Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

It is not up to the defense to explain the phones

Any PGPs want to argue this one out or are we all agreed that Nencini is a moron whose ruling must be quashed in the interests of justice?

Great post, but I am still confused about one thing. Why should the defense have to say anything about the phones at all? Their story is that they were not at the apartment that night. Shouldn' that be the end of it? I have a problem with the notion of Nencini's drawing any inference based on what the defense did or did not do, besides the fact that he fails to consider the things that you do (that turning them off would have been better; that Guede had as much or more reason to take them, assuming either the lone wolf or the Guede+someone else scenarios are true). In other words, isn't Nencini's logic wrong several times over? Maybe that is what Dalla Vedova is saying.

In one sense it is surprising that Nencini even brings up the phones. It just brings to mind how ridiculous the notion of a late TOD really is. IIRC Andrea Vogt referred to the Nencini court as "serious."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a superwitness with superior vision

Link. Here is Curatolo on camera.

 

[Planigale]

I wonder about something here. . . .
The Italian Supreme Court probably does not want to say that the courts of appeal are wrong. Therefore, I wonder if the first one might be what they might choose to lock into. This way they could repeal the verdict based on a technicality while still protecting the other courts.

I wonder if this is also setting up a case for ECHR. Even if they lose here they have raised issues that they can bring before the ECHR.

 

[anglolawyer]

Great post, but I am still confused about one thing. Why should the defense have to say anything about the phones at all? Their story is that they were not at the apartment that night. Shouldn' that be the end of it? I have a problem with the notion of Nencini's drawing any inference based on what the defense did or did not do, besides the fact that he fails to consider the things that you do (that turning them off would have been better; that Guede had as much or more reason to take them, assuming either the lone wolf or the Guede+someone else scenarios are true). In other words, isn't Nencini's logic wrong several times over? Maybe that is what Dalla Vedova is saying.

In one sense it is surprising that Nencini even brings up the phones. It just brings to mind how ridiculous the notion of a late TOD really is. IIRC Andrea Vogt referred to the Nencini court as "serious."

Dalla Vedova is saying less than we are. He is only saying: it's not for us to explain stuff. He is not going further and saying: anyway, your reasoning is flawed because of X, Y and Z. I think he is wrong not to drive the point home because it could conceivably be that there is some circumstance that appears to implicate only A & R which cannot be reconciled with innocence. It's just that this is not one of them.

This omission prompts the reflection that, since Dalla Vedova does not reference any defence explanation in the appeal, none was offered at the Florence hearing. That might be a point of criticism of the defence, but only if they were faced with the point in submissions or questions from the bench. OTOH if the point surfaced only in the motivations then it would be entirely unfair to spring it on the defence when it was too late for them to address it.

Even more subtly, the defence might have refrained from offering the (obvious) alternative explanations in order to save this point for appeal. After all, if they judged early on which way the wind was blowing in Florence, that would not be a bad strategy.

ETA except, of course, that they appear not to have explained why stealing the phones is not proof of A and R's involvement, assuming it's not a point that Luca omitted from the summary for brevity's sake.

 

[carbonjam72]

ECHR, Italian US constitutional violations were all raised

I wonder if this is also setting up a case for ECHR. Even if they lose here they have raised issues that they can bring before the ECHR.

And the US Constitution against the 6th Amendment was also mentioned, in regard I believe to being allowed to question Guede. Thus setting up a potential argument against US extradition, should it go that way.

 

[carbonjam72]

Curatolo, a man (high) for all seasons.

Link. Here is Curatolo on camera.

I don't speak Italian, but I can tell Curatolo is slurring his words in this clip. It's an amazing performance really, he looks to be high as a kite in his interview. That the courts would take this witness seriously in a trial, much less at the ISC, speaks volumes about the shambles that is the Italian justice system.

By the way, CDV also mentions that Curatolo was a witness in 2 other murder cases and only came forward to a journalist one year after the murder. CDV argues the court should have there considered that he was a witness motivated by notoriety, and therefore less or unreliable

 

[Desert Fox]

I wonder if this is also setting up a case for ECHR. Even if they lose here they have raised issues that they can bring before the ECHR.

Just wondering if the Italy courts are given an excuse to get rid of a stone around their neck if they will take it.

 

[Dan O.]

And the US Constitution against the 6th Amendment was also mentioned, in regard I believe to being allowed to question Guede. Thus setting up a potential argument against US extradition, should it go that way.

Was that mentioned in the original document or just an editorial added by the translator?

 

[acbytesla]

Was that mentioned in the original document or just an editorial added by the translator?

There would be lot of potentially violations of the US Constitution. But the problem is whether or not they would consider them? There is due process, double jeopardy not to mention the evidence in this case. But there are also treaty considerations.

 

[NancyS]

Link. Here is Curatolo on camera.

He doesn't look like a well man - I'm wondering if his limp is a result of nerve damage caused by injecting into the groin. He also seems to have a bandage on his left wrist and I'm wondering if this is to cover obvious injection sites or abscesses, which wouldn't look too good in court. Both are signs that he was likely injecting at some point

 

[js202]

Professor Curatolo, I presume...

He doesn't look like a well man - I'm wondering if his limp is a result of nerve damage caused by injecting into the groin. He also seems to have a bandage on his left wrist and I'm wondering if this is to cover obvious injection sites or abscesses, which wouldn't look too good in court. Both are signs that he was likely injecting at some point

My wife - fluent in Italian, a banker for ABN AMRO in Milan for five years - just watched twice, and said she had great difficulty understanding what Mignini's erstwhile super-witness was saying. Elsewhere, the nut Yummi has compared Curatolo's diction to Sollecito's and found Raffaele the one coming up wanting.

Right.

 

[carbonjam72]

Was that mentioned in the original document or just an editorial added by the translator?

I'm only going off of Luca's summary on WCN, at the links provided in above posts. Haven't seen the original, and unfortunately aren't able to read Italian without the assistance of google translate.

 

[platonov]

Wot' – No presser.

Bruce Fischer has just posted Amanda Knox Appeal summary to Supreme Court at wrongfulconvictionnews. A summary by Luca Cheli.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

Makes for great reading IMO.

Will she be giving a press conference to announce the launch of her final appeal - you know, like RS did.

Apart from giving her adoring fans a chance to see & hear her again it would be an ideal opportunity to respond to the unfortunate 'alibi' confusion that arose after RS's public statement.
And perhaps clear up whether RS was actually in his flat with her between 21.00 and midnight.
Perhaps she was there but he was out ??? & thats why he cant remember if they were together in the earlier part of the evening/night or whatever.

She was waiting to be heard for so long – it might appear odd if she passed up this chance.

 

[LondonJohn]

Will she be giving a press conference to announce the launch of her final appeal - you know, like RS did.

Apart from giving her adoring fans a chance to see & hear her again it would be an ideal opportunity to respond to the unfortunate 'alibi' confusion that arose after RS's public statement.
And perhaps clear up whether RS was actually in his flat with her between 21.00 and midnight.
Perhaps she was there but he was out ??? & thats why he cant remember if they were together in the earlier part of the evening/night or whatever.

She was waiting to be heard for so long – it might appear odd if she passed up this chance.

It's totally up to Knox (and Sollecito) how much they want to publicise their situation. That includes whether or not they allow details of their appeals to go into the public domain.

What should go without saying is that they are under no obligation whatsoever to communicate with the public. Sollecito (apparently) felt that it was in his wider interests to hold a press conference to explain his appeal - though I'm not really sure what good he feels/felt it was going to do him or Knox.

If I were Knox (or Sollecito) I would be very wary indeed of holding press conferences. I really don't see the upside for either. They surely have two ultimate aims in mind: 1) judicial exoneration; 2) "victory" in the court of public opinion. In my opinion, if (1) happens then (2) follows almost axiomatically, and the fight for (2) is only necessary if all routes are exhausted in attaining (1). And therefore, I don't see any upside potential (to them) to holding these sorts of press conferences - or indeed to communicating in public at all outside of structured TV/press interviews, until at least after the SC rulings, and (if required) after any ECHR judgements.

But it's heartening to see that platonov still misunderstands Sollecito's position as set out in his press conference discussing his SC appeal. Then again, since Sollecito's position was clearly too nuanced for much of the press, it probably shouldn't be too surprising. (Just for clarification, Sollecito's position of fact is that he and Knox were in his apartment at all times during which the murder could conceivably have been committed - i.e. between 9pm and around midnight on 1st November)

 

[Bill Williams]

Will she be giving a press conference to announce the launch of her final appeal - you know, like RS did.

Not that I've heard. Is there any reason why she should? Is there anything in her appeal document you need clarified?

Apart from giving her adoring fans a chance to see & hear her again it would be an ideal opportunity to respond to the unfortunate 'alibi' confusion that arose after RS's public statement.

The only people who seemed confused were the guilters. There is no "alibi confusion', other than for those who want to create it.

And perhaps clear up whether RS was actually in his flat with her between 21.00 and midnight.

Again, there is no confusion other than for guilters. Have you not read the appeals documents?

Perhaps she was there but he was out ??? & thats why he cant remember if they were together in the earlier part of the evening/night or whatever.

She was waiting to be heard for so long – it might appear odd if she passed up this chance.

It would only appear odd to those wishing to be provocative, like some bully shouting mistruths from the sidelines.

All of the above is knowable. Raffaele Sollecito and Bongiorno speak for Raffaele, Amanda and her lawyers speak for her - and they've written copious points to refute the Nencini verdict.

Will Nencini be giving a press conference? No, he already was taken to task for blabbing (unethically) the day after the verdict. In that, Nencini suggested he had to bend to arm of at least one of the popular judges to get a guilty verdict. Nencini also said that if Raffaele had allowed himself to be cross examined, it would have gone better for him.... just think that one through.

The post above is nothing but strawman ad hominem.

 

[carbonjam72]

It's totally up to Knox (and Sollecito) how much they want to publicise their situation. That includes whether or not they allow details of their appeals to go into the public domain.

What should go without saying is that they are under no obligation whatsoever to communicate with the public. Sollecito (apparently) felt that it was in his wider interests to hold a press conference to explain his appeal - though I'm not really sure what good he feels/felt it was going to do him or Knox.

If I were Knox (or Sollecito) I would be very wary indeed of holding press conferences. I really don't see the upside for either. They surely have two ultimate aims in mind: 1) judicial exoneration; 2) "victory" in the court of public opinion. In my opinion, if (1) happens then (2) follows almost axiomatically, and the fight for (2) is only necessary if all routes are exhausted in attaining (1). And therefore, I don't see any upside potential (to them) to holding these sorts of press conferences - or indeed to communicating in public at all outside of structured TV/press interviews, until at least after the SC rulings, and (if required) after any ECHR judgements.

But it's heartening to see that platonov still misunderstands Sollecito's position as set out in his press conference discussing his SC appeal. Then again, since Sollecito's position was clearly too nuanced for much of the press, it probably shouldn't be too surprising. (Just for clarification, Sollecito's position of fact is that he and Knox were in his apartment at all times during which the murder could conceivably have been committed - i.e. between 9pm and around midnight on 1st November)

But if this were true in Italy, then why was the prosecutor so hell bent on releasing false information in advance of the trial and put such an emphasis on vilifying Knox in the media?

Wasn't it public sentiment that allowed a false conviction in the first place? Wasn't it public sentiment that fueled the annulment of the acquittal and the recent re conviction? It sure wasn't the evidence, witnesses, or anything else related to the trial.

I think public opinion influences courts in Italy, and probably elsewhere. Wasn't some Roman at some point say, "the mob is Rome". I do think its a battle that is fought in large measure outside the courtroom. maybe...

 

[Strozzi]

The other crucial point to remember regarding this issue is this:

When someone develops a long-term dependency on Heroin, the physiology and psychology of that dependency makes it almost vital for that person to get daily fixes - the combination of dependency and tolerance means that it's hugely important to maintain a certain level of high, and if the daily (or often twice-daily) fix is not obtained, the person can suffer extreme adverse reactions. Indeed, most drug-related crime is exactly linked to this factor: dependent users craving their maintenance fix at any cost.

Therefore in Curatolo's case, it's almost inconceivable that as a long-term dependent user of Heroin - as he indisputably was in 2007 - he could or would have had any "days off" from Heroin. He would have required constant fixes in order to satiate his dependency and prevent adverse withdrawal symptoms.

With all that in mind, and taking into account what Curatolo provably said in front of Hellmann's court, it's a virtual certainty that Curatolo was high on Heroin on the evening/night of 1st November 2007.

LondonJohn, you make a very interesting observation.

Perhaps Dr. Nancy can tell us if Curatolo was not high on heroin that evening, how long would he go from his last high to withdrawal? Would there be a window of time in between his last high and before withdrawal symptoms took over when he could sit calmly on his park bench reading the newspaper under the streetlight, with clear vision, and observe the defendants for several hours as they allegedly stood off in the darkness by the railing? Unless there is an adequate window of serene behavior, I may have to conclude that Curatolo was either high or in withdrawal when he allegedly observed the defendants for several hours. What symptoms would Curatolo experience while gathering information of such value to Prosecutor Mignini?

Vibio, what do you think? If Curatolo was not high, was he convulsing from withdrawal symptoms when he observed the defendants?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's totally up to Knox (and Sollecito) how much they want to publicise their situation. That includes whether or not they allow details of their appeals to go into the public domain.

What should go without saying is that they are under no obligation whatsoever to communicate with the public. Sollecito (apparently) felt that it was in his wider interests to hold a press conference to explain his appeal - though I'm not really sure what good he feels/felt it was going to do him or Knox.

If I were Knox (or Sollecito) I would be very wary indeed of holding press conferences. I really don't see the upside for either. They surely have two ultimate aims in mind: 1) judicial exoneration; 2) "victory" in the court of public opinion. In my opinion, if (1) happens then (2) follows almost axiomatically, and the fight for (2) is only necessary if all routes are exhausted in attaining (1). And therefore, I don't see any upside potential (to them) to holding these sorts of press conferences - or indeed to communicating in public at all outside of structured TV/press interviews, until at least after the SC rulings, and (if required) after any ECHR judgements.

But it's heartening to see that platonov still misunderstands Sollecito's position as set out in his press conference discussing his SC appeal. Then again, since Sollecito's position was clearly too nuanced for much of the press, it probably shouldn't be too surprising. (Just for clarification, Sollecito's position of fact is that he and Knox were in his apartment at all times during which the murder could conceivably have been committed - i.e. between 9pm and around midnight on 1st November)

But if this were true in Italy, then why was the prosecutor so hell bent on releasing false information in advance of the trial and put such an emphasis on vilifying Knox in the media?

Wasn't it public sentiment that allowed a false conviction in the first place? Wasn't it public sentiment that fueled the annulment of the acquittal and the recent re conviction? It sure wasn't the evidence, witnesses, or anything else related to the trial.

I think public opinion influences courts in Italy, and probably elsewhere. Wasn't some Roman at some point say, "the mob is Rome". I do think its a battle that is fought in large measure outside the courtroom. maybe...

Public opinion obviously matters in Italy. Nencini even reports (speaking the day after the Florence conviction) that as the 8 judges, two professional 6 popular, deliberated..... he had to deal with one popular judge who was hearing contradictory things in the media - contradictory to the direction Nencini was going as the lead judge.

Those things in the Italian media must have been somewhat positive towards innocence, or why would Nencini even recount the story?

In that atmosphere it is smart for Raffaele to hold press conferences. Despite his own straightforward message - that both he and Amanda are innocent - there are ALWAYS going to be those who distort the message - witness posters on this very thread.

Raffaele going public like that sends the message that he's not going to go to prison quietly; that there will be enough of a ruckus both inside Italy and elsewhere to embarrass Cassation - if Cassation signs off on Nencini's inane verdict.

I for one will repeat - Nencini then has established judicially that women have Y-Haplotypes.

Maybe that WAS Knox's semen sample on that pillow case, and that's why no one wanted to test it....

 

[Desert Fox]

Do you have a source on Nencini strong arming one or more of the lay judges?

 

[Draca]

Amanda Knox Evidence & False Confessions with James Curtis, Jim Clemente

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzmjB4RTN4E


Fantastic video from Jim Clemente. Makes it a real stunner the bra clasp was kept in. I wish they did the knife as well.