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

[Diocletus]

Art 104 cpp is due and compulsory in this case.



She wrote false testimony, demonstrating her "remedy" to things consists in lying; she wrote false testimony containing false accusations against an innocent man, showing she intended to accuse an innocent. She stated she does not know what the truth is, and that she does not believe her own memory, so why should anyone else believe her? She added further unsolicited accusations and construed a justification for ambiguity. Her method is clear. This hand written note is evidence under all point of view, this evidence will remain, and the ECHR will do nothing about it.

Actually, I've read the cases and they tell me that ecthr is going to wipe its ass with cp 104 and the "gift" statement.

It was very uneuropean for the Italians to pull a foreign girl into the police station in the middle of the night, hit her, arrest her, deny her counsel for 3 days, lock her up for a year, wrongfully convict her and send her to jail for 3 more years. This won't do at all.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

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

None of the brown tape was on the door on November 14 when our approximate reporter Barbie arrived. The reported break ins were all well after the December visit. Amanda's suitcase with her brand new knife collection was also stollen from the cottage.

 

[katy_did]

We know that Rudy put a bloody hand on the pillow. This print is right on the edge of the pillow. A place one would grab to pull the pillow but not conducive to balancing. If you think the handprint was somewhere else, show us. I don't believe you were involved when we were discussing this piece of evidence. [snip]

There is Rudy's DNA on the band of the bra. There are blood smears on Meredith's pants. There is a bruse on the inside of Meredith's leg. Unlike the bloody shoe prints, the hand print could be made after Meredith has been placed on the pillow.

It could be that the print on the pillow is linked to the one on the wall above the bed: Guede puts his hand on the wall for balance and then down onto the pillow which would've been at the head of the bed at that stage. Followed by a struggle in that area of the room, during which the things on the bed fall onto the floor. This would have to be after the first stab wound, but obviously before the fatal one. I think the bruises on Meredith's legs were determined to be older ones, incidentally (i.e. presumably from before the attack).

I think it's very hard to draw any firm conclusions about exactly when he left the print on the pillow, regardless of what it looks like - strange there's no clear picture of it available, though.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Posts sent to AAH don't count

Actually, she was only listing post for the current continuation. There are 7 prior iterations of this main thread and several side threads.

 

[Dan O.]

Don't try to wriggle away. You perfectly understood it: if guede lifted a body and placed a pillow under it with his bloody hands, he should have left bloody smears or hand prints on the body.
Did you understand it?

Why would he try to lift a body with bloody hands? That's stupid. You get a much better grip with clean hands.

 

[Dan O.]

We are not talking about evidence or proof. The element suggesting Guede committed a post-mortem rape are merely suggestive. They are not evidence. They are full of holes too.

What elements suggesting a postmortem rape? are you still going on about that purported semen stain? I suggest you read my post again.

 

[Dan O.]

I am not sure if they are innocent or guilty. I change my mind every other day. It is that confusing to me. Some make the argument that since they were found guilty twice, that must mean they are beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a convincing argument. Now the U.S. State Department declares that there was no wrongdoing. However, a lot of it seems nearly impossible. No one has answered this question for me yet. How was it possible for them to wipe away their own DNA from the crime scene whilst leaving Guede's? I do not understand how this is possible.

But they had Amanda's very special lamp.

Here's another one that I just posted not long ago:

It is claimed that all visible traces of the footprint found with Luminol seen on the left were cleaned up. But the visible shoe print of Rudy Guede seen on the right is untouched. These two prints are in the same place. Look closely at the grout lines and you can match them up. How the hell could anybody do that?!

 

[kwill]

Wow. Father Saulo speaks up.

A prison priest has compared convicted killer Amanda Knox to Nelson Mandela because she is free in “heart and conscience”.

Don Saulo, the chaplain of Capanne prison where Knox spent four years , made the bizarre statement in defence of the American. He insisted she was “terrified” of being forced to return to Italy to serve a 28-year jail sentence.

Father Saulo said: “Mandela spent half his life in prison, yet he was free within his heart and conscience because he said, ‘I’m innocent’. That’s how it is with Amanda.

“She has the deep conviction that she is innocent, so she says she isn’t a prisoner and never will be.”

Father Saulo, who ran study classes with 'Foxy Knoxy' and let her play his guitar in jail, insisted she was “incapable of murder”. He said: “I spent a lot of time alone with her talking very deeply.

“From what I know of her I can say Amanda is incapable of murder."

source

 

[Desert Fox]

I am not sure if they are innocent or guilty. I change my mind every other day. It is that confusing to me. Some make the argument that since they were found guilty twice, that must mean they are beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a convincing argument. Now the U.S. State Department declares that there was no wrongdoing. However, a lot of it seems nearly impossible. No one has answered this question for me yet. How was it possible for them to wipe away their own DNA from the crime scene whilst leaving Guede's? I do not understand how this is possible.

Most others have covered most issues but there are quite a number of people who under questioning have made false confessions under questioning. I am extremely skeptical on any trial based on confessions.

If you never looked them up, really should look up the Norfolk Four

 

[Dan O.]

It could be that the print on the pillow is linked to the one on the wall above the bed: Guede puts his hand on the wall for balance and then down onto the pillow which would've been at the head of the bed at that stage. Followed by a struggle in that area of the room, during which the things on the bed fall onto the floor. This would have to be after the first stab wound, but obviously before the fatal one. I think the bruises on Meredith's legs were determined to be older ones, incidentally (i.e. presumably from before the attack).

I think it's very hard to draw any firm conclusions about exactly when he left the print on the pillow, regardless of what it looks like - strange there's no clear picture of it available, though.

Since Rudy writes of drawing on the wall in blood, I believe the finger painting to be his. But the palm print on the pillow case is a much smoother application of blood and doesn't include the fingers. The blood on the doorknob is also the heavier application of blood which indicates the sequence was murder-wall-door-clean. The palm print was either from getting his hand bloody from handling something that had a smooth application of blood or the other hand. But the palm print hand has no blood on the finger tips so if that we're the case, why doesn't he open the door with the clean finger tips? For this reason I place the palm print after the first trip to the bathroom.

We may never satisfy the denialist Machiavelli, but by rationally looking at the evidence we can probably do a pretty good job of piecing this puzzle together.

The detailed print linking Rudy to the crime would have been presented in Rudy's fast track trial. Why should Amanda and Raffaele be given access to that? It doesn't concern them

 

[Bill Williams]

WAS AMANDA KNOX A POLITICAL PAWN IN ITALIAN POLITICS?

This case is one of political manoeuvring, so says CBS Evening News Crimesider:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/was-amanda-knox-a-political-pawn-in-italian-politics/

During the trials of Amanda Knox in Italy, labels came fast and furious at the American student – mostly furious. Knox was stamped a she-devil and her persona demonic. But one label has been overlooked – political. Amazingly, that single label could mean Amanda Knox will never again see the inside of an Italian prison.

Some may see a conspiracy looming here. Take heart, there is none. There is, however, a good question: did the Knox-Sollecito case become politicized?

In April 2013, the Italian Supreme Court threw out judge Claudio Hellmann’s 2011 acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. Now retired, Hellmann told La Stampa newspaper that he “foresaw” the reversal. Hellman said “the party of the prosecutor is very strong in the judiciary” and that political party had “influenced” the Italian Supreme Court, according to La Stampa.

Though Hellmann did not name the political party, it wasn’t the party of Berlusconi, Girlanda, and Boungiorno. Was it prosecutors pushing back against Berlusconi and his crew?

This wasn’t the first time Claudio Hellmann raised the possibility that political considerations were helping drive the pursuit of Knox and Sollecito. In October 2011, he told La Nazione newspaper that there was “a political background” to the case. It was directed squarely at Amanda Knox. Hellmann said, “Many wanted Amanda in prison because she was an American.”

 

[acbytesla]

Most others have covered most issues but there are quite a number of people who under questioning have made false confessions under questioning. I am extremely skeptical on any trial based on confessions.

If you never looked them up, really should look up the Norfolk Four

You should be and good police officers are very wary of them. That's why confessions need to confirm elements about the crime that they couldn't have known without being there. This helps a lot. Unfortunately the police often have a tendency in their desire to get their suspects steer their suspects to the incriminating evidence.

Machiavelli and others who think that confessions and interrogation statements are the "end all and be all" really have their head in the sand. False confessions are not rare. And contrary to remarks like Dershowtiz was making, neither are false and coerced accusations.

 

[acbytesla]

source

I love it. Quite amazing.

 

[Strozzi]

You are not a speech analyst, Machiavelli, not by a long shot. You are particularly unqualified to analyze the speech of someone you think of as completely alien to you. You might as well be analyzing hieroglyphics with no background in Egyptian history.

You still have not explained why so many other people did believe her. Too bad you weren't there to witness the interrogation. You would have been able to spot the inconsistencies right off the bat.

If Machiavelli had been there, I hope he would have realized from the police shouting, threats, and hits and from Amanda's screams that Amanda was being psychologically abused and tormented by her interrogators. I say this because I hope Machiavelli has a shread of humanity. I hope Machiavelli is different from the police interrogators who were desperate to make a case and were rushing that night to get something compromising from Knox to support their incorrect hunches that she was involved in the crime.

 

[Bill Williams]

You should be and good police officers are very wary of them. That's why confessions need to confirm elements about the crime that they couldn't have known without being there. This helps a lot. Unfortunately the police often have a tendency in their desire to get their suspects steer their suspects to the incriminating evidence.

Machiavelli and others who think that confessions and interrogation statements are the "end all and be all" really have their head in the sand. False confessions are not rare. And contrary to remarks like Dershowtiz was making, neither are false and coerced accusations.

And here, as if on cue, CNN runs this story. BTW, the timing of this story can only be part of the US Media conspiracy Andrea Vogt talks about.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/07/21-years-in-jail-for-a-crime-he-didnt-commit/?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) – Deon Patrick was 20 when his life was stolen from him. In 1992, he was one of eight men arrested in the deaths of a drug dealer and a prostitute on the north side of Chicago.

Patrick immediately said he was innocent. No physical evidence linked him to the murders. But 30 hours in police custody without a lawyer present can have a way of changing a young man's mind.
At one point his friend, co-defendant Daniel Taylor, was brought into the interview room. He told Patrick to just tell the police “what they wanted to hear, and they could go home.”

So he broke down, signed a confession, and was later sentenced to life in prison without parole.

 

[anglolawyer]

Art 104 cpp is due and compulsory in this case.

I would really like to see the Cassazione ruling (cited in Hellman as ruling no. 990/08, dated 4-01-2008) on the 'confessions'. Then we could see what arguments were advanced by Mignini but rejected and what the reasons were. Was 104 relied on?

She wrote false testimony, demonstrating her "remedy" to things consists in lying; she wrote false testimony containing false accusations against an innocent man, showing she intended to accuse an innocent. She stated she does not know what the truth is, and that she does not believe her own memory, so why should anyone else believe her? She added further unsolicited accusations and construed a justification for ambiguity. Her method is clear. This hand written note is evidence under all point of view, this evidence will remain, and the ECHR will do nothing about it.

This is perfectly reasonable inside your head. Outside, it is not.

What is all this bs about article 104? It's mendacious nonsense.

This is article 104, in English translation:




In other words, 104 states perfectly clearly that anyone arrested and detained has the right to immediate access to his/her lawyer, except if there are specific and exceptional reasons why this should not happen. In such specific and exceptional circumstances, the PM must present to a judge his reasons for denial of a lawyer.

It's abundantly clear that the "specific and exceptional" circumstances referred to in paragraph 3 are to do with the possibility of perversion of justice. In turn, they must therefore imply the risk of collusion and corruption between the accused person in custody and his/her lawyer. And in turn, this speaks clearly to organised crime.

In short, paragraph 3 should never have applied to Knox or Sollecito. There quite simply never were "specific and exceptional" reasons why they should have been denied access to their lawyers. Yes, the accusations they faced were very serious, but there was no shred of a possibility that Knox's/Sollecito's immediate access to their lawyers would or could have had any adverse impact upon the judicial process.

Knox and Sollecito should therefore not have been subject to the para 3 "opt out". They should have been granted immediate access to their lawyers, in accordance with 104 para 1. No question whatsoever.

As a postscript, didn't Mignini "lose" his formal written request for 104 para 3 measures, or did I dream that......?

LOL. We have had the 104 discussion before. It's never Mach who quotes the actual text.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Kaosium]

Why would he try to lift a body with bloody hands? That's stupid. You get a much better grip with clean hands.

How many steps is it from the foot of where Meredith lay to the bathroom next door? Let's see, maybe one to the door, and then one by (using only as a measurement reference here) marker 3, another by marker 9 and one to the sink maybe. What would that take, two whole seconds?

Oh, and there were faint blood traces on the door and the light switch like someone entered there with a bloody hand...

 

[Bill Williams]

The innocence for Raffaele and Amanda is rolling in Italy where it should. See this YouTube video for a rally in support of Raffaele....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHd9p_gkGh4

The United States is rallying around Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito around Puglia. It has attracted supporters from across the region the live broadcast Mediaset Fourth Degree directly from the central square of Giovinazzo, curated by renowned journalist Remo Crosses. Many believe in the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and it showed with their presence, embracing and supporting sentences with affection the young man from Puglia. He reacted with shyness that we have all come to know but also with many smiles. The most moving moment of the embrace with a family friend, had just arrived from New York. "There are all convinced of your innocence," said Raffaele looking into his eyes and was moved to tears.

 

[Poppy1016]

I think it was clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to hypothesyze the statement was "non spontaneous". The statement meets al requirements and criteria as for art. 350 § 7.
The delay of counsel also was perfectly legal and reasonable under art. 104 cpp.
The pro-Knox group should re-calibrate all their claims about this, and make it fit reality instead of their fantasy.



Actually, this will not happen, but if it happens Knox will be in jail by that time, and I believe Spezi will be dead (not that I wish him that - but I'm afraid he won't survive for more than a couple of years).
Anyway Spezi is a criminal caught in flagrante delicto, the fact that some pro-Knox decide to rely on a person like Spezi, seen as a kind of idol, qualifies them in the most extreme negative way.

In your mind, everyone you don't agree with is a criminal.