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

[Bill Williams]

Hahahaha!

The pro-guilt community are working themselves up into paroxysms of joy, self-righteous anger and self-righteous justification over Knox's discussion on her blog of the April Fool's joke.

Let's add some proper perspective to this issue.

1. April Fool's pranks such as these are absolutely commonplace.

<....... sinister deletia ...........>
​

3. In any case, whatever may or may not have happened in Seattle on that April Fool's Day is in no material way relevant to the trial. Trials are based purely on evidence that is specific to the direct circumstances of the crime being tried. Similar Fact evidence is only permissible under very specific circumstances, and only when it is directly relevant (e.g. it might be allowable to present evidence of a person's previous bad character if they were on trial for crimes that related to character).

This whole thing is a massive non-issue in the context of assessing Knox's guilt - whether legal or factual - in the Kercher murder. It goes without saying that it's extremely surprising to see pro-guilt commentators who claim to be legal professionals saying that this is a massive game-changer. It's not.

These folk are utter maroons....

In fairness to those "legal professionals", they were sick the day they taught law at law school....

 

[AmyStrange]

My reading (FWIW) is that if Knox is convicted, then precedent and legislation both suggest that she will ultimately be extradited (but remember, that process would not even start until and unless the SC confirmed the convictions).

However, in certain jurisdictions - and the Federal US certainly appears to be one such jurisdiction - it seems entirely possible for "exceptions" to be made - either by some sort of special decree or by other mechanisms. So I certainly wouldn't suggest that it's an absolute slam-dunk that Knox would indeed be extradited if she were ultimately convicted.

But anyhow, in my opinion, this whole discussion might well be moot after 30th January.

-

I hope you are right John that Jan 30 will end all this, but I find other folks in other venues have argued that even if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted this time around, an appeal could be filed and the decision overuled and sent back for trial over and over and over again ad nauseam.

GAWD, I hope that's not true at least,

d

-

 

[RandyN]

They are compatible, meanigful for negative comparison, which in the context means a conclusion of "probable identity".
This is wht I meant. Nobody ever ruled they "did not match" either, so it's just wrong to say "they do not match".



Actually I include the defence, because also the defence had a power to investigate things like the semen stain, or to request it to be investigated.
They decided to not request it, because, by Sollecito's own admission, they fered about the result. The request was delayed until by the end of the first instance trial, when the evidence discussion phase was already closed.



Two things.
First, it is not that they "can" order the testimony of a nutcase, but rather they must order it, because the previous Hallmann-Zanetti court made the dreadful choice of leaving a job unfinished, they had called Aviello but they listened to just pieces of his testimony, and then cut away the rest of it, based on illogical arguments. This thing had to be closed, as well as the Vecchiotti-Conti window, and in order to close it, you need to accomplish it.



Maybe it would shed light to you. Because you don't think there is sufficient evidence. Not to me, as for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, and I think not for the judge, since I see already evidence beyond reasonable doubt of their involvement.
I see the evidence as solid, undisputable, I fail to see how a test on the stain could change that. It won't change if it's Guede's semen, nor if it's Sollecito, nor if it's SIlenzi's, and it won't change if it is a fourth unknown profile, it won't change if it's vaseline. I don't see how any result could affect the evidence. No result among those could make the evidence against Sollecito go away, so from my point of view I can't see how the test could change the conclusion.

How about if the test reveals that it is Lumumbas semen? Would that change things for you?

Or Kokomaniacs? Or Rudys good friend Giancomo? I think it is semen of Diya. Its possible, even probable plus there is the cell ping in that area near that time. And the text message to meet. Why does Italy hide this?

Why does Italy go to such ridiculous lengths to protect a failure of police and prosecution? They are responsible for the death of Miss Kercher almost as much as Rudy Guede...they allowed a known criminal caught inside a school with stolen items and a deadly weapon to go free. No arrest, no detention...just go free...free to kill Miss Kerchers a short time later. This is what Italy wishes to hide. But it seems a strange way to go about that end.

Have the police and judiciary become the mafia? It seems like it to the thinking world anyway. You seem to know much information about secret mafia meanings even to the point where "good boy" is some mafia secret slander. Can you explain this for us non-Italians here....this whole mafia secret code?

 

[acbytesla]

My reading (FWIW) is that if Knox is convicted, then precedent and legislation both suggest that she will ultimately be extradited (but remember, that process would not even start until and unless the SC confirmed the convictions).
However, in certain jurisdictions - and the Federal US certainly appears to be one such jurisdiction - it seems entirely possible for "exceptions" to be made - either by some sort of special decree or by other mechanisms. So I certainly wouldn't suggest that it's an absolute slam-dunk that Knox would indeed be extradited if she were ultimately convicted.

But anyhow, in my opinion, this whole discussion might well be moot after 30th January.

While I agree with you in regards to the highlighted text, the extradition treaty has significant loopholes that will allow the State Department to just refuse extradition without ever letting this get to a court.

And while usually a formality, I can easily see a Federal District Court Judge in Seattle overseeing the extradition treaty demanding to essentially retry the case in his court room and then denying extradition citing that the evidence in the case clearly shows that Amanda didn't commit the crime. This would be unusual, but judges have a latitude especially when the laws overseeing them are as vague as the extradition laws.

 

[kwill]

-

I hope you are right John that Jan 30 will end all this, but I find other folks in other venues have argued that even if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted this time around, an appeal could be filed and the decision overuled and sent back for trial over and over and over again ad nauseam.

GAWD, I hope that's not true at least,

d

-

I think I understand this correctly. The case has to go -- not back -- but ON once again to the high court for verification.

Somebody described it as being similar to getting a law passed in the USA. There's the house vote, and the senate vote, and then the president's signature. In the USA a case is finished unless somebody files an appeal. In Italy it's not finished until the high court gives the verdict its stamp of approval.

If they had approved the Hellman verdict, it would have been over. But whatever this current court does, the high court will still have to finalize it. And if the high court doesn't, it will go back again for another look to a lower court.

From an American perspective, it's unbelievable -- but I'm quite sure they would say the same about many aspects of our system.

 

[kwill]

Question for any Italians who might be reading here

Why would the citizens of Italy want to pay to house and feed and guard Amanda Knox for 30 years? Is she a threat to anyone in Italy? No. Has she harmed any Italians? No.

It seems so crazy, especially given the radical lack of evidence to convict her and the state of the Italian economy.

 

[RandyN]

By the way, it seems to me you are completely confusing the police offices and departments. The "police" is not a single unitarian indistinct entity; there isn't anything like that, and there is no such person as the "chief of police"; there was the Questore of Perugia (De Felice) who said case closed in a press conference, but then shortly after the very same Police office had no problem in investigating Rudy Guede, then publicly change their mind and declare Lumumba was innocent.
You should take in account the openness by which they corrected their previous conclusion, and admit they nad no problem doing so.

But when you talk about testing the putative semen stain, you should know that you are talking about a completely different office, that is the Scientific Police directed from the UACV of Rome. Why should the Scientific Police care soe much about a prosecutor (a member of the judiciary - they couldn't care less) and possibly members of the mobile squad team of a small provincial city. The idea that the Rome offices togeher with technicians of the Scineitfic Police (Stefanoni) they concoct a sophisticated conspiracy just to protect unknown insignificant officers is quite ludicrous.
Whoever thinks the police would be prepared to follow such a malicious criminal conduct, shall prove what he says.

Anyway the testing of the semen stain was to be done under the rules of "incidente probatorio", which means defence consultants would take part to it, including the genetic tests. Which would make the fraud extremely dificult and extremely dangerous.
Raffaele's attorney (who? Tedeschi? Maori? Bongiorno?) never uttered any words/suspicions like the one he attributes to them in his book.

So the conclusion that Mignini was in charge of the investigation is wrong then? Is that what you are saying? Because if Mignini was not in charge then why was he meeting with Stefanoni and fingerprint guy and coroner to plan strategy of the case...according to your...errr the book Darkness Descending? OR was that just more ramblings of General Garafano?

Perhaps Italy needs to learn that in order to avoid mass stupidity and confusion from breaking out in a case that someone should be in charge like say a "chief of police" and not some devil worshiping obsessed, untrained investigative idiot like Mignini. Doctor of the absurd. Some day I am going to have to look up that 1000 plus page motivation report written to refute Migninis every ridiculous claim in the Narducci case. Could you be so kind as to translate that for us please?

Who was the police leader that wanted to withhold arresting RS, AK and PL? Do you recall who that was? And who then overruled this person? I seem to recall a rather high up police official stating that he wanted to hold off.

It certainly wasn't the idiot from Rome. It wasn't Mignini. Not Profatsio, not demoted Nappolini... was it Arturo? One very dim indication that no everyone in Italy was a complete moron. Hummm.

BTW...all the Oh... extradition is simply a barely examined rubber stamped technical matter fail to take into account any matter before or that will be before the ECOHR related to this case. I expect a full appeal and review there will be necessary before the the US would even open a extradition request from Italy.

Our politicians are a high percentage of legally trained do nothings...that said they are at least interested in the law. And I think they will be able to sort over some of the holes in this case....and by holes I mean huge sucking black holes but not the invisible kind ...rather the crazy "I'm pregnant with an alien baby" kind of holes...you know the ones Italy...right?

 

[AmyStrange]

If they had approved the Hellman verdict, it would have been over. But whatever this current court does, the high court will still have to finalize it. And if the high court doesn't, it will go back again for another look to a lower court.

From an American perspective, it's unbelievable -- but I'm quite sure they would say the same about many aspects of our system.

-

I agree with you there, and one of those aspects that I don't like about our system is the idea that (generally) an appeal of a conviction can only be heard on points of law and not on evidence unless the evidence is new or couldn't have been reasonably discovered at the time of the conviction, but that's beyond the scope of this specific thread

d

-

 

[Poppy1016]

My reading (FWIW) is that if Knox is convicted, then precedent and legislation both suggest that she will ultimately be extradited (but remember, that process would not even start until and unless the SC confirmed the convictions).

However, in certain jurisdictions - and the Federal US certainly appears to be one such jurisdiction - it seems entirely possible for "exceptions" to be made - either by some sort of special decree or by other mechanisms. So I certainly wouldn't suggest that it's an absolute slam-dunk that Knox would indeed be extradited if she were ultimately convicted.

But anyhow, in my opinion, this whole discussion might well be moot after 30th January.

Please forgive my ignorance on this subject, but can the defense keep appealing convictmions,the same as the prosecution can keep appealing acquittals?

 

[Mary_H]

Please forgive my ignorance on this subject, but can the defense keep appealing convictmions,the same as the prosecution can keep appealing acquittals?

Yes, until the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court.

 

[Poppy1016]

Yes, until the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court.

So both sides can endlessly appeal? In that case extradition would never come into play.

 

[Mary_H]

I have no idea if it would bother him. I do think that people shouldn't spread it around and make judgments based on Doug's blog unless proof is provided.

All right; I'll buy that.

Apparently people here and at other PIP sites are using this factoid to smear John Kercher.

I don't see it as a smear, even if it's not true. It doesn't make Kercher look bad.

 

[Mary_H]

So both sides can endlessly appeal? In that case extradition would never come into play.

That's right. Some people say that is the strategy -- keep at it until the defense runs out of money or the prosecution says uncle. But there is a possibility of Cassation agreeing with Assizes at some point. If they agree on innocence, then it's all over. If they agree on guilt, watch out.

 

[Strozzi]

Why would the citizens of Italy want to pay to house and feed and guard Amanda Knox for 30 years? Is she a threat to anyone in Italy? No. Has she harmed any Italians? No.

It seems so crazy, especially given the radical lack of evidence to convict her and the state of the Italian economy.

I think of the psychological injury and financial damage that Rudy Guede has caused through his crimes:

To Italy -

• the cost of the burglaries he committed,
• the cost of the murder of a British student in Perugia,
• the police and prosecutorial cost,
• The arrest and detention of Lumumba, who was the indirect victim of a rogue police interrogation, and the failure of his bar Le Chic
• the court costs,
• the prison costs to incarcerate Rudy for a dozen or so years,
• the cost to incarcerate Amanda and Raffaele,
• the conviction of Raffaele Sollicito and the cost to him in terms of psychological injury, loss of freedom and ability to build a career and life,
• the injury to his extended family, including harm to his sister's career and his father's medical practice, the legal costs to the family to defend Raffaele though round after round of trial,
• the cost to the owner of the cottage, made uninhabitable,
• damage to the tourist economy and study-abroad reputation of the city of Perugia.

To the UK -

• The loss of a promising young woman, including the loss of the children she would have born and mothered, and her future grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and descendents who will never be.
• The grief, psychological injury, and financial cost to Meredith's family,
• The grief to Meredith's friends and fellow students, including her girlfriends who were with her briefly in Perugia who terminated their studies to return to the UK,

To the US -

• the psychological and financial injury to Amanda Knox caused by the false accusations, rogue interrogation, conviction and imprisonment for crimes she did not commit, and her loss of four years and interruption of her education due to her imprisonment for a crime she did not commit.
• psychological injury to her family and also to close friends (Ms. Paxton, et al),
• financial damage, burden, and career setbacks to the Knox/Mellas family to defend Amanda and move to a hostile Perugia to be near Amanda for four years.
• Cost to many American experts who volunteered their time and expertise to review the evidence

 

[Poppy1016]

That's right. Some people say that is the strategy -- keep at it until the defense runs out of money or the prosecution says uncle. But there is a possibility of Cassation agreeing with Assizes at some point. If they agree on innocence, then it's all over. If they agree on guilt, watch out.

Wow. Thanks .

 

[Bill Williams]

That's right. Some people say that is the strategy -- keep at it until the defense runs out of money or the prosecution says uncle. But there is a possibility of Cassation agreeing with Assizes at some point. If they agree on innocence, then it's all over. If they agree on guilt, watch out.

One of the ironies is that the only person who might come out of this making money, other than the lawyers, is Barbie Nadeau.

I didn't realize that Kate Beckinsale was one of the leads in Ben Affleck's "Pearl Harbor" until it was on today.

I'm sure the Daily Mail did all right with the salacious stories.

 

[Strozzi]

One of the ironies is that the only person who might come out of this making money, other than the lawyers, is Barbie Nadeau.

I didn't realize that Kate Beckinsale was one of the leads in Ben Affleck's "Pearl Harbor" until it was on today.

I'm sure the Daily Mail did all right with the salacious stories.

I just posted above a long itimized lists of costs that Rudy Guede has burdened three countries. What you cite are the profits a few authors and tabloids earn.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Strozzi,

That is an excellent post.

 

[AmyStrange]

Strozzi,

That is an excellent post.

-

WOW!!! I agree. You had everything on there I could think of... and more

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

One of the ironies is that the only person who might come out of this making money, other than the lawyers, is Barbie Nadeau.

I didn't realize that Kate Beckinsale was one of the leads in Ben Affleck's "Pearl Harbor" until it was on today.

I'm sure the Daily Mail did all right with the salacious stories.

I just posted above a long itimized lists of costs that Rudy Guede has burdened three countries. What you cite are the profits a few authors and tabloids earn.

It is quite the irony.... to be fair, Rudy initially, when he did not know he was being recorded, completely disavowed any involvement of Knox. He did not create ALL of this horror.

The initial horror, though, is all Rudy. Let me quote Judge Massei on that one...

That Rudy then yielded to his lust, and tried to find sexual satisfaction with Meredith, is revealed by how Meredith’s body was found: wearing only....

... and it needs to stop there, out of some decency towards Meredith... but suffice it to say, Massei describes an unmoved body, meaning that Massei does not buy, at all, a staging of the body or of a sexual assault...

But then Massei continues....

There can be no doubt that the part of the girl’s body which Rudy had ‚lingered over‛ to the extent that he left his biological traces on her and even caused the bruises which have already been mentioned, and [the fact of] having stripped the young woman, [all] point to the objective of sexual satisfaction carried out against Meredith’s wishes. It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms (the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.

Massei is satisfied that, regardless of AK and RS's (wrongly) alleged involvement, that even the bruises are the result of Rudy's lust and nothing else.

Massei immediately continues.....

It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.

This description shows the problem with guilters who try to put together a comprehensive timeline of this crime. Massei is doing it, as he perhaps should - but is perhaps not required to do - but to put it together one does not need, really, to have Raffaele and/or Amanda even there!!!

This is how Massei continues, so that he can justify his conviction of them....

Nevertheless, it should also be considered, and this seems to be the most probable hypothesis, that Rudy decided on his own to enter Meredith’s room, the young woman’s reaction and refusal must have been heard by Amanda and Raffaele (Amanda’s room was very close to Meredith’s) who, in fact, must have been disturbed by them [i.e. by the reaction and the refusal] and intervened, as the progression of events and their epilogue show, backing up Rudy, whom they had brought into the house, and becoming themselves, together with Rudy, Meredith’s aggressors, her murderers.

Massei gives NO reason for this sudden, unintuitive switch... except for this phrase, "and their epilogue show," that they "back up Rudy". For what possible reason? One would think that this would be the time for Massei to explain this counter-intuitive plot twist...

But rather than explain it, even Massei calls this counter-intuitive.

Why, then, two young people, strongly interested in each other, with intellectual and cultural curiosity, he on the eve of his graduation and she full of interests, resolved to participate in an action aimed at forcing the will of Meredith, with whom they had, especially Amanda, a relationship of regular meetings and cordiality, to the point of causing her death, falls within the continual exercise of choice among [the range of] possibilities, and this Court can only register the choice of extreme evil which was put into practice. It can be hypothesised that this choice of evil began with the consumption of drugs which had happened also that evening, as Amanda testified.

On the effects of drugs of the type used by Amanda and by Raffaele, such as hashish and marijuana, [we] heard the testimony of Professor Taglialatela ....

......... and off the rails Massei goes. He was actually writing a motivations report towards innocence, until then.

There is no psychopathology, there is no bad relation between Meredith and Amanda, there is perhaps pooh in the toilet, but Massei makes no mention... and AK and RS have no motive; it's all to do with Rudy's lust.

One hopes that the Nencini court can make this right - for Meredith, by the way.

The cost that Rudy started by his hideous act towards a true innocent here, cannot be allowed to continue.

Thanks for your list. I think.