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

[Diocletus]

It's worth reminding ourselves that the ECHR cannot constitutionally order acquittals or retrials. But actually, in practice it has the power to do just that. If the ECHR rules that a person's human rights have been violated in relation to a criminal conviction, it can order the state in question to apply a remedy. The state in question is legally bound to comply with that order, unless it elects to withdraw as a signatory to the convention.

In Knox's criminal slander case, therefore, if the ECHR rules that Knox's right to a fair trial was violated, it will order the Italian state to apply a proper remedy. In practice, this means that Italy will either have to quash the conviction (and almost certainly pay monetary compensation), or order a retrial on the charge, excluding any elements that related to abuse of Knox's human rights. And since the state's case against Knox would crumble to almost nothing if she were retried with an exclusion of those areas which related to an abuse of her human rights, she'd without doubt be acquitted in such a retrial anyhow. Which, in turn, means that pragmatically, Italy would be almost certainly bound to quash the conviction totally without going through the farce of a retrial and acquittal.

The only other choices Italy would have would be a) refuse to comply with the ECHR remedy order - which would spark a significant constitutional and judicial crisis. or b) withdraw as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which would also have significant wider ramifications for Italy and Europe.

In short, if the ECHR finds that Knox's human rights were violated, this would in practice mean that Italy would have little choice but to quash her conviction.

I don't know about all of this. Anonymous internet poster McCall has a choke hold on these facts, and he says that the ECHR can't do anything and Knox is definitely going to jail tomorrow and will be extradited right away and will never get out and there is no argument or force of nature, God or man that can or will stop it. He's very sure of this.

 

[Diocletus]

Hiya Diocletus,
Frank Sfarzo wrote of it back in March of 2009:



Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182429/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html

Grazie mille!

This matches Curatalo's actual testimony per the transcript, so it appears that Frank Sfarzo reported accurately.

 

[Diocletus]

Boy oh boy. There are 2 camera boys with little point and shoot cameras in the cottage on December 18th. They look and act like a father/son team.

I've gotten back to a project that I wanted to do for a long time. I am stepping through the crime scene video and recording the video index times of the camera flashes. The earlier photo sets were left intact with all the meta data including time stamps and original file names. On the 18th the names have been stripped. I figured that there were pictures that were left out for some reason and there should be extra flashes from the point and shoot camera.

Here is a table of what I have so far:

Crime scene camera flashes

December 18 part 2

00:00:50.04|029.jpg|Display back side of mattress
00:00:59.12|030.jpg|Flipping mattress
00:01:44.68|031.jpg|Front of holly mattress
00:04:06.72| |Opening Forensics case flat
00:04:16.40| |Case open
00:04:31.36| |Accessing case
00:04:38.72|032.jpg|opening second case
00:04:47.48| |<indirect>
00:04:48.56| |<direct towards cases from Amanda’s room>
00:06:25.92|033.jpg|Meredith - pictures on wall
00:06:33.36|034.jpg|Meredith - pictures and blood streaks on wall
00:08:17.92|035.jpg|Meredith - blood streaks on wall with “W”
00:08:28.64| |Meredith - blood streaks on wall with “W” again
00:08:46.04| |sampling with swab at bottom
00:08:50.12| |sampling with swab near bottom
00:08:55.12| |sampling with swab (just missed grabbing swab with fingers)
00:09:10.16|036.jpg|sampling with swab
00:09:11:32| |sampling with swab (dropped swab at 09:32)
00:09:52.16|039.jpg|sample W in container with lid open
00:09:56.68|040.jpg|sample W closing lid
00:10:09.36|041.jpg|displaying W sample (after adjusting mask with gloved hand)
00:11:26.22| |scraping with knife
00:11:29.28| |scraping with knife
00:11:42.00| |scraping with knife
00:11:47.52|042.jpg|scraping with knife
00:11:50.20| |scraping with knife
00:12:00.36| |scraping with knife
00:12:06.72|043.jpg|scraping with knife
00:12:14.20|043.jpg|lid on scraping sample
00:12:17.84| |putting knife back in envelope
00:12:25| |meredith’s room
00:12:32| |(pocket camera boy taking picture of W stain)
00:12:43.68| |meredith’s room
00:13:08.08| |meredith’s room
00:13:31.76| |meredith’s room
00:13:46.48| |meredith’s room floor under window
00:13:52| |(2 pocket camera boys in Meredith’s room)
00:14:15.48| |Meredith’s room (pre flash at -0.12)
00:14:43.12| |boy 2 at W (pre flash at -0.12)
00:14:59.04| |meredith’s room
00:15:53| |(pocket camera boy with glasses off, backed by boy 2)
00:20:52 | |stuffing wardrobe from amanda’s closet into suitcase in Meredith’s room
00:23:10.32|033.jpg|Photos on wall in Meredith’s room
00:23:13.32| |Photos on wall in Meredith’s room
00:23:24.36| |camera man in meredith’s room
00:23:27.64| |camera man in meredith’s room (double flash)
00:23:32.64| |camera man in meredith’s room (double flash)
00:25:13.96| |camera man in meredith’s room
00:26:54.16| |camera man in meredith’s room Blood on floor
00:27:14.04| |camera man in meredith’s room Blood on floor
00:27:37.28| |camera boy in kitchen (has both cameras)
00:32:30.84|049.jpg|Purse on bed frame
00:32:33.80|050.jpg|Purse on bed frame
00:32:38.04| |boy 2 picture of W stain
00:32:53.48| |boy 2 picture of W stain (double flash)
00:33:10.04|051.jpg|picking up purse
00:33:14.44|052.jpg|bagging purse
00:33:09.24| |boy 2 stain under bed
00:34:26.64|053.jpg|clasp on floor

This is a great project. I think that the gap analysis has been tremendously interesting on the DNA work, and this will be similar.

I believe that there are pretrial publicity aspects of this case that may give rise to a human rights violation, and I think that we may see this issue raised to the ECHR.

This isn't your ordinary case. This is a case where the state (prosecution/individual agents of the state) used leaks and media to falsify the case against the defendants to the detriment of the defendants, at a time when the defendants had limited access to information and no ability to fight back.

I think that there is provable misconduct in this case, and it will be an issue not only at the ECHR level but also in any proceedings in the US (the Italian clowns of course don't care).

To the extent this research can show a path of leakage and identify the individuals responsible and their roles in the case, I think that it is very worthwhile.

Could somebody post a cropped screengrab of Fat Man's face? And let's get the guy's name.

 

[Bill Williams]

Profiling has been oversold, without a doubt. IMO it is mostly useful for helping the police organize their thinking in difficult cases.

<........sinister deletia.......>​

It will not solve a crime in the absence of a viable suspect, and it can lead to prejudice against an innocent suspect.

Douglas was part of an FBI group that made a study of killers, and I am familiar with the research they did. They found that certain types of crimes match certain types of offenders.

<........sinister deletia.......>​

Those are the kinds of cases where Douglas gets called in. Nothing is easier than to point out his mistakes and say he's no good.

Douglas's thinking has changed a great deal over the course of his career. He has seen the exoneration of people who he thought were guilty, and he has seen the relentless persecution of people who are clearly innocent. He is a man who is willing to learn, and who will admit when he is wrong. He talks about some of his mistakes and revised opinions in his most recent book. I have learned a lot by reading his books.

What Charlie said.

This all started with my claim that John Douglas's credentials were impeccable. (High falooting language, I know....)

The Guy Paul Morin case was, first and foremost, bungled because of what can be called outright police/prosecutorial fraud. Perhaps it would be better for Douglas-critics to point out where Douglas participated in fraud.

Profiling is like anything else, as Charlie suggested, it does not replace investigation. It seems one of the bits of chicanery that the Morin investigators played is calling in Douglas when they already had narrowed their sights... were themselves engaging in investigative myopia that tends to be the hallmark of wrongful prosecutions.

And like anything profiling has its limits. I'd read about the Steven Truscott case in Canada in the 1950s, where teenager Truscott was convicted mainly on the, then, not-well-understood science of stomach contents analysis. The issue back then seemed to be that lay-juries regarded science as voodoo, and as accurate "just because it was science." Lay juries would be prone to even ignore the caveats the scientists themselves would bring because of something similar to the CSI-effect.

So... what does any of this have to do with John Douglas and Douglas Preston writing a book about "The Forgotten Killer", about Rudy Guede in the horrible Meredith Kercher murder in 2007?

Let me put it this way - on the one side there is John Douglas.... proclaiming Sollecito's and Knox's innocence. On the other side there is an essentially anonymous Wiki by a man named Edward McCall.

Last night I spent the same amount of energy going through the bona fides of Mr. McCall, his educational background, his law enforcement training, his experience in the field, his claim about access to original transcripts.... as others have (apparently) done in ascertaining what to make of this "impeccable credentials" claim about John Douglas. It was a short investigation!

Did you know that no less that respected journalist Andrea Vogt cites this anonymous-Wiki as the key to understanding this horrible murder?

I, for one, would love to be able to expose this Wiki as drawn from and assembled by people with "impeccable credentials", but you know what? No one knows who they are!

John Douglas et al. puts himself out there... here's my work, go to it. Criticize it. Peer review it. Tear it apart in some equally anonymous JREF discussion group. Make my day.

Strangely, this willingness to be reviewed settles many troubled hearts in discerning what's what in horrible murders.

Edward McCall? Even the JREF mods cannot invoke rules in censoring criticism of him because, no one knows who he is! If he's a poster here on JREF, no one knows which he is.

At least Crini is willing to put his name to asinine theories of pooh in toilets leading Meredith to become such a bitch about cleanliness, that it leads to her roommates rising up against her. (Note: Crini's theory is a completely unfair, and venomous attack, essentially, on Meredith's character! Of course Meredith did not do that. And she's the victim here!) But Crini is putting it out there to be reviewed....

..... which is the question CoulsdonUK says is the one which interests him. What will Judge Nencini put his own name to in the forthcoming motivations report? Will Nencini buy into this character assassination of Meredith? Or will Nencini write about, as directed by the ISC, that Meredith was at least initally a willing participant in a sex game until it went wrong?

If Nencini convicts tomorrow, maybe the good judge will be hoping that no one will read his motivation for doing so.

 

[Diocletus]

Pretrial Publicity

In Allenet de Ribemont v France 4, the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 6(2) imposed obligations not only on criminal courts but also on other public authorities. It further held that the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) is one of the elements necessary to ensure a fair trial, as required by Article 6(1). The Court further stated that while freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10, includes a right for public authorities to inform the public about criminal investigations in progress, it requires them to do so with caution if the presumption of innocence is to be respected.

5. Mr Allenet de Ribemont (the applicant) had complained that Article 6(2) was infringed when he was described by high–ranking police officers as one of the instigators of a murder. The Court held that this declaration of the applicant's guilt had firstly encouraged the public to regard him as guilty and, secondly, prejudiced the assessment of the facts by the judicial authority. There had, therefore, been a breach of Article 6(2). The Court said:

"The presumption of innocence...will be violated if a judicial decision concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law. It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty... Moreover, the Court reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory... The Court considers that the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities.5"

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-echr.htm

Hmm: So you can't advertise guilt until "proved guilty according to law."

Err . . . Did somebody tell the prosecution and Messrs. Matteini, Michaeli, Borsini and Massei about this? 'Cos as far as I know, these defendants aren't proved guilty according to law until finally affirmed by Cassazione, and all of those folks have already said or transparently suggested that the defendants are guilty of rape and murder. Or, if they have already been proved guilty according to law, then we have a double jeopardy problem, don't we?

 

[Bill Williams]

Quote of the day from :The Forgotten Killer", explaining why Ridy Guede has been essentially forgotten here....

A number of Web sites peopled by anonymous bloggers sprang up devoted to trashing Amanda, spewing gigabytes of fact-free venom at her.--Douglas Preston

Many quite rightly complain that Meredith is being forgotten. The Preston quote above is the very engine of how it is she is forgotten, and her killer is about to walk the streets again in 2014.....

What do bloggers do about that?

 

[Diocletus]

Many quite rightly complain that Meredith is being forgotten.

She died six years ago. There are people I knew who died six years ago and I can barely remember them without a photo.

The injustice of this kangaroo court process lives on, however.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Giobbi and the photo of Amanda

IIUC Dr. Giobbi might have had something to do with Amanda's photo being put up in the hallway near his office in Rome. The photo was seen in a documentary with him, which is pretty prejudicial IMO. IIRC the hallway contained photos of convicted criminals, including members of the mafia. We had a long discussion about this in the first or second thread. Even if Dr. Giobbi himself had nothing to do with putting up the photo, the point that it is wrong to have done so still stands. Link to a YouTube video here.

 

[christianahannah]

This is a great project. I think that the gap analysis has been tremendously interesting on the DNA work, and this will be similar.

I believe that there are pretrial publicity aspects of this case that may give rise to a human rights violation, and I think that we may see this issue raised to the ECHR.

This isn't your ordinary case. This is a case where the state (prosecution/individual agents of the state) used leaks and media to falsify the case against the defendants to the detriment of the defendants, at a time when the defendants had limited access to information and no ability to fight back.

I think that there is provable misconduct in this case, and it will be an issue not only at the ECHR level but also in any proceedings in the US (the Italian clowns of course don't care).

To the extent this research can show a path of leakage and identify the individuals responsible and their roles in the case, I think that it is very worthwhile.

Could somebody post a cropped screengrab of Fat Man's face? And let's get the guy's name.

Could the photographer/s have been any of the defense consultants? There should be a list (transcripts maybe?) of who attended the Dec. 18 collection/search from inside the cottage to inside the van.

 

[acbytesla]

Coulsdon in an earlier post suggested that the "devil was in the details". Something I treated as a bit of a punch line. Not that I disagree per se. There is truth to his statement even though I believe any guilty verdict will lead to a farcical motivation.

I can't say that I've been a fan of any of the judges including Hellmann and not just because Hellmann convicted Amanda of the charge of Calunnia. Each of the trials short circuited the process. Hellmann and the other judges disappointed me in the fact that they "allowed" the prosecution to play games. They should have told Stefanoni that if she didn't turn over the EDF files and other documentation that he would be held in contempt of court and incarcerated as well as pay a fine.

This is how you restore faith into a bankrupt system. You make people accountable for their actions. You demand that "theories" be based on evidence and you demand that the evidence be presented in court. I guaranty that Stefanoni would have turned over the files if she was put in jail.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yeah, that too. I think that reading the supreme court's opinion did something to my mind that erased any thought that Curatalo lied. Either that or I was high. You decide.

I trust Frank's report, as posted by RVWBWL upthread, and conclude that no honest, reasonable person could attach weight to the evidence of Toto whether he was lying or delirious. I think he was lying, however, for a bunch of reasons among them the convenience of his story (at least until he embellished it by extending the period of their stay) and its improbability, which is not to disregard all the other well-known problems you have pointed out.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

CCTV

Could the photographer/s have been any of the defense consultants? There should be a list (transcripts maybe?) of who attended the Dec. 18 collection/search from inside the cottage to inside the van.

I was under the impression that the defense stayed in the van and watched, presumably by closed-circuit television, although a list of people who were there would certainly be helpful. It is not clear to me why the defense would have released that particular photo, given its documented ability to suggest to people that Amanda was a liar.

 

[Diocletus]

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-echr.htm

Hmm: So you can't advertise guilt until "proved guilty according to law."

Err . . . Did somebody tell the prosecution and Messrs. Matteini, Michaeli, Borsini and Massei about this? 'Cos as far as I know, these defendants aren't proved guilty according to law until finally affirmed by Cassazione, and all of those folks have already said or transparently suggested that the defendants are guilty of rape and murder. Or, if they have already been proved guilty according to law, then we have a double jeopardy problem, don't we?

Oh, my bad. Matteini's memorandum doesn't actually say that the defendants were "guilty" before they had been proved guilty according to law. What she said was that there were "grave indicators of guilt" and a "high probability" of guilt not subject to any reasonable "alternative explanation," so the memorandum only reflects this opinion about their guilt.

So, that makes it much better. Carry on, then.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh, my bad. Matteini didn't actually opine that they were guilty. What she said was that there were "grave indicators of guilt" and a "high probability" of guilt not subject to any reasonable "alternative explanation."

So, that makes it much better. Carry on, then.

She criticised Amanda for not showing remorse. Er ...

Why doesn't De Felice's quote count?

 

[RoseMontague]

Could the photographer/s have been any of the defense consultants? There should be a list (transcripts maybe?) of who attended the Dec. 18 collection/search from inside the cottage to inside the van.

I was under the impression that the defense stayed in the van and watched, presumably by closed-circuit television, although a list of people who were there would certainly be helpful. It is not clear to me why the defense would have released that particular photo, given its documented ability to suggest to people that Amanda was a liar.

That would make sense, Chris. They probably shut down the paid tours the day before and I doubt the cops were keeping a list of those visitors.

 

[Diocletus]

She criticised Amanda for not showing remorse. Er ...

Why doesn't De Felice's quote count?

"Caso chiuso" and "she buckled" both definitely count.

Great point on the remorse remark.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh, my bad. Matteini didn't actually opine that they were guilty. What she said was that there were "grave indicators of guilt" and a "high probability" of guilt not subject to any reasonable "alternative explanation."

So, that makes it much better. Carry on, then.

She criticised Amanda for not showing remorse. Er ...

Why doesn't De Felice's quote count?

Dozens of other people also showed no remorse for killing Meredith... typically, they were people who, in fact, did not kill Meredith.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary_H,

I had not noticed your posts before; have you been commenting here long? <snip>

I have dabbled.

Mary is in Seattle. I remember her because some PGP were badmouthing Seattle as backward. So to show them, Mary hosted the last coven we had at the modern Boeing plant.<snip>

I would love a tour of the Boeing plant!!!

I have toured the Boeing plant.....zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Oh sorry, I fell asleep for a minute there.

I think a tour of the Boeing plant is required by law here. The only two interesting things I learned were 1.) how they electrostatically coat the planes and 2.) that you can't carry a camera on the tour. Not because they don't want you taking pictures, oh no, but because you are on a raised walkway above the factory floor and they don't want you to drop anything down there. But not because they don't want you taking pictures. No.

If anyone comes to Seattle, I will drop them off at the Boeing plant.

I have heard that Mary is moving to China...that or she has decided to stop wearing underwear. One or the other.<snip>

<snip>Speaking of China and underwear (why you brought that up I will never understand),<snip>

Randy is referring to a stupid game on Facebook that mean people try to trick you into playing.

Mary is not new. You keep taunting her and you might find out she has been here all this time - lying in wait for you.
<snip>

Shhh. I don't want him to know about the revenge I have planned (dropping him off at the Boeing plant).

Who is Mary? Oh wait. Mary_H you mean. He's a guy, actually.

Snort. As if any male of the species would be bored on the tour of the Boeing plant.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the photo of Amanda misleading the investigation

She criticised Amanda for not showing remorse. Er ...

Why doesn't De Felice's quote count?

What about putting up Amanda's photo in the serious crimes unit no later than early 2008? This was before Micheli had ordered the trial IIUC.

 

[Mary_H]

Dozens of other people also showed no remorse for killing Meredith... typically, they were people who, in fact, did not kill Meredith.

Good one, Bill.