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

[RoseMontague]

Can you provide a link for that?

Just what I remember from when I was following it live at several different places. Usually a written version of the verbal sentence is provided as it was in Massei, that should be released well before the motivation. My understanding is everything back to Massei's sentencing with the exception of more time on the callunnia.

Could be wrong of course but that would make sense.

 

[Rolfe]

I saw something on the front page of a newspaper in a newsstand to the effect that "killer Amanda Knox" was right now pretty much a basket case and on drugs - the implication I think was medical anti-anxiety medication, not illegal drugs.

I can't read the entire thread, has this been discussed?

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

I saw something on the front page of a newspaper in a newsstand to the effect that "killer Amanda Knox" was right now pretty much a basket case and on drugs - the implication I think was medical anti-anxiety medication, not illegal drugs.

I can't read the entire thread, has this been discussed?

Rolfe.

Not that I remember. Do you know which paper?

 

[Caper]

That wouldn't matter Caper. I'd be shocked if Rudy is owned up to killing Meredith to the general public and told the truth about what happened that night. In fact, he has consistently placed the blame elsewhere. In the Skype call from Germany he says that Amanda DEFINITELY wasn't there and didn't recognize the man who came in off the street and killed Meredith while he was sitting on the toilet. That he got in a fight with this man and the man fled.

After he was arrested, he never admitted is own involvement but then began to blame Amanda and Raffaele.

Imagine just how bad Rudy would look to the world today if he said. " I did it, and I did it alone" And Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with it."

First the authorities would say that he is lying and he is now only interested in protecting Amanda and Raffaele and Rudy is doing it for publicity. One of the things that all the judges have said consistently is that Rudy is a liar..that he is not credible.

So from a legal stand point of view, I doubt it would make a bit of difference.

But what's more, Rudy would be even more of a pariah having held out while Amanda and Raffaele were wrongfully incarcerated and had to suffer through 3 trials.

I bet you could get him to confess via the MR Big technique.

 

[Rolfe]

Not that I remember. Do you know which paper?

Didn't really look because the queue for the check-out was moving. Express?

I just hope this doesn't end with one or more suicides.

Rolfe.

 

[Vibio]

People actually call and report crimes in the US because of a high degree of confidence in the police.

And they don't call and report crimes in other countries? Really? Such as?

As far as confidence in the police goes, the lates Eurispes Poll (2014) has the Italians confidence in the police at 61%. In the Carabinieri at 69,9%.

The latest Gallup poll on the subject 2011-2013 has Americans confidence in the police listed this way: Whites 60%. Non whites 48%.

 

[moije2]

The theory that Amanda and Raffaele were doomed because of the SC decision in the Guede case (multiple attackers) has been around for years, and probably came from Machiavelli.

Perhaps I need to apologize to him for thinking this was nonsense the entire time. I don't recall if I actually articulated it, but I don't think any of the PIP thought it was possible to find people guilty in a trial in which they weren't on trial or even represented. My take on this is essentially it puts the burden of proof on Amanda and Raffaele to prove they weren't the other attackers who were declared to exist by the ISC.

This has always been true and they have been doomed from the day that decision from the Italian SC came down. It literally dictated the decision. There was no way for Amanda and Raffaele to overcome that. I have always been amused by the pontification here about how the Italian legal system should work. Should being the operative word. There was a (long) day when posters lectured Machiavelli about what the ISC could do, and the analysis of the process. The same was true of the recent return to the appellate court. They were applying western logic. There is logic, and there is logic.

As someone said in an argument, "It's nice that you have hopes and dreams."

 

[babycondor]

All original convictions in Massei stand and Amanda's sentence for accusing Patrick was increased.

"Accusing" = coerced by abusive police tactics into describing an imaginary scene involving Patrick killing Meredith

 

[RoseMontague]

Didn't really look because the queue for the check-out was moving. Express?

I just hope this doesn't end with one or more suicides.

Rolfe.

I wouldn't believe everything you read in the papers about Amanda. She had a great interview on GMA and she posted on her FB page yesterday. Some hater by the name of Joe Public has called her every name in the book in comments on her latest blog piece.

 

[Planigale]

All original convictions in Massei stand and Amanda's sentence for accusing Patrick was increased.

The reason I am thinking about this, is that the prosecutor dropped the sex game motive, going for the cleanliness motive. This means that it is no longer necessary to make reference to sex so the prosecution did not present evidence concerning a sexual assault. It was always a strange part of the case that RG whose DNA was found on MK intimate area, was not charged or convicted of sexual assault as there could not be certainty whether sexual contact (admitted by RG) was consensual or not. Whilst despite complete lack of evidence MK was convicted of sexual assault. I always found that in discussion people were always amazed by this fact and often felt this suggested that there was something odd about the case. It sounds like even the prosecution found the idea of arguing for AK being guilty of sexually assaulting MK 'too much' and dropped it.

I assume the prosecution is free to drop charges such as sexual assault despite the fact that the case was returned to be retried by the supreme court? If they drop the charge does this mean that the appeal court automatically returns a not guilty verdict, or does it just disappear in to the ether?

Equally I wonder what happened to the theft charge. Whilst we have witnesses who spontaneously presented to the police shortly after the murder (in contrast to those recruited nearly a year later used in AK/RS case), reporting RG had stolen mobile phones and carried a knife, and RG DNA was found on MK handbag/purse RG was not charged with theft; whilst AK with no record of theft (not even alleged by PGP), and no evidence of contact with AK property was convicted of theft. Perhaps the prosecution also found this untenable and dropped the charge?

 

[moije2]

I see it as credible. We are both just assuming. The euphemism " dating for 6 days", leads me to think they may have been spending those days in a hot rush of youth, passion, frenzy, and felt a bond of power, a connection making them feel invincible.

You might want to elaborate on that. Frenzy, bond of power and feel invincible? Not part of my life experience that I would relate to anything, much less a new love situation. That is something you have experience with, or at least can identify with?

 

[acbytesla]

The reason I am thinking about this, is that the prosecutor dropped the sex game motive, going for the cleanliness motive. This means that it is no longer necessary to make reference to sex so the prosecution did not present evidence concerning a sexual assault. It was always a strange part of the case that RG whose DNA was found on MK intimate area, was not charged or convicted of sexual assault as there could not be certainty whether sexual contact (admitted by RG) was consensual or not. Whilst despite complete lack of evidence MK was convicted of sexual assault. I always found that in discussion people were always amazed by this fact and often felt this suggested that there was something odd about the case. It sounds like even the prosecution found the idea of arguing for AK being guilty of sexually assaulting MK 'too much' and dropped it.

I assume the prosecution is free to drop charges such as sexual assault despite the fact that the case was returned to be retried by the supreme court? If they drop the charge does this mean that the appeal court automatically returns a not guilty verdict, or does it just disappear in to the ether?

Equally I wonder what happened to the theft charge. Whilst we have witnesses who spontaneously presented to the police shortly after the murder (in contrast to those recruited nearly a year later used in AK/RS case), reporting RG had stolen mobile phones and carried a knife, and RG DNA was found on MK handbag/purse RG was not charged with theft; whilst AK with no record of theft (not even alleged by PGP), and no evidence of contact with AK property was convicted of theft. Perhaps the prosecution also found this untenable and dropped the charge?

Well as in the entire case, it is phantom evidence Planigale. If you are not charging the suspect who actually left his DNA inside the victim, how can you charge the other suspects of that crime? I'm not sure if Rudy was convicted of theft and everyone agrees that there is more evidence against Rudy than Amanda and Raffaele.

There seems to be a bit of "piling on" with the charges. Adding charges with minimal evidence. In the US, this is actually kind of common with prosecutors as a bargaining tactic for plea deals. I don't think they have the same phenomenon in Italy. Or at least they don't seem to do it s obviously as the do in the States.

 

[Diocletus]

Does anyone have the list of experts that testified to the number of attackers the wounds indicated?

The interesting thing is that this issue appears to be irrelevant in Knox/Sollecito's trial, as the issue was adjudicated in Rudy Guede's trial. So it would be interesting to see what information on multiple attackers was before Micheli and Borsini.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

defendants vesus witnesses

The difference seems to be that if he testifies, he can be cross examined.

Babycondor,

But a defendant is expected to lie, and that is why defendants are not sworn in IIUC. Therefore, it is not clear that a jury would take testimony from a defendant seriously.

 

[RoseMontague]

You might want to elaborate on that. Frenzy, bond of power and feel invincible? Not part of my life experience that I would relate to anything, much less a new love situation. That is something you have experience with, or at least can identify with?

I think wasapi was just kidding. Most young lovers in a new and passionate relationship want to spend time with each other and not other people, and a lot of that time in bed with themselves. I can't think of any offhand that have gone out and robbed a bank much less murdered their room mate.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let us engrave this in gold -- the King of the Guilters finally acknowledges that when Amanda was interrogated, there was no evidence against her. The sad thing is, many commentators, even those in the media, think the evidence for the murder was available when the kids were arrested. It wasn't.

It is customary to find evidence, then arrest people, not arrest them and then find evidence. That's called trumping up charges and is not acceptable in jurisdictions where people are sane.

(...)

Oh no you don't. You have said many times that the interrogation had to be stopped at 1:45 because Amanda had become a suspect and therefore was entitled to a lawyer. Now you want to say she wasn't entitled to a lawyer in a murder investigation because she wasn't being charged with murder? Dream on.

I said exactly what I said, and what I said is entirely consistent. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was stopped at 01:45 because she made statements which could be considered self-incriminating or admission of involvement.
I think it's clear, if you don't add false implications and fals notions to it, and if you are based on the actual procedure code.
I add that the pro-Knoxes have proven repeatedly to ignore the basic meaning of things like a status of "suspect", what is it, how is it instated, what authority decides on it etc. You need to add to your knowledge also the fact that the status of suspect is not determined immediately, it is not determined instantly and often not even in real time, and it is relative (to a charge, to a crime); indeed you can use suspects on other charges as informants.
The matter is rather obvious to all those who are not pro-Knoxes.

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks, that source doesn't have anything quite resembling the quote in question though. Another english source had -

Police detained all three after Knox allegedly broke down and confessed. One officer said: "The story kept changing and didn't square. In the end she just collapsed. What she told us helped bring the case to a close but it was only a matter of time.

Heh, that one implies they didn't even need Amanda's statement to 'close' the case on Patrick!

Here it is from Barbie Nadeau:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

Arturo also indicated what the 'facts' were, from a Telegraph article:

"The police chief, Arturo De Felice, said Knox had "crumbled and confessed" under intense questioning. "There were holes in her alibi and her mobile phone records were crucial," he said. Police also found text messages from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on November 1, the night Miss Kercher died."


Patrick and Amanda exchanging texts was the primary 'evidence' they brought before Matteini, along with with the statements Raffaele and Amanda signed and a 'witness' to Patrick's bar being closed, that Patrick couldn't provide an alibi and that his cellphone records indicated he was in the vicinity of the cottage that night. They ginned up a report suggesting a vague match between Rudy's shoeprints and Raffaele's (they both wore Nike but different models) to suggest an exact match. They knew from the DNA work being done that there was a 'unknown' person (Rudy Guede) who'd left their DNA all over the murder room, and certainly had the ability to figure out from the haplogroup it was likely to be someone of African origin.

It must have seemed so 'obvious' to them, especially with Patrick calling down to the Questura the day of the discovery ('he's worried about what she'll say!") and then meeting with Amanda the day of the interrogation, as reflected in the second statement. There were also reports of them finding an 'African hair' in the murder room, but they didn't mention much about that after the hairs they collected didn't match any of the suspects and they decided to blame Patrick's arrest on Amanda, which unfortunately they've gotten away with to this day amongst some.

 

[lane99]

Beating a lie out of someone

...Dershowitz shows a profound misunderstanding of what actually happened...Only several days later did Amanda say otherwise, and that was during a coercive interrogation clearly intended to force a confession.

Most guilters...probably grew up in cultures where beating the truth out of someone is seen as proper and justified. Dershowitz should know better.

In case you didn't know, Dershowitz is actually a proponent of legalizing torture.
.
.

 

[Poppy1016]

I said exactly what I said, and what I said is entirely consistent. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was stopped at 01:45 because she made statements which could be considered self-incriminating or admission of involvement.
I think it's clear, if you don't add false implications and fals notions to it, and if you are based on the actual procedure code.
I add that the pro-Knoxes have proven repeatedly to ignore the basic meaning of things like a status of "suspect", what is it, how is it instated, what authority decides on it etc. You need to add to your knowledge also the fact that the status of suspect is not determined immediately, it is not determined instantly and often not even in real time, and it is relative (to a charge, to a crime); indeed you can use suspects on other charges as informants.
The matter is rather obvious to all those who are not pro-Knoxes.

The lack of evidence against AK and RS is what is obvious. Curatolos testimony is also obvious to any thinking person.

 

[Strozzi]

Sorry but I am confused by this. I have all along contended that the Italian courts and police have been corrupt. They and the witnesses they presented have lied and been caught lying. The "experts" Stefanoni for example were caught lying and trying to introduce false documents into the record.

How much judicial corruption does it take in order to require an investigation? Prosecutors are lying, witnesses are lying, judges are lying. Meanwhile, the SC makes rulings and they are side stepped and even they ignore that. What am I missing here?

As I have said all along. The Italians are corrupt, shameless liars. I am not prejudiced or even making things up. These are irrefutable facts. They will say and do anything to confirm a conviction of innocent persons when they have no evidence and in fact there is a great deal of evidence that the prosecutor and police lied and created and also hid critical evidence in this case!

Witnesses have been allowed to lie in court without sanction. The prosecution has been caught trying to introduce false documents into the record...who knows what did they not get caught sneaking in?

These are not honorable people and the courts are a joke. They make themselves a joke by allowing scandalous behavior in the court and yet provide no sanction against such behavior...which has to mean they condone it and accept being made a mockery of.

This case proves that beyond all doubt! The Italians are willing to reveal to the world that they consider their courts to be only a joke. And the courts allow themselves to be made a joke by the behavior they allow to to go unchallenged inside their doors. Shameful corrupt dimwits.

Please feel free to present an argument that I am wrong about this. I will gladly debate the facts of this case with anyone.

Meanwhile, I contend the SC acted illegally when overturning the first appeal decision. They never ruled on errors of law, rather they decided to return the case based on evidence...something not in their remand. That makes them criminals. No surprise.

The ECOHR finds Italian courts to be chronic violators against world standard human rights. This happens in non democratic countries regularly.

Italy has no clue what a democracy is! They are a pretend Democracy. The people cant get off their asses to protest a 60 year old pedophile freed by the ISC because there may have been love between a 60 year old and a 11 year old mentally challenged girl that he was treating???? Are Italians retarded?

Apparently that is unquestionably answered as yes! Yes they are! Who is so foolish to ignore these suspicious facts? A whole country apparently.

Put Raffaele Sollecito in jail them...you stupid stupid people you. Knox is staying here and she will get a fair review of your "facts" which are a joke BTW! Do you ever look in the mirror? You should...cuz you look stupid! Dumb illogical people!

Italy is dragging the European union down with its 16th century witch hunts. How is that going to work out for you Germany et al? Proud of your partners? You should be ashamed. Partners with criminals makes you criminals equally. Or are you missing that?

I agree with you that Italy is a corrupt system where police, prosecutors and witnesses can lie and falsify evidence and do so withhout sanction from the court. Most of us live in societies where we expect a high degree, not low degree, of honest justice. In my mind, when the justice system's agents frame or otherwise try to falsify convict you, all obligations of the individual to acquiesce to societal norms are over.