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

[codyjuneau]

This sort of thing is very rare, and although it can sound callous, there's something to be said for the "better drowned than duffers" school of thought. You can't wrap a young adult in cotton wool forever.

Rolfe.

.
I have often wondered whether it is just more acceptable to the Kerchers, to believe Meredith was murdered by her roommate, rather than the alternative.

The scenario of being bushwhacked by an outwardly normal, but secretly psycho roommate, is one where the Kerchers can feel they had little ability to predict or warn Meredith. The latter, where she returned home to a cold empty isolated flat in a drug dealing area of town, to be murdered by a known burglar, not so much.

Perhaps the truth is just too difficult to consider, whether the reasoning is justified or not.
.

 

[Diocletus]

.
I have often wondered whether it is just more acceptable to the Kerchers, to believe Meredith was murdered by her roommate, rather than the alternative.

The scenario of being bushwhacked by an outwardly normal, but secretly psycho roommate, is one where the Kerchers can feel they had little ability to predict or warn Meredith. The latter, where she returned home to a cold empty isolated flat in a drug dealing area of town, to be murdered by a known burglar, not so much.

Perhaps the truth is just too difficult to consider, whether the reasoning is justified or not.
.

Agreed: If your child is murdered by someone like Rudy, who's just a ghost, you might feel like a sort of accomplice, or at least blame yourself.

On the other hand, believing that your child was murdered sensationally allows you to feel like a victim.

 

[LondonJohn]

I find the idea that the police allowed Patrick to talk to the press at all very unlikely. I can't find the date of the article right now, but it was fairly shortly after Patrick was released. There is no way they were just letting him go about his business, blabbing about what had happened to him in police custody.

There is so much we don't know in order to be able to corroborate this. Everyone says Patrick retracted the allegations on TV, but did anyone actually see the TV show? Patrick sued the cops for false arrest -- what do the trial documents say? Did he also allege mistreatment, which most certainly happened? If not, why not, when he allegedly had said it to The Mail?

The prosecution had to put its stamp of approval on everything in those days. They either gave the story to the writer or let her keep it because it benefitted their case against Amanda. If Patrick said it, he made an agreement with the police to take it back in exchange for coming over to their side of the case. But I don't think he was interviewed at all.

In my opinion, there is a statistically ZERO chance that the Mail would have printed that story without having Lumumba's accusations against the police on unimpeachable record - almost certainly via an audio recording.

The British tabloid press may do many ethically-questionable things in pursuit of a story, and inventing quotes is certainly a technique they sometimes employ. BUT, they are absolutely not in the habit of inventing quotes that make serious accusations against anyone - let alone authority bodies such as police. The press are, after all, well aware that the ramifications of being called out on such practices are simply too great to make it worth doing. And the risk of being called out, if the accusations are without merit, is very high.

There is no way whatsoever, in my opinion, that the Mail would ever have come remotely close to making up these inflammatory Lumumba quotes. If they had done so, they would clearly have opened themselves to libel actions from both Lumumba and the police. Once the Mail knew they had proof that Lumumba had said those words, they would be largely insulated from libel: Lumumba would bear the brunt of any potential action if any libel suits were brought. The Mail would have the defence that they were reporting in good faith, and that they could prove that Lumumba had directly made those accusations to their reporter.

The only rational conclusion to reach is that Lumumba did indeed say all of these things exactly as reported. And it's a virtual certainty that the Mail lawyers have it all on tape (I severely doubt they would have agreed to run the story without that insurance). So, in my opinion, the only remaining question is whether Lumumba was telling the whole truth, or embellishing the truth, or telling a flat-out lie. Because of the detail of his story, and the potential consequences to him of lying, I tend to conclude that he was telling the whole truth.

 

[Welshman]

Yes.

The other important point is that the blood on the bath mat was very clearly highly diluted. It would therefore not be unreasonable (in my opinion) for Knox to have thought that Meredith might have taken a shower during a time of heavy flow, had dripped blood onto the wet shower pan (even after having turned off the shower), and had then inadvertently stepped in the blood and stepped out onto the mat.

Had the prints and the other blood marks been in dark, heavy blood, then I think the situation would have been rather different: for one thing, that would imply a significant loss of blood in any case; and for another thing, it would be most unusual for a menstruating woman to ever encounter a scenario where she was stepping into a pool of her own menstrual blood.

I therefore think that it would indeed have been strange for Knox to attribute heavy, dark, undiluted blood marks on the bath mat as a menstruation accident. But that was not the nature of the blood on the mat.

The PGP sometimes argue Amanda took a shower in bloody bathroom and Amanda should have raised the alarm. If Amanda had killed Meredith is it credible that Amanda would admit to taking a shower in a bloody bathroom containing the blood of someone Amanda had just murdered. The police released a photo of what appeared to be a bloody bathroom. The police failed to mention the bathroom was sprayed with a protein and it was not how the bathroom appeared to the naked eye. If the bathroom resembled an abattoir, why did the prosecution have to resort to trickery to make the bathroom appear bloodier than what it actually was? If Amanda had showered in a bloody bathroom, why was this not mentioned in the interrogation, the hearings prior to the first trial or the massei report?

 

[acbytesla]

In my opinion, there is a statistically ZERO chance that the Mail would have printed that story without having Lumumba's accusations against the police on unimpeachable record - almost certainly via an audio recording.

The British tabloid press may do many ethically-questionable things in pursuit of a story, and inventing quotes is certainly a technique they sometimes employ. BUT, they are absolutely not in the habit of inventing quotes that make serious accusations against anyone - let alone authority bodies such as police. The press are, after all, well aware that the ramifications of being called out on such practices are simply too great to make it worth doing. And the risk of being called out, if the accusations are without merit, is very high.

There is no way whatsoever, in my opinion, that the Mail would ever have come remotely close to making up these inflammatory Lumumba quotes. If they had done so, they would clearly have opened themselves to libel actions from both Lumumba and the police. Once the Mail knew they had proof that Lumumba had said those words, they would be largely insulated from libel: Lumumba would bear the brunt of any potential action if any libel suits were brought. The Mail would have the defence that they were reporting in good faith, and that they could prove that Lumumba had directly made those accusations to their reporter.

The only rational conclusion to reach is that Lumumba did indeed say all of these things exactly as reported. And it's a virtual certainty that the Mail lawyers have it all on tape (I severely doubt they would have agreed to run the story without that insurance). So, in my opinion, the only remaining question is whether Lumumba was telling the whole truth, or embellishing the truth, or telling a flat-out lie. Because of the detail of his story, and the potential consequences to him of lying, I tend to conclude that he was telling the whole truth.

I wish I agreed LJ. The British tabloids have been getting away with printing a lot of trash and lies about a lot of people for a long time. They really had little to fear from Patrick, they paid him for his story and he really didn't have the means to press a libel suit against the Daily Mail in the UK. It amounts to a "he said, she said" situation when it comes down to it.

I look at the incredible exaggeration of the story they wrote about Amanda. I think they figured that they could print that because Amanda was in an Italian jail and she too would be unable to refute the story. And probably thought she had enough problems to deal with than to press a libel suit against the Daily Mail.

Look at the story they launched on their web site when Amanda was acquitted. You know, the one where they posted a totally libelous story saying that Amanda was convicted?

I don't trust Lumumba, and I bet he was mistreated, but I have very little faith in the accuracy of the Daily Mail's reporting.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is laugh out loud entertainment to innocenters here, with Mignini claiming innocence on his own Abuse of Office charges is that, as RoseM observes, he makes use of being free from double jeopardy. So excuse me while I bust my lungs laughing....

But wait, there's more. Steve Moore to be exact.

Now, I am not American and in my country not as protected against double jeopardy as Moore is. But the essence of that right is, as Moore explains, that the government cannot go shopping for a second jury (or equivalent) if a first jury acquits. Government simply does have the resources to stretch this out ad infinitum until it eventually gets the decision it wants.

But in Italy it's even worse. If one prosecution theory does not wash, a new prosecution in essence gets to bring a whole new case! Witness Crini.

No longer is this the mandated sex game gone wrong. No longer is this a two knife theory. Crini gets to reinvent the whole crime, now that he's allowed a second kick at prosecuting this.

All this is why the double jeopardy Mignini clings to to plea for his own innocence is a two way street.

If Italy doesn't know how RS and AK were involved in this horrible crime..... how many times do they get to reinvent the crime? How many panels do they get to adjudicate it for until they finally stumble across one that will convict.

And I kmow what you're thinking... the Massei panel already convicted. .... but if that case was so compelling, why is Crini reinventing it for Nencimi?

How many times can Cassazione send it back until even the most cynical guilter gets embarrassed because of double jeopardy that applies to the (now) criminal Mignini on the other, now acquitted charges?

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you think that it's a healthy criminal justice system where charges are routinely allowed to disappear purely on a time basis?

Do you think that it's a healthy criminal justice system where certain privileged individuals appear to be able to *ahem* manipulate the system to take charges beyond their expiration period?

Do you think that, instead, a healthy criminal justice system should easily be capable of trying charges on their merits in a timely, efficient and fair manner?

Do you think that the Italian criminal justice system is currently unfit for purpose?

Here we are talking about pre-indictment charges. No, I disagree with statute limitation laws. But I bear respect for the law independently whether I think it's good or bad. And I respect courts independently whether the system looks efficient, good etc., or not.

I point out that, in this case, Mignini and Giuttari had requested the trial to be moved to Turin from the start, in 2006. It was the Florence prosecution office who opposed, then backed by judge Maradei. In the end, only in 2011 the Florence appeal court finally acknowledged that Mignini and Giuttari were right.
The Florentine prosecutors (Nencini, Turco & C.) - one of them, who meanwhile changed his office post - attempted to launch an inadmissible recourse to the SC, in a last attempt to lose more time.

The loss of time was the consequence of a behaviour of the Florentine magistrates, and was exactly what they pursued, in order to down the Perugian Narducci investigation.

 

[Diocletus]

Here we are talking about pre-indictment charges. No, I disagree with statute limitation laws. But I bear respect for the law independently whether I think it's good or bad. And I respect courts independently whether the system looks efficient, good etc., or not.

I point out that, in this case, Mignini and Giuttari had requested the trial to be moved to Turin from the start, in 2006. It was the Florence prosecution office who opposed, then backed by judge Maradei. In the end, only in 2011 the Florence appeal court finally acknowledged that Mignini and Giuttari were right.
The Florentine prosecutors (Nencini, Turco & C.) - one of them, who meanwhile changed his office post - attempted to launch an inadmissible recourse to the SC, in a last attempt to lose more time.

The loss of time was the consequence of a behaviour of the Florentine magistrates, and was exactly what they pursued, in order to down the Perugian Narducci investigation.

This isn't a "statute of limitations" issue as I understand it; it's a speedy trial violation. The same as the ridiculous 6+ year process in the Kercher murder.

In any event, these people don't seem to have a clue what they're doing.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's simply a paucity of information out there.... someone is certainly keeping this quiet! Machiavelli could very well be right that Jan 15 was the preliminary hearing..... my information was that Nov 30 was the prelim, and Jan 15 was the trial; and, heck, even Andrea Vogt used the term "acquitted" when it comes to describing the 3 Abuse of Office charges against (that criminal) Mignini that, "simply went away!

There was no "30. Nov." hearing. The only hearing took place on Jan. 15. before judge Francesca Firrao. Who is a preliminary judge. No judge heared the Giuttari-Mignini case before.

But there's that pesky fourth charge. Let me try this on for size, assuming that even Machiavelli is correct, that the Jan 15 hearing was the Italian equivalent to a preliminary hearing, to set something over for trial.

The 4th charge relates to the La Stampa journalist who'd been illegally wiretapped - Mignini was convicted for Abuse of Office for that in Florence way, way back when. The conviction was "set aside" because of lack of jurisdiction, and it was up to the (Turin?) prosecutor whether or not to revive the prosecution in (Turin?).

My sources tell me that Mignini remains convicted of this charge on the merit of what happened on Jan 15, 2014, regardless of whether I'm right or if Machiavelli is right.

Your source is providing you with false information. Mignini and Giuttari do not stand convicted of anything. They were not even indicted of anything as they came at the hearing.

The Florentine conviction was not "set aside", it was annulled.
It does not exist.
It was illegitimate. It was annulled in 2011 by a Florence Appeals court. Because the conviction had been handed by people who were found to be not impartial, since they belonged to the same office, the were implicated with and related to the same people who claiming to be offended parties.

There is no conviction.
There is now formally an indictment on this charge, which was unavoidable by the law, given that the prelliminary judge couldn't decide on the merits of it because of its complexity. But the next judge will be likely forced to drop it, because the law prevents him from looking into an investigation that has been already expired.

(..)

Apparently, as of yesterday, IMO Mignini is a convicted criminal. If I am wrong, I am sure someone will demonstrate why!

If you make such a claim, it's you the one who should provide a demonstration.

 

[Diocletus]

The Florentine conviction was not "set aside", it was annulled.
It does not exist.
It was illegitimate. It was annulled in 2011 by a Florence Appeals court. Because the conviction had been handed by people who were found to be not impartial, since they belonged to the same office, the were implicated with and related to the same people who claiming to be offended parties.

So the dirtbag goes free and the innocent people get persecuted. Impressive.

 

[Machiavelli]

It was a lie, in its distorted and exaggerated form.

Of course. And instead the 'correct' one, the 'non-exaggerated' form, is the one that a bunch of very credible people invent now; it's the one they decide to concoct and make up after years when they are caught cheating...

What's more, neither Knox nor anyone else was under any sort of obligation to correct the story.

But my dear, nobody is under any sort of obligation to tell anything truth ever, except in some very peculiar legal circumstances. You have the right to lie about everything all the time, everybody has; there is no law against that; defendants even have a right to lie in court.

But the enjoyment of such right doesn't contribute by zero to one's credibility. A liar has a right to be a liar. But he is a liar.
When a bunch of people lie, they are liars. If their lie consists in concealing a piece of truth by just denying or being silent about it, for that social behaviour in Italian we have the word omerta'. Which is everything you need to know about a community.
Their credibility is zero.

 

[Strozzi]

Some places, especially college towns have a notorious reputation for fudging on their crime rate statistics so as not to frighten off potential students. My point about Seattle and the U-District was to point to Diocletus that Perugia may not be a lot worse than other major college towns.

On think I did notice on a little Google Street view tour of Perugia was the incredible amount of graffiti. Far more than what I see in Seattle. That isn't a good sign. The other thing you notice are all the very narrow streets, alleyways and pedestrian walkways in that ancient walled city. Also, I've seen some of the youtube videos posted by SomeAlibi and Perugia at night is very dark. It would scare me much more than the wide open and mostly well lit streets of Seattle.

My question here is taking us to a side issue, but I would like to ask if the presence (if accurate) of more graffiti in Perugia is a result of graffiti being more a European or Italian form of grassroots political expression" Such as "Strike!". or "Down with the Euro", or "Beat Madrid" ?

In Seattle I'd expect to see graffiti like "Office 365" .

 

[Machiavelli]

This isn't a "statute of limitations" issue as I understand it; it's a speedy trial violation. (..)

It's a speedy trial violation, actually there is more than one violation in terms of right to a fair trial, but there is a statute of time limiation too.

 

[Diocletus]

A liar has a right to be a liar. But he is a liar.
When a bunch of people lie, they are liars. If their lie consists in concealing a piece of truth by just denying or being silent about it, for that social behaviour in Italian we have the word omerta'. Which is everything you need to know about a community.
Their credibility is zero.

So Stefanoni did not have a right to conceal the dozens of egrams that show the contamination in her lab, including nos. 600-604, 617, 626, 628, 685-86, 688-89, 690-92, 758-60, 762-69.

 

[Dan O.]

The PGP sometimes argue Amanda took a shower in bloody bathroom and Amanda should have raised the alarm. *If Amanda had killed Meredith is it credible that Amanda would admit to taking a shower in a bloody bathroom containing the blood of someone Amanda had just murdered. * The police released a photo of what appeared to be a bloody bathroom. *The police failed to mention the bathroom was sprayed with a protein and it was not how the bathroom appeared to the naked eye. * If the bathroom resembled an abattoir, *why did the prosecution have to resort to trickery to make the bathroom appear bloodier than what it actually was? *If Amanda had showered in a bloody bathroom, *why was this not mentioned in the interrogation, the hearings prior to the first trial or the massei report?

I don't know if you have already seen our exposé of the pink bathroom photo.

It is quickly apparent that the pink bathroom was the end result of the Kastle-Meyer test^WP where*Phenolphthalein and hydrogen peroxide are used to detect the presence of certain catalysts such as the hemoglobin in blood. However, anyone that familiarizes themself with this test would know that the result must be recorded in the critical 30 seconds before the chemicals react to atmospheric oxygen and turn pink on their own. Because of this limited time window, there is no way to have tested the whole bathroom in one shot and therefore there should exist a whole series of evidence photos or video showing the results of each section as it was tested. As far as I know, none of these photos were produced in the case file.

There exists in the case file one photo of the pink bathroom taken during the December visit. The photo that was sold to the papers however is not the case file photo but a similar photo taken with a personal camera at about the same time. And while that officer was taking that photo with his personal camera, the official police vidiographer was photographing him.

 

[Diocletus]

actually there is more than one violation in terms of right to a fair trial,

Not surprised. That's been my impression of the Italian justice system generally.

 

[Strozzi]

Actually Maresca asked repeatedly the judge to send away the public. In fact Pratillo Hellmann was sloppy, indifferent, appeared reluctant to send away the public. He made them step out the door. But several people could see.

You should blame Pratillo Hellmann not Maresca.

Good point! (You have made this point before.) Judges are in charge and are ultimately responsible for what is allowed to occur in the courtrooms.

 

[Diocletus]

I don't know if you have already seen our exposé of the pink bathroom photo.

It is quickly apparent that the pink bathroom was the end result of the Kastle-Meyer test^WP where*Phenolphthalein and hydrogen peroxide are used to detect the presence of certain catalysts such as the hemoglobin in blood. However, anyone that familiarizes themself with this test would know that the result must be recorded in the critical 30 seconds before the chemicals react to atmospheric oxygen and turn pink on their own. Because of this limited time window, there is no way to have tested the whole bathroom in one shot and therefore there should exist a whole series of evidence photos or video showing the results of each section as it was tested. As far as I know, none of these photos were produced in the case file.

There exists in the case file one photo of the pink bathroom taken during the December visit. The photo that was sold to the papers however is not the case file photo but a similar photo taken with a personal camera at about the same time. And while that officer was taking that photo with his personal camera, the official police vidiographer was photographing him.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5160[/qimg]

Hydrogen peroxide? Would that cause a luminol reaction if you tracked it around on the floor?

 

[Strozzi]

I don't know if you have already seen our exposé of the pink bathroom photo.

It is quickly apparent that the pink bathroom was the end result of the Kastle-Meyer test^WP where*Phenolphthalein and hydrogen peroxide are used to detect the presence of certain catalysts such as the hemoglobin in blood. However, anyone that familiarizes themself with this test would know that the result must be recorded in the critical 30 seconds before the chemicals react to atmospheric oxygen and turn pink on their own. Because of this limited time window, there is no way to have tested the whole bathroom in one shot and therefore there should exist a whole series of evidence photos or video showing the results of each section as it was tested. As far as I know, none of these photos were produced in the case file.

There exists in the case file one photo of the pink bathroom taken during the December visit. The photo that was sold to the papers however is not the case file photo but a similar photo taken with a personal camera at about the same time. And while that officer was taking that photo with his personal camera, the official police vidiographer was photographing him.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5160[/qimg]

The officer using his personal camera was identified earlier. If I remember correctly, he is an officer of the Postal Police, not the Perugia police.

If that is correct - that he is with the Postal Police - why was he inside the cottage a once the Perugia police took control of the crime scene? There may be a reason for this - perhaps he has special responsibility or expertise in forensic matters or in the investigation of major or violent crimes?

 

[Machiavelli]

So Stefanoni did not have a right to conceal the dozens of egrams that show the contamination in her lab, including nos. 600-604, 617, 626, 628, 685-86, 688-89, 690-92, 758-60, 762-69.

Stefanoni didn't conceal anything. The defence didn't attend the test. They didn't access the laboratory for months. Such information was not specifically requested not even during the trial. A judge decided Stefanoni provided sufficient material and ordered she should not give anything else.

Moreover, you never offer the source for those claims.