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

[moije2]

Thanks. I was only pointing out that if there were differences between states that her extradition hearing would be in a state that has the laws as I described. My writing is less elegant than my usual inelegant style so I may have misled. I doubt state law will have any impact. I do think it is a standard across the country but...

Depending on the country, a criminal proceeding which ends prematurely due to error, mistake, or misconduct, may end as being dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. If the case ends without prejudice, the accused in the case (the defendant) may be retried. If the case ends with prejudice, the effect on the defendant (for the purpose of punishment) is the equivalent to a finding of not guilty and they cannot be retried.

In the United States, if there is a mistrial, or the case is overturned on appeal, generally this is without prejudice and (in the case of decision overturned on appeal) either all of the case is retried, or, if not all of the case is overturned, the parts that were overturned (like a sentencing hearing) are retried. If the case is dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct, it will typically be dismissed with prejudice, which means that the defendant cannot be retried.

In general, the rule for whether or not a case is dismissed with or without prejudice depends on what condition the case is in and whether "jeopardy" has attached to the case. If jeopardy is attached to a case, a dismissal or a resolution is "with prejudice" and the case can never be litigated again. In the case of a trial by jury, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and a dismissal (for prosecutorial misconduct or harmful error) at that point must be with prejudice. In the case of a bench trial (trial by the judge only), jeopardy attaches when the first witness in the case is sworn.

If a criminal case is brought to trial and the defendant is acquitted, jeopardy is attached to the case and it can never be retried. If the defendant was convicted and his conviction is overturned, jeopardy is not attached because the defendant is considered to simply be in the same state they were before the case was tried.

If a person is brought to trial where they are charged with a particular crime and is convicted of a lesser offense, the conviction for a lesser offense is an acquittal of any higher-level offense (for example, a conviction for second-degree murder is an acquittal of first-degree murder). If the conviction is later overturned, the maximum the defendant can be retried for is the crime to which they were convicted; any higher charge is acquitted and thus is with prejudice.

Some other countries, however, allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal.​

I don't want to be argumentative but you were right I believe and I was wrong.

The mistake on my part to try to do this when I don't have time to research what I'm talking about. I think that nomenclature may well be used in CA as well. I was going quickly off old memory. I will come back to the forum when I have more time! Thanks.

 

[Dan O.]

In reviewing the December 18 video part 1 between the 4 and 5 minute marks, the short fat perp with the black pocket camera is in the hall outside Meredith's room and takes several photos.

While we cannot be certain that the bloody crime scene photos were taken on the 18th, at 5 minutes in the doors have been moved back to the wardrobe and the chair moved away ending the time window for taking those shots. I have seen no other pocket cameras in these first 5 minutes and the official photographer has been busy on the floor looking for the erased footprints.

The other opportunities for these shots would be the November 5th/6th period when the Perugia police were swarming through the cottage before it was sealed and on or about November 14 when the front door was mysteriously discovered open.

 

[Grinder]

Raff ADMITS he changed his alibi. He ADMITS he did blame Amanda for telling him to lie. He writes it in his own hand in his diary, a letter to his Father. Yet I'm supposed to believe KnifeBoy's self-serving book written years after the fact? Oh please.

Oops. What did she tell him to lie about precisely? Did he swear to that or only write it in a private diary?

Why do you use a term like KnifeBoy? Do you think that elevates the discussion?

Laura and Filomena asked Amanda to lie about drug usage in the cottage, does that make them suspects? Could Raf have been asked to lie about drug usage?

Many PGP predicted that their true characteristics would be on display if released and that they would do what they had done again.

In this I agree. Raf was a ditz then and he is one today. He doesn't ever think clearly and is even worse under pressure. He babbles nonsense.

 

[Grinder]

Are full (or partial) transcripts of Raffaele's statements (from November 2 on) able to be viewed publicly? Have you seen them?

Not to my knowledge. I wouldn't trust them at this time without recorded back up.

 

[RoseMontague]

Raff ADMITS he changed his alibi. He ADMITS he did blame Amanda for telling him to lie. He writes it in his own hand in his diary, a letter to his Father. Yet I'm supposed to believe KnifeBoy's self-serving book written years after the fact? Oh please.

How about 12 November 2007 then (pmf translation)

The facts are taking their course and I am slowly realizing that due to the fact that you, father, sent me a goodnight SMS [messaggio] that night and also due to the fact that in the first statement I made I said that Amanda had stayed with me all night long, I must admit [dire] that I said a 90% really stupid thing [grossa cavolata] in my second statement. And that is: 1 that fact that Amanda persuaded me to say something is not true [è una cazzata] and I have said so repeatedly to the judge and to the Squadra Mobile; 2 reconstructing [the events] I realize that it is actually very likely that Amanda was with me all night long, never going out. And I will certainly not be the one to lie in order to help the investigation and get everyone into trouble for no reason [gratuitamente]. Or better still, it would be fabulous for me if Amanda has done nothing, since it is [diventa] impossible that they find any traces on my shoe and on my knife and this story will have a happy ending for me and for you...

Bolding is mine.

 

[GreyFox]

Raff ADMITS he changed his alibi. He ADMITS he did blame Amanda for telling him to lie. He writes it in his own hand in his diary, a letter to his Father. Yet I'm supposed to believe KnifeBoy's self-serving book written years after the fact? Oh please.

Do you feel it's fair that the police ruined his and Knox's hard drives that was there alibi. These two should never have to be interrogated at length. The police ruined their alibi and just say Oops ???

Nothing your saying here matters if the hard drives don't get destroyed. How many pieces of evidence have been destroyed since this case started by the crooked PLE.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kate Mansey article; night of the interrogation

I came to it from a media opinion piece today (which I now can't find - it was a major outlet) that outlined numerous reasons why they may not have committed the murder but were probably in the house. One of these was the changing alibis.

Here's a Sollecito example from the pro-guilt wiki

I'll keep looking for the article.

icerat,

First and foremost, the fake Wiki that you cited is an advocacy site that is riddled with untruths. They have a helluva nerve chiding anyone about accuracy about anything. I will try to recall the Kate Mansey article (alibi 1.1). One, the article itself has some errors (and the person she interviewed sounds like a composite IMO). Two, even if Sollecito said words to the effect of "I went to a party" to a reporter, it was never said in court. Three, IIRC the wording of the article was that Sollecito said he "partied" with friends, not that he went to a party. Perhaps wrongly, I assumed that this was a euphemism for smoking marijuana.

Now with respect to version 2.0, this is the night of the interrogation, and we all are agreed that the pair gave false statements. Raffaele mixed up what he did on Halloween with what he did on 1 November IMO, and if the police had let him look at a calendar (as he requested), then maybe he would have gotten it squared away. Raffaele's account of this night is even more harrowing that Amanda's. The police claim it was Lady Windermere's Tea. I say, let's watch the interrogation tapes together and see who is zooming who.

 

[RoseMontague]

Are full (or partial) transcripts of Raffaele's statements (from November 2 on) able to be viewed publicly? Have you seen them?

Nope, I can't find any reference that the transcripts of Raffaele's interrogations have ever been presented in any court.

 

[Grinder]

Nominations for top ten things the PGP refuse to address:

1. De Felice and the until she buckled and told us what we knew was correct.

2. TOD evidence that everything including the digestive facts point to a death no latter than 10 pm and probably by 9:30 or earlier.

3. Time line for murder including Curatolo, the break down vehicles and the TOD.

4. Why the bathmat print looks more like Rudy's foot than Raf's.

5. Why the police didn't take reference prints or DNA from other house members?

6. Why the police didn't grab Patrick's knives and seal his apartment?

7. How the three coordinated the night's caper?

8. How they were able to remove all trace of themselves from the room and Meredith? Include how they held her down but left no DNA, in particular Amanda who seemed to have left DNA all over her bathroom?

That's a start.

9.

 

[Vibio]

RoseM: That is a child's way of covering his ass.

A few days later, the switch-blade carrying druggie now writes:

"I realize that it is actually very likely that Amanda was with me all night long, never going out. "

How reassuring.

 

[Grinder]

Nope, I can't find any reference that the transcripts of Raffaele's interrogations have ever been presented in any court.

Stillicho claims Raf has them but hasn't released them. I'm not sure how he knows, but perhaps from the same source that claims the bleach receipt exists.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseM: That is a child's way of covering his ass.

A few days later, the switch-blade carrying druggie writes:

"I realize that it is actually very likely that Amanda was with me all night long, never going out. "

How reassuring.

So what was Amanda doing then if she went out and left Raffaele at home? Do you have a timeline of the crime that fits the witness testimony, the cell phone activity, the broken down car, the scream. Give us your theory that fits with the evidence. Prove your case based on the evidence rather than some confused statements.

 

[RoseMontague]

Stillicho claims Raf has them but hasn't released them. I'm not sure how he knows, but perhaps from the same source that claims the bleach receipt exists.

Of course, still waiting on Michael's famous claim. Wonder why he is holding this back?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Abrams' many mistakes

Here's the opinion piece I was talking about, from ABCNews -

Amanda Knox Found Guilty Again: Why the Court Could Be (Sort of) Right

One can understand those suspicions since both Sollecito's and Knox's accounts of where they were and what they did that night and morning changed many times, and some of that was not supported by objective evidence. In fact, Sollecito appears to have offered at least four different versions:

The "9 times" figure came from a comment on another site.

icerat,

Abrams is making a mountain out of a molehill, ignoring some facts, and getting at least one crucial fact wrong. "Both Knox and Sollecito claim to have slept until 10:00 a.m. or 10:30 a.m. and yet Solliceto's computer showed activity at 5:32 a.m" OK, but in his book Sollecito says that he was awake at several times over the course of the evening. The computer actions involve MP3 files and iTunes. Is Abrams seriously suggesting that after somehow participating in a murder. Sollecito (instead of cleaning up) is making a playlist of music? Hello? Abrams also ignores what even the prosecution now concedes was an interaction on Raf's computer at 9:26. And don't get me started on the police-induced loss of metadata involving the Stardust file or the screensaver log file.

The rest of Abrams' article is no better: "Yet Amanda said 'while we were waiting' for the police [the Carabinieri], the postal [police] officers arrived. Since that does not appear to be true..." Wait a second. The police claimed that Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the arrival of the postals. I will leave a detailed refutation of the police claim to someone else, but it has been covered many times in these threads. The call to the Carabinieri took place well before the arrival of the postal police. "There were no signs that someone had entered from the outside and the broken window glass strongly suggests it was broken from the inside." This is just plain ignorant of both Sgt. Pasquali's work and the Channel 5 documentary. "There was also extensive evidence that someone attempted to clean up the house after the murder...It's possible that samples that appeared to have been of Knox's DNA mixed with the victim's (which the defense disputes) could have been the result of an effort to clean up the crime scene rather than involvement in the actual murder, as prosecutors allege." Abrams' comments about a clean up are utter nonsense. Where are the luminol swirls that are characteristic of cleaning up blood? If there were a clean-up, why not clean up the bathmat? Mixed DNA is commonly encountered in forensic DNA typing. I collected some information on it some time ago. Link.

 

[Vibio]

Do you have a timeline of the crime that fits the witness testimony, the cell phone activity, the broken down car, the scream.

Not being a full-time student of the trial, not having the zealotry to post 30+ posts a day, everyday of the week. For years. I'll wait for the motivations report. Thank you.

(Innocence or guilt is not decided by a clique of 10 or so posters on the internet).

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

RoseM: That is a child's way of covering his ass.

A few days later, the switch-blade carrying druggie now writes:

"I realize that it is actually very likely that Amanda was with me all night long, never going out. "

How reassuring.

I think you have to bear in mind that during this interrogation Raffaele was almost certainly being lied to and told that there was proof Amanda was in the murder house at the time of the killing, and he was trying to figure out how this was even possible. Both Amanda and Raffaele were very naive and trusting, which did not work out at all well for them.

Raffaele at this point can't rule out the possibility that the second he fell asleep Amanda bolted out the door on a murder spree. He can just say that based on his recollections it was "actually very likely that Amanda was with [him] all night long, never going out."

 

[Grinder]

So what was Amanda doing then if she went out and left Raffaele at home? Do you have a timeline of the crime that fits the witness testimony, the cell phone activity, the broken down car, the scream. Give us your theory that fits with the evidence. Prove your case based on the evidence rather than some confused statements.

It has always troubled me that the PGP give such credit to the kids for pulling off the murder without leaving any evidence behind forcing Locard to turn in his grave, yet forget to have a basic story agreed on for their activities that night.

The weak mind of Raf could easily be pushed to a place where he doubted Amanda's innocence and started him wildly coming up with stuff. I don't keep a diary but would think that it was used by him for any and all wild thoughts that shot through his mind.

These same people that still don't believe Amanda sold a book deal because they haven't seen an invoice believe that what he said in a diary that wasn't to be public is meaningful.

Maybe Raf gave Amanda a Xanax, went to the cottage to bed Meredith, ran into Rudy, being incensed killed Meredith and left Rudy as the black man found. Explains why their accounts weren't rehearsed.

 

[Kaosium]

Can someone on the "innocent" side briefly explain their answer to the "changed their alibis 9 times" claim from the "guilty" side? Evidence against Knox on this seems weak, but it doesn't for Sollecito?

Raffaele was nearing graduation and had begun indulging in the pungent smokables. As a result after a few days he was unclear as to which night exactly was the night of the murder from his perspective and what he and Amanda had done specifically that night; was that the night they parted at the square at 9 PM (him going home and Amanda to Le Chic) or the night they went to his place and stayed in watching movies? He said (correctly) it was the latter, but the police were insistent and after he recalled a time when he and Amanda had popped out to the store quickly (while Meredith was still alive) that they hadn't heard of, they started intimidating him and didn't allow him to check with the calender and got him to sign a statement which basically mushed the two days together. That gave the police what they wanted: an 'admission' that he wasn't with Amanda from 9 PM until ~1 AM, (and she went to Le Chic--Patrick's bar) which they'd then use to take Amanda into the interrogation room where they told her they had 'hard evidence' she was at the cottage the night of the murder (they didn't of course) and that Raffaele had 'dropped' her alibi.

After being arrested, Raffaele speculated in his diary as to whether Amanda had popped out quickly on October 31st or the night of the murder before deciding it wasn't the night of the murder. Also before the arrests Raffaele had a quick 'interview' with Kate Mansey for the Sunday Mirror which contradicted itself having Raffaele and Amanda at Raffaele's that night and she also reported he said they'd gone "to party" the night of the murder, which was probably mixing up October 31st and November 1st as they did go out to party that night before splitting up at the square.

So if you count each of these as Raffaele 'changing his alibi' and then count Amanda's statements as the same you can end up with as many 'changed alibis' as necessary.

However had they actually had something to hide about what they were doing that night then it would have been very important to them to make sure they knew for sure which night it was and what they were doing as it's not like their alibi was complicated, they were together watching movies making dinner and snuggling. As they came in on their own they would have had an opportunity to go over it if they were concerned about it matching up.

 

[Grinder]

Not being a full-time student of the trial, not having the zealotry to post 30+ posts a day, everyday of the week. For years. I'll wait for the motivations report. Thank you.

Why?

(Innocence or guilt is not decided by a clique of 10 or so posters on the internet).

That's so last century. Get with it. All court cases are now decided by a vote of people that post on the trial at least 10 times a day.

 

[anglolawyer]

Of course, still waiting on Michael's famous claim. Wonder why he is holding this back?

I go pro-guilt when the bleach receipts emerge.