Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

IIUC, there is a criminal charge of continuous aggravated calunnia against the police lodged by the State and a tag-along civil action from the police.

The charge results from Amanda stating in court testimony that she had been hit by the police during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation. It has "aggravating circumstances" in that it is alleged that she made the statement to cover-up her calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. It is "continuous" (or continuing?) because she has repeated this statement in each of her appeals.

It is significant, from the ECHR viewpoint, that the Italian courts and other authorities (the prosecutors) have never acted to effectively investigate the basis of her claims. What initial investigation that may have been conducted was done by Mignini and/or Comodi, who were not independent investigators (also required by ECHR). So the significance of this case of calunnia against the police is how it fits into how the ECHR will judge Amanda's case alleging a violation of the Convention by Italy in her conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. The ECHR may well consider the calunnia against the police case evidence of retaliation and intimidation by the Italian authorities.

It's kind of interesting that the motivation probably maybe will be handed down right at the same time as this new trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is significant, from the ECHR viewpoint, that the Italian courts and other authorities (the prosecutors) have never acted to effectively investigate the basis of her claims. What initial investigation that may have been conducted was done by Mignini and/or Comodi, who were not independent investigators (also required by ECHR). So the significance of this case of calunnia against the police is how it fits into how the ECHR will judge Amanda's case alleging a violation of the Convention by Italy in her conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. The ECHR may well consider the calunnia against the police case evidence of retaliation and intimidation by the Italian authorities.

I believe the investigation was done by Comodi, IIRC - this was related in John Follain's book. Then again, I could be wrong about attributing it to that "source".

I always thought in a screenplay it would be played thusly:

Comodi: Did you hit her?

Napoleoni: "No."​

That was the investigation. It was like so much of what went wrong with any of the investigation of any elements of any of the crimes, real or imagined.

Like Knox and Sollecito being convicted of transporting the knife from Raffaele's place - according to folk like Massei, transported initially for innocent reason because people like Massei, a convicting judge, he saw no premeditation.

Perhaps the only forensics supporting that hypothetical was the dodgy DNA analysis, which initially found Meredith's DNA in a non-existent groove in the knife-blade, non-blood DNA which was supposed to have survived a cleaning with bleach.

We just may make it to the 25th continuation simply reciting the litany of inanities which has left a small guilter community still thinking they are, "speaking for Meredith" by assassinating two innocents' characters.

What "investigation" was ever done, other than the factless logic of Mignini, or simpleheaded judges down the road?

 

[Kauffer]

IIUC, there is a criminal charge of continuous aggravated calunnia against the police lodged by the State and a tag-along civil action from the police.

The charge results from Amanda stating in court testimony that she had been hit by the police during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation. It has "aggravating circumstances" in that it is alleged that she made the statement to cover-up her calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. It is "continuous" (or continuing?) because she has repeated this statement in each of her appeals.

It is significant, from the ECHR viewpoint, that the Italian courts and other authorities (the prosecutors) have never acted to effectively investigate the basis of her claims. What initial investigation that may have been conducted was done by Mignini and/or Comodi, who were not independent investigators (also required by ECHR). So the significance of this case of calunnia against the police is how it fits into how the ECHR will judge Amanda's case alleging a violation of the Convention by Italy in her conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. The ECHR may well consider the calunnia against the police case evidence of retaliation and intimidation by the Italian authorities.

Well, of course Amanda's case against Italy at the ECHR will include an Art 3 claim on the very issue she is being tried for in the current matter. The ECHR may well have something to say about how certain authorities seek to restrict the right of a defendant to defend herself by criminalising testimony. It's outrageous.

 

[Ken Dine]

Well, of course Amanda's case against Italy at the ECHR will include an Art 3 claim on the very issue she is being tried for in the current matter. The ECHR may well have something to say about how certain authorities seek to restrict the right of a defendant to defend herself by criminalising testimony. It's outrageous.

Not sure where you live, but here in America anything said in a courtroom is absolutely privileged, as it should be.

Of course, Amanda is also being sued for writing allegations of police abuse in her book, "Waiting to be Heard," and while that would also be privileged here, or at least, the cops suing Amanda would need to come up with more than "She said, He said" proof.

Now, if the Italian cops could produce video of the Nov 6th interrogation to prove that Amanda lied with 'MALICE' (i.e., saying something she knew was untrue with an intent to damage the reputation of another person she didn't like), then she could possibly be successfully sued in America, too.

Of course, the action was initiated in the Italian judicial hell-hole, so it goes by their rules, not that any Italian cop will ever see a dime from Amanda.

These Italian lawsuits are clearly intended to intimidate people, as well as bleed them dry of money in order to shut them up, even if what they say is true.

 

[acbytesla]

Not sure where you live, but here in America anything said in a courtroom is absolutely privileged, as it should be.

Of course, Amanda is also being sued for writing allegations of police abuse in her book, "Waiting to be Heard," and while that would also be privileged here, or at least, the cops suing Amanda would need to come up with more than "She said, He said" proof.

Now, if the Italian cops could produce video of the Nov 6th interrogation to prove that Amanda lied with 'MALICE' (i.e., saying something she knew was untrue with an intent to damage the reputation of another person she didn't like), then she could possibly be successfully sued in America, too.

Of course, the action was initiated in the Italian judicial hell-hole, so it goes by their rules, not that any Italian cop will ever see a dime from Amanda.

These Italian lawsuits are clearly intended to intimidate people, as well as bleed them dry of money in order to shut them up, even if what they say is true.

I didn't think Amanda was being sued for what she wrote in her book Ken. That book was written in English and published in the US, not in Italy. I don't think Italy has any jurisdiction for that.

From my understanding Amanda is being tried and sued for saying in an Italian court that she was hit during her interrogation.

 

[Numbers]

Not sure where you live, but here in America anything said in a courtroom is absolutely privileged, as it should be.

Of course, Amanda is also being sued for writing allegations of police abuse in her book, "Waiting to be Heard," and while that would also be privileged here, or at least, the cops suing Amanda would need to come up with more than "She said, He said" proof.

Now, if the Italian cops could produce video of the Nov 6th interrogation to prove that Amanda lied with 'MALICE' (i.e., saying something she knew was untrue with an intent to damage the reputation of another person she didn't like), then she could possibly be successfully sued in America, too.

Of course, the action was initiated in the Italian judicial hell-hole, so it goes by their rules, not that any Italian cop will ever see a dime from Amanda.

These Italian lawsuits are clearly intended to intimidate people, as well as bleed them dry of money in order to shut them up, even if what they say is true.

I didn't think Amanda was being sued for what she wrote in her book Ken. That book was written in English and published in the US, not in Italy. I don't think Italy has any jurisdiction for that.

From my understanding Amanda is being tried and sued for saying in an Italian court that she was hit during her interrogation.

The calunnia criminal charges relate to what Amanda has said in her court testimony and has had written in her appeals in the Italian judicial system, not to the publication of her book.

However, her parents were sued for defamation by the police for her parents stating to a British journalist that Amanda had been hit by police. That statement was published in English in the UK, but European Union law allowed the defamation suit, IIUC. Interestingly, the journalist, the guilter John Follain, author of Death in Perugia, was not named in the suit. I am not sure, but believe that suit has been allowed to expire (time-barred).

 

[Desert Fox]

I didn't think Amanda was being sued for what she wrote in her book Ken. That book was written in English and published in the US, not in Italy. I don't think Italy has any jurisdiction for that.

From my understanding Amanda is being tried and sued for saying in an Italian court that she was hit during her interrogation.

That is just unreal. . . . .

 

[Numbers]

Since we must continue to wait for the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, I offer what may be the shortest summary MR that does not include any mention of violations of defendants' rights or criminal acts by the police and prosecutor:

There was no credible evidence of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room or in contact with Meredith or her clothes, no sign of a clean-up, and it is impossible in any practical way to selectively eliminate DNA or even fingerprints at a crime scene. Nor was there any transfer of blood to Amanda or Raffaele or to their clothing. The simple explanation for this state of evidence is that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were present in the room during the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed, there was no credible evidence to contradict their assertion that they were together at Raffaele's apartment at the relevant time. There is computer-use evidence that they were at Raffaele's apartment at the time of the murder. There was no credible evidence of any conspiracy by either Amanda or Raffaele with the known murderer, Rudy Guede. Thus, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are actually innocent of any involvement of the charges of murder and other crimes relating to the assault on and killing of Meredith Kercher.

{A summary including details of the the violations of defendants' human rights and the criminal acts of police would be considerably longer.}

 

[acbytesla]

That is just unreal. . . . .

Can't argue with that.

 

[acbytesla]

Since we must continue to wait for the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, I offer what may be the shortest summary MR that does not include any mention of violations of defendants' rights or criminal acts by the police and prosecutor:

There was no credible evidence of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room or in contact with Meredith or her clothes, no sign of a clean-up, and it is impossible in any practical way to selectively eliminate DNA or even fingerprints at a crime scene. Nor was there any transfer of blood to Amanda or Raffaele or to their clothing. The simple explanation for this state of evidence is that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were present in the room during the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed, there was no credible evidence to contradict their assertion that they were together at Raffaele's apartment at the relevant time. There is computer-use evidence that they were at Raffaele's apartment at the time of the murder. There was no credible evidence of any conspiracy by either Amanda or Raffaele with the known murderer, Rudy Guede. Thus, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are actually innocent of any involvement of the charges of murder and other crimes relating to the assault on and killing of Meredith Kercher.

{A summary including details of the the violations of defendants' human rights and the criminal acts of police would be considerably longer.}

Works for me... But I might add to the motivation. This case was nuts and was a tial waste of time and money.

 

[davefoc]

Since we must continue to wait for the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, I offer what may be the shortest summary MR that does not include any mention of violations of defendants' rights or criminal acts by the police and prosecutor:

There was no credible evidence of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room or in contact with Meredith or her clothes, no sign of a clean-up, and it is impossible in any practical way to selectively eliminate DNA or even fingerprints at a crime scene. Nor was there any transfer of blood to Amanda or Raffaele or to their clothing. The simple explanation for this state of evidence is that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were present in the room during the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed, there was no credible evidence to contradict their assertion that they were together at Raffaele's apartment at the relevant time. There is computer-use evidence that they were at Raffaele's apartment at the time of the murder. There was no credible evidence of any conspiracy by either Amanda or Raffaele with the known murderer, Rudy Guede. Thus, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are actually innocent of any involvement of the charges of murder and other crimes relating to the assault on and killing of Meredith Kercher.

{A summary including details of the the violations of defendants' human rights and the criminal acts of police would be considerably longer.}

I wouldn't be surprised if the judges would like to say something like that, but I expect whatever they write will be more weasily. The big thing they need to finesse are the DNA results. I think a flat out condemnation of Stefanoni is unlikely but it is hard to dismiss the DNA results without that although I think they won't have to breathe too hard to figure out how to completely dismiss the knife DNA results. Perhaps they'll just rely on the non-repeatability of the DNA testing as a disqualifying technicality for any DNA results that couldn't be replicated.

 

[anglolawyer]

That is just unreal. . . . .

Yes, in Italy, lying in court is mandatory while telling the truth only brings down more litigation on your head. Amanda should say it was the wrong time of the month when she made the allegation, plead temporary insanity and gravely and theatrically apologise, perhaps in operatic form, maybe in a duet with Dalla Vedova. Then they will forget the whole thing. When it isn't opera over there, it's panto.

 

[Ken Dine]

I didn't think Amanda was being sued for what she wrote in her book Ken. That book was written in English and published in the US, not in Italy. I don't think Italy has any jurisdiction for that.

From my understanding Amanda is being tried and sued for saying in an Italian court that she was hit during her interrogation.

OK, thanks. I seem to recall Mignini threatening to sue Amanda over her book, but he was probably making hollow threats.

Getting sued for what a person says in court as a defendant is nonsense, especially as here when she was just trying to explain her state of mind during an improper all night interrogation that even Italy's Supreme Ct had ruled was improper.

A judge allowing a plaintiff's attorney to call a defendant in a criminal trial a "She-Devil" in front of a jury, that is also unforgivable. Of course, a civil plaintiff's attorney shouldn't even be taking part in a criminal trial.

No legal system is perfect, but Italy's legal system is a total mockery of justice.
/rant

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, in Italy, lying in court is mandatory while telling the truth only brings down more litigation on your head. Amanda should say it was the wrong time of the month when she made the allegation, plead temporary insanity and gravely and theatrically apologise, perhaps in operatic form, maybe in a duet with Dalla Vedova. Then they will forget the whole thing. When it isn't opera over there, it's panto.

It's a strange system. The whole ideaof defendants being allowed to make spontaneous statements sounds good at first....

But the march Rudy in and he's not allowed to be cross-examined, even though it's not his trial.... my bet is that the psychology of the courtroom is that when Knox stands to refute him, it's she who is deemed the liar, simply because it's assumed.

Why else would a judge two trials ddown-the-process begin citing Rudy's witness against AK/RS?

 

[Ken Dine]

Yes, in Italy, lying in court is mandatory while telling the truth only brings down more litigation on your head. Amanda should say it was the wrong time of the month when she made the allegation, plead temporary insanity and gravely and theatrically apologise, perhaps in operatic form, maybe in a duet with Dalla Vedova. Then they will forget the whole thing. When it isn't opera over there, it's panto.

Funny, but probably fairly close to the truth.

 

[Ken Dine]

It's a strange system. The whole idea of defendants being allowed to make spontaneous statements sounds good at first....

But they march Rudy in and he's not allowed to be cross-examined, even though it's not his trial.... my bet is that the psychology of the courtroom is that when Knox stands to refute him, it's she who is deemed the liar, simply because it's assumed.

Why else would a judge two trials down-in-the-process begin citing Rudy's witness [statements] against AK/RS?

You're referring to Judge Nencini there, right?

It would seem that the Motivation we're all waiting for will need to address Nencini's many faulty legal conclusions, which were often based upon non-existent evidence.

If I were that court, instead of writing a convoluted 300 page Motivation report, I would do it in three pages, with a short summary as to why Nencini was wrong, and then reinstate Hellmann's legal reasoning, which would take a paragraph or two (you could even do that in one sentence).

That they will need to dump on Nencini's fanciful ruling is a given, but will they mention Judge Hellmann's earlier exoneration ruling in their report?

Will they criticize either the prosecution or cops, or the faulty work of the CSI people?

That's what I'm most curious about.

It would be nice if they also reversed Amanda's remaining slander conviction against Lumumba, but I suspect that they will let that sleeping dog lie.

 

[Numbers]

You're referring to Judge Nencini there, right?

It would seem that the Motivation we're all waiting for will need to address Nencini's many faulty legal conclusions, which were often based upon non-existent evidence.

If I were that court, instead of writing a convoluted 300 page Motivation report, I would do it in three pages, with a short summary as to why Nencini was wrong, and then reinstate Hellmann's legal reasoning, which would take a paragraph or two (you could even do that in one sentence).

That they will need to dump on Nencini's fanciful ruling is a given, but will they mention Judge Hellmann's earlier exoneration ruling in their report?

Will they criticize either the prosecution or cops, or the faulty work of the CSI people?

That's what I'm most curious about.

It would be nice if they also reversed Amanda's remaining slander conviction against Lumumba, but I suspect that they will let that sleeping dog lie.

I agree that the Marasca CSC panel will need to annul the Nencini court verdict reasoning (its motivation report) in some detail.

I suspect that they will then re-iterate the major conclusions of the Hellmann court motivation report, perhaps without actually reviving that specific court's verdict of innocence due to Italian formal legalisms. The Marasca CSC panel will still be able to refer to the DNA report of the outside experts, Conti and Vecchiotti, and to the DNA report from the Carabinieri lab.

I am unsure whether or not the Marasca CSC panel MR will refer to the Chieffi CSC panel MR, and if it does make any reference, how it would frame such a review. Marasca may give a more neutral interpretation of the Chieffi MR than most readers have done, and state that Nencini did not properly interpret Chieffi.

I am also wondering how the Marasca CSC panel MR will treat the many violations of Italian law and ECHR case-law in this case, and the State Police forensic work, which was "incompetent" (intentionally, IMO) and unfair.

 

[acbytesla]

EXACTLY! We’re all sitting here waiting for the final report, and discussing bleach and lamps ad nauseum while we wait....

.

I would be happy to post the URLs to these reputable astronomy sites with their conflicting opinions about Venus’ length of day, and the timing of our moon’s 'Longitudinal Librations’. These conflicts are real!

Boy, the motivation couldn't come soon enough. I might as well as the fellas on the forum the most important question. Ginger or Mary Ann?

 

[Bill Williams]

Boy, the motivation couldn't come soon enough. I might as well as the fellas on the forum the most important question. Ginger or Mary Ann?

Jeannie or Samantha?

 

[Bill Williams]

I am unsure whether or not the Marasca CSC panel MR will refer to the Chieffi CSC panel MR, and if it does make any reference, how it would frame such a review. Marasca may give a more neutral interpretation of the Chieffi MR than most readers have done, and state that Nencini did not properly interpret Chieffi.

MOO - Marasca/Bruno will go to great pains to explain why their decision does not contradict the Chieffi decision at all.

It will boil down Chieffi's MR to its essence, namely the three issues referred back to the Appeals' level for further fact-finding.

All three of those things went the defence's way. Therefore, whatever it was that Chieffi believed was wrong with Hellmann's report/verdict, was now settled. The jailhouse snitch was not taking money from the Sollecitos, the motive for the crime had nothing to do with a sex-game gone wrong, and the RIS Carbinieri proved that Sample 36I did not place the knife at the scene.

Perhaps Marasca/Bruno will try to salvage Nencini's inanities by saying (in proper legalese) that Nencini had had a brain-fart. That perhaps Nencini's court exceeded its mandate by bringing in Rudy Guede's version of why Amanda might have been involved - the phantom rent-money dispute between Knox and Kercher.

(The one thing - among many - that makes Rudy's version of events unbelievable, is that he makes Meredith out to be a rather harsh person, and there is NO evidence - other than from Rudy - to suggest that.)

So, Marasca has plenty of room to write a report in which he'll say is 100% consistent with the Chieffi annulment of Hellmann.

Questions were raised;
Questions were tested at the Florence trial;
All questions were resolved in the defence's favour; and
Nencini had a brain fart and convicted on matters he had no mandate to express an opinion on​

Hellmann's verdicts were annulled and it is unclear if the rest of the facts - as found - were swept into the dustbin along with them. Most certainly, instead of just negating Conti-Vecchiotti with a wave of a hand, Nencini tried to argue against some of the points raised by C&V. Why even raise them, even to try to refute them, if the whole thing had been trashed?

It will more than likely be a MR which restores everyone to one big happy family, with no mention at all of the judicial politicking that Hellmann referred to publicly, and to which Machiavelli will only refer to on English language internet services.... it may even lay claim to being the proper "osmotic reasoning", taking all things considered.

Which reminds me.... can ANYONE point to ANYTHING in Italy, in Italian, where this is even on the radar any more?