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

[Mary_H]

With what NancyS was saying about dissociation recently I wonder whether Guede might have persuaded himself that he didn't do anything.

I am sure Rudy does not hold himself responsible for what happened. He has exhibited a pattern of denial from the beginning, when he went out dancing, as if what he had just done was not something that had to be dealt with, but would turn out to be okay in the end, as was the case with the rest of his burglaries.

There are a lot of aspects to the event that he can use to rationalize that he did not commit murder and/or that what happened was less his fault than the fault of Meredith or the circumstances. He might think:

1.) It was not premeditated; it was an accident.
2.) It would not have happened if Meredith had not provoked him in some way, e.g., by coming home, or by refusing his advances.
3.) It would not have happened if Meredith had not struggled or fought back.
4.) He tried to stem the flow of Meredith's blood.
5.) Meredith was not dead when he left.
6.) To me, it is within the realm of possibility that Rudy threw the rock through Filomena's window after he left the house in order to alert neighbors.

Rudy had never killed before and I doubt he wants to think of himself as a killer. Any natural tendency he would have to deny responsibility and shift blame was strongly exploited by the lawyers, who urged him to imagine a scenario that included other people, and eventually to name those people as Amanda and Raffaele. Just as Amanda was convinced by the police that she was there, it is very likely Rudy was convinced by the lawyers (and himself) that he actually did not commit murder.

 

[JREF2010]

I think I am losing hope that this situation will ever be corrected.

This case could be overlayed on top of the Norfolk case and the outcome wouldnt look good for Raffaele. As the Norfolk, one was totally cleared earlier than the others, they did prison time even though the real suspect/offender confessed and was caught.

Im agreeing with you, the ignorance of the courts at this point will worsen. At least MAssei and Hellmans trial they had a fair number of hours to go over the case. The ISC seems the worst, as if they are too busy. The Nencini was like a closing, each lawyer getting a short amount of time to rattle off the highlights of the case.

and then the ignorant puppet-juror/judges who have the Judge in the deliberation room with them, directing the outcome no doubt.
Its an inncoent ignorance these puppet judges, who hear the fodder of the prosecution, the lies of DNA and the witch hunt evidence.

How many average people would believe the DNA evidence is all contaminated? How many can believe a bunch of police would partake in a illegal interrogation, abusive and coercive, how many puppet judges would even understand RFU and then have to decide if a person in power like Stefonani would lie on the stand, and that Giobbi was using gut instincts about eating pizza ...etc..etc..

I wonder if Mignini, in this case is a sadist? Abusing power, maybe enjoying innocent people suffering. They do exist. Monica Napoleoni, abusive and bullying types, drunk with power, using intimidation in interrogations.

Persecutors of 2014.

 

[Desert Fox]

The "Visit Italy" version of the tourists' legal insurance plan comes with an English/Italian wallet card asserting your legal rights, plus a postage-paid envelope addressed to the Questura, a tin of spam, two chocolate bars, and a WW II pilot's silk scarf printed with a map showing escape routes over the Alps to neutral Switzerland.

Does Switzerland still tend to not return people for extradition?

 

[AmyStrange]

I'd go for a billion...

-

I'd sue for the 100 million Euros but make it clear publicly that I would agree to an out of court settlement that included the EDF files for the bra clasp and the knife. That way you don't appear to be greedy but are willing to swing a big stick.

-

Amy, I think Raffaele should sue for a stunning amount to produce bigger headlines and demonstrate how much additional damage he is about to suffer further as a partial result of Stefanoni's failure to produce what should be exculpatory evidence. The Euros 100 million equates to US $ 136 million. That should justify 30 point headlines, don't you think? Maybe Italian news and talk shows will bring on Italian scientists to discuss the issues of the DNA analysis and why you need clean equipment to examine it, how contamination occurs, what it means when the DNA of 3 other males is on the clasp, etc.

Could he take such a lawsuit immediately to ECHR if it is thrown out of court in Italy on a summary judgement that prevents him from appealing in an Italian court?

I wish Machiavelli were here as he may know the legal process.

-

You both make excellent points, but what the hell, why not go for broke, why not go for an even billion euros?

d

ETA: What are the requirements for an ECHR lawsuit? Must you try to resolve the issue with the actionable country first? Probably a summary judgement would fulfill that requirement and it would be faster. I don't know the answer, but I do agree, I wish Mach were here for this. Of course, we would probably have to read how it would be a waste of time etc etc
-

 

[Desert Fox]

It will.

If experience is any guide, it will take quite a few years. People will retire and move on, but the truth of what happened will never change. Someday, Amanda and Raffaele will be legally exonerated.

It took Lindy Chamberlain 32 years. I'm hoping we can do better for Amanda and Raffaele.

I would not be so sure. . .Yes, the Norfolk Four have been released from prison but are still classified as sex offenders and felons.

 

[MichaelB]

I am sure Rudy does not hold himself responsible for what happened. He has exhibited a pattern of denial from the beginning, when he went out dancing, as if what he had just done was not something that had to be dealt with, but would turn out to be okay in the end, as was the case with the rest of his burglaries.

There are a lot of aspects to the event that he can use to rationalize that he did not commit murder and/or that what happened was less his fault than the fault of Meredith or the circumstances. He might think:

1.) It was not premeditated; it was an accident.
2.) It would not have happened if Meredith had not provoked him in some way, e.g., by coming home, or by refusing his advances.
3.) It would not have happened if Meredith had not struggled or fought back.
4.) He tried to stem the flow of Meredith's blood. 5.) Meredith was not dead when he left.6.) To me, it is within the realm of possibility that Rudy threw the rock through Filomena's window after he left the house in order to alert neighbors.

Rudy had never killed before and I doubt he wants to think of himself as a killer. Any natural tendency he would have to deny responsibility and shift blame was strongly exploited by the lawyers, who urged him to imagine a scenario that included other people, and eventually to name those people as Amanda and Raffaele. Just as Amanda was convinced by the police that she was there, it is very likely Rudy was convinced by the lawyers (and himself) that he actually did not commit murder.

Mary I think his crime is far more gruesome.

He smothered her with the towel found beside her head to finish her off and/or covered her head with it while raped her corpse so he didn't have to look at the neck wound.

 

[Desert Fox]

Mitochondrial DNA can be extracted from hair without the follicle. That is how the hair stuck to the pliers in Scott Peterson's boat was connected by the prosecution to either Laci Peterson or her mother.

Trouble is that he could have easily carried a piece of her hair on her clothes and ended up in the pliers. I agree that he is likely guilty but still the evidence is pretty poor in that case.

 

[AmyStrange]

Not a good idea

-

You don't need to just think about it. Forensic blue and UV LED flashlights are readily available and you can even purchase Luminol and spot-check kits for semen.

-

WARNING: never take one those to any hotel you maybe staying at ever... trust me, you will not want to stay there after spraying those lights around the room or rooms,

d

-

 

[MichaelB]

Massei p161

Dr. Lalli has identified the cause of death as acute cardiorespiratory failure provoked by a dual mechanism: haemorrhaging derived from the vascular lesion at the level of the neck; asphyxia due to the inhalation of her own blood and a to further action of strangulation or suffocation. Dr. Liviero concurred with this assessment, maintaining that the action of suffocation can be determined by the numerous rounded ecchymoses present in the submandibular area and by haemorrhagic suffusions detectable on the inner labial mucosa, typical of a suffocation attempt.

p113

The cause of death was attributed to acute cardio-respiratory failure caused by the combined mechanism of haemorrhaging of the vascular lesion in the neck and asphyxial mechanism. This latter could have been caused by the aspiration of blood or by a further action of strangulation or suffocation. Such asphyxia mechanism was confirmed by the presence of subconjunctival petechiae and the presence of intra-alveolar pools of blood.

p118
Dr. Liviero, examined at the same hearing, reported that in order to carry out their assignment commissioned by the Public Prosecutor, video photos were used as well as the consultancy report by Dr. Lalli.
As to cause of death she confirmed Dr. Lalli’s assessment of a dual mechanism of suffocation and bleeding.

 

[acbytesla]

I am sure Rudy does not hold himself responsible for what happened. He has exhibited a pattern of denial from the beginning, when he went out dancing, as if what he had just done was not something that had to be dealt with, but would turn out to be okay in the end, as was the case with the rest of his burglaries.

There are a lot of aspects to the event that he can use to rationalize that he did not commit murder and/or that what happened was less his fault than the fault of Meredith or the circumstances. He might think:
1.) It was not premeditated; it was an accident.
2.) It would not have happened if Meredith had not provoked him in some way, e.g., by coming home, or by refusing his advances.
3.) It would not have happened if Meredith had not struggled or fought back.
4.) He tried to stem the flow of Meredith's blood.
5.) Meredith was not dead when he left.
6.) To me, it is within the realm of possibility that Rudy threw the rock through Filomena's window after he left the house in order to alert neighbors.

Rudy had never killed before and I doubt he wants to think of himself as a killer. Any natural tendency he would have to deny responsibility and shift blame was strongly exploited by the lawyers, who urged him to imagine a scenario that included other people, and eventually to name those people as Amanda and Raffaele. Just as Amanda was convinced by the police that she was there, it is very likely Rudy was convinced by the lawyers (and himself) that he actually did not commit murder.

One of the most famous self help books ever written is Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people". Carnegie discussed in great detail about this phenomenon to rationalize behavior and how no matter how horrible a person was, how they thought of themselves as basically a good person.

 

[acbytesla]

-

You both make excellent points, but what the hell, why not go for broke, why not go for an even billion euros?

d

ETA: What are the requirements for an ECHR lawsuit? Must you try to resolve the issue with the actionable country first? Probably a summary judgement would fulfill that requirement and it would be faster. I don't know the answer, but I do agree, I wish Mach were here for this. Of course, we would probably have to read how it would be a waste of time etc etc
-

The amount that you sue for must be big enough to get attention. 100 Million is enough for that. I can't actually imagine winning a judgement that large. But what is 20 plus years of your life worth? It must be commensurate with that. The real point is that you are suing for justice. justice for you, justice for Amanda justice for Meredith and justice for Italy and its citizens. Stefanoni should not be able to to compromise that justice.

 

[Strozzi]

-


-


-

You both make excellent points, but what the hell, why not go for the broke, why not go for an even billion euros?

d

ETA: What are the requirements for an ECHR lawsuit? Must you try to resolve the issue with the actionable country first? Probably a summary judgement would fulfill that requirement and it would be faster. I don't know the answer, but I do agree, I wish Mach were here for this. Of course, we would probably have to read how it would be a waste of time etc etc
-

I think he should demand Euros 100 million if Stefanoni fails to produce the missing evidence within 2 weeks. That will give Stefanoni a publicly-watched date to comply to avoid a possible judgement, and allow time for Italian media to talk up the issue on TV. Once she reaches that date without complying, the suit should automatically up the claim to Euros 250 million and include the provision that it should go to Euros 1 billion if she does not produce the evidence in time for his Supreme Court appeal, or if he is imprisoned, whichever comes first.

Remember, there are several purposes in the suit. Financial damages, media attention, actual media discussion with Italian scientists, or - surprise - the actual production of the data files.

Maybe the court hearing his lawsuit will order Stefanoni to produce the documentation. Then she has to admit that it was not produced, which means that she skipped those preparatory stages, or that she has "misplaced" the files, or that the records were stored in her garage and she just experienced a garage fire. Or maybe the court will boot the case, which means an appeal to a higher Italian court or appeal to ECHR. Each step he takes generates media coverage which will include scientific comment. In any case, what does Raffaele have to lose?

Maybe he should also file a separate lawsuit for damages for the destruction of his computer records by the police. Who is going to say that his computer was not damaged by specific police techs? They are identifiable individuals with names and rank and positions and supervisors - all to be named. Who can claim that the computer data was not important alibi evidence?

 

[anglolawyer]

Excellent reply Rose. I saw both Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2 as well as "The Saw", Halloween, Friday the 13th, The Silence of the Lambs and other pretty sick movies and I have never committed any violent acts either. What is wrong with us? Frankly, "Criminal Minds" gives me the heebie jeebies.

Yes but you told us you were a jailbird so clearly there was some effect. Have you reformed yet?

ETA for American readers -

 

[Poppy1016]

I think he should demand Euros 100 million if Stefanoni fails to produce the missing evidence within 2 weeks. That will give Stefanoni a publicly-watched date to comply to avoid a possible judgement, and allow time for Italian media to talk up the issue on TV. Once she reaches that date without complying, the suit should automatically up the claim to Euros 250 million and include the provision that it should go to Euros 1 billion if she does not produce the evidence in time for his Supreme Court appeal, or if he is imprisoned, whichever comes first.

Remember, there are several purposes in the suit. Financial damages, media attention, actual media discussion with Italian scientists, or - surprise - the actual production of the data files.

Maybe the court hearing his lawsuit will order Stefanoni to produce the documentation. Then she has to admit that it was not produced, which means that she skipped those preparatory stages, or that she has "misplaced" the files, or that the records were stored in her garage and she just experienced a garage fire. Or maybe the court will boot the case, which means an appeal to a higher Italian court or appeal to ECHR. In any case, what does Raffaele have to lose?

Maybe he should also file a separate lawsuit for damages for the destruction of his computer records by the police. Who is going to say that his computer was not damaged by specific police techs? They are identifiable individuals with names and rank and positions and supervisors - all to be named. Who can claim that the computer data was not important alibi evidence?

Should Amanda file a similar suit?

 

[anglolawyer]

I think most of us have heard the insults so often it just gets old after awhile. The same old character smears repeated so often they become just silliness.

Why are none of the pro-guilt posters willing to give us a theory and a timeline that fits with the evidence in the case? Maybe because they can't.

Instead they have invented the 'we don't need no stinking timeline' doctrine, falling back on a misconception of Italian osmotic law to support their position. What they don't understand is that a crime theory is required and Nencini is obliged to provide one which, if it were not so serious, would be very funny.

Yes, guilters, you do need a timeline. Only one set of events really happened. As in - in reality. Reality will make all the evidence point to itself so we can infer what happened. If you want to hang on to all the data points you have to be able to fit them all together so that osmotically they produce a coherent picture. Otherwise you have to chuck away stuff that does not fit. You need an organising principle when doing the chucking away as the process is rational, not arbitrary. Once you have chucked away the jarringly incongruous there has to be something left. Enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Here's a hint - don't bother because it's impossible. Reality says so.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hidden in Trial By Osmosis: Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and the Nightmare of Italian Justice by Andrew Gumbel......

http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/trial-osmosis-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-nightmare-italian-justice

.... is this little ditty from none other than PM Giuliano Mignini where he speaks at trial, almost in horror at the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Giuliano Mignini, the first public prosecutor in the Meredith Kercher case, sounded almost alarmed by the concept when he made his closing statement in the first trial:

Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other.​

Tellingly, Mignini did not direct the court to look at the evidence per se, but to look at the logic of his reconstruction of the murder. And the high court endorsed his view when it sent the case back to trial last March. It was a mistake, the high court said, to focus on the shortcomings of the evidence piece by piece; the new trial judge needed to absorb the facts of the case “by osmosis” to appreciate the story in its totality.

The high court ruling was bizarre, even by Italian standards, because it all but directed the new appeals court to return a guilty verdict. (“This evaluation by osmosis will be decisive […] in demonstrating the presence of the two accused at the scene of the crime.”)

What I wish guilters and haters would address is this... the standard of proof, the number of rhetorical excesses at trial "Lucerfina", etc.... as if guilt or innocence were determined by the quality of oratory, rather than the rational presentation of....

..... evidence.

Every once in a while an author really nails it.... what has gone on in Italy to produce this wrongful conviction, a wrongful conviction actually mandated by the ISC.

 

[Strozzi]

Should Amanda file a similar suit?

Possibly. The question is should she file in Italy or the US? A US court may reject such a suit on jurisdiction grounds but it will result in great media attention. Lawyers will be interviewed. Forensic scientists will be asked for sound bites and perhaps be given more face time to discuss forensic issues in more detail.

Maybe Amanda should seek $20 million damages just for being hit in police interrogation. Name the police woman who hit her. Whether the case proceeds or is rejected on jurisdiction grounds by a US court, more Americans will learn she was hit in police interrogation. Americans don't like police assault. Gin it up! The State Department will have to contend with that when they consider an extradition request.

I have a vague recollection of reading something about Mignini saying maybe Amanda got bumped accidentally from behind. Anybody else remember reading it? Was this something he said on camera? If he really said it, include it in media coverage of a lawsuit for police assault because it will make Prosecutor Mignini look duplicitous.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think most of us have heard the insults so often it just gets old after awhile. The same old character smears repeated so often they become just silliness.

Why are none of the pro-guilt posters willing to give us a theory and a timeline that fits with the evidence in the case? Maybe because they can't.

Instead they have invented the 'we don't need no stinking timeline' doctrine, falling back on a misconception of Italian osmotic law to support their position. What they don't understand is that a crime theory is required and Nencini is obliged to provide one which, if it were not so serious, would be very funny.

Yes, guilters, you do need a timeline. Only one set of events really happened. As in - in reality. Reality will make all the evidence point to itself so we can infer what happened. If you want to hang on to all the data points you have to be able to fit them all together so that osmotically they produce a coherent picture. Otherwise you have to chuck away stuff that does not fit. You need an organising principle when doing the chucking away as the process is rational, not arbitrary. Once you have chucked away the jarringly incongruous there has to be something left. Enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Here's a hint - don't bother because it's impossible. Reality says so.

This is what Andrew Gumbel is addressing in his piece just upthread. One doesn't need, apparently, a timeline or a theory of the crmie, one only need to produce a series of theories "compatible with logic", and then have an over all osmotic view.

Maybe it is me, and maybe it is you. Maybe we're the weird ones.

Nah.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The amount that you sue for must be big enough to get attention. 100 Million is enough for that. I can't actually imagine winning a judgement that large. But what is 20 plus years of your life worth? It must be commensurate with that. The real point is that you are suing for justice. justice for you, justice for Amanda justice for Meredith and justice for Italy and its citizens. Stefanoni should not be able to to compromise that justice.

-

I think he should demand Euros 100 million if Stefanoni fails to produce the missing evidence within 2 weeks. That will give Stefanoni a publicly-watched date to comply to avoid a possible judgement, and allow time for Italian media to talk up the issue on TV. Once she reaches that date without complying, the suit should automatically up the claim to Euros 250 million and include the provision that it should go to Euros 1 billion if she does not produce the evidence in time for his Supreme Court appeal, or if he is imprisoned, whichever comes first.

-

Too bad you couldn't just sue for Dr Steffies house, if she owns one, and then force her to live somewhere else until she either wins the case or gives you the data you want,

d

-

 

[Strozzi]

-


-


-

Too bad you couldn't just sue for Dr Steffies house, if she owns one, and then force her to live somewhere else until she either wins the case or gives you the data you want,

d

-

Maybe Stefanoni and Rudy could share a 2 bedroom flat.