Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Numbers,

I am coming around to the belief that Raffaele was initially arrested to neutralize him as an alibi witness for Amanda. From what I can gather, this is a known prosecutorial tactic. At some point, the rationale morphed--into what is a matter for speculation.

My "Why" was somewhat rhetorical in intent and was directed at the whole incident.

I believe that the whole incident was directed at Amanda Knox and represents several strains of motivation and causation, including (but not necessarily limited to): Mignini's fantasies and psychology, the need of the police for a seemingly plausible and rapid "solution" to the crime, and the authoritarian and inquisitional traditions of the Italian justice system.

 

[Numbers]

That would be very cool. However, I think I am with those who have suggested there is no tape. If I were a crooked prosecutor or bent cop I would not want there to be a potentially explosive tape.

I do not mean to say that there actually is an extant tape, or that there ever was a tape.

ETA: The failure of the police to produce a recording, or even verbatim contemporaneous notes, is to me a clear indication of intentional misconduct by the police - and prosecutor.

Likewise, I infer misconduct when the police and prosecutor suppress information and destroy evidence or potential evidence. There is no reason not to provide Electronic Data Files of the DNA profiling to the defense, unless the EDFs are damaging to the prosecution. There is no reason not to provide forensic information on the purported semen stain on the pillow, except to either minimize Guede's role as sole perpetrator or shield another (publicly unknown) perpetrator. There is no reason to suppress the forensic results of the downstairs apartment, except to minimize Guede's role as sole perpetrator. And so on....

 

[Wannaknow]

Untrue

"Well, his blood is on the pillow, the wall, the door, the purse, and in her vagina."

All untrue.

The Truth is:

No DNA Guede was found on the pillow
No DNA Guede was found on the wall
No DNA Guede was found on the door
DNA Guede on purse not proven to be blood
DNA Guede in vagina not proven to be blood

Greetings

 

[Bill Williams]

"Well, his blood is on the pillow, the wall, the door, the purse, and in her vagina."

All untrue.

The Truth is:

No DNA Guede was found on the pillow
No DNA Guede was found on the wall
No DNA Guede was found on the door
DNA Guede on purse not proven to be blood
DNA Guede in vagina not proven to be blood

Greetings

Ok, then apply this level of skepticism to either Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito, just to level the playing field and subject them all to the same scrutiny.

Rudy is still confessed to be in that room, and his biological material is on Meredith's purse and in her vagina.

This, then, is perhaps all one needs to know to solve this case. Rudy did it. AK and RS were nowhere near.

 

[Samson]

You are right. I am not a lawyer. I assume if you wish to appeal that a lower court decision had breached human rights, then you would need to specify that. Certainly in England one could specifically appeal on that basis and pursue that up the appeals process to what used to be called the House of Lords and now is more mundanely called the supreme court (another thing to blame on Tony Blair who seems to lack a sense of romance and tradition). Only following a loss at the supreme court would one go to Europe. I do not know what the appeal process is in Italy.

I should really learn not to comment on the law as I really do not understand it.

Most lawyers or legal experts*, Jar, Mr Jitty, Wants Justice, Dershowitz, Machiavelli, Jackie, Paul Callan, Matteini, Micheli, Massei, Mignini, Crini, Nencini, Galati, Popper, supreme court judges, Nancy Grace, and others are guilters.

All scientists seem to be innocenti.

* where claimed.

 

[carbonjam72]

{Highlighting and numbering added to quote.}

You have brought up some important points. Some comments on them:

1. This is an extremely important point for cases before the ECtHR. In the case-law, ECtHR has stated that a conviction after an acquittal on the same evidence requires that the convicting court conduct a full trial, examining all witnesses and evidence and must be well-reasoned. Otherwise, the conviction is viewed by ECtHR as an arbitrary ruling.

2. There are really two differing calunnia charges.

The Hellmann court convicted Amanda Knox, with CSC confirmation, of a charge of (simple) calunnia. This apparently {and approximately} is a charge that one has made a false accusation against someone to the police but without any intent to benefit one's self by the charge [or without malicious intent]. The theory here is that the accusation was made by Amanda Knox to relieve the pressure of the police interrogation, and not for a malicious purpose.

The Nencini court has provisionally convicted Amanda Knox of aggravated calunnia. This is {approximately} a charge that one has made a false accustion against someone to the police with the intent to benefit one's self by the charge [and with a malicious intent]. The theory here is that the accusation against Patrick Lumumba was in furtherance of protecting Amanda Knox and others from police suspicion of being involved in the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.

Amanda Knox's application to the ECtHR can only be for the finalized charge of (simple) calunnia, because the Convention allows only cases that have exhausted all domestic remedies to be heard by the ECtHR. The Nencini judgments have not yet been reviewed by the CSC, but the review will possibly begin with the hearing of the appeals of the Nencini verdict by CSC scheduled to begin March 25, 2015.

I am assuming the primary question that ECtHR would face is whether a person in Italy can by Convention standards of fairness be convicted of calunnia, a verbalization and not an action, when the calunnia is the product of an interrogation, alleged to be coercive, without the presence of a lawyer for the subject. The alleged crime of verbalization and the incriminating statement are identical and the only evidence for the calunnia conviction. In case-law, ECHR has held that a suspect's lawyer must ordinarily be present from the first questioning of a suspect by police, and that a conviction that relies on any statement from a suspect interrogated without a lawyer is (except under certain circumstances, as discussed in Ibrahim et al. v the UK) unfair.

3. Italy may claim the calunnia case is ungoing and therefore Amanda Knox's application on that conviction is inadmissible. I do not believe that the ECtHR would accept that argument, since there are two separate calunnia charges as pointed out in #2 above. And the CSC has finalized a conviction on one. Thus, an Italian counterclaim that the calunnia case was ungoing would contradict Italy's own final judgment and indicate that Italy was pursuing double jeopardy for calunnia, and DJ is not allowed under the Convention.

4. This may be covered in #1 above.

So if the ECHR finds that a violation has occurred with respect to the simple calunnia, does that mean that the aggravated calunnia is out, by definition. And similarly, since the aggravated calunnia is based on the entagled belied in guilt for the murder charges, then what?

Does Nencini rely on the calunnia crime to support the murder conviction? and what else? Discredited DNA arbitrarily setting aside C&V, and Curatolo which N didn't get to hear because c checked out.

Seems like a lot rests on if and how echr chooses to step in, or not.

 

[Diocletus]

All untrue.

The Truth is:

No DNA Guede was found on the pillow
No DNA Guede was found on the wall
No DNA Guede was found on the door
DNA Guede on purse not proven to be blood
DNA Guede in vagina not proven to be blood

Greetings

I don't rely on what incompetent cops say. I go with what makes sense. He cut his fingers and common sense says that those things are his blood, and also the dark blood spots downstairs.

 

[Desert Fox]

Most lawyers or legal experts*, Jar, Mr Jitty, Wants Justice, Dershowitz, Machiavelli, Jackie, Paul Callan, Matteini, Micheli, Massei, Mignini, Crini, Nencini, Galati, Popper, supreme court judges, Nancy Grace, and others are guilters.

All scientists seem to be innocenti.

* where claimed.

How about the judge in Washington State? I think most non partisan lawyers would concider them to be most likely innocent. Dershowitz is a gun for hire and Nancy Grace thinks everybody is guilty.

 

[Numbers]

My thinking on trying to explain this, is that its really like following Mignini down his satanic rabbit hole.

The capacity of Mignini to first concoct improbable scenarios, and then pursue them beyond all reason, even when confronted by flatly contradictory evidence, is not the workings of a rational mind set.

Mignini's famous theory of a 'double body swap', was in reaction to the falsification of his theory that a body had been swapped in the first place.

But its not just that Mignini can't accept that his theory is wrong, its that he goes further and concludes that anyone who disputes him, does so because they themselves are part of the criminal enterprise he is chasing. And he then charges them as criminals.

It's most shocking that he hasn't been called out on this.

This is a good introduction to the psychopathology of the authorities in this case. In the MOF cases, the higher courts may have eventually taken a cautious stand against the wrongful prosecutions. In this case, there was the Hellmann acquittal verdict. The CSC reversal of the Hellmann acquittal violated Italian law and constitution, as well as ECHR, by violating the presumption of innocence, and the Nencini verdict continues that violation. That is only one of several violations of defendants' rights in this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

How about the judge in Washington State? I think most non partisan lawyers would concider them to be most likely innocent. Dershowitz is a gun for hire and Nancy Grace thinks everybody is guilty.

It would be great to hear Paul Callan and Jeffery Toobin from CNN debate the case. On the night of the acquittals in Oct 2011 Toobin told the CNN audience that the reason for the acquittals was that there was no real evidence against them.

 

[Desert Fox]

It would be great to hear Paul Callan and Jeffery Toobin from CNN debate the case. On the night of the acquittals in Oct 2011 Toobin told the CNN audience that the reason for the acquittals was that there was no real evidence against them.

In certain cases you ask "What is the evidence of guilt" and you get back "A jury of their peers convicted them" as an answer. I have to wonder if they really believe that of if it is kind of a party line.

 

[Bill Williams]

It would be great to hear Paul Callan and Jeffery Toobin from CNN debate the case. On the night of the acquittals in Oct 2011 Toobin told the CNN audience that the reason for the acquittals was that there was no real evidence against them.

In certain cases you ask "What is the evidence of guilt" and you get back "A jury of their peers convicted them" as an answer. I have to wonder if they really believe that of if it is kind of a party line.

My view is that mostly, that is a valid argument. It is not necessarily "the party line". I can think of many controversial cases where I believe the court/jury got it right, for no other reason, really, than that they heard the evidence and were more than likely instructed properly.

On IIP there's one poster who vigorously defends Jodi Arias, saying that her conviction was a miscarriage of justice. I do not agree. But could I tell you more than two or three things about that case? No one has made a case as to why the jury heard fabricated evidence, or that the jury was instructed wrongly. So there it sits.

At some point we up here in the bleachers have to trust "the system", unless a valid reason can be shown why it erred. In the continuing miscarriage of justice against AK and RS that plateau has long since been reached.

 

[Samson]

How about the judge in Washington State? I think most non partisan lawyers would concider them to be most likely innocent. Dershowitz is a gun for hire and Nancy Grace thinks everybody is guilty.

The list is of people who should be completely impartial, arguably prosecution attorneys should be omitted though Maresca should be included as he is seeking the truth for his clients. Defence attorneys are in a different category. Maybe there is a list of pro innocence lawyers prosecutors and judges I am unaware of besides Heavey, Hellmann, Zanetti, Anglolawyer Lashl etc.

 

[Numbers]

{1} So if the ECHR finds that a violation has occurred with respect to the simple calunnia, does that mean that the aggravated calunnia is out, by definition. {2} And similarly, since the aggravated calunnia is based on the entagled belied in guilt for the murder charges, then what?
{3} Does Nencini rely on the calunnia crime to support the murder conviction? and what else? Discredited DNA arbitrarily setting aside C&V, and Curatolo which N didn't get to hear because c checked out.
Seems like a lot rests on if and how echr chooses to step in, or not.

{Highlighting and numbering added to quote.}

You have some good points, but IMO they need to be rephrased to conform to the legal environment which surrounds the ECHR.

The ECtHR is a supranational court, part of the Council of Europe, that, by the Convention treaty, has declaratory power and can award "just compensation" but cannot overturn domestic State court verdicts. It is the responsibility and solemn treaty obligation of the respondent State to follow the rulings of the ECtHR. There is a Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that supervises the States in their execution of actions to conform to the rulings of the ECtHR. The actions may be retrials, changes in practices, changes in law or interpretation of law, or changes in a State's constitution or its interpretation.

1. If the ECtHR finds that the trial for calunnia was unfair, in violation of the Convention, what happens?

There would be a finding that Italy had violated the Convention, probably Articles 6.3c (right to a lawyer) and 6.1 (right to a fair trial).

There would be monetary awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, probably relatively small, and an award for legal fees.

There would be a statement that non-monetary just compensation would consist of a retrial or rehearing, if requested by the applicant, but held in accordance with the Articles of the Convention.
_____

If Amanda Knox requests a retrial for calunnia under the Convention, and Italy grants it, there would be no evidence of calunnia. The only evidence of calunnia was the statements made by Amanda under police interrogation or otherwise in police custody without a lawyer to provide her counsel. Such statements can NOT be used to convict a person (except under certain unusual circumstances, for example, if they were introduced by the defendant as a defense and not by the prosecution). The case-law for this is Salduz v Turkey and many other cases, most recently Ibrahim and others v the UK (and the long list of cases cited in that judgment).

ETA2: Therefore, in a rational world (may exclude Italy), the calunnia case would be dismissed.
___
2. IMO, Italy would be unable to maintain the "aggravated calunnia" charge in the face of the ECtHR judging the calunnia trial in violation of the Convention. That opinion assumes the Italian authorities are reasonable.

3. Nencini relies on the calunnia statement and every bit of evidence and non-evidence and fabricated speculations to convict. Again, if the Italian authorities such as CSC are reasonable, the Nencini conviction would be quashed. If not, another ECHR application may be on the horizon.

ETA: Nencini essentially relies on the finding of a conspiracy in Rudy Guede's fast track trial, which named Amanda and Raffaele as co-conspirators. This is a clear and overwhelming violation of the Convention (Article 5, presumption of innocence).

 

[Desert Fox]

My view is that mostly, that is a valid argument. It is not necessarily "the party line". I can think of many controversial cases where I believe the court/jury got it right, for no other reason, really, than that they heard the evidence and were more than likely instructed properly.

On IIP there's one poster who vigorously defends Jodi Arias, saying that her conviction was a miscarriage of justice. I do not agree. But could I tell you more than two or three things about that case? No one has made a case as to why the jury heard fabricated evidence, or that the jury was instructed wrongly. So there it sits.

At some point we up here in the bleachers have to trust "the system", unless a valid reason can be shown why it erred. In the continuing miscarriage of justice against AK and RS that plateau has long since been reached.

Actually, I have very little faith in juries in general. While juries are suppose to start from a position of innocence, I think few do.

Edit: Also, the argument of jury found them guilt seems to be at least two logical fallacies, argument from authority and argument from popularity

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, I have very little faith in juries in general. While juries are suppose to start from a position of innocence, I think few do.

Edit: Also, the argument of jury found them guilt seems to be at least two logical fallacies, argument from authority and argument from popularity

Those fallacies work for me!

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't rely on what incompetent cops say. I go with what makes sense. He cut his fingers and common sense says that those things are his blood, and also the dark blood spots downstairs.

Question just occurred to me DC, did they test the front inside door handle for DNA?

Did Rudy turn up, or would it just be expected to be a mishmash of multiple profiles?

I've also been wondering about Kokomani lately. Does anyone know when he is thought to have arrived, and when he may be documented to have left?

I believe they have a cell phone ping of him at some point in time, but not sure whether its before, after, or around the time of the murder (roughly 910pm seems like).

 

[Numbers]

A small correction:

The official ECtHR terminology for measures taken to redress a violation of Convention rights is "just satisfaction" (not "just compensation").
____
The claimed intent to the redress is to restore the applicant whose rights were violated to the condition he/she would have been prior to the violation (as far as possible), if said violation had not occurred.

In my opinion, from a philosophical viewpoint, in many cases this redress goal can never be achieved fully in reality.

 

[Numbers]

{Highlighting and numbering added to quote.}

You have some good points, but IMO they need to be rephrased to conform to the legal environment which surrounds the ECHR.

The ECtHR is a supranational court, part of the Council of Europe, that, by the Convention treaty, has declaratory power and can award "just compensation" but cannot overturn domestic State court verdicts. It is the responsibility and solemn treaty obligation of the respondent State to follow the rulings of the ECtHR. There is a Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that supervises the States in their execution of actions to conform to the rulings of the ECtHR. The actions may be retrials, changes in practices, changes in law or interpretation of law, or changes in a State's constitution or its interpretation.

1. If the ECtHR finds that the trial for calunnia was unfair, in violation of the Convention, what happens?

There would be a finding that Italy had violated the Convention, probably Articles 6.3c (right to a lawyer) and 6.1 (right to a fair trial).

There would be monetary awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, probably relatively small, and an award for legal fees.

There would be a statement that non-monetary just compensation would consist of a retrial or rehearing, if requested by the applicant, but held in accordance with the Articles of the Convention.
_____

If Amanda Knox requests a retrial for calunnia under the Convention, and Italy grants it, there would be no evidence of calunnia. The only evidence of calunnia was the statements made by Amanda under police interrogation or otherwise in police custody without a lawyer to provide her counsel. Such statements can NOT be used to convict a person (except under certain unusual circumstances, for example, if they were introduced by the defendant as a defense and not by the prosecution). The case-law for this is Salduz v Turkey and many other cases, most recently Ibrahim and others v the UK (and the long list of cases cited in that judgment).

ETA2: Therefore, in a rational world (may exclude Italy), the calunnia case would be dismissed.
___
2. IMO, Italy would be unable to maintain the "aggravated calunnia" charge in the face of the ECtHR judging the calunnia trial in violation of the Convention. That opinion assumes the Italian authorities are reasonable.

3. Nencini relies on the calunnia statement and every bit of evidence and non-evidence and fabricated speculations to convict. Again, if the Italian authorities such as CSC are reasonable, the Nencini conviction would be quashed. If not, another ECHR application may be on the horizon.

ETA: Nencini essentially relies on the finding of a conspiracy in Rudy Guede's fast track trial, which named Amanda and Raffaele as co-conspirators. This is a clear and overwhelming violation of the Convention (Article 6.2, presumption of innocence).

Note correction of the Article number for presumption of innocence. This text is from post 134.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
If Amanda Knox requests a retrial for calunnia under the Convention, and Italy grants it, there would be no evidence of calunnia. The only evidence of calunnia was the statements made by Amanda under police interrogation or otherwise in police custody without a lawyer to provide her counsel. Such statements can NOT be used to convict a person (except under certain unusual circumstances, for example, if they were introduced by the defendant as a defense and not by the prosecution). The case-law for this is Salduz v Turkey and many other cases, most recently Ibrahim and others v the UK (and the long list of cases cited in that judgment).
(...)

Salduz principle does not cover this case and doesn't disallow statements, because of the many (8) differences I pointed out, neither does Ibrahim.
But the statements is not the only evidence.
Anna Donnino testimony is sufficient evidence.
Amanda Knox's hand written notes are sufficient evidence.