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

[Bill Williams]

To heck with even questionable cases.

It's not in the treaty between US and Canada, but Canada routinely seeks a guarantee from the relevant US jurisdiction that either the death penalty is off the table, or there is no extradition. Period.

There may be an exception to this, but I cannot think of one.
The US could similarly extradite with terms attached, like with what Canada did in reverse with Bembenek.

What terms would you want attached to any potential extradition of Knox? One might be that she be held outsude of detention until a full inquiry of the misconduct of the PLE was taken.

California did tell Canada with Charles Ng "If you want him so badly, keep him" when they wanted a promise of no death penalty.
While I am against the death penalty, I don't feel much sympathy for him.

Well, first off, the Charles Ng case is not an exception to what I was talking about.

Second off, if California did "say" this, then they completely missed to point of the non-extradition. No one cares about Charles Ng. The point is that even though it is not stated within the treaty, "Each nation shall act according to its own values and legal systems," Canada in fact did act in accordance with Canadian values.

Extradition is not about the person being extradited. Not really.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow... Main story on CNN right now. Poor girl.

To people who don't know much about the case - and to the ghouls - this will be a big deal maybe but I don't really think he says anything new.

Indeed, if this is the Anderson Cooper, AC360 piece Caper is referring to, nothing new was stated...

...except Amanda got some great and free publicity for her blog. There was NO mention of Edward McCall's dreadful wiki.... just as well, the AC360 production staff probably tried to look into McCall's bona fides and discovered that he's a completely unknown entity.

AC360 got a few things wrong. Although I must have blinked when others said they saw it, apparently there was a photo of the dreaded bathroom after the cops had sprayed it with luminol. Made it look like a scene from the St. Valentine's Day massacre.

But if one was a complete newbie to the case, one would have left thinking, "WTF? They're still after these two innocents?"

AC360 even gave the most basic summary of the case. Rudy did it. He's in jail. Newbee thought: "So why are they still going after Knox and Sollecito?" They then quoted from Amanda's blog, that Raffaele is collateral damage in the weird pursuit of this fictional character, Foxy Knoxy.

All in all I don't think Anderson Copper is going to be on Peggy Ganong's Christmas list this year.

The teaser, though, was, "Is Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend distancing himself from her?" The closest it got to answering THAT question was a statement from Bongiorno, that Sollecito's legal strategy is now separate from Knox's legal strategy. Duh!!!! Sollecito is trying to stay out of prison in Italy and Knox is trying to avoid extradition in the US. One supposes that they would need differing strategies!!

And, oh yes, CNN played a clip of Raffaele's Italian interview from yesterday where he said he found Knox's morning-Nov 2 behaviour odd. This is old stuff... all one need do is read Raffaele's book!!!

Bottom line, with all due respect to the Central Scrutinizer who's cherry picking recently, Raffaele is saying that Amanda's behaviour on the morning of Nov 2 was odd. So? He's also saying she had nothing to do with the murder, as he repeated for the Italian audience.

The teaser did not deliver. AC360 left the viewer thinking, "Why is this still going on? They have the real killer in jail."

 

[Welshman]

Great job, and I really hope Amanda and Raffaele see your timeline and use it to defend themselves. The PGP have always treated timelines like kryptonite, and your simple but elegant creation shows us why - they have no answer for it, which should make it the defense's best weapon.

There is another question which PGP treat like kryptonite and that is if the prosecution had a slam dunk case, how do you explain the massive level Misconduct which ocurred in this case? If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a watertight case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to supressing evidence and lying? PGP either ignore or pretend misconduct did not happen.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shoe 'nuff

I think that right now her best bet is to get new representation that will destroy the Nencini verdict and present a strong appeal to the ISC. A lot will depend on the new ISC panel and the actual motivation document, in my opinion.

The lawyers cannot act like a bunch of whipped puppies in front of the CSC. They need to channel the 2009 version of Bongiorno who said that the lack of discovery violated her client's rights, and they need to make it clear that they are not talking about penny-ante violations. Maybe they need to channel Nikita Khrushchev and his shoe-banging. I don't see how they can win without coming out and saying that the previous CSC ruling got things terribly wrong.

 

[Diocletus]

The outside blood trail seen in the crime scene video is remarkably cat like. It starts at the top on the outside of the steps then part way down moves to be adjacent to the protective wall. and on down to the lower yard where it checks if there is access through the main door. Then the trail goes back part way up the steps on top of the inside wall to where it leaps to the open bathroom window through the bars leaving a cast off blood drip on the outer side of the window frame. It's then down to the floor of the bathroom where the inside trail begins.

View attachment 30346View attachment 30347View attachment 30348

Well, that is kind of kitty-like. But some things bother me:

1. The Steps: We have 10 samples, all basically identical, diffuse-looking "blood" stains. Of these, one (Rep. 9) was not analyzed at all. Of the remainder, 2 of the 9 identical-looking spots are blood positive. What? They're identical spots. Those two blood-positive spots didn't amplify human DNA (successfully), BUT, two of the not-blood-positive spots DID amplify human DNA (no. 47045 has 185 picograms, and no. 47047 has 155 picograms). However, it appears that they weren't subjected to electrophoresis.

2. The Bed: 7 samples of blood were taken from the mattress, comforter and pillow. Of these, 4 quantified in excess of 60 pictograms of human DNA, and 1 (no. 47032) had a huge amount of human DNA. Egrams appear to have been run and suppressed (nos. 601-604).

3. Others: There are 6 "other" samples (entry door area, shower, window margin). Of these, 4 had severe imbalances in the results of the quantification process, i.e., one of the two quantifications for the sample failed to amplify, and the other one did amplify.

Just sayin'.

 

[Grinder]

Why is there never any physical evidence of her being involved in the crime?
Look, you have been around longer than the case has been.
You just seem unable to apply skepticism to this case

He's skeptical all right just not about the Italian justice system. He's skeptical about you

His latest link has nothing to do with the murder. I, too, think that Amanda's and Raf's behaviors the day after the murder reasonably attracted attention. I believe that Amanda agrees.

Sad anyone would think that Raf thinking she acted oddly is evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Exactly! Its not that the Cali wacko from PMS 1 or 2 (I forget her handle at the moment) is correct about the money or is even a legal issue but it is a pillar they have used to create the osmosis effect.

Capealadin.

Instead AK gets bamboozled on the blog? That's ridiculous.

?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Finally, one of the three is beginning to crack, lets hope it keeps going and we finally get the full truth out. This is a start, and Raf is definitely the one.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yesterday Raffaele was live on TV, Linea Gialla, having an hour-long discussion about the case. Bruzzone representing the guilters was demolished.

http://www.la7.it/linea-gialla/rivedila7/l’omicidio-di-meredit-kercher-26-02-2014-127395


There was not a sign of him distancing himself from Amanda. He confirms her alibi and reiterates they'd spent the night together.

Guilters can dream on...

 

[Sergei Walankov]

It's amusing, if that's the right word, that a PGP should be clueless enough to adopt the moniker "Sherlock Holmes". For what did the investigators do, if not to make what his namesake famously identified as the "capital mistake" of theorising before they had data. And, henceforth, to "insensibly twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". Had our man been on the case, he would have waited until the forensic evidence was in from the crime scene, and followed to where it pointed - Rudy Guede. Knox and Sollecito would never have entered the equation, and Holmes would have laughed bitterly at the notion of their guilt, had anyone ever thought to propose it.

 

[Bill Williams]

He's skeptical all right just not about the Italian justice system. He's skeptical about you

His latest link has nothing to do with the murder. I, too, think that Amanda's and Raf's behaviors the day after the murder reasonably attracted attention. I believe that Amanda agrees.

Sad anyone would think that Raf thinking she acted oddly is evidence.

Raffaele even wrote a "true crime" book about it!

Guilters should really read Raffaele's book. He's never shied away from saying Knox's behaviour was odd. As an Italian he understood immediately that culturally insensitive, quirky behaviour was going to attract attention.

What he never thought in a million years was that it would be seen as "evidence" of murder. It should have been seen for what it was, odd behaviour. In his book he even confesses that someone from the Questura warned him on the 4th (?) that he should be getting a lawyer. He dismissed it with the same thought he's always had, "What's this got to do with me?"

There really is only one reason to regard Amanda as a suspect - it's that she was a key holder. End of story.

Rudy Guede did this horrible thing. If this had been about evidence, when Guede was apprehended in Germany all the mysterious osmotic loose ends would have suddenly become non-osmotic. Rudy Guede did this.

The rest is as Amanda says in her blog - Raffaele is collateral damage in this weird pursuit of a caricature created in the PLE dirty minds - Foxy Knoxy.

And why did they go after Foxy Knoxy? Because she was a keyholder? No - because she'd said "Ooopla", had eaten a pizza, and had shown an odd set of emotions.

Guilters have to read more True Crime!

 

[Bill Williams]

Finally, one of the three is beginning to crack, lets hope it keeps going and we finally get the full truth out. This is a start, and Raf is definitely the one.

Sherlock... you may have missed the part that Raffaele has been saying from the start:

Amanda is innocent: she was with me.

I don't know what any of this has to do with me.​

Seriously dude, you should read Raffaele's book. It's in all the stores. Raffaele has always had issues with Knox's odd behaviour. It's just that up until now everyone asks him about it, rather than about his own involvement in the crime. The reason no one asks him about his own involvement is because there is none. So they ask him about Amanda and it's his ass going to the slammer.

He has always said, "What's this got to do with me? Amanda Knox has to be innocent, because she was with me."

Can you at least be a little more specific about your reasoning - like guilters do, you merely assert something.

If assertions were nickels, guilters would be wealthy!

 

[MDDVS]

Finally, one of the three is beginning to crack, lets hope it keeps going and we finally get the full truth out. This is a start, and Raf is definitely the one.

He was at home when meredith was killed, watching a cartoon. I don't think he'll be able to reveal much information about the crime.

 

[Desert Fox]

He was at home when meredith was killed, watching a cartoon. I don't think he'll be able to reveal much information about the crime.

He sent a robot assassin he built out of spare parts to kill Meredeth

 

[NewtonTrino]

Wow... Main story on CNN right now. Poor girl.

Yeah, this is just f'd up.

 

[sunmaster14]

Hi, been lurking here for about a week. Started on this case three weeks ago (Feb 9 to be precise). Knew almost nothing about it, having studiously avoided it for 6 years. I had never even heard of Rudy Guede or Raffaele Sollecito. Mostly up to speed now, and I have a few questions (I would be grateful for even a partial answer to any one of them):

1) When the Italian Supreme Court annulled the acquittal almost one year ago, why wasn't Sollecito arrested and jailed again (and at least a warrant put out for Knox's arrest - I can see that extradition might be considered politically premature)? Why isn't it happening now? From a legal standpoint, they're certainly more jailable now than they were in the year before they were even officially charged.

2) Is there evidence (or do reasonable people here believe) that Rudy actually tried to stanch Meredith's bleeding with towels in a vain attempt to mitigate the damage he had done? I suppose another way of asking the question is "Did Rudy intend to kill Meredith?"

3) Is there an estimate of how much Knox's legal defense has cost?

4) How much time would Knox or Sollecito actually serve going forward if the sentences stand, and she returns to Italy (giving credit for time served, good behavior, etc)?

5) Are there are any mechanisms to reopen the case (purely under Italian law, without regard to ECHR or extradition requests) even after the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment?

6) What is this cat blood business about?

 

[Diocletus]

Very Interesting ECHR Case

Horvatic v. Croatia (17 October 2013)

A bank was robbed by a man wearing certain clothes. The police located the bank-robber clothes in the basement of a house. Horvatic was arrested, and his shirt, trousers, and hair and nail samples were seized from him. Upon forensic investigation, fibers from the bank-robber clothes were located on Horvatic’s shirt and trousers. Conversely, hair and fibers from Horvatic’s shirt and trousers were located on the bank-robber clothes.

Horvatic argued that the forensic findings were the consequence of contamination or tampering. The file documents as to collection, packing and handling of the samples were incomplete, and consequently, Horvatic sought the testimony of the involved police and forensics experts to establish contamination or tampering. The trial court dismissed these requests, overruled Horvatic’s contamination/tampering argument, and convicted Horvatic.

Horvatic appealed to the ECtHR, arguing that there was a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6. Initially, the ECtHR noted that it was sufficient that Horvatic had raised these arguments during the trial, and it was not necessary for him to have raised these arguments via a separate disciplinary or other complaint procedure.

The ECtHR explained that under Article 6 the Court will examine the way in which evidence is taken, and in particular “whether the applicant was given the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and to oppose its use. In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy.”

The ECtHR confirmed that Horvatic’s request for examination of the police and forensics experts was proper because (i) not vexatious, and (ii) “there is no doubt that it was sufficiently reasoned, relevant to the subject matter of the accusation.” Moreover, examination of the police and forensics experts “could arguably have strengthened position of the defence or even led to . . . acquittal had it been confirmed that there had been an intentional or unintended transmission and contamination of traces.”

The ECtHR held that “by dismissing all requests by the defense and accepting all the prosecution arguments and evidence, the trial court deprived the applicant of any practical opportunity to effectively challenge the authenticity of the evidence or to oppose its use.” Accordingly, it was a violation of Horvatic’s right to a fair trial for the trial court to fail to take action to examine Horvatic’s arguments concerning the collection of the evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, Giobbi confirms this in his testimony which we now have.

Could explain what he confirmed? Probably just me, but I couldn't tell. Link the source if you can not because of any doubt but rather interest.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, that is kind of kitty-like. But some things bother me:

1. The Steps: We have 10 samples, all basically identical, diffuse-looking "blood" stains. Of these, one (Rep. 9) was not analyzed at all. Of the remainder, 2 of the 9 identical-looking spots are blood positive. What? They're identical spots. Those two blood-positive spots didn't amplify human DNA (successfully), BUT, two of the not-blood-positive spots DID amplify human DNA (no. 47045 has 185 picograms, and no. 47047 has 155 picograms). However, it appears that they weren't subjected to electrophoresis.

2. The Bed: 7 samples of blood were taken from the mattress, comforter and pillow. Of these, 4 quantified in excess of 60 pictograms of human DNA, and 1 (no. 47032) had a huge amount of human DNA. Egrams appear to have been run and suppressed (nos. 601-604).

3. Others: There are 6 "other" samples (entry door area, shower, window margin). Of these, 4 had severe imbalances in the results of the quantification process, i.e., one of the two quantifications for the sample failed to amplify, and the other one did amplify.

Just sayin'.

Sure they tested positive for blood. But did they test positive for human blood?

Also, DNA can be found everywhere. If you want to prove that the DNA is from the blood you need to prove that what you found wasn't from the environment where the blood was found. Where are the substrate control samples?

Except for LCN, differences in amplification for a single sample are most likely to be the result of poor laboratory practice or contamination. It says nothing about the sample itself.

Do you think that Rudy being a cat burglar is able to transform himself into a cat so as to leap through small openings to gain entry to potential targets? That is what you are saying.

 

[GWCarver]

Horvatic v. Croatia (17 October 2013)

A bank was robbed by a man wearing certain clothes. The police located the bank-robber clothes in the basement of a house. Horvatic was arrested, and his shirt, trousers, and hair and nail samples were seized from him. Upon forensic investigation, fibers from the bank-robber clothes were located on Horvatic’s shirt and trousers. Conversely, hair and fibers from Horvatic’s shirt and trousers were located on the bank-robber clothes.

Horvatic argued that the forensic findings were the consequence of contamination or tampering. The file documents as to collection, packing and handling of the samples were incomplete, and consequently, Horvatic sought the testimony of the involved police and forensics experts to establish contamination or tampering. The trial court dismissed these requests, overruled Horvatic’s contamination/tampering argument, and convicted Horvatic.

Horvatic appealed to the ECtHR, arguing that there was a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6. Initially, the ECtHR noted that it was sufficient that Horvatic had raised these arguments during the trial, and it was not necessary for him to have raised these arguments via a separate disciplinary or other complaint procedure.

The ECtHR explained that under Article 6 the Court will examine the way in which evidence is taken, and in particular “whether the applicant was given the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and to oppose its use. In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy.”

The ECtHR confirmed that Horvatic’s request for examination of the police and forensics experts was proper because (i) not vexatious, and (ii) “there is no doubt that it was sufficiently reasoned, relevant to the subject matter of the accusation.” Moreover, examination of the police and forensics experts “could arguably have strengthened position of the defence or even led to . . . acquittal had it been confirmed that there had been an intentional or unintended transmission and contamination of traces.”

The ECtHR held that “by dismissing all requests by the defense and accepting all the prosecution arguments and evidence, the trial court deprived the applicant of any practical opportunity to effectively challenge the authenticity of the evidence or to oppose its use.” Accordingly, it was a violation of Horvatic’s right to a fair trial for the trial court to fail to take action to examine Horvatic’s arguments concerning the collection of the evidence.

Excellent. It sounds like Raffaele and Amanda can appeal to the ECHR for the evidence handling and processing in their case, which I didn't know could be done. It sounds like they really have a multi-pronged appeal to send there, and good chance of success just on the evidence alone. Thanks.