way with drugs. Can we say that Machiavelli has the phone number of a drug dealer in his phone? If you called the acquaintance recently, can we say that you called the drug dealer?

 

[billyryan]

Hey Machiavelli;why ain't you in court tweeting/gloating today,did there something happen the last day to spook you

 

[JREF2010]

how Maresca operates,

He is their lawyer, they sign papers he gives them. We'll never know how Maresca operates and why he chose to be biased instead of neutral.

 

[andreajo]

Apparently the Kercher family are very sure of one of them. This is the reason this appeal rehearing is happening, driven proactively by this family.

I would be very keen for more analysis of this document, and how Maresca operates, and John Kercher, and the financial motivation if any.

I typed this from the PDF file months ago.

REPUBLIC OF ITALY
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE SUPREME COURT
FIRST PENAL SECTION
COMPOSED OF Ill.mi Sigg.ri Magistrati:
Dr SEVERO CHIEFFI -President
Dr MASSIMO VECCHIO -Council Member
Dr GIUSEPPE LOCATELLI -Council Member
Dr PIERA MARIA SEVERINA CAPRIOGLIO -Recording Member
Dr GIACOMO ROCCHI -Council Member

has pronounced the following
JUDGEMENT
On the appeal proposed by:

THE PROCURATORE GENERALE FOR THE APPEAL COURT OF PERUGIA
KERCHER STEPHANIE ARLINE LARA. DOB 21/07/1983
KERCHER ARLINE CAROL MARY, DOB 11/11/1945
KERCHER JOHN ASHLEY DOB 21/10/1976
KERCHER LYLE DOB 03/07/1979
KERCHER JOHN LESLIE N. IL 11/12/1942
against

AMANDA KNOX MARIE DOB 09/07/1987
SOLLECITO, RAFFAELE DOB 26/03/1984
Also:
AMANDA KNOX MARIE DOB 09/07/1987

against the judgement in. 10/2010 APPEAL COURT of PERUGIA of 03/10/2011

Taking account of the facts, the judgement and the appeal,
heard in PUBLIC HEARING on 25/03/2013, proceedings recorded by
Councillor Dr PIERA MARIA SEVERINA CAPRIOGLIO

Hearing in person Procurator General Dr Miji RIELLO
Which has concluded with the rejection of the petition by KNOX; annulling the judgement in
relation to Headings A,B,C,D,E, and concerning heading F, annulment limited to the aggravating
factors which relate to the act,Glu2cp (hand-written, barely legible)

I have a feeling Italians do not have a phrase for "conflict of interest." (From #5750 of the previous thread)

My mind is boggled by the participation of the victims and their representatives in the part of the process where it has not yet been decided that the accused are responsible for the crime. They have a financial interest in the outcome!

The Kerchers' representatives spoke today. I believe that proceedings are now adjourned for the day.

Machiavelli has assured us that these judges are professionals, which is why there is no need to shield them from prejudicial evidence and testimony.

The best rational solution to me is to let trusted professionals deal with it. I don't believe juries of "peers" would be fair or could ever be "screened" from prejudicial information. I think professionals who are trusted with a reputation of being impartial a priori, independently from what they know or like, are the only who can guarantee the most fair (or less unfair) outcome. (#9635118, previous thread)

The concept of justice may also be different from jury sistem in that there is no concept of "jury of peers". The judges are seen as superior in rank, not as peers of the defentant, and they are investigators; they are expected to perform a kind of sohisticated job, they don't expect to be explained or shown "simple" or "safe" evidence or to be shown "smoking guns".
What matters in fact is the reasoning of the professional judges; the set of lay members is only a counter-check to the professionals' work.(#9634951, previous thread)

 

[andreajo]

He is their lawyer, they sign papers he gives them. We'll never know how Maresca operates and why he chose to be biased instead of neutral.

€? There is more than jail time at stake.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are really trying to make something out of nothing.

Machiavelli, the fact that Knox had the phone number of a guy in her phone or even called him once or a few times means nothing. It does not show that their relationship involved drugs or that she knew he was involved in any way with drugs. It would not surprise me that she had the phone number of various Italians and non-Italians in her phone list. (Don't forget that she had the phone number of her Italian housemate Laura in her phone. Laura possessed drugs in the house.)

In Seattle Knox worked several part-time jobs. Good for her! When she got to Perugia she wanted to find a part-time job. An acquaintanance mentioned it to a friend who told a bar owner that an American girl was interested in waiting tables. She was tasked to hand out bar flyers to foreign students and wait tables two nights per week. I commend her for finding a parttime job that put her in contact with Italian people. The fact that she had a phone number of a guy means nothing. Show proof that she knew the guy was involved with drugs.
Are you aware that Kerscher had the phone number of a drug grower and dealer in her phone list? I am referring of course to her non-committed Italian boyfriend who lived downstairs. In fact, Kerscher was watering his marijuana plants when he was out of town and that makes her a pot grower.

If you have the phone numbers of various Italian acquaintance in your cell phone, it is likely that one of them has been involved in some way with drugs. Can we say that Machiavelli has the phone number of a drug dealer in his phone? If you called the acquaintance recently, can we say that you called the drug dealer?

Show proof? I'm not sure Machiavelli is here to prove anything, really.

I know for a fact that Machiavelli has the phone number of a criminal in his Samsung. The fact that Machiavelli may or may not know the person's criminal status is completely irrelevant - at least to M.s reasoning.

We all should give up starting sentences here with, "It's startling to think that....." but here it goes. It is startling to think that for this unjst prosecution of RS and AK to continue that they have to now, at this late date 6 years after the first victim to this fell.... reinvent the crime to shoehorn other victims into it....

Now:

- Guede voluntarily gave himself up
- it's about the pooh in the toilet
- the kitchen knife is a match for the outline on the victim's sheet.​

Machiavelli - whoever you are reporting for, you are being played. Badly. And it is you who is now exposed legally because of your comments about Vecchiotti and Hellmann. I was going to say that, "even you admit your legal exposure", but you strenuously object that you admit that, even though you admit that perhaps Hellmann and Vecchiotti have grounds to launch such action....

As this is very curious.

 

[Diocletus]

Gubbiotti also explained that he only searched Amanda's room, collecting a few items. He looked at Filomena's bathroom from outside the door, and he stationed a few minutes in the kitchen area whil Barbadori was searching, before exiting.

If he has something like abudant large stains of biologic liquids from Meredith's on his clothes. If he was wearing a shirt spattered with Meredith's blood, that scenario of transferring DNA after touching clothes becomes reasonable. Otherwise, there is a statistical fence still before you.

Let's be a little more truthful here.

Gubbiotti opened the knife bag in the police station.

At the time, he was compiling a report of the seized items of evidence. If we look at the Stefanoni's index of exhibits, we can see that there were several reports generated during the course of the examination. When Gubbiotti refers to his cataloging activity, what he means, is that he was compiling a Report of the evidence. So, let's see what he was working with, when he was handling the knife.

Item 36 is indicated as being included in a report of "evidence taken carried out by the Mobile Squad of Perugia report dated 11/06/2007, 11/07/2007 and 11/16/2007." (Note that there is no other reference to a "report" dated 11/06/2007, only to seizures pursuant to a "decree of corporal inspection" dated 11/6. These seizures were of items on the person of Sollecito, Knox and Lumumba at the time of their arrest (e.g., pocket knife, shoes, etc.) and DNA swabs. Rep. 36, taken from Sollecitio's apartment, would not be included within this group of "corporal seizure" items.)

Elsewhere in the index, we see what is likely the same report described as "report of investigation exhibits and seizure dated 11/07/2007 and relative corrected mistakes dated 11/16/2007." So, we have coming from the Mobile Squad a report dated 11/7/2007, which was corrected on 11/16/2007. It appears that this is the report that Gubbiotti was working on, which includes the knife.

So, what else was enumerated in the Mobile Squad's Investigation report dated November 7 (as amended on November 16)? Well, there are a huge number of exhibits from the "murder room".

So, basically, when Gubbiotti unsealed the knife, he was at the time engaged in a process of writing a report enumerating, among other things, many items of evidence from the murder room, including many bloody items. Obviously, he was at the very least handling the evidence bags for those items, which had previously been handled by the police who had collected the evidence items.

Thus, whether Gubbiotti had been in Kercher's room on the day that he handled the knife is irrelevant. He had tansported to his office, and was handling, Kercher's DNA at the time.

 

[NancyS]

I know for a fact that Machiavelli has the phone number of a criminal in his Samsung.

Remind me again of how many of the police/prosecution are currently under investigation for illegal activities?

 

[Bill Williams]

For the record:

Where has ANYONE said that motive is required?

The question is.... since one is not required, why does the prosecution keep needing to offer one, only to change it continually? Jackie's issue is, then, with the various prosecution folk, not obscure posters to obscure forums.

I am still waiting for an answer to that. Of course there won't be one. Why does the Mignini, and now the Crini prosecution feel a need to keep changing it?

 

[Bill Williams]

I know for a fact that Machiavelli has the phone number of a criminal in his Samsung.

Remind me again of how many of the police/prosecution are currently under investigation for illegal activities?

You'll need to ask Machiavelli this question. He'd rather go on about sheer speculations about whose phone number "might" be in whose phone's call list. By that he's not saying it is for sure, it's only "compatible with."

 

[NancyS]

I keep reading tweets that the autopsy confirms there had to be multiple attackers. However, I'm sure I remember reading that the coroner didn't conclude this and the injuries were not able to conclusively rule out either a single or a group attack. Is anyone able to tell me any more about this? Thanks

 

[Strozzi]

I keep reading tweets that the autopsy confirms there had to be multiple attackers. However, I'm sure I remember reading that the coroner didn't conclude this and the injuries were not able to conclusively rule out either a single or a group attack. Is anyone able to tell me any more about this? Thanks

If I remember correctly, Prosecutor Mignini dismissed the medical examiner, Lalli, early on when Lalli's autopsy stated that the wounds on the victim could have been committed by one attacker or more than one. Mignini wanted Lalli to only support Mignini's theory and Lalli was not pliable. Of course, Mignini could not publicly state that that was his reason for dismissing Lalli, so Mignini said that the reason was that Lalli spoke with the media.

 

[NancyS]

If I remember correctly, Prosecutor Mignini dismissed the medical examiner, Lalli, early on when Lalli's autopsy stated that the wounds on the victim could have been committed by one attacker or more than one. Mignini wanted Lalli to only support Mignini's theory and Lalli was not pliable. Of course, Mignini could not publicly state that that was his reason for dismissing Lalli, so Mignini said that the reason was that Lalli spoke with the media.

Thanks for reply - so basically comes down to throw out the science and speculate whatever you like

 

[Bill Williams]

The strawman argument guilters make is that PIP see motive as necessary. The issue that PGP should be focussing on is why is it that the prosecution sees it as so necessary, at least enough that they've offered so many of them?

The ISC has even given direction to the lower courts, in quashing the Hellmann acquittals. Not enough attention was paid to the "sex-game-gone-wrong" motive. The ISC did not just wave away "motive" as unnecessary in this case....

It is SO necessary what did the new prosecutor, Crini, do with it? He departed from the ISC's directive and offered a completely new one... six years later, he said that it was a domestic dispute sparked by pooh in the toilet.

At some point the "importance of motive" is that the prosecution cannot seem to settle on one.... or settle on two or three possibilities which are even somewhat related to one another.

Maresca, if you can believe the tweets from the courtroom, seems to, today, be saying that there could be 5000 possible motives, and that perhaps only the perp(s) know which one is true for sure.

Is that, then, Maresca speaking against the ISC from last March, which said that "sex-game-gone-wrong" is the one which should be investigated more?

At some point a persecution case has got to converge.... at some point the issue isn't to "prove motive". The issue is that it now looks like they're going to cycle through these 5000 motives until they stumble upon one.

Besides - Massei has already ruled on motive - I am unsure if Massei's ruling was also struck down by the ISC last March. For Massei the motive was Rudy's lust, and Rudy's lust alone - and in wrongfully convicting the other two, Massei said they simply made an uncharacteristic "choice for evil".

Motive is not necessary, that is true.... why then does the prosecution keep fumbling through differing motives like a card shark searching a deck of cards for an Ace to complete a poker hand!?

 

[Dan O.]

So, basically, when Gubbiotti unsealed the knife, he was at the time engaged in a process of writing a report enumerating, among other things, many items of evidence from the murder room, including many bloody items. Obviously, he was at the very least handling the evidence bags for those items, which had previously been handled by the police who had collected the evidence items.

Thus, whether Gubbiotti had been in Kercher's room on the day that he handled the knife is irrelevant. He had tansported to his office, and was handling, Kercher's DNA at the time.

Excelent work there. Is the actual report still available? It would be interesting to examine it in detail to see where more of Meredith's blood/DNA can be found.

 

[Diocletus]

Excelent work there. Is the actual report still available? It would be interesting to examine it in detail to see where more of Meredith's blood/DNA can be found.

As far as I know, the actual police evidence reports are undisclosed.

However, the reports can be reconstructed using the test results index: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/test_results_index_translated.doc

There are bits of data in there, e.g., the name of the report, field sample number, AF number and R numbers, and the Rep. numbers, that show the order in which things were collected/processed. The way that Stefanoni has organized this index, there it's a bit like putting together a puzzle, but the clues are there.

The knife and many of the bloody exhibits from the cottage were assembled at the police station, enumerated in Gubbiotti's report dated 11/7, and then sent to Rome sometime on or before 11/12.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how not to package evidence

Excelent work there. Is the actual report still available? It would be interesting to examine it in detail to see where more of Meredith's blood/DNA can be found.

I second Dan O.'s comments. Whether he were in Meredith's room or not, he was still exposed to Meredith's DNA elsewhere. Even if he were not making a catalog of evidence, I still think if anyone should have handled the knife, he should not have been Gubbiotti. I also still think that the knife should have been sealed for transport to the laboratory Rome exactly where it was collected, which was in Sollecito's flat.

 

[Strozzi]

No, no. Just a moment, you are very wrong here. This is not a suggestion: it is a fact that the drug dealer had phone contacts with Knox. Because in fact, he was investigated and charge of drug dealing because of these phone contact. I mean the police found him and they investigated him because they found his number in Knox's phone traffic. That was the element on which they started an investigation which lead them to find out three drug dealers.

Machiavelli, was the guy who was prosecuted for drug dealing really an active drug dealer? Could it be that he was not a dealer at all but was investigated because his phone number was in Knox's phone or because he had spoken with her once by phone? Perhaps he was a pot smoker, like half of all younger adults in Perugia, and had the misfortune of having a phone call with Knox against whom the PLE are desperate to discover or create negative evidence for their own vindication.

It reminds me of Curatalo who was arrested on an old drug charge (it was by then several years old, wasn't it?) when the prosecutor needed him to be a pliable witness (on his 3rd serious criminal (murder?) case) and isolate him from contact with journalists or defense counsel - lest he say something that shows the media or defense counsel that he doesn't know what he was talking about. Or had been prompted to construct testimony 8 months after he told the police he saw nothing in the park on the night of Kerscher's murder.