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

[acbytesla]

He's a spokesman for the State Department. Naturally a political position. He's trying not to offend anyone. So one, he's trying to present the US Consular Services in the best light. Two, he's trying not to insult a US ally. Personally wouldn't put a great deal of stock in what a spokesman knows or says.

 

[christianahannah]

Unfortunately they were unable to test the towels because of incompetence involved in the collection of evidence, storing these wet bloody towels in plastic bags where they rotted. Go figure.

I think it was only one towel which was unable to be tested, there were results from the other towels which I think yielded only Meredith's DNA profile. I would have to re-look at the testing results to be certain.

 

[Diocletus]

- the defense didn't get the chance to interrogate Rudy Guede, whilst his testimony formed a critical part of the case against Amanda/Raffaele. Violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to interrogate witnesses a charge (art. 6, par 1 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

I'm not sure that I understand how his testimony was critical? Does this refer to his letter that Mignini read?

- the fact that the ISC told the court of appeal they had to assume that Guede didn't act alone because they had already reached this conclusion in Guede's separate trial. This conclusion wasn't fought by Guede's defense and Amanda's/Raffaele's defense team was never part of the proceedings against Guede. Violation of presumption of innocence. Violation of the right to be trialed by an impartial tribunal (art. 6, par 1 and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

This is the craziest one, IMO. It sees clear that this procedure deprived them of notice, the opportunity to put on and cross-examine witnesses, deprived them of a jury trial, deprived them of a right to appeal and deprived them of an impartial tribunal. That said, I'm not clear exactly what their participation was in Guede's process, and what incentives they had to fully litigate in his summary proceeding as opposed to their full trials.

the fact that the ISC went outside it's legal boundaries by basically telling the court of appeal how the evidence had to be interpreted. Violation of presumption of innocence. Violation of the right to be trialed by an impartial tribunal (art. 6, par 1 and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

This is obviously screwy, too. That said, they have a law that says that they have some sort of superpower to do this when they spot "illogicality" and failure to osmose. Basically, they say they can do whatever they want whenever they want to. As we discovered, this means giving the case to a jury who hears no relevant evidence and instead, watches the case on TV. I think that the point here is a good one, but maybe better buttressed with some other arguments.

 

[Vibio]

He's trying not to offend anyone.

He's very clear. Very direct: the US State Department closely monitored the case. They found no indications that Knox was treated unfairly.

Period.

Sorry.... but if I had to chose, I'll believe him.

 

[kwill]

Ian Kelly Spokesman for the US State Department:

MR. KELLY: (....) The role of our consular officers, in any (inaudible), is to ensure that – (a) that the person who is charged has access to legal counsel, and we keep lists of appropriate legal counsel at every embassy. And then as the process goes on, it is the responsibility of our consular officials to make sure that American citizens are treated fairly under local law.

............
QUESTION: Is it your belief that Amanda – excuse me, Amanda Knox was treated fairly under local law?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t have any indications to the contrary. I do know that our Embassy in Rome was very closely involved in this.

---------
QUESTION: And just to define that, the next step with the appeal, what specifically does the U.S. or the Consular service do in terms of that appeal? Do they study it? They – you know, what concretely are they doing to analyze this?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think it’s our role as – our diplomatic role to ensure that American citizens are treated fairly and that they have access to appropriate legal counsel. And that will continue to be our role as this process plays out.

-------------
QUESTION: I’m sorry. Usually when there’s a case – there have been numerous cases of American citizens where you think that the trial was not fair and it was clearly a case in which the American citizen was not guilty. And I’ve heard you and other people --

MR. KELLY: Those are normally places where there isn’t a transparent judicial system. There is a fair, open, and transparent legal system in Italy. We’re not talking about a country where we have problems with their legal system.

It's really helpful to have the whole conversation and the date on which it took place. You've quoted from a press briefing on Dec 7, 2009. Interested parties can see the whole exchange here.

I'd think that given this briefing happened more than four years ago, you might at least have included just a bit more at the end of your quoted selection (bolding mine):

MR. KELLY: Those are normally places where there isn’t a transparent judicial system. There is a fair, open, and transparent legal system in Italy. We’re not talking about a country where we have problems with their legal system. There – if there were irregularities with any case, in any court, anywhere, including in this country, there is an appeal process that’s set up to allow defense counsel to, in a court of law, before a jury of peers, to present what they feel were irregularities in that case. There will be that opportunity

QUESTION: And is there going to be a State Department review by State Department lawyers as to whether due process was afforded in the case?

MR. KELLY: No one has asked us to do that. And I’m not entirely sure it’s appropriate.

QUESTION: Senator Cantwell just asked for a State Department review of the facts of the case.

MR. KELLY: I have not seen that. And as I say, the Secretary --

QUESTION: She put out a – I think she put out a statement --

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry. I haven’t seen it.

QUESTION: Well, she put out a statement that asked for a review of the case.

MR. KELLY: Okay. Well, give her an opportunity to discuss this with Secretary Clinton.

QUESTION: Ian, you’re looking now towards the appeals process. I mean, in light of the verdict and the questions raised, are you throwing more staff, manpower, lawyers at the case to make sure that this --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- appeal process goes --

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I think we’ve already --

QUESTION: -- better for her?

MR. KELLY: -- we’ve already given a lot of manpower and attention to the case. And yes, I think we will be looking to the next steps in this.

QUESTION: No, but you --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, you’re going to increase the number of people? You’re going to engage --

MR. KELLY: Well, if it’s appropriate.

QUESTION: -- different lawyers or --

MR. KELLY: If it’s appropriate, we will.

If you leave off at the place you did, it sounds like that nice Mr. Kelly has no doubt that our ally Italy has a fair, open, and transparent legal system and therefore that Amanda Knox got a fair, open, and transparent trial under that system. Actually what he said was that the thing was still ongoing, and that there would be an appeal, and that Senator Cantwell was asking for help from the Sec. of State, and that if it became appropriate, the US Gov't would further engage in the process.

Slightly different message, there. Especially from the vantage point of 2014.

 

[Caper]

He's very clear. Very direct: the US State Department closely monitored the case. They found no indications that Knox was treated unfairly.

Period.

Sorry.... but if I had to chose, I'll believe him.

Why do you blindly believe him?

Why not follow the actual evidence?

Can you take the timeline challenge?

 

[Diocletus]

Ah yes... and you can send to the ECHR screen shots of this forum: 10 people debating over and over ...ad nauseam... about how Amanda Knox was treated unfairly.

I'm sure they'll take notice.

Well, I don't know why they would need to rely on this forum . . . they already have Knox's appeal.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ah yes... and you can send to the ECHR screen shots of this forum: 10 people debating over and over ...ad nauseam... about how Amanda Knox was treated unfairly.

I'm sure they'll take notice.

A few more than that, and a newbie just today not even on the list yet.

Bill Williams 603
acbytesla 470
Grinder 452
Diocletus 415
Machiavelli 403
Strozzi 367
Mary_H 309
AmyStrange 254
RoseMontague 250
Kaosium 224
Dan O. 203
anglolawyer 202
LondonJohn 187
Chris_Halkides 183
RandyN 182
Charlie Wilkes 128
CoulsdonUK 110
andreajo 108
Rolfe 107
Poppy1016 97
JREF2010 93
Samson 87
Antony 82
moodstream 77
NancyS 75
MDDVS 74
Wildhorses 74
davefoc 71
codyjuneau 68
Vibio 59
kwill 57
Ampulla of Vater 55
toto 53
Briars 53
katy_did 51
Skind 50
RWVBWL 46
bolint 43
moije2 42
GreyFox 42
Matthew Best 40
js202 38
The Central Scrutinizer 38
Welshman 36
bri1 35
Kestrel 35
christianahannah 35
MichaelB 34
snook1 34
Planigale 34
Bob001 30
Kevin_Lowe 29
Desert Fox 28
GWCarver 25
Caper 25
platonov 24
icerat 23
lionking 22
charlatan 22
billyryan 22
smkovalinksy 21
yimyammer 20
Katody Matrass 18
LBR 18
tsig 17
Paninaro 16
Dougm 16
michellesings 14
lamasheen 14
HumanityBlues 12
griffinmill 12
Nessie 11
lane99 11
Strawberry 10
Magister 10
moogspaceport 9
LashL 9
Sergei Walankov 8
Belz... 7
PhantomWolf 7
HotNostril 6
Darth Rotor 6
babycondor 5
TomG 5
stilicho 4
pilot padron 4
NoahFence 4
Teddy2007 4
Ogantai 4
BaileyBell 4
e740JPH 4
syllogism 4
Bruce Fisher 3
Arthur Wilson 3
whoanellie 3
Dr. Imago 3
jhunter1163 3
Doghouse Reilly 2
EeneyMinnieMoe 2
Soapy Sam 2
Methos 2
Onofarar 2
spartacus 2
Sonia 2
souldonut 2
Loss Leader 1
dudalb 1
16.5 1
kcoh 1
el buscador 1
NewtonTrino 1
angrysoba 1
yeti101 1
dogjones 1
db2431 1
Jungle Jim 1
Cain 1
zooterkin 1
wasapi 1
Sherlock Holmes 1
maddyalou 1
Skeptic Ginger 1
crescent 1
misteratunta 1
Wattson 1
TofuFighter 1

And that is just the current thread

 

[Vibio]

Well, I don't know why they would need to rely on this forum . . . they already have Knox's appeal.

And their reaction will be the following:

zzzzz.....zzzzz.....zzzzz.....zzzzzz.....

 

[acbytesla]

He's very clear. Very direct: the US State Department closely monitored the case. They found no indications that Knox was treated unfairly.

Period.

Sorry.... but if I had to chose, I'll believe him.

You can believe him.That's your choice. But all evidence about this case shows that they didn't monitor the case very closely. That in fact the US Consulate has virtually no recourse when a foreign nation's courts and police department mistreats our citizens.

Go ahead. Try and get help for the US Consulate abroad. They are great if you lose your passport, but beyond that....you're screwed.

 

[Vibio]

Re. Sollecito - People Magazine article:

I love this:

"Sollecito didn't attend the reading of the court's verdict, he says, because he "was confident of a good outcome." Instead he drove to northern Italy to "celebrate" ( ) with his girlfriend what he believed would be an acquittal. The couple traveled to nearby Austria but drove back to Italy when they heard the news on the radio. "

Damn right....

 

[Strozzi]

Police failed to secure the crime scene

I was saying that the prosecutions narrative was fabricated. How Stefanoni managed to come up with her results is an enigma. The clasp itself could even have been taken out of the cottage and returned before the December visit. You have to wonder who left that front door unlocked before the morning of November 14 and who subsequently locked it and applied the extra tape to the seal afterwards. Why is this significant breach of the crime scene security ignored and even lied about in the trial?

Dan, I was not aware of extra crime scene tape being applied to the upstairs door of the cottage. That suggests it was an official act and there should normally be a record and acknowledgement of that.

I have read that a mattress had been removed from the upstairs flat and that a shrine-type creation was created inside. I believe I also remember reading press reports that furniture or furnishings had been moved from one room to the other. I do not know the dates of this but if it any occurred before Dec 18 - including the re-sealing of the front door - then the crime scene was penetrated by unknown individuals without advance notification to the defense and prosecution. That should disqualify any alleged results from a forensic inspection or collection.

In fact, I would say given the morbid media attention and the location of the cottage on the edge of a valley, it was forseeable that unauthorized persons might seek to access the property - be they curiosity freaks or drug addicts - and the police should have known it's attractiveness to unauthorized persons. The police should have secured it effective to protect evidence.

Now, I must ask. Was Dr. Mulls in Perugia when of the entries occurred?

 

[kcoh]

Why do you think Sollecito has not cut a deal for a lighter sentence? After his interview with Anderson Cooper, people were sure that he would implicate Knox, but they have vowed to support each other once again. Sollecito could have remained in the Dominican Republic but chose to return to Italy. I find this behavior strange of what many have deemed a "sociopath," especially since he only dated Knox for 8 or 9 days. Some claim he was madly in love with her and that is why he has endured this. 4 years in prison, months in solitary confinement for a foreign girl he was just getting to know? I am not sure I believe this.

What is your opinion on his actions?

 

[Diocletus]

And their reaction will be the following:

zzzzz.....zzzzz.....zzzzz.....zzzzzz.....

Well, the odds are in your favor. Only 18% of appeals concerning Italy are granted and 75% of those result in finding a human rights violation.

So, the odds are not great for Knox. On the other hand, her odds are HUGE compared to other countries. And, her case is good. And, her case is big.

I think it gets heard and she wins. But I could be wrong.

 

[christianahannah]

It's really helpful to have the whole conversation and the date on which it took place. You've quoted from a press briefing on Dec 7, 2009. Interested parties can see the whole exchange here.

I'd think that given this briefing happened more than four years ago, you might at least have included just a bit more at the end of your quoted selection (bolding mine):



If you leave off at the place you did, it sounds like that nice Mr. Kelly has no doubt that our ally Italy has a fair, open, and transparent legal system and therefore that Amanda Knox got a fair, open, and transparent trial under that system. Actually what he said was that the thing was still ongoing, and that there would be an appeal, and that Senator Cantwell was asking for help from the Sec. of State, and that if it became appropriate, the US Gov't would further engage in the process.

Slightly different message, there. Especially from the vantage point of 2014.

Essentially the same message from the State Department in 2014 - monitoring, process ongoing in the Italian courts, irregularities in the case, etc. How long through the process does a case go, if there are reports or filings of irregularities, before the State Department investigates?

 

[Diocletus]

Essentially the message from the State Department in 2014 - monitoring, process ongoing in the Italian courts, irregularities in the case, etc. How long through the process does a case go, if there are reports or filings of irregularities, before the State Department investigates?

They will not make a decision until they have to, and that may not be for many years. Until then, they are diplomats uttering platitudes to sooth Italian interests.

 

[Strozzi]

RoseM, the numbers you rely on are wrong. I have 624 posts, not the 327 the data you accessed shows. All but 1 of my posts on JREF are on this discussion topic. I admit, one day I was distracted elsewhere.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseM, the numbers you rely on are wrong. I have 624 posts 1 all but one on this topic.

That is just the numbers for this thread, after it was continued from the last one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then they locked her in solitary for two days and gave her a notebook, not allowing either her or Raffaele to see a lawyer until the moment the hearing before Matteini started.

She asked for paper sheets and pen.

 

[Kaosium]

She asked for paper sheets and pen.

At that point did anyone warn her they'd ignore her message, then cherry pick a line out of it completely at odds with the rest of the note and use it against her in court?