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

[Dan O.]

I've never really understood why Sollecito hasn't just said: "as far as I know, she was there, but I can't know what was happening during the period when I was asleep."

That's exactly what he did say. But all the idiots hear was that she left.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've never really understood why Sollecito hasn't just said: "as far as I know, she was there, but I can't know what was happening during the period when I was asleep."

That's exactly what he did say. But all the idiots hear was that she left.

This is the basis of all proof of infidelity. Any partner now gets to say with full Italian Supreme Court support:

"My spouse is a philandering two-timer. Last night I slept beside her for 8 full hours. Slept like a log.

When I went to sleep she was there. When I awoke, she was there. Bloody slut!"

 

[Kaosium]

These kind of tapes can NEVER be used in court.

I wonder if you're thinking solely of the part where they tape the suspect being read his rights and then the statement and signing it, or whatever is the exact official procedure? That's not all they use taping for, as other tapes they presented in this case indicate.

Incidentally, what's your support for those (or any) tapes "never" being used in court outside Machiavelli and his furry little friends saying it over and over?

They used tapes from the Questura in court as I recently posted, not only from Massei but the false wiki as well. They were taping Raffaele and Amanda in the Questura, just from cursory digging I've provided proof of that from November 2nd and November 4th. So do you really think they weren't on the 5th? Why not?

Either they are of a witness or person of interest and can ONLY be used against someone other than the witness

Except Amanda's 'witness statement' was used against her to convict her of calunnia, which in turn was used by the prosecution to convict her of murder. Her note is not calunnia, she specifically states she cannot be used as "testimone" due to her "confusion" in which she details just why she was "confused." It also contains the qualifier "could" in reference to whether she thinks it happened and spends the rest of the note detailing what she actually does remember well, and casting doubt on what seems like a "dream" or "unreal."

It was also generated by throwing her in solitary with a notebook and denying her access to a lawyer. When she refers to the statements she "stands by" it must be remembered she had only a semester of Italian and two months in Italy and could not necessarily comprehend all the nuances of what it said, notably the very last line of the first one which says "I confusedly remember he killed her." She didn't write that, her 5:45 AM statement doesn't have her 'witnessing' the actual murder at all, neither does her note.

OR they were suspects in which case the whole thing is thrown out because they didn't have lawyers etc.

I think what they do is just pretend they're not suspects so they can get away with not having to provide tapes if they don't want to. They provided tapes of other witness interviews, thus it does happen, they just don't seem to want any tapes of that nights proceedings to come to light.

Comodi wasn't there that night AFAIK and I highly doubt that Mignini "ran the board" in the control room.

I doubt Mignini was there for the initiation of this debacle, I do believe that he'd gone home and was called back to the Questura. When he arrived there is an interesting question, but he most definitely was there for the generation of the spontaneous statement signed at 5:45.

It stretches credulity beyond breaking to believe that if recording is normal procedure that no one of the police knew it was happening. Even if it wasn't normal procedure, given that any conspiracy some believe in wouldn't have started by that time, people in the station at a minimum would know the recording had been made.

Of course they know, but can't you imagine why they might not care and certainly aren't going to going to make their bosses and comrades look bad by making a stink about it on the behalf of the murderess and her consort? They all had medals pinned on their chest for capturing them and Amanda's picture put on the hall of shame in Rome as one of their greatest achievements! Why would it be a big deal to them? It's kinda like them examining the CCTV cameras overlooking the route between Raffaele's and Amanda's and not seeing any evidence of their coming or going and not wanting the defense to be able to use them. That's their tool, their toys, and if they don't want to let anyone to see them, they won't. For one thing odds are some of those guys would look like liars or clowns if they did. The tapes show up when it's in their interest to show them, if they're not then they just pretend they didn't have to and some I doubt have any compunctions pretending they don't exist.

Incidentally following the CCTV tangent, have you wondered why the tapes we have seen from the garage CCTV show the likely arrival of Meredith, possibly Rudy, the postal police and Carabinieri and we get told that that's useless because they might have missed someone, just like if I recall correctly was the excuse why the ones along the route were dismissed? Considering it caught that slip of what's probably Meredith in the far distance who was only momentarily in the picture, I have reason to doubt the probability the cameras were likely to miss anyone. I suspect it's more of a possibility they tried to make into a probability.

I'd be interested in whether they ever released the totality of that camera footage and if they did whether it showed the arrival of Amanda, Amanda and Raffaele, as well as Filomena and her two male friends on the 2nd as well.

As I said earlier, the people preparing the spontaneous statement for Amanda to sign would have used it to write it up.

Without some proof, I will not believe in a conspiracy on the 5th to frame Amanda.

I don't believe it was a 'conspiracy' at all, I do think they broke the rules in their fervor to solve the case and had jumped to a conclusion off of misinterpretation, confirmation bias and just plain incompetence and are certainly not going to take the blame for it when they can scapegoat someone else they arrested for murder. So why would they offer up anything that might make it look like the impetus of the arrest of Patrick was their doing when they've successfully made Amanda take the fall for it to the benefit of all of them?

Think of all the things they've successfully hidden such as the TMB negatives and the EDFs with no consequence. Why would they think it a big deal to keep their mouth shut about the taping done that night?

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele is certainly an innocent victim every bit as much as Amanda. But I have always felt that he was a little more responsible for their situation than Amanda. He was/is three years older than she is and had to be more worldly. He was Italian and had to know more than Amanda about Italian law and police procedures. His own father apparently wanted to get him a lawyer, and he decided he didn't need one. He went back to the police station repeatedly and allowed Amanda to go with him. Maybe he thought that being a doctor's son would protect him. If he had said "Amanda, I'm getting a lawyer and he's gonna be your lawyer too, and by the way stop talking to the cops and stop acting like an idiot," their lives would be different.

In 20-20 hindsight, both acted like idiots. When each is in their 60's reflecting back on those events, they'll have plenty to kick themselves over.

Geez-louise, a cop on Nov 4 told Raffaele he needed a lawyer. He laughed it off!! Why wouldn't he.....

..... at the time! On Nov 6, that cop was beginning to look like the Oracle at Delphi to Raffaele! A little late, to boot.

What Raffaele has never done is blame Knox for this situation, as stupid as they perhaps were. But they were innocent-stupid.

They in no way, shape or form contributed to this wrongful conviction.

I mean, it's like Nencini - think about Nencini's post conviction words: if Raffaele had testified, it would have gone easier on him.

Everyone blames the victims. It's like saying Meredith asked for what Rudy did. In no way, shape or form did Meredith ask or deserve what happened.

Amanda and Raffaele could have played this perfectly.... and still been facing what they're facing.

 

[davefoc]

If you're saying that most US Supreme Court decisions are based on policy, I think that is correct--that has become the court's job over the years. I don't think that you would see the US Supreme Court wading down into the weeds of the weight and credibility to be afforded to individual witnesses and pieces of evidence, like the Italian Supreme Court did here. That's not an appellate court's job, and they have a low level of competency to do that, as evidence by the ISC decision in this case.

If by policy, you mean the policy preferences of the individual justices then, yes, that is what I meant.

And I agree that the US supreme court would not have weighed in on something like the AK/RS case in the way the ISC did. Although, existing US Supreme Court decisions would have precluded much of what went on during the investigation and the trial.

 

[davefoc]

In 20-20 hindsight, both acted like idiots. When each is in their 60's reflecting back on those events, they'll have plenty to kick themselves over.

...

I took a little umbrage at the acting like idiots comment. I don't think I would have done anything different that RS did, but looking back on it now that 60 is in my rear view mirror I would have thought my actions were not smart given the better understanding of the world I think I have now that I'm over 60.

I don't think I would have done what AK did, but even here I'm not sure. I would have struggled to help the police and go along with their thought experiments if I thought it either helped them or was more likely to convince them of my innocence. And the lack of sleep is a wild card. Although I am not aware of it until sleep deprivation is very significant, my ability to reason begins to fall off significantly the more tired I get. The question is, would I have noticed the trap the police were attempting to get me to fall into and had enough reasoning skills late at night to avoid it. My guess is that I would have, but I am far from sure about that.

That being said, the police didn't exactly succeed in getting Knox to fall into their trap. They just claimed she did. That claim would be laughed at in an objective proceeding.

 

[acbytesla]

That's exactly what he did say. But all the idiots hear was that she left.

But of course he has added the fact that Amanda got back into his apartment without a key.

Something that would be very difficult given that you need a key to get into the building.

 

[Kestrel]

Amanda and Raffaele could have played this perfectly.... and still been facing what they're facing.

They were up against an egotistical prosecutor who had no problem denying access to legal council once they were arrested. They first met their lawyers walking into court for their arraignment. And following that, every conversation they had with their lawyers was recorded and reviewed by the prosecution.

 

[Grinder]

I wonder if you're thinking solely of the part where they tape the suspect being read his rights and then the statement and signing it, or whatever is the exact official procedure? That's not all they use taping for, as other tapes they presented in this case indicate.

No.

Incidentally, what's your support for those (or any) tapes "never" being used in court outside Machiavelli and his furry little friends saying it over and over?

I assume you mean source or proof. No not just PGP but I'm notr searching right now but as a witness those statements can't be used in court against the witness is what I've come to understand.

They used tapes from the Questura in court as I recently posted, not only from Massei but the false wiki as well. They were taping Raffaele and Amanda in the Questura, just from cursory digging I've provided proof of that from November 2nd and November 4th. So do you really think they weren't on the 5th? Why not?

I've already said that if recording was happening I think by now someone would have sold that story. I do not doubt that they had the capability to record.

Except Amanda's 'witness statement' was used against her to convict her of calunnia, which in turn was used by the prosecution to convict her of murder. Her note is not calunnia, she specifically states she cannot be used as "testimone" due to her "confusion" in which she details just why she was "confused." It also contains the qualifier "could" in reference to whether she thinks it happened and spends the rest of the note detailing what she actually does remember well, and casting doubt on what seems like a "dream" or "unreal."

It was also generated by throwing her in solitary with a notebook and denying her access to a lawyer. When she refers to the statements she "stands by" it must be remembered she had only a semester of Italian and two months in Italy and could not necessarily comprehend all the nuances of what it said, notably the very last line of the first one which says "I confusedly remember he killed her." She didn't write that, her 5:45 AM statement doesn't have her 'witnessing' the actual murder at all, neither does her note.

Yes, a witness statement CAN be used against another person and in this case because the statement charged Patrick falsely with a crime it was used to charge her with calunnia. As I have said from my first post at JREF I'm convinced that the police led her into the statement and that it should never have seen light. Massei should never have tried the two cases together.

It seems clear that she didn't write the statement. But that wasn't the point.

I think what they do is just pretend they're not suspects so they can get away with not having to provide tapes if they don't want to. They provided tapes of other witness interviews, thus it does happen, they just don't seem to want any tapes of that nights proceedings to come to light.

Could be. Do you have recordings of other witnesses that the police interviewed? Once again, if there had been a recording i think someone would have sold the story by now.

 

[acbytesla]

I took a little umbrage at the acting like idiots comment. I don't think I would have done anything different that RS did, but looking back on it now that 60 is in my rear view mirror I would have thought my actions were not smart given the better understanding of the world I think I have now that I'm over 60. .

I would too Dave. But note that Bill said "with hindsight". The day I can count on my foresight to be as accurate as hindsight is the day the world brands me a genius.

As it is, Grinder thinks I'm an idiot.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would too Dave. But note that Bill said "with hindsight". The day I can count on my foresight to be as accurate as hindsight is the day the world brands me a genius.

As it is, Grinder thinks I'm an idiot.

Grinder thinks I'm a idiot - and I've not provided a counter citation that he'll accept!

 

[acbytesla]

Grinder thinks I'm a idiot - and I've not provided a counter citation that he'll accept!

That's ok Bill. Neither have I. But my mother still loved me........I think.....

 

[Kaosium]

No.

Then what specifically are you talking about considering you know from the convicting judge and transcripts of the trial that voice recordings made in the Questura were used in court? You said they could NEVER be used in court, so what exactly were you referring to?

(snipped things we agree on)

I've already said that if recording was happening I think by now someone would have sold that story. I do not doubt that they had the capability to record.

If they don't have the tapes what good would it do to say they were taping anyway, who would sell the story if they didn't have the tapes? If you take anything from Machiavelli's posts on this subject note how he details it's just not that big a deal to them in his opinion, just like hiding the EDFs isn't.

They know that Stefanoni hid the TMB negatives and lied about it in court, Massei quoted Gino on this point. They know Stefanoni never quantified the amount she extracted from the bra clasp and lied about it in court, no biggie! The bra clasp deteriorates due to be stored in a manner that would ensure it, that's just business as usual. So why would anyone risk their career and friendships to tell about something that no one in Italy would care about and (especially without proof) all they would garner is condemnation by the police and prosecution? They'd be facing calunnia charges!

Could be. Do you have recordings of other witnesses that the police interviewed? Once again, if there had been a recording i think someone would have sold the story by now.

As I cited earlier, Massei lists amongst those that had to be transcribed the following:

These voice recordings were made at Police Headquarters in Perugia, appropriately prepared, where the co-tenants of Meredith Kercher, the boys of the apartment below that one occupied by the murdered girl, and the English girlfriends of the English student involved in the Erasmus Programme, had gathered on the afternoon of November 2, 2007. Other voice recordings were made during meetings in prison between Amanda and her parents. Finally, phone tappings had been made of the fixed and mobile phone services of the family of Raffaele Sollecito.)

 

[Diocletus]

Then what specifically are you talking about considering you know from the convicting judge and transcripts of the trial that voice recordings made in the Questura were used in court? You said they could NEVER be used in court, so what exactly were you referring to?

(snipped things we agree on)



If they don't have the tapes what good would it do to say they were taping anyway, who would sell the story if they didn't have the tapes? If you take anything from Machiavelli's posts on this subject note how he details it's just not that big a deal to them in his opinion, just like hiding the EDFs isn't.

They know that Stefanoni hid the TMB negatives and lied about it in court, Massei quoted Gino on this point. They know Stefanoni never quantified the amount she extracted from the bra clasp and lied about it in court, no biggie! The bra clasp deteriorates due to be stored in a manner that would ensure it, that's just business as usual. So why would anyone risk their career and friendships to tell about something that no one in Italy would care about and (especially without proof) all they would garner is condemnation by the police and prosecution? They'd be facing calunnia charges!





As I cited earlier, Massei lists amongst those that had to be transcribed the following:

Well, I'm not convinced that these tapes are necessary to determine that Italy violated Knox's rights under the ECHR,

BUT . . .

it's conceivable that someday, somebody from Brussels could knock on the Questura's door and ask to see a few things:

(b) Establishment of the facts
20. In the context of the system of individual application, it is important for States to furnish all the assistance necessary for effective examination of the application. A failure on the government’s part to submit such information as is in its hands without a satisfactory explanation may allow inferences to be drawn not only as to the well-foundedness of the allegations (Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, §§ 120-21) but also with regard to Article 38 of the Convention (lack of access to police custody records: Timurtaş v. Turkey, § 66; lack of access to copies of the investigation file: Imakayeva v. Russia, § 201). As regards failure to disclose a classified report to the Court, see Nolan and K. v. Russia, §§ 56 et seq.

21. The respondent State is also expected to assist with investigations (Article 38), for it is up to the State to furnish the “necessary facilities” for the effective examination of applications (Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], § 76). Obstructing a fact-finding visit constitutes a breach of Article 38 (Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, § 504).

 

[Kaosium]

If by policy, you mean the policy preferences of the individual justices then, yes, that is what I meant.

And I agree that the US supreme court would not have weighed in on something like the AK/RS case in the way the ISC did. Although, existing US Supreme Court decisions would have precluded much of what went on during the investigation and the trial.

I think the real issue here is that the US Supreme Court sees a handful of cases a year and is mostly limited to determining what's constitutional.

The Italian Supreme Court must sign off on tens of thousands of cases per year and making judgements on evidence they never heard, documents they hadn't read in entirety for a case they're unfamiliar with on the basis of a prosecution appeal that the defense does not get to rebut is absurd. They cannot possibly be that familiar with what they're ruling on.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, I'm not convinced that these tapes are necessary to determine that Italy violated Knox's rights under the ECHR,

Neither am I! It's just another example of the police and prosecution breaking the law to their benefit and hiding information that would be exculpatory and getting away with it.

BUT . . .

it's conceivable that someday, somebody from Brussels could knock on the Questura's door and ask to see a few things:

They'll find them in storage like the bra clasp, next to an electromagnet.

Nah, they were erased/taped over long before, I just got my dander up because considering all the rest of the taping they did it's absurd to think that night they taped nothing, or...if they actually didn't tape that one night after the rest of what they taped that's kinda sinister actually...

I mean, come on. Could someone walk into the Questura and blow everyone away and authorities would actually say 'we don't have any cameras in our police station so we have no idea what the perpetrators look like!'

After all, this all started in the hall. Police claim Amanda did a cartwheel, they said it over and over and it led news coverage of the time (and distracted from the lies they told about the interrogation) and to this day it amounts to the sum total knowledge many have of the case.

So let's see the cartwheel!

p)

 

[Diocletus]

Everyone is all excited about what the US will do when Italy requests extradition.

But . . .

Any chance the ECHR could enjoin Italy from requesting extradition pursuant to the ECHR's interim measures power, pending disposition of Knox's appeal? That would be fascinating.

 

[Kaosium]

Everyone is all excited about what the US will do when Italy requests extradition.

But . . .

Any chance the ECHR could enjoin Italy from requesting extradition pursuant to the ECHR's interim measures power, pending disposition of Knox's appeal? That would be fascinating.

The case is a long way away from the extradition stage. Nencini must write his motivations report, the defense must write their appeal, then Cassation must rule. It is not entirely impossible Cassation will annul this verdict too, they've never actually heard the defense on this case outside some peripheral issues and this one will include the first time the defense has had a chance to rebut the 'findings' of the Michaeli trial.

If they're not locking up Raffaele there's no reason to lock up Amanda, that would look silly and be easily rebuffed at this stage by the State Dept for numerous reasons including that and the above.

Diocletus, do those other Civil Law legal systems in the EU allow the sort of nonsense like the prosecution in the Micheli trial 'establishing' things that could be used to convict Amanda and Raffaele when they had no defense in that trial?

 

[Diocletus]

The case is a long way away from the extradition stage. Nencini must write his motivations report, the defense must write their appeal, then Cassation must rule. It is not entirely impossible Cassation will annul this verdict too, they've never actually heard the defense on this case outside some peripheral issues and this one will include the first time the defense has had a chance to rebut the 'findings' of the Michaeli trial.

If they're not locking up Raffaele there's no reason to lock up Amanda, that would look silly and be easily rebuffed at this stage by the State Dept for numerous reasons including that and the above.

Diocletus, do those other Civil Law legal systems in the EU allow the sort of nonsense like the prosecution in the Micheli trial 'establishing' things that could be used to convict Amanda and Raffaele when they had no defense in that trial?

The Micheli thing is very interesting. I've never heard of any system, anywhere, that allows a defendant's guilt to be adjudicated in somebody else's trial. It's just ridiculous. Among other things, it would be a slam dunk violation of the right to an independent tribunal and fair trial. Again, it's simply a ridiculous concept.

That said, I have never fully understood Knox/Sollecito's roles in the Micheli process and the ensuing appeals. I think that the process somehow involved their arraignment, and so they may have participated in at least some of the proceeding. Obviously, though, they would not necessarily have had notice that their guilt was being adjudicated, the same incentive to litigate in advance of their "real" trials, full rights to discovery and to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to appeal. I'd like to understand a little better exactly what their role was in the Guede trial and appeals.

It's still very screwy, though.

 

[Vibio]

Something that would be very difficult given that you need a key to get into the building.

From the knife carriers book:

"“Amanda Knox did not leave – could not have left – my house on the night of the murder."

“She didn’t have her own key, so if she’d gone out alone, she would have had to ring the doorbell and ask me to buzz her back in. Even if I’d been stoned or asleep when she rang, I would have remembered that. And it didn’t happen.”

Yet this is Raffles writing in his diary on the 11th of Nov..... a full week after the murder:

"My real concerns are now two: the first one derives from the fact that, if that night Amanda remained with me all night long, we could have (and this is a very remote possibility) made love all evening and night only stopping to eat... it would be a real problem because there would be no connections from my computer to servers in those hours..."

If that night she remained with him?

And this is the knife carrier Raffaele Sollecito writing on the 18th of Nov.... over 2 weeks after the murder:

"Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening."

I think?

Later he writes:

"I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home."

Ok... now he's "convinced". Is he convinced that she didn't go out because because she didn't have a key to get back in?

No. He's convinced because:

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente]. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one."

LOL.

What the sleazy knife carrier is doing in his diary is telling us that yes, she did indeed have a key.

Of course his self serving book now states ...hey, she couldn't have gone out without me knowing because she didn't have a key!

Right knife boy. Right.