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

[moije2]

I am accusing you of sewing lies and falsehoods, not defending.

?

Are you referring to my post? All I did was quote your simple assertion. You know, right to appoint but not right to have. Maybe I missed something. I still think that should be a little bit embarrassing. I don't have a problem owning up to mistakes. For instance I am still embarrassed about my recent comment about "dismissal without prejudice". I own up. But unlike a few here I am relatively inactive and only have time to tap on my phone intermittently. Like during the super bowl party which interests me not . So I am not so vested in my reputation on this blog.

You on the other hand make a virtual profession out of this case.

Your sewing lies comment should be reserved for someone else. I still think you would do better to use less words to communicate more effectively. IMO. That said, you won this in your conviction of Amanda and Raffaele. Big time. They are absolutely screwed in my book. I have a hard time reconciling your level of certainty of guilt and 28 years etc. And Rudy is getting out when? It will not be soon that my daughter is back in your country. Most certainly provincial Italy. I agree with Steve Moore's assessment re safety.

 

[smkovalinksy]

No. The Daily Fail is so wrong so consistently about everything that if they say Knox's conviction may be quashed, what will probably happen is that her sentence will be increased.

Rolfe.

Well, they simply took the theme from this piece:

Amanda Knox case judge lambasted by Raffaele Sollecito's lawyers for remarks

Alessandro Nencini, who reinstated murder convictions of American and former boyfriend, could face disciplinary action

The Judge who reinstated Amanda Knox's conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher has been criticised by her co-accused's defence lawyers after he commented publicly on the case in a way they claimed was "unacceptable" and could lead to disciplinary action.

Alessandro Nencini, who on Thursday sentenced Knox to 28-and-a-half years and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito to 25 years in prison for the British student's killing, gave an interview to three Italian newspapers on Saturday in which he touched on Sollecito's defence strategy and the case itself.

The remarks, which are unusual in a country where courts do not generally comment on cases before publishing their written reasoning, were reportedly described as "inopportune" by the chairman of the judges' governing body, the CSM.

But Sollecito's lawyers went further, saying they were appalled by the judge's words, with one saying the CSM should not only consider bringing disciplinary action against him but also question the legitimacy of the verdict itself.

"The conviction is the result of a clear bias on the part of the judges against the defendants, and in particular against Raffaele Sollecito, and that interview proves it," defence lawyer Luca Maori told Corriere della Sera.

Maori said Sollecito's legal team would consult him on Monday about what action to take. They and Knox's lawyers have said they will appeal against the verdict, which will take the case once again before Italy's highest court, the court of cassation.

It is able to quash a lower court's verdict if it finds errors of law were made, as it did last March when it annulled the pair's 2011 acquittals and ordered the Florence appeals court to retry the appeal.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/02/amanda-knox-judge-raffaele-sollecito-lawyers-remarks

 

[andreajo]

He gave a reason for being in the cottage. The only problem was, the reason was not credible, because contradicted by other testimonies. I suggest not to bring in behavioural evidence, that's not a point where RS and AK seem very strong.
Of course the evidence of his presence on the scene and of sexual contact athemselvesy may be insufficient. It depends on the rest of the evidence. The evidence must be assessed as a whole.
And certainly such evidence would be insufficient to convict him for burglary.
A for what you 'know', well I too know who did it.

The physical evidence is the meat and potatoes of the case against Guede. He could not have been convicted without it.

There is no similar reliable physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. (Yes, I know you think there is, but court appointed experts did say it was rubbish. You need to integrate this information into your thinking.) They should never have been convicted without it.

You only think you know who did it. There is no reliable physical evidence which supports your belief. Whether you consider the evidence as a whole or in parts, there isn't enough of it to condemn Amanda and Raffaele as murderers and put them in prison.

 

[Diocletus]

This use of "definition" is not legally correct, and however, this is not the same of saying that the declaration was non spontaneous.
You see, you also don't understand that, if the courts declared the 05.45 statement admissible in a calunnia charge, this also means - I could say by definition, but I prefer by 'logical implication' - that they considered the statement to be not coerced.
Had the statement been found to be coerced, aka non spontaneous, it would ave been not usable even in the charge of calunnia.
But it was usable as evidence in the charge of calunnia therefore it means it was found to be not coerced.

It would have been useable against Knox in the murder case if it had been spontaneous as liar Mignini claimed. But it wasn't allowed. Because it wasn't spontaneous.

 

[Diocletus]

1. There was no violation of HR. 2. Violation of art. 6 must be assessed only within the totality of the whole proceedings, the idea that once an event alleged to be 'violation' occurs, the subsequent trial events after that would be irrelevant to the fariness of trial, is just plain delusional under the light of the ECHR prnciples.

The illegally obtained statements were used to convict her. The trial was unfair as a matter of law.

 

[RandyN]

To be confrontational american football is a shallow imitation of rugby which is played by proper men not afraid to appear naked (by which I mean without armour although having been invited to one or two rugby club dinners…). and baseball is an intellectual dwarf as compared with cricket. My happiest memories of childhood are going to Headingley with my father; I suspect they are some of the most miserable for my sister (not that she went much) who did not have a love of trivial stats or picnics, which I have to admit is the great glory of cricket a game perfect for the nerd within you.

PS I am still waiting for clarification re conviction / charges in the most recent court case.

PPS since I got slammed last time I implied everything Yorkshire was better than anything American I expect all I'm going to get.

Well I can agree that the pudding is certainly better there. Cricket? Lol....

 

[moije2]

I am accusing you of sewing lies and falsehoods, not defending.

I was referring to you defending the prosecution in this case. Or maybe you have some cogent explanation for the difference between the right to appoint and the right to actually have an attorney when you need one. Did you really mean that?

 

[Machiavelli]

What do you mean by that?

Are you trying to say that properly-obtained spontaneous declarations cannot (in law) be used in court against the person who made them?

They can, in fact they were used against Knox.

Or are you saying that somehow the SC ruled that the 5.45 Knox statement was indeed a properly-obtained spontaneous declaration, but that they ruled it inadmissible in court regarding the murder charges for other reasons?

Of course the SC ruled that the 05.45 Knox statement was properly obtained, but it was not usable against Knox for other reasons, in particular because of the guarantees provided by §7 art. 350 cpp.

 

[Diocletus]

Police follow the law and law needs to be compliant with the statutes of HR.

LOL. Your police do not follow the law. For example, as you agree, they hit Knox.

Further, your statutes as applied in this case are not compliant with the ECHR.

 

[Diocletus]

Of course the SC ruled that the 05.45 Knox statement was properly obtained, but it was not usable against Knox for other reasons, in particular because of the guarantees provided by §7 art. 350 cpp.

LOL. Is that the provision that says you have to have a lawyer?

Nice try. Even if the person is denied a lawyer, the statement is still useable if it is spontaneous. And it wasn't usable, which means it wasn't spotaneous.

 

[Machiavelli]

The physical evidence is the meat and potatoes of the case against Guede. He could not have been convicted without it.

Probably. But "meet and potato" is not equivalent to sufficient. Indispensable, but not sufficient.

There is no similar reliable physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. (Yes, I know you think there is, but court appointed experts did say it was rubbish. You need to integrate this information into your thinking.) They should never have been convicted without it.

Luminol prints, bathmat print and Knox's lies are sufficient to their convction. The rest is further evidence, not rubbish.

 

[Machiavelli]

?

Are you referring to my post?

No.

I mostly use "you" in the plural for and you (moije) were commenting my answer to previous posts.

 

[Kaosium]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gainst-amanda-knox-theres-plenty-9099649.html

This article talks about the bra clasp and the knife, but I would appreciate any comments on the aspect of the mixed stain as quoted below. I understand Luminol does not just change colour to show blood, but the author thinks it significant as you can read below. There are comments on the website: one says: "Very concise reasoning as to how Knox is complicit."



Leila Schneps
Sunday 2 February 2014

"It's not right to say there is ‘no evidence’ in the case against Amanda Knox. There's plenty"

Although not visible to the naked eye, the chemical Luminol which flashes blue on contact with blood revealed a spot in the room of the flatmate whose window had been smashed and room rifled. Swabbing the spot produced a mixture of Amanda and Meredith’s DNA. This is a clear proof that the murderer entered that bedroom after the murder, as someone must have brought Meredith’s blood into the room, contradicting the defence theory that Rudy Guede broke into the house and then committed the murder. The usual defence explanation for mixed DNA stains in the bathroom and corridor, namely that the house would have been coated in Amanda’s DNA given that she lived there, does not necessarily apply to a flatmate’s bedroom. It is much harder to leave traces of DNA than is commonly conceived, and hardly any of Amanda's DNA was found in her own room - where she surely spent a lot more time than in her flatmate's.​

Diocletus, off the top of your head how many samples did they take from Amanda's room and did she go below the 100 RFU threshold on any of them?

 

[Diocletus]

Diocletus, off the top of your head how many samples did they take from Amanda's room and did she go below the 100 RFU threshold on any of them?

I haven't really looked at those, but there can't be many and I doubt that any went below 100 RFU. There are only a few samples that went anywhere near that.

 

[andreajo]

Probably. But "meet and potato" is not equivalent to sufficient. Indispensable, but not sufficient.



Luminol prints, bathmat print and Knox's lies are sufficient to their convction. The rest is further evidence, not rubbish.

I am not going to get back on the luminol smudges and bathmat print merry-go-round again. Let's just agree to disagree on those. Other posters are handily illuminating the statements that you perceive to be incriminating.

 

[Kaosium]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gainst-amanda-knox-theres-plenty-9099649.html

This article talks about the bra clasp and the knife, but I would appreciate any comments on the aspect of the mixed stain as quoted below. I understand Luminol does not just change colour to show blood, but the author thinks it significant as you can read below. There are comments on the website: one says: "Very concise reasoning as to how Knox is complicit."



Leila Schneps
Sunday 2 February 2014

"It's not right to say there is ‘no evidence’ in the case against Amanda Knox. There's plenty"

Although not visible to the naked eye, the chemical Luminol which flashes blue on contact with blood revealed a spot in the room of the flatmate whose window had been smashed and room rifled. Swabbing the spot produced a mixture of Amanda and Meredith’s DNA. This is a clear proof that the murderer entered that bedroom after the murder, as someone must have brought Meredith’s blood into the room, contradicting the defence theory that Rudy Guede broke into the house and then committed the murder. The usual defence explanation for mixed DNA stains in the bathroom and corridor, namely that the house would have been coated in Amanda’s DNA given that she lived there, does not necessarily apply to a flatmate’s bedroom. It is much harder to leave traces of DNA than is commonly conceived, and hardly any of Amanda's DNA was found in her own room - where she surely spent a lot more time than in her flatmate's.​

That spot tested negative for blood with TMB which Stefanoni omitted from her technical report and then lied about in court and she never even bothered with a confirmatory blood test, which would figure being as it already tested negative for blood. It was also laid down six weeks later after they scene had already been trashed beyond recognition and dozens of people had walked all through it for days.

There is no reason to think that spot has anything to do with the murder regardless, and it most certainly doesn't prove anything about where the murderer went. It's just a stain on the floor that tested negative for blood that they found unidentifiable (outside it wasn't blood) DNA in and never photographed so no one knows what it looks like except 'amorphous.'

 

[acbytesla]

Damn, this game is amazing!!! 29-0 Now!!!

And Knox is innocent!!!

 

[RandyN]

He gave a reason for being in the cottage. The only problem was, the reason was not credible, because contradicted by other testimonies. I suggest not to bring in behavioural evidence, that's not a point where RS and AK seem very strong.
Of course the evidence of his presence on the scene and of sexual contact athemselvesy may be insufficient. It depends on the rest of the evidence. The evidence must be assessed as a whole.
And certainly such evidence would be insufficient to convict him for burglary.
A for what you 'know', well I too know who did it.

Really? And I wonder how that could happen? Insufficient perhaps because some sloppy crime scene investigators failed to test a probable semen stain found under the dead victims body? Duh. Semen stains that dried with a shoe print found in that stain. This would unquestionably date that stain. And it is a simple matter this test. No cutting or damaging of critical factors found elsewhere on this pillow cover.

This is sloppy or corrupt police work. Mignini was in charge of the investigation. Therefore Mignini is once again responsible for this failure to do his job. Just as it was his failure by not allowing the pathologist to take a simple body temperature. The man was there. He is a well trained actual real doctor ...so not your typical doctor of Italy...like Dr Profasio and Dr Stefanoni. or Dr Guede. Is he a doctor yet? Must be nearly qualified by now. Clowns.

 

[Kaosium]

I haven't really looked at those, but there can't be many and I doubt that any went below 100 RFU. There are only a few samples that went anywhere near that.

That's what I thought, I'm trying to watch the Seahawks dominate the Broncos so I was too lazy to look, but I couldn't recall for certain if they'd done any swabbing in Amanda's room. Why would they? There were absolutely no indications the murder ever involved that room.

 

[Diocletus]

Damn, this game is amazing!!! 29-0 Now!!!

And Knox is innocent!!!

Congrats to the Seahawks, they are an awesome team. But honestly, this has to be the worst Superbowl ever! Blowout.