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

[Diocletus]

In 1997, Einhorn was tracked down and arrested in Champagne-Mouton, France, where he had been living under the name "Eugene Mallon." The extradition process, however, proved more complex than initially envisioned. Under the extradition treaty between France and the United States, either country may refuse extradition under certain circumstances and Einhorn used multiple avenues to avoid extradition.

Although his sentence was not the death penalty, Einhorn's defense attorneys argued that Einhorn would face the death penalty if returned to the United States. France, like many countries which have abolished the death penalty, does not extradite defendants to jurisdictions which retain the death penalty without assurance that the death penalty will be neither sought nor applied. Pennsylvania authorities pointed out that at the date of the murder, Pennsylvania did not have the death penalty and therefore Einhorn could not be executed, due to provisions in the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions regarding ex post facto law. Einhorn's next strategy involved French law and the European Court of Human Rights which require a new trial when the defendant was tried in absentia, hence was unable to present his defense. On this basis, the court of appeals of Bordeaux rejected the extradition request.​

Maybe that's why Amanda stayed home.

You mean because the ECtHR might require Italy to conduct a new trial? Yes, I agree that that could be a part of the decision. Either that or she just decided "no way am I ever going back to Crazyland".

 

[Welshman]

When it comes to the interrogations, do you feel a strange aspect of this case is that the police did not make an issue of Amanda and Raffaele's behaviour prior to the interrogations? This raises the issue if the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele was so suspect, why was this not used against them in the interrogations? The police made no mention of what Amanda and Raffaele did prior to the discovery of the body. They were not asked questions such as why were you slow raising the alarm? Why were the calls to Meredith's phone so short? How could you shower in a bloody bathroom? Why did you say Meredith always locked her door? In addition the police never raised the issue of Amanda and Raffaele being affectionate with each other and this behaviour being insensitive.

 

[Bill Williams]

Read post #10053, makes more sense than anything else I have read on this particular exchange.

Whatever Bill, I'm done.

Since you are exercising your own right to remain silent as to your own biases in this case, then I am now free to impugn all sorts of reasons why you do that?

Is there a reason why you refuse to tell us what your own biases are? It would seem to be a parallel for you questioning - using what you consider a simple question: why did Raffaele not testify when Amanda did?

(Aside from the fact that when Amanda testified she'd been hit at interrogation, she was hit with further criminal charges! Gee, there's the "upside" to telling the truth in court!!!)

You are saying you're done. What you've insinuated is that you feel that Raffaele has done something manipulative or sinister by not testifying.

I guess you feel that Nencini's post-conviction remarks are also apt. I will simply assume the most nasty interpretation of your silence on the matter.

Seems to be the currency here anyway.

 

[Desert Fox]

You mean because the ECtHR might require Italy to conduct a new trial? Yes, I agree that that could be a part of the decision. Either that or she just decided "no way am I ever going back to Crazyland".

She also has three or four good arguments against extradition
Could even be argued that the prosecution is political because of the previous refusals for extradition.

 

[Bill Williams]

Re: post 10053:

You may have missed that anglolawyer was being facetious.

Oh right, I must be missing something it seems a bit odd for Raffaele to be commenting now.

I wonder what his defence team’s trial strategy was, I assume they advised him not to testify.

Maybe they thought Amanda harmed herself in some way by testifying.

In fact, others harmed Amanda because of her testimony. She was charged with defamation for claiming that she'd been hit at interrogation.

So you see.... in Italy, there are many hidden perils in lifting one's right to silence and not having any meaning impugned to it.

Except for the Nencini court. If you testify, you get a further charge of defamation. If you don't you are considered guilty for not ratting out the other person.

Sir: what we are witnessing are the very mechanics and roadmap of this wrongful conviction.

Good for you, for being done with it.

 

[Grinder]

When it comes to the interrogations, do you feel a strange aspect of this case is that the police did not make an issue of Amanda and Raffaele's behaviour prior to the interrogations? This raises the issue if the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele was so suspect, why was this not used against them in the interrogations? The police made no mention of what Amanda and Raffaele did prior to the discovery of the body. They were not asked questions such as why were you slow raising the alarm? Why were the calls to Meredith's phone so short? How could you shower in a bloody bathroom? Why did you say Meredith always locked her door? In addition the police never raised the issue of Amanda and Raffaele being affectionate with each other and this behaviour being insensitive.

While some of this was mostly media fodder it is odd. Why didn't they ask Amanda what the meeting with Patrick was about the day before? Of course, they will say she became a suspect and they could go on unless they were just notaries. They could have asked about the meeting before getting the accusation.

Btw, she didn't really make herself a suspect in her statements, so why then did she become one?

 

[Diocletus]

She also has three or four good arguments against extradition
Could even be argued that the prosecution is political because of the previous refusals for extradition.

It seems to me that there are at least three platforms for her to resist extradition:

1) By supplemental judicial/political process in Italy
2) at ECtHR
3) By judicial/political process in the US

If it ever gets there, I expect the extradition process to take years.

 

[Dan O.]

So it is stated here that Amanda mentioned Patrick only in these dates and times - Nov 2 at 15:30, on 7 Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and 8 then there's Nov 6, 1:45.

Originally Posted by AK evidence transcript p.137
2 MIGNINI: Why did you speak about Patrick only in the
3 interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45? Why didn't you mention him
4 before? You never mentioned him before.
5 AK: Before when?
6 MIGNINI: In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on
7 Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and
8 then there's Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in
9 the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name
10 of Patrick. Why hadn't you ever mentioned him before?
11 AK: Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name
12 to me.

I'm sure that Mignini erased the record of her mentioning Patrick.

Hey wait a minute. How would they have the times down like this without recording it?

The times are for the time that the suspect witness signed the statement at the end of the interrogation interview. It's helpful to establish the routine of talk to the police -- sign statement. That way the peeps don't even look when you later hand them a confession to sign.

As for the earlier naming of Patrick, I thought I did see a mention of gathering contact information on November 2 that included Patrick. However, the statement above by Mignini may have been perverted by google-fish to negate parts of the statement.

ETA: In the defense questioning of Ficarra:

QUESTION - I know you picked up the phone or Amanda spontaneously delivered, let us know if you want to specify Gives ...
ANSWER - You were asked to show the phone to do the checks and she's got spontaneously Given and with her, That is close to her we Began to slide ...
QUESTION - No, it is delivered without any problems.
ANSWER - Yes, yes.
QUESTION - So it turns out the short message to Patrick is so?
ANSWER - Among the other comes out of That, too.
APPLICATION - That Patrick is the same Patrick of which annotation That Had Been done before?
ANSWER - Yes

Patrick had been named earlier but I believe this earlier is the same night when Amanda was listing the names in her phone address book of people that knew Meredith.

 

[Desert Fox]

It seems to me that there are at least three platforms for her to resist extradition:

1) By supplemental judicial/political process in Italy
2) at ECtHR
3) By judicial/political process in the US

If it ever gets there, I expect the extradition process to take years.

1. I don't know how to judge. Any sane supreme court would have just acquitted her and Raffaele.
2. I do have hopes but couldn't she end up being extradited while waiting on that
3. That is what I am most referring to.

 

[acbytesla]

Did Amanda need a job, in the sense that most of us need our jobs? Did most American students, or even Italian students, work at jobs? How hard would it have been for her to find another job waiting tables, clerking at a store, etc.? It reinforces my impression of her as naive and easily manipulated if she was expected to "work" without pay just to keep a crappy job. Most Americans would be out the door as fast as they could get to it. (On the other hand, maybe she saw it as a chance to meet people and practice her Italian. But there were other ways to do that, especially for a student.)

Actually, Amanda did see it as a way to keep interacting with people. But I also agree with your comment to a degree about her being naive and easily manipulated. Those are tough ages for people. You have a mixture of confidence and being unsure of yourself. It's far different "out in the world" than at school. But I'm sure there were limits to how easily she could be manipulated.

In her book she talks about her experience with a boy that Meredith and her friends nicknamed "Shaky" and how the boy manipulated her to stop at his home sort of under false pretenses. He was really trying to make a move on Amanda and she basically demanded that he took her home or she was going "walk". That's shows both that she was naive in allowing the boy to get her into his house and her standing up for herself and not letting it get too far.

I'm not sure you're right about most Americans would just quit the crummy job. I've watched while 18 to even 30 year olds get manipulated into working for free or reduced wages. It's far more common than you think.

I agree that Amanda saw the job as a way to force Amanda to interact with others in Italian as opposed to "safely" hang out with Brits and Americans speaking in their native tongue.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Griffin v California

Not really, it points out that he had the same opportunity to testify as Amanda did, mind you I guess some folk will try and spin it differently.

CoulsdonUK,

The Griffin rule is not without its critics, but even some people who think it goes to far want to amend it not, not do away with it. Personally, I would not testify unless my lawyer suggested that I should, for the same reason that I would not box with Sugar Ray (Robinson or Leonard), unless there were no choice. Look at how Comodi spins the facts of this case, and perhaps you may see my point.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

common sense

When it comes to the interrogations, do you feel a strange aspect of this case is that the police did not make an issue of Amanda and Raffaele's behaviour prior to the interrogations? This raises the issue if the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele was so suspect, why was this not used against them in the interrogations? The police made no mention of what Amanda and Raffaele did prior to the discovery of the body. They were not asked questions such as why were you slow raising the alarm? Why were the calls to Meredith's phone so short? How could you shower in a bloody bathroom? Why did you say Meredith always locked her door? In addition the police never raised the issue of Amanda and Raffaele being affectionate with each other and this behaviour being insensitive.

Welshman,

Stop Making Sense. Seriously, Once in a Lifetime I wish one of the Talking Heads of this case would ask a few more of these commonsensical questions. The facts of the case are that a Psycho Killer, who may also have had a hand in Burning down the House of a resident of Perugia, did this crime. The closest the Italian judiciary has come to commonsense was Hellman's (partial) acquittal (What a Day That Was). Instead, with all the Slippery People and misinformation, the case feels more like Life During Wartime.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm not sure you're right about most Americans would just quit the crummy job. I've watched while 18 to even 30 year olds get manipulated into working for free or reduced wages. It's far more common than you think.

How about commission jobs where you make nothing?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Fair and balanced?

And they had Gino making what I thought was a bad point about how normal it is for people living together to get their blood all mixed up. What?

anglolawyer,

Sarah Gino can be more effective than that one quote suggested. She is right in the sense that Amanda did bleed in the bathroom (though this is separate from the issue mixed DNA), but she should have made her points more clearly. One wonders what ended up on the cutting room floor. However, the filmmakers (I won't call them documentarians any longer) could have called upon people like Allan Jamieson or Bruce Budowle to counterbalance Dr. Balding's points (which I thought deserved to be challenged). I am most of the way through the documentary, and I still have not heard anything about Conti and Vecchiotti, who were independent.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not really, it points out that he had the same opportunity to testify as Amanda did, mind you I guess some folk will try and spin it differently.

CoulsdonUK,

The Griffin rule is not without its critics, but even some people who think it goes to far want to amend it not, not do away with it. Personally, I would not testify unless my lawyer suggested that I should, for the same reason that I would not box with Sugar Ray (Robinson or Leonard), unless there were no choice. Look at how Comodi spins the facts of this case, and perhaps you may see my point.

What I am reacting to is the double standard. CoulsdonUK has many time invoked his right not to discuss fully why he participates here, and expects posters to these threads to respect that, and...... heavens.... not read anything into that choice to be silent.

I'd agree with him, if the hypocrisy was not so blatant.

 

[acbytesla]

Bob001,

She had roughly $4000 and her mother held a much greater sum in a bank account in the U.S. as a reserve. She implies in WTBH that she was not particularly good at being a waitress. However, at least one U.S. employer is on record as praising her work ethic.

It really takes time to be a good waiter or waitress or a unique ability. In my early twenties and late teens, I worked in restaurants. I mostly got fired from working in restaurants. I'd talk my way into the job and then after struggling for a few days or a few weeks, they would come to the conclusion that I just wasn't good at the job...no matter how hard I tried. But I persisted because I needed a part time job while going to school. I had more jobs between 20 and 22 than I think I've had since then. Probably much more. It turned out I was much better "getting the job" than doing the job.

But eventually I got a lot better at it. It's not about work ethic all that's important it is about "being aware" of all of your customers and tasks. Any way, my point is....not being good at something doesn't mean you're not trying hard. I think I was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. After the 5th or 6th time getting fired it was probably God's way of saying...try something else.

I don't think whether Amanda was good at waitressing demonstrates anything about her work ethic.

 

[acbytesla]

How about commission jobs where you make nothing?

I've had those. But I can't imagine working for a salary ever again.

I think I'm a good salesman.. I've known guys who were great, much better than me. I'm just good. But after a lifetime in sales ...selling everything from vacuum cleaners and extended warranties to high end servers routers and switches, I learned, that sometimes your product stinks and it's time to sell something else.

Leaving your job can easily be the best career move you'll ever make. But it takes courage and confidence. And staying with a crummy job can be the worst. But it's easy. Also, you are stuck wondering.. Is it me? Am I not good enough? So you stay because you don't know any better.

 

[Bill Williams]

Date for Nencini inquiry set

It seems the date of the inquiry into Judge Nencini's post-conviction comments is now set for Mar 11. Unclear is if this will have any bearing on the decision itself.

http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/02/19/news/meredith_a_marzo_giudice_nencini_davanti_al_csm-79069274/

As well as the potentially prejudicial remarks he made about Raffaele, they are also looking into his remarks about the "boys night out" theory, yet another motive in the ever-changing landscape of this wrongful conviction.

As for the motive of the crime of Perugia November 1, 2007, the judge had explained to reporters that the court has "a belief that will be made ​​explicit in the judgment" and then add "up to 20.15 that evening the boys had different programs, then the commitments are skipped and has created the opportunity. If Amanda had gone to work probably would not be here.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What I am reacting to is the double standard. CoulsdonUK has many time invoked his right not to discuss fully why he participates here, and expects posters to these threads to respect that, and...... heavens.... not read anything into that choice to be silent.

I'd agree with him, if the hypocrisy was not so blatant.

Oh boy!

Your various posts refer. I have no idea what you are on about, really.

As far as I am concerned I was effectively commenting on two defendant’s different approaches in the same trial, most of what you rant about applied to Amanda and yet she testified! Furthermore, I find the different approaches baffling; now if you or anyone else wish to extrapolate more than that, then go for it.

 

[Desert Fox]

Is there any motivation that they will not try