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

[Grinder]

You guys are putting the onus on Amanda. Why do you expect anything of her? Everyone is frustrated, everyone wants to get some control over this mess, but to look at Amanda as the one who is going to make the difference is asking too much, I think.

I don't necessarily want control. It is Amanda's life and she needs to deal with it. It's like being injured in a traffic accident and needing therapy to restore health to a condition near what it was before the accident. The drunken driver may have caused it but the victim needs work hard to restore their own health.

Nobody is going to go through a thread like this to see what's in it. American lawyers are too smug to think anyone can teach them anything or give them better ideas than the ones they think of themselves. Besides, this case is not being fought in the American way.

I do think that some reporters have read here and certainly it remains possible that people writing new books or screenplays may spend some time on boards.

Nobody cares about the details, least of all the Italian lawyers and judges. Nothing like that is going to end the case. They don't operate in details, they operate in stories that can be spun. You can show them DNA evidence, TOD evidence, phone records and bank records until the cows come home and they will find ways of invalidating it, as they have with everything that supports a case for innocence. Look at Machiavelli -- he is intransigent in the face of every reality.

There have been hundreds of stories and thousands and thousands of comments. I think misinformation has hurt the kids and that providing correct information is of value.

If you guys want to do something, why not just do it? Take your ideas, make a video, put it on youtube, or pay someone else to do it; write an op-ed piece or a scientific article and put it online.

Without solid facts it can't be done effectively.

I think you can relax. There is nothing anyone on Amanda's team can do until the motivations are out. In the meantime, as more people become aware of the case and comment on it publicly (like the latest FBI guy), I think there is little doubt Washington, DC will be prepared if the time comes.

Skip that therapy appointment as a new treatment will be coming in a year that will restore your health.

Btw, I'm relaxed just back from the dog walk and getting ready for Tabata!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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!

Bill, you may have missed the part were I said it was a start and I was hoping for more, we will see.....
Buy the way, I'm sure you noticed your jinx on my Roughriders was short lived.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Sergi, this will come as a shock to you, but Sherlock Homes was not real.....

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I believe that as well, (about not being there when Meredith was killed), but he knows exactly what happened that night.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Useful. Of course, in their wisdom, those advising the defendants in our case never alleged tampering or impropriety of any kind, which may come back to haunt someone. It may be they can argue that Italy's repressive laws of defamation inhibited the defence in this regard.

In hindsight (always 20-20) the appeasement of liars, crooks and thugs turns out not to have been the best course (unless the ISC really staggers us all by reversing Nencini) because when going to the ECHR you want to be able to point to all kinds of rejected applications, satellite litigation etc. I know there is plenty of the latter, but not against our heroes, other than the hitting claim against Amanda - which may be enough. Still, I don't recall any protests specifically about prejudice or unfairness in their post-Massei appeals.

 

[Strozzi]

I believe that as well, (about not being there when Meredith was killed), but he knows exactly what happened that night.

Sherlock, why would he know exactly what happened that night?

 

[Grinder]

Trivia is all the prosecution has. I'm not sure that blowing it out of proportion in order to misuse it to incriminate Amanda makes it any less trivial. Although I understand the judges see things differently from the way I do.

If she can't shake the false accusation and some of the "odd" behavior it will hurt her for extradition and just her life. Her book (Anglo it's still selling for $18 much to the chagrin of the bookkeeper) didn't focus enough on the case. She should write the definitive book on the actual case rather than her experiences. With her name on the jacket it will sell.

The Anatomy of a False Conviction by Amanda Knox and Anglo

Maybe we aren't using the word the same way. If something can land you in jail unless you rebut it, it doesn't seem trivial to me, and properly getting to grips with these details (which she has not done in all cases - a failing at least as much of those representing her as Amanda herself) is a necessary element of the rebuttal.

There are two aspects: How do the facts affect the legal case? and How do the facts affect the public perception.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

I don't know if he went inside, but it's not impossible, since he could have had the key.

Anyway, the more basic point is that the forensics work is screwed up. Has anyone actually ever seen a contemporaneous record from Stefanoni that demonstrates a cat-specific blood test?

 

[Diocletus]

Useful. Of course, in their wisdom, those advising the defendants in our case never alleged tampering or impropriety of any kind, which may come back to haunt someone. It may be they can argue that Italy's repressive laws of defamation inhibited the defence in this regard.

In hindsight (always 20-20) the appeasement of liars, crooks and thugs turns out not to have been the best course (unless the ISC really staggers us all by reversing Nencini) because when going to the ECHR you want to be able to point to all kinds of rejected applications, satellite litigation etc. I know there is plenty of the latter, but not against our heroes, other than the hitting claim against Amanda - which may be enough. Still, I don't recall any protests specifically about prejudice or unfairness in their post-Massei appeals.

I think that the analysis applies to tampering or contamination.

What they are going to have to show is that they requested some discovery on an item, that the discovery was denied, and that this weakened their case.

I think that this will apply to the negative controls, EDFs and computers. Maybe there are other items, too. There is probably a fight to be had over how insistent they were on some of these items.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock, why would he know exactly what happened that night?

I honestly hope that you and everyone else are able to answer that question yourselves one day. (I feel/hope that day is getting closer.)

 

[anglolawyer]

I think that the analysis applies to tampering or contamination.

What they are going to have to show is that they requested some discovery on an item, that the discovery was denied, and that this weakened their case.

I think that this will apply to the negative controls, EDFs and computers. Maybe there are other items, too. There is probably a fight to be had over how insistent they were on some of these items.

Amanda's phone, pre-arrest disclosure, semen stain, hair formations under fingernails, CCTV, missing cell phone recordings - off the top of my head. I have not seen any reference to any applications regarding the first two.

I just had a thought on a different tangent. Lumumba got locked up partly because Matteini thought it suspicious that his account of his text message and Amanda's slightly differed. It follows that in the ensuing two weeks, in addition to trying to prove his alibi, he is likely to have tried to get the phone from which he sent the message seen by the police. He will have known it was not the one at the bar (on which no trace of the message, even as a deleted message, was found) and that the cops might not have understood that he had two. So it was strongly in his interests to get the correct one examined to show the cops he really had told her not to come in. Since we know what the message actually said and it is virtually certain he would have done this, I wonder what happened?

Also, the cops, if conducting themselves honestly (let's pretend - I know it's hard) would likewise have been desperate to get to the content of his message, whether in his phone or hers. We heard Buratti* say he found nothing on Lumumba's Le Chic phone. I don't recall any evidence of his about Amanda's phone or Lumumba's other phone. Why the heck not?

* 20 Mar 2009 transcript p.207

 

[Chris_Halkides]

and yet he received mitigation in his sentencing

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?"

I cannot think of a reason to believe it, but the authors of the first book on the case (Darkness Descending) seemed to accept that he was, anyway. He might have been trying to clean up, or he might have been trying to stop the bleeding from his hand. One of the two authors of that book, Paul Russell, was part of the team that put together the recent BBC3 "documentary" on the case. If Rudy had experienced any remorse, he could have found a phone and called an ambulance anonymously, although it might have arrived too late to do any good. Later that night he went dancing (that is what I call strange behavior).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What was Rudy's role?

Sherlock, What do you think was Rudy's role in the crime?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't know if he went inside, but it's not impossible, since he could have had the key.

Don't you know that the key was found inside the cottage upstairs?

If the blood was found to be Meredith's or Rudy's then there would be reason to follow up on this evidence. As it stands now, the evidence shows that this is simply the result of a cat that was injured prior to the boys leaving for the weekend, the cat-like trail outside and entering a window that is only large enough for a cat joining to the trail on the inside. The boys acknowledge that there was blood from the cat inside their apartment. These boys and even Meredith could have had a hand in spreading the cat blood to other areas such as the light switch.

There is zero evidence that Rudy entered the lower apartment except for the earlier time when he met Amanda and Meredith. Absolutely none! And specifically, Rudy did not leave his calling card in the downstairs toilet this time.

 

[Bill Williams]

I cannot think of a reason to believe it, but the authors of the first book on the case (Darkness Descending) seemed to accept that he was, anyway. He might have been trying to clean up, or he might have been trying to stop the bleeding from his hand. One of the two authors of that book, Paul Russell, was part of the team that put together the recent BBC3 "documentary" on the case. If Rudy had experienced any remorse, he could have found a phone and called an ambulance anonymously, although it might have arrived too late to do any good. Later that night he went dancing (that is what I call strange behavior).

That's the issue, isn't it. Raffaele comments on Knox's "strange behaviour," and all of a sudden guilters come out of the woodwork saying that RS and AK are turning on one another!!!!

Conveniently, guilters miss that Raffaele is still Amanda's alibi, and Raffaele is still collateral damage, in the obsessive quest to frame Amanda. So let's talk strange behaviour.

Rudy lies about being on the toilet when Meredith is murdered. Rudy lies about "an unknown man" who rushes past him. Rudy lies about trying to save Meredith. How do we know he lies? He doesn't call 112.....

... which brings us to the "strange behaviour". He says he tries to save Meredith but does not behave like he did. He neglects to call for help. His behaviour leaves DNA in the victim's vagina. He then goes dancing. Then he flees to Germany.

That last behaviour is typical of someone fleeing a crime they've committed.

So, yes, let's talk about strange behaviour. Not just odd behaviour, but behaviour associated with guilt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the motion for a mistrial

I think that this will apply to the negative controls, EDFs and computers. Maybe there are other items, too. There is probably a fight to be had over how insistent they were on some of these items.

Diocletus,

That is the argument I would make in front of the CSC. I would say, "We are being asked to prove contamination yet being denied the means to prove it." I would also point to precedents such as the Lovejoy case.

Bongiorno complained about the lack of discovery in September of 2009. Some time ago, someone here provided a link to both Italian and machine-translated versions of what she said. Raffaele's appeal also discussed this. It is less clear to me that Amanda's lawyers did this in the first trial. Even Barbie Nadeau managed to convey a little bit of the discovery problem in an article from the September of 2009: "Just as court adjourned in July, it was revealed that the prosecution had held back key evidence from the defense and civil attorneys. On Monday, clutching the Italian constitution, Sollecito’s lead defense attorney, Giulia Bongiorno, told the judge: 'My client has been denied his right to adequate representation.'"

EDT
"Saturday’s hearing ended with a dramatic exchange about whether the prosecution had given the defense key documents regarding the DNA on Kercher’s bra. The charge was seen as a blatant attempt by the prosecution to throw the defense’s witness, and it worked. The exchange ended with Sollecito’s lawyers accusing the prosecution with illegality—a move many thought was primarily to set the stage for an appeal if one or both are convicted." link

 

[Diocletus]

Don't you know that the key was found inside the cottage upstairs?

If the blood was found to be Meredith's or Rudy's then there would be reason to follow up on this evidence. As it stands now, the evidence shows that this is simply the result of a cat that was injured prior to the boys leaving for the weekend, the cat-like trail outside and entering a window that is only large enough for a cat joining to the trail on the inside. The boys acknowledge that there was blood from the cat inside their apartment. These boys and even Meredith could have had a hand in spreading the cat blood to other areas such as the light switch.

There is zero evidence that Rudy entered the lower apartment except for the earlier time when he met Amanda and Meredith. Absolutely none! And specifically, Rudy did not leave his calling card in the downstairs toilet this time.

I think that Rudy going through the window is about as likely as the cat getting blood on the lightswitch. I suppose there is some possibility that the boys or Meredith put the blood on the lightswitch and didn't clean it, but that seems a little shaky.

I did know that a key was found upstairs. How do we know that it was for downstairs and/or that Meredith did not have a downstairs key on her key ring?

 

[Bill Williams]

Sherlock, What do you think was Rudy's role in the crime?

Sherlock - what is your view of T.O.D. based on Kwill's timeline of marked and known timing spots?

 

[Diocletus]

Diocletus,

That is the argument I would make in front of the CSC. I would say, "We are being asked to prove contamination yet being denied the means to prove it." I would also point to precedents such as the Lovejoy case.

Bongiorno complained about the lack of discovery in September of 2009. Some time ago, someone here provided a link to both Italian and machine-translated versions of what she said. Raffaele's appeal also discussed this. It is less clear to me that Amanda's lawyers did this in the first trial. Even Barbie Nadeau managed to convey a little bit of the discovery problem in an article from the September of 2009: "Just as court adjourned in July, it was revealed that the prosecution had held back key evidence from the defense and civil attorneys. On Monday, clutching the Italian constitution, Sollecito’s lead defense attorney, Giulia Bongiorno, told the judge: 'My client has been denied his right to adequate representation.'"

EDT
"Saturday’s hearing ended with a dramatic exchange about whether the prosecution had given the defense key documents regarding the DNA on Kercher’s bra. The charge was seen as a blatant attempt by the prosecution to throw the defense’s witness, and it worked. The exchange ended with Sollecito’s lawyers accusing the prosecution with illegality—a move many thought was primarily to set the stage for an appeal if one or both are convicted." link

I have a feeling that we're headed to the Constitutional Court after we stop at the ISC.

 

[Bill Williams]

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!

Bill, you may have missed the part were I said it was a start and I was hoping for more, we will see.....
Buy the way, I'm sure you noticed your jinx on my Roughriders was short lived.

This "start" of what you speak is something that Raffaele has ALWAYS been up front about. Again, I beg you, read his book.

It is nothing new. Raffaele was always bugged by Amanda's behaviour, but not the behaviour per se, but the way other Italians would perceive it.

And he is also clear that in no way shape or form did it ever occur to him that odd behaviour by a foreigner would be seen as evidence of involvement in a murder, either for him or for her.

Especially for him. He cannot see why his involvement (for which he's been convicted!!!) is somehow tied up with her odd behaviour, none of which points to murder.

So, your statement.....

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.

.... is one of those "guilt-sounding" assertions with no evidence to back it up.

On the contrary... read Raffaele's book: Raffaele is not "starting" anything new or revealing. Yes, there are people asserting this; but assertions do not make things so.

It's been the problem with this case. Rudy did it. There is no reason to believe others were involved except for evidenceless assertions.

So, if there is any evidence to back this up, please... that's what this thread is for.

As upthread - how, then, do you feel about Rudy's involvement? What is your T.O.D.?