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

[katy_did]

Your insight is disturbingly accurate, to a degree, but my cynicism is not purely an act of emotional armoring. It also has a basis in observation. I think the best clue lies in how this process has been structured rather than anything Nencini has said explicitly. Look what came out today regarding the emergency call. Crini has resurrected a canard that was put to rest decisively in the 2009 trial, with no requirement to revisit the supporting evidence, which flatly contradicts his claim. What can we reasonably conclude about the intent of any court or legal system that allows such naked deceit?

Yes, it's really astonishing the way long discredited evidence has been resurrected for this trial. First it was the pillowcase "women's" shoe print and then the knife print; and I thought, "well at least they're not quite so shameless as to bring back the emergency call". But lo and behold...

All the same, the judges are free to make their own decisions on those things, or even to see the prosecution in a negative light for desperately trying to resurrect obviously flawed evidence (particularly in the case of the shoe print and the knife print - clearly a reaction by the prosecution to fears the knife had been discredited, leaving nothing placing Amanda in the room).

I think that's the theory behind allowing the prosecution a lot of leeway to talk about whatever they want - that the defence can counter and the judges can in theory make their own minds up. Whether it's realistic or not is another story. My main fear isn't that Nencini will be convinced by the resurrection of flawed evidence, but that it might act as a smoke screen making the rest of the (just as flawed) evidence look stronger (as I think happened to a certain extent in the Massei trial).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Look what came out today regarding the emergency call. Crini has resurrected a canard that was put to rest decisively in the 2009 trial, with no requirement to revisit the supporting evidence, which flatly contradicts his claim. What can we reasonably conclude about the intent of any court or legal system that allows such naked deceit?

Did the Court of Cassation also make this argument?

 

[Bill Williams]

If you had one of those degrees perhaps you have understood that Massei didn't debunk the phone call timing of the prosecution. Had he debunked that no court could possibly bring it back.

What is of interest is that this is the first trial of this 3 trial saga (four if you count the ISC), I have followed real time from start to finish. The ISC doesn't count, really, because who the heck knows what goes on there. They seems to rule on things outside of their own mandate!

Then again, with no Italian law degree.....

 

[Grinder]

What is of interest is that this is the first trial of this 3 trial saga (four if you count the ISC), I have followed real time from start to finish. The ISC doesn't count, really, because who the heck knows what goes on there. They seems to rule on things outside of their own mandate!

Would you explain what you mean.

 

[Wildhorses]

Courage, interesting. Well I’ll answer a question in the manner of my choosing, pretty like everyone else here.

I have always drawn a distinction between the ongoing discussion here and how evidence is presented or dealt with in court. Indeed, the discussion adheres to the memberships rules essentially and as such has little to do with Italian court procedure. Sadly, winning an argument here doesn’t necessarily translate to what happens in court, I do not understand why Amanda and or Raffaele defence aren’t arguing the points being raised here, do you?

Yes, I know you draw that distinction. I draw it too. However, the timing of Raff's 112 call hasn't been part of the ongoing discussion here for years.

There's been no need to discuss it. The postal police made a mistake: they confused the correction one makes for a slow clock with the correction for a fast clock. In the first trial, Bongiorno presented proof that the postal police miscalculated the time. Massei accepted her proof, without belaboring it, and simply added that IF the postal police had arrived when they said they did they surely would have noticed the three phone calls that occurred after their arrival. He points out that the calls "were not of brief duration."

So this issue was put to rest long ago. It's not rocket science. It's not a matter of opinion. To put forth the postal police's mistake as evidence of guilt IS a bad faith argument -- a shameless attempt to convict on FALSE evidence.

It has nothing to do with the discussion on this forum.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is of interest is that this is the first trial of this 3 trial saga (four if you count the ISC), I have followed real time from start to finish. The ISC doesn't count, really, because who the heck knows what goes on there. They seem to rule on things outside of their own mandate!

Would explain what you mean.

First, lest you think I failed English 101, I corrected my grammar.

Second, I must have missed the day they taught "Italian Law" during my Italian law degree....

I'm a bit of a simpleton, so when they say that all 2nd grade decisions go to Cassazione for a check to see if the right law or procedure was followed, I tend to believe it.

When they, then, rule that the wrong motive was decided upon by the lower courts - when they have the option of saying "no motive" to begin with, my simpleton ears perk up - that's all. It certainly looks, at first blush, that the ISC is ruling on which evidence is to be believed or not believed rather than the procedure of evaluation it or applicable law....

Maybe there's a nuance to Italian law that no one on this board "gets", save for Machiavelli. Maybe in Italy dietrology trumps law, I don't know!

That's what I mean that for my pea brain, it certainly seems like Cassazione went outside of its mandate, with no court in Italy superior to them to annul it!

This is not a particularly Italian phenomenon. Many believe that the 2000 US Supreme Court ignored law and handed the US Election to George W. Bush. Vincent Bugliosi certainly believes that.

The issue is for any highest court in any jurisdiction.... by definition, what they rule cannot be overturned, really, except for maybe a future session of that same court. In the US they seem to have a "gentleman's agreement" that they will mostly abide by rulings of prior courts... or find new ways to say that they really aren't overruling....

 

[acbytesla]

Those are pretty much my thoughts too. I'm worried, but I think that's because I honestly don't know what's going to happen and because the verdict is close. I can understand why people prefer to think there's going to be a conviction because it means you either get to be grimly cynical about how it was all decided from the start, or you're pleasantly surprised by an acquittal. But I really don't think there's been any indication so far (Nencini yells at everyone on an equal opportunity basis so far as I can see).

We are definitely on the same wavelength. What is amazing about the case right now is that the most reliable reports have been coming from the pro guilt camp and that too may be feeding our worries.

I'm trying to take a deep breath. Either way this has been a joke of a trial.

Other than Raffaele's spontaneous statement, the RIS report on Sample 36I and the testimony from Aviello, this has been a worthless trial. Really a joke.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, I know you draw that distinction. I draw it too. However, the timing of Raff's 112 call hasn't been part of the ongoing discussion here for years.

There's been no need to discuss it. The postal police made a mistake: they confused the correction one makes for a slow clock with the correction for a fast clock. In the first trial, Bongiorno presented proof that the postal police miscalculated the time. Massei accepted her proof, without belaboring it, and simply added that IF the postal police had arrived when they said they did they surely would have noticed the three phone calls that occurred after their arrival. He points out that the calls "were not of brief duration."

And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary.

The way I read Massei's sentence he is just repeating what the defense maintained about the calls. So it was the defense that had argued that the calls were long enough to be noticed by the PP. It's been a long time but I remember that issue wasn't settled so much as let go or forgotten.

 

[moodstream]

Did the Court of Cassation also make this argument?

I don't think so. But on the other hand, they don't assign them a time of arrival either.

 

[Wildhorses]

I see from Barbie's tweets that Knox's defense gets one more rebuttal.

I know what I want is irrelevant. I'll say it anyway. I want the defense to present a powerpoint presentation: one page for every accusation with clear, simple bullet points that refute the accusation. Very clear, very simple.

Have they ever presented something like that?

 

[Kaosium]

And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary.

The way I read Massei's sentence he is just repeating what the defense maintained about the calls. So it was the defense that had argued that the calls were long enough to be noticed by the PP. It's been a long time but I remember that issue wasn't settled so much as let go or forgotten.

If he is just repeating what the defense said, why is he agreeing with it?

Not just saying it can be 'held' but also he has the Postals getting to the door just before 1 PM as per Bill's quote a few pages back. That--without doubt--indicates he accepted the defense presentation.

As for why he did that, it's because the Carabinieri couldn't have called to ask for directions ~8 minutes after they'd gotten there.

 

[Bill Williams]

And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary.

The way I read Massei's sentence he is just repeating what the defense maintained about the calls. So it was the defense that had argued that the calls were long enough to be noticed by the PP. It's been a long time but I remember that issue wasn't settled so much as let go or forgotten.

And then in a section where he puts together his own timeline, Massei writes.....

that the postals arrive "just before 1 pm". with Raffaele making his calls at 12:42 and 12:54.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yes, it's really astonishing the way long discredited evidence has been resurrected for this trial. First it was the pillowcase "women's" shoe print and then the knife print; and I thought, "well at least they're not quite so shameless as to bring back the emergency call". But lo and behold...

All the same, the judges are free to make their own decisions on those things, or even to see the prosecution in a negative light for desperately trying to resurrect obviously flawed evidence (particularly in the case of the shoe print and the knife print - clearly a reaction by the prosecution to fears the knife had been discredited, leaving nothing placing Amanda in the room).

I think that's the theory behind allowing the prosecution a lot of leeway to talk about whatever they want - that the defence can counter and the judges can in theory make their own minds up. Whether it's realistic or not is another story. My main fear isn't that Nencini will be convinced by the resurrection of flawed evidence, but that it might act as a smoke screen making the rest of the (just as flawed) evidence look stronger (as I think happened to a certain extent in the Massei trial).

My main fear is that Nencini is a pliant functionary who was tagged to deliver a conviction, everything said in court is meant solely to whip up the mob, and it will work only too well.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Did the Court of Cassation also make this argument?

Nope.

 

[js202]

Your insight is disturbingly accurate, to a degree, but my cynicism is not purely an act of emotional armoring. It also has a basis in observation. I think the best clue lies in how this process has been structured rather than anything Nencini has said explicitly. Look what came out today regarding the emergency call. Crini has resurrected a canard that was put to rest decisively in the 2009 trial, with no requirement to revisit the supporting evidence, which flatly contradicts his claim. What can we reasonably conclude about the intent of any court or legal system that allows such naked deceit?

In my opinion, all the markers are present that the fix is in. One can only hope that the ECHR will take less time than the wheels of "Italian justice" - which grind slow, but coarse - to sort it all out.

 

[Wildhorses]

And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary.

The way I read Massei's sentence he is just repeating what the defense maintained about the calls. So it was the defense that had argued that the calls were long enough to be noticed by the PP. It's been a long time but I remember that issue wasn't settled so much as let go or forgotten.

As others point out, it's implied throughout the Massei report that he accepted Bonjiorno's correction of the postal police's timing. As I said, he doesn't belabor it.

There'd be no point belaboring it. It's common sense that the police wouldn't call for directions AFTER they arrived.

Someone posted a google doc address a few pages back that I assume shows the proof that the postal police got their timing wrong. I couldn't access the address: maybe you can. The matter was settled. Resurrecting it was pure sophistry.

It was a mistake not unlike identifying the bloody shoeprint as Raff's, without bothering to count the rings.

 

[Grinder]

If he is just repeating what the defense said, why is he agreeing with it?

I'm saying that it was something he didn't think was that important and let it go, but he didn't say that the calls made to 112 were clearly made before the PP arrived. Why did he repeat the defenses assertions on the calls instead of just saying that they were made before PP arrival?

The main point of my last post on this was that Massei didn't say the calls were of too long a duration he says that's what the defense said.

Not just saying it can be 'held' but also he has the Postals getting to the door just before 1 PM as per Bill's quote a few pages back. That--without doubt--indicates he accepted the defense presentation.

At about 1:00 pm Filomena Romanelli, her friend Paola Grande and their boyfriends Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri arrived at the house in Via della Pergola.

This was after the PP arrived so he has them there before 1 pm but I don't see by how much before.

I realize that he accepted for the purposes of the report that they arrived later and the calls were made before. I've looked for a spot where he deals with point head on and can't find it.

As for why he did that, it's because the Carabinieri couldn't have called to ask for directions ~8 minutes after they'd gotten there.

I couldn't find this in Massei.

From my reading of Massei I don't see where he debunks the possibility. I think people here accept, as do I, that Raf made the calls before the PP actually arrived. Clearly from this new trial, not everyone agrees. I'm sure the defense will quote Massei debunking and that will be that.

 

[Grinder]

And then in a section where he puts together his own timeline, Massei writes.....

that the postals arrive "just before 1 pm". with Raffaele making his calls at 12:42 and 12:54.

Perhaps you can direct me to this timeline - this was what I found and no PP arrival.

12:51:40 Raffaele Sollecito called ‚112‛ to inform the Carabinieri of the presumed theft in Romanelli’s room (duration 169 seconds; connection to Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell, which covers Via della Pergola 7)
− 12:54: a second call by Raffaele to ‚112‛ (57 sec.; connection to Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)
− 13:40:12: incoming call from the father (94 sec.; Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell)
− 13:50: the father called for 178 seconds (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell) [343]

 

[charlatan]

Perhaps you can direct me to this timeline - this was what I found and no PP arrival.

12:51:40 Raffaele Sollecito called ‚112‛ to inform the Carabinieri of the presumed theft in Romanelli’s room (duration 169 seconds; connection to Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell, which covers Via della Pergola 7)
− 12:54: a second call by Raffaele to ‚112‛ (57 sec.; connection to Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)
− 13:40:12: incoming call from the father (94 sec.; Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell)
− 13:50: the father called for 178 seconds (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell) [343]

Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm

 

[Strozzi]

If he is just repeating what the defense said, why is he agreeing with it?

Not just saying it can be 'held' but also he has the Postals getting to the door just before 1 PM as per Bill's quote a few pages back. That--without doubt--indicates he accepted the defense presentation.

As for why he did that, it's because the Carabinieri couldn't have called to ask for directions ~8 minutes after they'd gotten there.

There are time stamped photos from the parking garage camera showing the Postal Police car pulling into the parking structure, and a few minutes time stamped photos showing the blue uniform pantlegs of the first of the Postal Police walking past the parking garage entrance heading towards the house. That happened at 12:58:52 pm. (8 seconds before 1 pm). Those time stamps are the garage camera's actual displayed times, not yet corrected.