Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

Who is upset? Why?

Hi, bucketoftea. Nice to see you back!

The answer is quite simple - the group of people hating Amanda (_{and Raffaele})

The answer to the second question is as straightforward because they are known for their coordinated efforts.

They have a dedicated fan-site (or two ) where they organise their actions, whether it is a phone and mail harassment of their "enemies" at their workplaces, stalking the family's under-age children in a public toilet or online on facebook, mocking and disparaging Amanda's family on their board, going as far as calling her young sister a prostitute, seeking and investigating information about Amanda's family house ownership and finances, or simply flooding and disrupting various comment sections and forums.

If there is a fanatical hate-group, that's the first thing you investigate in such a situation. And I suspect the police keeps an eye on them.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Rashomon fan

Every time I read about the Knox "million dollar" PR campaign, I think yeah, I'm sure they paid a lot but I'm reminded of what they were up against.

I can't imagine any way to put a Euro-figure on it, but I feel certain that:

A. The prosecutor's office must have had expenses not officially in the trial or investigation for getting their story out, even if not accounted for in an itemized way. (Don't you just know it.)

B. The office used its considerable influence with media to get priceless publicity [that's not a strong enough word] for free.

The way I have come to understand it, the Pubblico Ministero faced an enormous economic and public confidence crisis in Perugia with a savage murder that made international news cycles within hours of the discovery.

I think money would have been a secondary consideration in that situation.

From what I've read, they succeeded in restoring the tourist and student trade within a year after the crime.

As for truth and good crime scene investigation, they don't look so successful.

One the most ironice, insideous and pathetic ironies of the "million dollar PR" meme as being spread by UK guilters is that it turns reality on it's head. If anything, it was the billion dollar PR efforts by the UK tabs in their haigiography of Meredith and demonization of Amanda that raised the hackles and ire of guilters to the point where they were immune to the actual facts of the case.

Speaking of million dollars and reality, I'm glad to see her book deal is going to result in her getting a primo payday. Ka Ching! $$$ Ka Ching! $$$ I can't wait to see her rightfully profit from the abuse suffered at the hands of the Italian kangaroo court with her prime time interview and movie deal.

I'm not sure they'd benefit so much from American publications/interviews/etc., but if only the Kerchers hadn't gotten caught up in the Perugia/UK tabs witch hunt, they could at least have found themselves with the means to do justice to Meredith's memory.

[el buscador]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

One the most ironice, insideous and pathetic ironies of the "million dollar PR" meme as being spread by UK guilters is that it turns reality on it's head. If anything, it was the billion dollar PR efforts by the UK tabs in their haigiography of Meredith and demonization of Amanda that raised the hackles and ire of guilters to the point where they were immune to the actual facts of the case.

Speaking of million dollars and reality, I'm glad to see her book deal is going to result in her getting a primo payday. Ka Ching! $$$ Ka Ching! $$$ I can't wait to see her rightfully profit from the abuse suffered at the hands of the Italian kangaroo court with her prime time interview and movie deal.

I'm not sure they'd benefit so much from American publications/interviews/etc., but if only the Kerchers hadn't gotten caught up in the Perugia/UK tabs witch hunt, they could at least have found themselves with the means to do justice to Meredith's memory.

Umm, the "billion dollar PR demonization" of Amanda Knox by the UK press. How does a million dollar PR campaign (if it actually existed) stand up against a billion dollar one? I would also like to know how many of the Knox family phone calls were hacked?

[Antony]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Knox's legal team have been keeping a watchful eye on those internet commentators who have continued to refer to Knox as a "murderer" since 3rd October. I have a feeling that some of these individuals might soon find out where the first amendment (or other freedom of speech legislation) ends, and where civil defamation begins.

Can't happen soon enough. Indeed, how are PMF and TMJK still even online? They are both based in the US, and dedicated to defamatory attacks on a US citizen.

Surely it's long overdue that they are closed down by court order, but of course it would be more entertaining if they are ordered by a court to display a retraction of all of the falsehoods they have perpetrated about this case.

[codyjuneau]

People who believe Raffaele and Amanda are guilty often argue that Rudy could not have left a single bare footprint in the bathroom without leaving bare bloody footprints to and from the bathroom. Because they cannot think of an explanation they conclude there must have been a cleanup. I believe there is a very simple explanation for how the single bare bloody footprint got on the bathmat.

• When Rudy attacked Meredith he was wearing his running shoes.
• Rudy got blood on his hands and his pants but not on the bottom of his running shoes (the key point).
• Rudy went to the bathroom and removed his running shoe so he could rinse blood off his pant leg.
• While rinsing his pant leg or while putting his running shoe back on Rudy momentarily stepped on the bathmat leaving a bare footprint of diluted blood .
• After rinsing his pants Rudy put his running shoe with the still clean sole back on his foot.
• Rudy then either
• • returned to the bedroom to steal Meredith's items
  • or
  • tried to leave by the front door but was forced to return to Meredith's bedroom to get the key to unlock it.
• In either case it was only after Rudy had cleaned up in the bathroom and when he returned to Meredith's bedroom that he stepped in some blood with his running shoe and started leaving bloody running shoe prints.

[el buscador]

Originally Posted by codyjuneau

People who believe Raffaele and Amanda are guilty often argue that Rudy could not have left a single bare footprint in the bathroom without leaving bare bloody footprints to and from the bathroom. Because they cannot think of an explanation they conclude there must have been a cleanup. I believe there is a very simple explanation for how the single bare bloody footprint got on the bathmat.

• When Rudy attacked Meredith he was wearing his running shoes.
• Rudy got blood on his hands and his pants but not on the bottom of his running shoes (the key point).
• Rudy went to the bathroom and removed his running shoe so he could rinse blood off his pant leg.
• While rinsing his pant leg or while putting his running shoe back on Rudy momentarily stepped on the bathmat leaving a bare footprint of diluted blood .
• After rinsing his pants Rudy put his running shoe with the still clean sole back on his foot.
• Rudy then either
• • returned to the bedroom to steal Meredith's items
  • or
  • tried to leave by the front door but was forced to return to Meredith's bedroom to get the key to unlock it.
• In either case it was only after Rudy had cleaned up in the bathroom and when he returned to Meredith's bedroom that he stepped in some blood with his running shoe and started leaving bloody running shoe prints.

Don't forget the bloody shoe prints on the pillowcase under Meredith's body.

[Kaosium]

Here's an interesting page I came across elsewhere, it's a page on Italian law written by a lawyer familiar in Italian law. It includes a lot of information germane to this case and some of the idiosyncrasies of the Italian legal system. It touches on the principal of double-jeopardy preventing Amanda (or potentially Raffaele) being extradited from the United States. This is what I had read elsewhere from another source and tried to get across but failed so miserably in the endeavor I apparently managed to convince my interlocutor of the rightness of the opposite position. I think the kiddees call that an 'epic fail.'

I think the codification of a possible exception into the mandatory refusals in the treaty suggests the strengthening of the overall principle as opposed to an elimination of the standard protection, I don't think I was able to get that across because of the weight given to the exceptions in the Canadian and Turkish case. Perhaps the common denominator is they were all considered the same trial? The General Board was what convicted that man, and they had the final authority to do so, as per that legal system at that time. The preliminary courts didn't ever have that authority. In the Canadian case they were put to trial and the evidence would have led to a conviction but was dismissed on a technicality that was overruled.

So all of them were convicted in their trial, and neither was being extradited to face another one, but serve the sentence imposed by the court that convicted them. That wouldn't really be the case with Amanda or Raffaele, they were acquitted by the court that heard the evidence and a quashing by the Court of Cassation would remand them to a new trial, which at this point double jeopardy protections would kick in like I thought they would.

Originally Posted by Amanda Sorensen

Double Jeopardy: Defined as a defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction, this exists in Italy in theory but not always in practice. In a felony case such as murder, there's the trial (Primo Grado or 'first step'), automatic first appeal (Secondo Grado or 'second step') and possibly the second appeal to the High Court or 'Cassation' (Terzo Grado or 'third step'). One normally thinks of the (convicted) defendant seeking appeal, but the prosecution may also appeal. Therefore, a murder conviction may be overturned on first appeal (and the defendant released) but subsequently appealed by the prosecution to the High Court. Effectively, the defendant, who has been found 'not guilty' and released 'unconditionally,' is being re-tried for the same charges. In the UK and US this would be considered double jeopardy; in these nations a conviction judgement (of 'guilty') can be appealed by the person convicted (the defendant), while a 'not guilty' judgement is final and cannot normally be appealed by the prosecution except in rare instances such as mistrial. Occasionally a defendant exonerated on one charge may be tried (subsequently) on other charges, but that's not what happens in Italy in the situation described here.

Incidentally, this issue was raised immediately following the Amanda Knox acquittal in Perugia in October 2011. Ms Knox returned to the United States but an eventual ruling reversing her acquittal (on the appeal requested by the prosecution as the 'Terzo Grado') would not result in her extradition to Italy because the relative treaty makes it clear that neither the United States or the Italian Republic can claim extradition for an act that is not considered a crime in the other signatory nation. In the United States the 'Terzo Grado' judgement revoking an acquittal and release is viewed as a legal procedure tantamount to a second trial for the same crime and therefore double jeopardy. By way of comparison, on the Italian side, Italy is not obligated to extradite a murder suspect - regardless of nationality - to the United States if the suspect in question faces capital punishment (the death penalty) upon conviction as this form of punishment does not exist in Italian law. This means that, in theory, if an American murder suspect can make his way to Italy, the Italian government, being responsible to protect anybody on Italian soil, could refuse to extradite the suspect to the United States. (The same principle exists in most European Union countries, none of which have the death penalty.) Until now, the only cases similar to this have involved Mafiosi who were extradited to the United States only after the death penalty was 'taken off the table.'

[smkovalinksy]

Latest from Frank Sfarzo, Perugia Shock:

Quote:

ALBERTO STASI ACQUITTED EVEN AFTER PROSECUTION APPEAL
SAME FATE FOR KNOX’S CONTEMPORARY CASE
And Same Comment: How Else Could It End Up?

Posted: December 7, 2011 in Amanda Knox freedom, News About The Case, Raffaele Sollecito freedom
Tags: Alberto Stasi, amanda knox, frank sfarzo, meredith kercher, raffaele sollecito 1

http://perugiashock.com/2011/12/07/a...cution-appeal/

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

Who is upset? Why?

Various posters commenting on miscellaneous articles and blogs seem to be responding to this announcement by attacking and belittling Amanda Knox and her family and making a mountain out of the "PR Machine" MYTH.

I’ve even seen them trying to belittle and minimize Barnett's prestige just like they did John Douglas when he came up on Amanda’s side.

It’s been my perception over the years that when people attack and/or belittle others it’s generally because they’re upset for one reason or another. Given the amount of trash talk going on, my conclusion is that there are alot of upset people.

As for “why?”, well, I can't speak for them.

[codyjuneau]

Originally Posted by el buscador

Don't forget the bloody shoe prints on the pillowcase under Meredith's body.

Yes, and I believe that is a clue to how the crime progressed. I believe that pillowcase print was made after he returned to the bedroom. Which implies he moved Meredith onto the pillowcase and sexually assaulted her after he returned to her bedroom.

[Grinder]

why would people think a group was behind threats to amanda and family, if in fact they exist?

there are places where people have made near threats online, such as reminding one and all that people from that site live near her and plan to make sure she is schooled or some such phrase.

just today a poster wishes for a pox on hellmann's house.

this group has organized campaigns against journalists, judges, teachers, professors, doctors and more.

it is not a stretch to believe they could be behind some other anonymous threats

i doubt anything will come of them if they actually exist. the group did go to foa fundraisers and did happen to be the bathroom with the younger sisters and happened to hear their conversations but that of course is completely different.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

By late Summer of '10, PMF had finished translating the Massei Report, which was supposed to end the debate forever as it would contain all the 'evidence' of guilt that didn't get reported by the media during the trial. That turned out not to be the case, a critical reading of the Massei Report and an understanding of its purpose revealed the ridiculous extent to which one had to twist the little evidence there was to 'support' a guilty verdict, which is what Judges Massei and Christini had to do. The verdict had already been delivered so they couldn't say, for example: 'Hmmm....the scientific evidence suggests the defense was right, there's virtually no way Meredith was still alive at 11:45 like the prosecution argued, in fact it's damned unlikely she was still alive at 10:00 PM and most probably died shortly after 9 PM.' They had to instead pretend it didn't matter and handwave by saying 'many factors influence digestion' as many times and as many ways as they could. People noticed that, as human biology doesn't work any different in Umbria than it does anywhere else.

The way the Motivations Report works is the Judge writes up the best case he can for the verdict delivered, the appeals judges and lay judges read that and the appeals documents of the defense and make a decision between them on each issue. In this case Massei is forced to go to ridiculous lengths to cobble together a case for guilt, which is a strong suggestion that the accused are innocent.

This is the exact reaction I had to Massei's report - thinking two things:

1) To believe the verdict it is best NOT to read the report
2) that possibly, Massei himself was signalling that he actually did not believe the verdict.

There are two many, "This could have happened," without saying what whatever "could" have happened. I kept saying when I was reading it, "Yes, a lot of things COULD have happened, but where is the discussion of why out of all the possibilities, THIS happened?"

I have always been impressed with the massive effort the PMF crew engaged in to translate the report. There's a thread on one of the PMF sites where the translators themselves could compare notes and try out various translations. It was a fascinating read - for that alone they should be thanked.

Yet - here it comes, the inevitable criticism - I am wondering if the Italian and English are really the same. I mean, the English translation has Massei dealing with these "COULD HAVES", but does the Italian? Further, is there an idomatic thing here, where an Italian idiom cannot survive a literal translation?

(Anyone who speaks two languages knows what I am talking about. The French know nothing about being so hungry, you could eat a horse.)

One thing is clear - the release of the Massei report did not end this. It obviously did not end this for the Hellmann court.

The implication is plain - will the Hellmann motivations report do what the Massei report could not?

I actually do not care if the likes of Betty G., Peter Quennell, brmull or Pilot Padron continue to vilify Amanda Knox after the Helmmann report is released. What I am interested in, will it settle things for the vast majority of interested parties? Will it satisfy the Kerchers?

In the end, it is the Kerchers who are left hanging.

[Grinder]

I forget, how did Raffaele's print get on the mat without leaving prints leading up to it and without there being evidence of them being cleaned?

[Grinder]

Washington Post rates Knox story as 7th biggest of year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...y.html#photo=7

[katy_did]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Here's an interesting page I came across elsewhere, it's a page on Italian law written by a lawyer familiar in Italian law. It includes a lot of information germane to this case and some of the idiosyncrasies of the Italian legal system. It touches on the principal of double-jeopardy preventing Amanda (or potentially Raffaele) being extradited from the United States. This is what I had read elsewhere from another source and tried to get across but failed so miserably in the endeavor I apparently managed to convince my interlocutor of the rightness of the opposite position. I think the kiddees call that an 'epic fail.'

But Kaosium, all the quoted part says is that the Italian system would be considered double jeopardy under United States law. We know that already.

Quote:

In the United States the 'Terzo Grado' judgement revoking an acquittal and release is viewed as a legal procedure tantamount to a second trial for the same crime and therefore double jeopardy.

Exactly the same is true of the second stage of the Italian legal process as well - this would constitute double jeopardy in the U.S. This says absolutely nothing about how the U.S. would deal with a double jeopardy claim in an extradition context, particularly about something which is an integral part of a foreign legal system. On the other hand, how this has been dealt with in previous cases, especially in cases cited specifically as precedents, does tell us something about how the issue would be dealt with here.

Having read the article you linked to before, I think it's pretty general and at times a bit muddled. For instance, she claims that extradition couldn't happen because "the relative treaty makes it clear that neither the United States or the Italian Republic can claim extradition for an act that is not considered a crime in the other signatory nation". She seems to think that has something to do with double jeopardy, but it really doesn't (it might be relevant to the slander charge, perhaps!).

She's also a bit clueless about double jeopardy in Italy in general, claiming that it exists "in theory but not always in practice", then citing the three stage system as evidence! She doesn't seem aware of the fact that it exists both in theory and in practice, but that it kicks in at a different stage of the legal process in Italy. So I don't have too much faith in her accuracy on this issue generally, and to be fair I doubt she intended the article as anything more than an introductory guide.

Quote:

I think the codification of a possible exception into the mandatory refusals in the treaty suggests the strengthening of the overall principle as opposed to an elimination of the standard protection, I don't think I was able to get that across because of the weight given to the exceptions in the Canadian and Turkish case. Perhaps the common denominator is they were all considered the same trial? The General Board was what convicted that man, and they had the final authority to do so, as per that legal system at that time. The preliminary courts didn't ever have that authority. In the Canadian case they were put to trial and the evidence would have led to a conviction but was dismissed on a technicality that was overruled.

So all of them were convicted in their trial, and neither was being extradited to face another one, but serve the sentence imposed by the court that convicted them. That wouldn't really be the case with Amanda or Raffaele, they were acquitted by the court that heard the evidence and a quashing by the Court of Cassation would remand them to a new trial, which at this point double jeopardy protections would kick in like I thought they would.

Not quite sure what you mean about the codification of exceptions, but the fact is a double jeopardy clause about the 'requesting state' could have been included in the treaty, and it wasn't. If integral parts of the Italian system violate the U.S. double jeopardy law to the extent extradition can be refused on that basis, it could and should have been written into the treaty, just as the clause is included in other extradition treaties.

I slightly disagree that the common denominator in the other cases was that they were considered part of the same trial: the common factor is that the verdict was provisional, not final (hence the U.S. court devoting its time to considering whether the verdict in the Turkish case was final). In Knox/Sollecito's cases, the verdict is not yet final and enforceable, and so would fall into the same category as the other two cases. Incidentally, the Supreme Court in the Turkish case did have the authority to finally acquit or convict; the case only went to the General Board because after it was returned to them, the first court persisted in their original decision. But this is just a detail, really, and not especially relevant here.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

This is the exact reaction I had to Massei's report - thinking two things:

1) To believe the verdict it is best NOT to read the report

You made a good point on this earlier in this thread; that some would think the mere fact he came up with something as an explanation and chose that 'option' over the more common sense one the Court 'rejected' might think the questions were 'answered.'

However someone who read it critically, and knew these arguments weren't finalized but merely his best post-hoc rationalization of the verdict...let us just say there was gold in them there hills!

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

2) that possibly, Massei himself was signalling that he actually did not believe the verdict.

I wonder about that. I kinda got the impression that maybe at some point through it he realized just how weak the case was, how science wasn't working in the favor of the decision, and how curious some of the prosecution practices were, especially those of dear <Dr Stefanoni.

In court, hearing the experts drone on and on it might not seem that important, the prosecution says one thing, the defense rebuts, yadayadayada and he zones out sometimes, kinda like my eyes glazed over a few times in my first perusal of his Report as I'd realized it was mostly bilge. However he has to try to justify it in the decision, and then he finds out it's one thing for the experts to say 2-4 hours or so for digestion to begin, and then to have to take into account the normal distribution at the end of the curve, which is pretty much flat one you get to ~3 hours out, and the literature actually says ~90 minutes is a better median, and three hours pretty much the extreme edge.

So then he has to try to cobble it together, and I think he must have figured it out sometime during that research, as badly as he tries to hide the fact he doesn't have the answer. Follow that link and you'll see where I re-posted his little sophistic display at the bottom, you can ignore the top as I got a wicked little urge to have some fun at his expense, as I've said before the bare bones facts are the value of the Massei Report, the 'theories' are for entertainment purposes only.

The man has to know he's BSing his way through that like an unprepared freshman in an essay exam, right? Or how he breaks up the whole 'shy striation' saga over the course of 100 pages to reduce the effect of having to say Stefanoni didn't lie through her teeth because no one else saw her little magic scratch and she couldn't find it either when put to the test because she wasn't looking under the exact same lighting and angle she did when she did see it! You have to almost admire the shamelessness of his disseminating!

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

There are two many, "This could have happened," without saying what whatever "could" have happened. I kept saying when I was reading it, "Yes, a lot of things COULD have happened, but where is the discussion of why out of all the possibilities, THIS happened?"

Heh, this is my favorite one:

Originally Posted by Massei PMF 376

Now, concerning how this knife could have found itself in the house at Via della Pergola when Meredith was killed, and in the custody of Amanda, the following must be observed: Amanda had with her a very large handbag, as Romanelli declared (page 51, hearing of 7 February 2009); in this handbag there could have been found a place for the knife in question. Amanda, in her various movements [about town], as for example to take herself to the le Chic pub situated in Via Alessi, could have found herself walking alone, even late into the night, on roads that could have seemed not very safe for a girl to be on at night time.

It is thus possible and in fact probable, considering the relationship that Raffaele Sollecito had with knives (he never separated himself from his knife, as has been seen), that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-intentioned persons that, at night and on her own, she may have encountered. Furthermore, since it was a kitchen knife, Amanda, were she to be checked, would have been able to easily explain why she was carrying it.

I'm reading through that one day and it struck me: that's what he does throughout the entire report. He takes things that are possible and then just goes to probable when he thinks you're not looking, either entirely skipping the evidence and argument stage or with ridiculous stuff like assuming Raffaele loved his knives more than Amanda and would suggest she carry around what amounts to a butcher knife in her bag for protection because of this 'very large bag.'

However it eventually dawned on me Massei can't possibly be that stupid, and as I learned more about the case and the requirements of the Motivations Report it caused me to realize he had to write something that nonsensical, as they couldn't prove premeditation, thus somehow that knife has to get from Raffaele's drawer to the cottage 'spontaneously' and if you stop to think on it. There's just not that many ways that could have happened, and absolutely no evidence that it did because it never had anything to do with the murder and rested comfortably in Raffaele's drawer the whole night.

Another one exposing some of the silliness he was reduced to is the 'explanation' for why they didn't do a 'clean up' the night of the murder. As Massei tries to include Quintavalle's worthless and contradicted testimony (that he might have recanted at the end of the Appeal) he has to come up with a way to 'explain' why they would murder Meredith, go back to Raffaele's, then wake up the next morning and do the clean-up for which there is no evidence outside they didn't find evidence of Amanda and Raffaele, so they 'must' have cleaned it up--leaving all those traces of Guede. He has to ignore or handwave away all the evidence there wasn't any clean-up, notably the fact none of the luminol hits in the hall he's talking about were smeared or show any signs of bleach decomposition as would occur if that bleach she didn't buy from Quintavalle, and they had plenty of at Raffaele's they didn't use, was actually used on the floor to 'explain' why there was no DNA found in (those) luminol hits.

Originally Posted by Massei PMF 386

That this action of cleaning could have been carried out the same night, immediately after the murder, seems difficult to hypothesis e. To linger on in the house where Meredith’s body lay could have been risky. On the contrary, returning in the morning would have allowed [them] to do the cleaning under better conditions and with more time available; it is also possible that more cleaning products were needed, as the visit to Quintavalle’s shop leads us to believe. Furthermore, once the mobile phones had been taken, and the door had been locked, there would have been no compelling reason not to put off the cleaning until early the next morning.

'No compelling reason' not to clean up blood before it dries? I'm guessing Massei has never had to do this, and doesn't realize the difficulty in doing so. Here he goes to (basically) impossible without addressing the obvious question: the longer that blood is there the tougher it is going to be to get up without a single trace of it, and he just skips over the fact someone else might have discovered it in the interim, or might the following morning when they were in the process of doing so. What if Filomena or Laura had stopped by to get something on the way to work, or wherever they were? Or one of Meredith's friends for whatever reason wondering why she didn't answer her phone?

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I have always been impressed with the massive effort the PMF crew engaged in to translate the report. There's a thread on one of the PMF sites where the translators themselves could compare notes and try out various translations. It was a fascinating read - for that alone they should be thanked.

Yet - here it comes, the inevitable criticism - I am wondering if the Italian and English are really the same. I mean, the English translation has Massei dealing with these "COULD HAVES", but does the Italian? Further, is there an idomatic thing here, where an Italian idiom cannot survive a literal translation?

(Anyone who speaks two languages knows what I am talking about. The French know nothing about being so hungry, you could eat a horse.)

I have no way of knowing for sure nor much of any reason to doubt the integrity of the translation. Some have noted discrepancies, some of which have been corrected, others I don't know enough to criticize. There was a couple of mistakes regarding the use of a 'metric device' or somesuch that looked like an honest error anyone unfamiliar with forensics could make, and another one I cannot recall off the top of my head that seemed to me minor in nature. The only one I wonder about is whether there was a nuance in Italian that could cause the difference between someone being 'tidy' and having a good memory, as that happened in reference to Filomena. If not, that one seemed to serve a certain agenda at one point.

I do recall discussion of them having fun at one point with people over tortured scansion in Raffaele's diary in which it could (I think they fixed it) be quite confusing as to what was said, and them noticing but one of their 'Big Dogs' wanting to keep in that way, because it was such fun (as it was) jerking around the 'groupies.' As I hadn't read much more than their site and the JREF thread at that point, where they were having wonderful fun with the confusion, I personally thought that hilarious at the time I was reading it.

I would be surprised if your theory was true, as there's other Italian speakers not affiliated with them since who've gone over it and not noticed such a massive distortion of meaning. I do remember the version that was on the Seattle PI site that got taken down for some reason put that first part I quoted as 'Possible, indeed probable' as opposed to 'Possible, and in fact probable.' I used that version for a long time as the PMF copy I originally downloaded had bracketed Italian for many phrases that drove me to distraction trying to read it.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

One thing is clear - the release of the Massei report did not end this. It obviously did not end this for the Hellmann court.

The implication is plain - will the Hellmann motivations report do what the Massei report could not?

Not on the calunnia charge it won't!

I know you disagree there, and I don't mean to beat you into submission in the pursuit of 'ideological purity' or anything, but I am extremely curious as to how he'll support that charge with the evidence available to him. I've asked those who would know best how to do it in the official manner numerous times to try to support it, with nothing but a cacophony of crickets chirping in response. I think on this one the Hellmann Report will be subject to the same criticisms as the Massei Report, as no matter what he does it's going to have to ignore exculpatory indications and rely on misleading things taken out of context as Massei did with his Motivations Report on the subject, and he's not going to be able to just copy and paste from Massei:

Originally Posted by Massei PMF 388-389

Amanda Knox is also declared guilty of the crime of calunnia which was attributed to her.

The accusation directed at Patrick Lumumba, of having committed the murder and assault against Meredith, clearly emerged as having been made by Amanda Knox between 5 and 6 November 2007. Amanda came back to this accusation during the first conversations she had with her mother, and the regret shown in this regard (cf. audio surveillance of 10 November) constitutes confirmation of the accusation and awareness of its injustice. An awareness which, moreover, is derived from what has been presented regarding Amanda’s responsibility in the murder and assault against Meredith.

Nor can it be claimed, in order to rule out the determination of the crime of calunnia, that Amanda Knox was persuaded by the investigators to accuse Diya Lumumba aka Patrick, by means of various pressing requests which she could not resist. Such a theory, also suggested in the declarations made by Amanda during the course of the present trial and which have been documented here-above, does not seem acceptable. On the one hand it can be seen that there has been no confirmation and no corroboration of the pressing requests which Amanda was seemingly subjected to in order to accuse Diya Lumumba of the crime committed to the detriment of Meredith. It must also be pointed out that Diya Lumumba was not known in any way, and no element, whether of habitually visiting the house on Via della Pergola, or of acquaintance with Meredith, could have drawn the attention of the investigators to this person in such a way as to lead themselves to force Amanda’s declarations.

[Amanda] herself, furthermore, in the statement of 6 November 2007 (admitted into evidence ex. articles 234 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which was mentioned above) wrote, among other things, the following: 'I stand by my – accusatory - statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick... in these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrick as the murderer...‛. This statement which, as specified in the entry of 6 November 2007, 20:00 pm, by the Police Chief Inspector, Rita Ficarra, was drawn up, following the notification of the detention measure, by Amanda Knox, who ‚requested blank papers in order to produce a written statement to hand over‛ to the same Ficarra.

It must therefore be asserted that Amanda Knox freely accused Diya Lumumba of having killed Meredith, and so accused him with full knowledge of the innocence of the same Lumumba. The incriminating evidence against Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito which has been presented also highlights the goal that was thus pursued: to lead the investigators down the wrong track, far away from thatwhich might have led to an investigation of her own and her boyfriend’s responsibility.

A behaviour and a choice, therefore, [that were] purely defensive: Amanda had good relations with Lumumba, by whom she had always been treated well, as she herself stated, and thus there could have been no reason for rancour, animosity, revenge which could have justified such a serious accusation; the sole reason for unjustly accusing Lumumba was that of distancing herself and her boyfriend from every possibility of suspicion and the necessity of further investigations. To obtain this it was necessary to indicate a different perpetrator and so Amanda pointed to Diya Lumumba. A behaviour, therefore, which follows the same defence strategy as that already put into effect with the staging implemented by breaking the window of Romanelli’s room, and constitutes a further confirmation of Amanda Knox’s capacity for fictitious representations and contrived manipulation of the events.

Here he relies on the taped conversation with her mother where she feels bad realizing Patrick is in prison and they have nothing on him outside what she signed, and by slicing sentences completely out of context to 'support' his contentions. The only way it works is by her being guilty of the murder, which if you were reading here or elsewhere shortly after the murder you'll see perplexed those who thought her guilty, as that doesn't really work now, does it? Hellmann is going to come up with something else, would you care to try your hand before that happens and see how close you can come to what he will argue?

As for the rest of it, it won't be difficult to reimpose reality on his precious rationalizations. The 'staged break-in' as it stood was never really evidence of murder, the murder was the 'evidence' of the staged break-in and completely contrived. It's not even difficult to say things like 'of course an athletic burglar with a history of breaking into second stories could get into that window' and he might employ a little satire debunking the ridiculous breaking of the window charade with the bank-shot ballistics hand-waving away the glass pattern with cherry-picked lines like: "here we have an infinity of possible variations." He spends so many pages on the 'evidence' that the break-in was staged, I think it took on a completely different character in the online debate than was ever of importance in the court. It's basically 'supported' by 'evidence' that amounts to glass not being on the ground they didn't bother to photograph and instead made their smoking area, utterly meaningless things like glass being on the top of clothes that wasn't photographed either, narrow-minded assumptions on how the task would be achieved, and a (basically) physically impossible attempt to 'prove' the window was broken from the inside in spite of the glass pattern suggesting otherwise and just pretending anything can happen in 'infinite variations.

The luminol stains tested negative for blood and they didn't even attempt confirmatory test, end of discussion. The craziness is they were ever admissible as 'evidence' at all, especially after the negative TMBs were discovered. They're just evidence against the prosecution.

Massei already took care of the 'mixed blood' even though it hasn't completely filtered down the Rabbit Hole, and all Hellmann has to do is point out 'mixed DNA' in places like the bathroom Amanda and Meredith shared is of no evidential value whatsoever--especially the way it was 'collected'-- nor does it matter if Amanda and Meredith's (unidentified source) DNA mixed in Filomena's room.

The footprint looks more like Rudy's and there's even less ways to logically connect it to Raffaele in the course of the murder.

I think the Conti-Vecchiotti Report will get a major section, perhaps verbatim, and it should be enjoyable to read his side of Stefanoni and Comodi's prevarications in court. I've heard the mewling of the 'six days' and the 'negative controls' are still popular elsewhere, this should put an end to that. The DNA items were never anything but evidence against the prosecution anyway, the unbelievable thing is they thought they could get away with it.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I actually do not care if the likes of Betty G., Peter Quennell, brmull or Pilot Padron continue to vilify Amanda Knox after the Helmmann report is released. What I am interested in, will it settle things for the vast majority of interested parties? Will it satisfy the Kerchers?

In the end, it is the Kerchers who are left hanging.

I dunno, I rather doubt it. I hope so though, in my opinion they were used by dishonest men, mostly Mignini and Maresca. They have an Italian lawyer to advise them, but when they speak publicly they display little to no knowledge of the actual facts of the case or the Italian legal process.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by katy_did

But Kaosium, all the quoted part says is that the Italian system would be considered double jeopardy under United States law. We know that already.

Then perhaps that is what matters most? Maybe that Canadian case didn't apply for some reason, mainly that it was basically a technicality that got them off. It's possible the law or its implementation was changed in the last forty years. Perhaps that case was an aberration, and they make fun of that judge in law school?

Originally Posted by katy_did

Exactly the same is true of the second stage of the Italian legal process as well - this would constitute double jeopardy in the U.S.

Then perhaps someone cannot be extradited to face a second trial with an acquittal in the Trial of the First Instance either?

Originally Posted by katy_did

This says absolutely nothing about how the U.S. would deal with a double jeopardy claim in an extradition context, particularly about something which is an integral part of a foreign legal system.

I think what she's getting at is that wouldn't matter, and here's what she says specifically about how the US would deal with the double jeopardy claim in the case of Amanda Knox:

Originally Posted by Amanda Sorensen

Ms Knox returned to the United States but an eventual ruling reversing her acquittal (on the appeal requested by the prosecution as the 'Terzo Grado') would not result in her extradition to Italy...

Originally Posted by katy_did

On the other hand, how this has been dealt with in previous cases, especially in cases cited specifically as precedents, does tell us something about how the issue would be dealt with here.

Only if it applies in the same way, those precedents are germane and still stand. She's saying 'No' now specifically, those cases are suggesting it (if it works the way you think it does) forty years ago.

Originally Posted by katy_did

Having read the article you linked to before, I think it's pretty general and at times a bit muddled. For instance, she claims that extradition couldn't happen because "the relative treaty makes it clear that neither the United States or the Italian Republic can claim extradition for an act that is not considered a crime in the other signatory nation". She seems to think that has something to do with double jeopardy, but it really doesn't (it might be relevant to the slander charge, perhaps!).

I think she means that the underlying principle in the US by it's very nature would make that trial invalid. That the legal principal in the US doesn't have to be codified in the treaty to apply, it's covered by it not being a crime in the signatory nation, meaning by virtue of the acquittal it's no longer a crime that can be tried.

Originally Posted by katy_did

She's also a bit clueless about double jeopardy in Italy in general, claiming that it exists "in theory but not always in practice", then citing the three stage system as evidence! She doesn't seem aware of the fact that it exists both in theory and in practice, but that it kicks in at a different stage of the legal process in Italy.

I think what she's saying is that's not good enough. Maybe Italy is out of step on the double-jeopardy issue and there's no need to emulate them?

Originally Posted by katy_did

So I don't have too much faith in her accuracy on this issue generally, and to be fair I doubt she intended the article as anything more than an introductory guide.

Which specifically addresses the issue under discussion.

Originally Posted by katy_did

Not quite sure what you mean about the codification of exceptions,

Different sovereigns would be considered an exception to the absolute protection of double jeopardy, I don't think that suggests the legal principle has somehow been infringed upon and must also be codified. I think that was a mistake you were making and I wasn't able to get across why I thought that was wrong.

Originally Posted by katy_did

but the fact is a double jeopardy clause about the 'requesting state' could have been included in the treaty, and it wasn't.

That might mean that's because it didn't have to be.

Originally Posted by katy_did

If integral parts of the Italian system violate the U.S. double jeopardy law to the extent extradition can be refused on that basis, it could and should have been written into the treaty, just as the clause is included in other extradition treaties.

Why do you make that assumption? Those are pretty short treaties, how long do you want to make them? It could be completely unnecessary as Italy is already well aware and wouldn't even ask, which is what Comodi and Mignini suggested by their comments.

In some of the links I posted before, and as I recall some of your links too, I found that one of the goals of the people writing these treaties is how to deal with double jeopardy in regard to both nations and with a third nation, all of which are exceptions to the legal principle of double-jeopardy as it stands. My suspicion is they're trying to extend those protections, none of which has anything to do with infringing upon the protections that already exist.

Originally Posted by katy_did

I slightly disagree that the common denominator in the other cases was that they were considered part of the same trial: the common factor is that the verdict was provisional, not final (hence the U.S. court devoting its time to considering whether the verdict in the Turkish case was final).

Perhaps the reason they needed to find out if the verdict was final was to see if it could be considered the same trial, and he was not going back to face another one? That's also true in the Canadian case, both these guys were convicted by those courts, they weren't going to face another trial like Amanda (and possibly Raffaele) would. That's what double-jeopardy is supposed to prevent, it's not really about the technical details of how that occurs in different countries, and I still have no (real) idea how the Turkish legal system worked in the Seventies, so I don't know how that would apply anyway.

Originally Posted by katy_did

In Knox/Sollecito's cases, the verdict is not yet final and enforceable, and so would fall into the same category as the other two cases.

However if the most important issue is being forced to face another trial for a crime they've been acquitted of, that wouldn't apply. As has been noted, Amanda and Raffaele were always innocent until proven guilty all the way through the Supreme Court. Their status never changed in that regard, they weren't actually serving their sentence, and they owe Raffaele money just like they had to pay Patrick.

I think the point with the double-jeopardy protections is that an acquittal before a jury trial like that can't be struck down and then the accused be forced to stand another trial. Italy is different in this regard in that it can require that, but other countries don't have to emulate them, and can refuse to subject their citizens or those under their legal protection to that.

Originally Posted by katy_did

Incidentally, the Supreme Court in the Turkish case did have the authority to finally acquit or convict; the case only went to the General Board because after it was returned to them, the first court persisted in their original decision. But this is just a detail, really, and not especially relevant here.

I wonder if that whole process is thus considered one trial for the purposes of double jeopardy protection? However for some reason, perhaps related to the presence of a jury, that wouldn't be the case with the Italian legal system? The Supreme Court of Cassation doesn't have the power to convict Amanda or Raffaele, the most it can do it order another trial which isn't allowed under double jeopardy and the extradition process will protect those rights. Perhaps if it was more like that Turkish system of the Seventies and could convict Amanda and Raffaele, then it wouldn't matter, as they wouldn't be forcing them to face another trial, which is what double-jeopardy specifically prevents?

Mignini and Comodi were freaking for a reason, they're both lying liars but in this case they were desperados trying to keep Amanda and Raffaele in country specifically because they said they wouldn't be able to get them back to toy with them some more, even if they thought up some clever technicality upon which to scuttle their acquittal. My suspicion is they and Amanda Sorensen are right, and there's something here you're missing.

[bucketoftea]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

Hi, bucketoftea. Nice to see you back!

The answer is quite simple - the group of people hating Amanda (_{and Raffaele})

The answer to the second question is as straightforward because they are known for their coordinated efforts.

They have a dedicated fan-site (or two ) where they organise their actions, whether it is a phone and mail harassment of their "enemies" at their workplaces, stalking the family's under-age children in a public toilet or online on facebook, mocking and disparaging Amanda's family on their board, going as far as calling her young sister a prostitute, seeking and investigating information about Amanda's family house ownership and finances, or simply flooding and disrupting various comment sections and forums.

If there is a fanatical hate-group, that's the first thing you investigate in such a situation. And I suspect the police keeps an eye on them.

I don't know what you're talking about. You haven't identified anyone or any group. Someone called Amanda's sister a prostitute? Where? What "fanatical hate group"?

I hope you're not calling anyone belonging to JREF a hater. That's against the rules.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

Who is upset? Why?

Judging by the guilter response here and elsewhere on the Internet, apparently a lot of people who have vested time, interest and unwarrented emotion into this case are very upset. Personally I blame a lot of that on the billion dollar PR demonization campaign by the UK tabloid media.

Originally Posted by el buscador

Umm, the "billion dollar PR demonization" of Amanda Knox by the UK press. How does a million dollar PR campaign (if it actually existed) stand up against a billion dollar one? I would also like to know how many of the Knox family phone calls were hacked?

I'm sorry about the typos and disjointed reasoning in that post. I'd had way too much to drink when I submitted it. I'd also like to apologize to any Brits here for being a bit myopically focused on the UK tabloid press. The broadsheets and the Italian press as well as certain venues here in the states were as hellbent on crucifying AK and RS, but over the last few months I've been reading and seeing too much about the despicable reporting actions of "News"corp and it has my ire up.

Your response is just vague enough that I'm not sure where you stand. To clarify, in my opinion, it is ironic that the guilters cling to the "million dollar PR" meme while ignoring the fact that they were the victims/useful idiots of a billion dollar PR effort by the UK tabs to make Meredith a saint and Amanda a spawn of Satan.

To my knowledge, there was no hacking of Knox cell phones, but that sort of activity by "News"corp and other revelations over the last few months is why I'm so angry with the UK tabloid press in particular with regard to this case.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Grinder

I forget, how did Raffaele's print get on the mat without leaving prints leading up to it and without there being evidence of them being cleaned?

Grinder, it's all about attention to detail. The clean-up was very focused. They had to remove their evidence while leaving Guede's, and that was no easy task. They were forced to clean very small areas at a time which meant using a dabbing motion and this meant not leaving any trace of a 'sweeping' clean-up. They had already picked up the mat to clean the bathroom and by the time they put the mat back, they were so exhausted, they failed to see the print.

Hmmm... OK, so maybe that doesn't make too much sense. Here's a better theory;

After committing the murder Raffaele used a transporter beam to get from the bedroom to the bathroom. Yeah, that's the ticket!

OK, all stupidity aside, isn't the real question who's print it is? It was originally attributed to Raffaele, but then argued it was the wrong size and did not correctly reflect a hammer toe he has. There is so much 'trash evidence' out there on this case that I honestly don't know what the current forensic's has to say about it. So, is it more closely proven to be Raffaele's, Guede's or other?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Mignini and Comodi were freaking for a reason, they're both lying liars but in this case they were desperados trying to keep Amanda and Raffaele in country specifically because they said they wouldn't be able to get them back to toy with them some more, even if they thought up some clever technicality upon which to scuttle their acquittal. My suspicion is they and Amanda Sorensen are right, and there's something here you're missing.

This is a good point, but double jeopardy is not the only argument against extradition, and in my opinion it isn't even the best argument. IIRC, while a US court will not try the case itself, there must be a showing of probable cause before extradition. In this case, the evidence of guilt is both scant and circumstantial, while there is substantial physical evidence that tends to exculpate the accused. Given the publicity that the shenanigans of Perugian authorities have received, I don't see extradition even being sought. If it were sought, I don't see it being granted. It wouldn't be necessary to wade into complex double jeopardy issues, because the fact of the matter is that there is no case.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

Isn't the real question who's print it is? It was originally attributed to Raffaele, but then argued it was the wrong size and did not correctly reflect a hammer toe he has. There is so much 'trash evidence' out there on this case that I honestly don't know what the current forensic's has to say about it. So, is it more closely proven to be Raffaele's, Guede's or other?

One forensic technique would be to compare the print on the mat with reference prints of the suspects.




To be more accurate, a footprint expert would want to see multiple reference prints for each suspect. We have no indication that this was done.

Further, an expert may want to create sample prints on similar materials to learn what variables affect how the resulting print appears. We have no indication that this was done.

What we know was done was someone claiming to be a forensic expert measured the footprint on the mat to millimeter precision and declared that the numbers matched similar measurements of Raffaele's reference footprint. There was apparently no science presented to validate the procedure. Nor was the procedure conducted in a blind method to prevent intentional or unintentional confirmation bias.

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

I don't know what you're talking about. You haven't identified anyone or any group. Someone called Amanda's sister a prostitute? Where? What "fanatical hate group"?

I hope you're not calling anyone belonging to JREF a hater. That's against the rules.

Heaven forbid, no! I'm not interested in personal squabbles.

There's just a website where the fanatics congregate. Good for you that you don't know about it, because it is really gross, riddled with disgusting emoticons (What I love in JREF is that we don't have a vomit or defecation emot here) and I tell you, using my statement analysis and remote psychiatric diagnosis powers I see there's a lot of personality disorders there sociopaths, narcissists, even a psychopath or two

Anyway, I wouldn't bother with them. If there were really death threats, as media reported
1) I'm pretty confident by now those threats are empty
2) it's a task for the Seattle PD to investigate.


Meanwhile Amanda is home, Raffaele is home, they are healing and about to make some serious money from their book deals - it's time to relax and let go

[halides1]

Dr. Gregory Hampikian gave a presentation on the DNA evidence in this case on 29 November 2011. There is an audio file available. Link here.

[katy_did]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Then perhaps that is what matters most? Maybe that Canadian case didn't apply for some reason, mainly that it was basically a technicality that got them off. It's possible the law or its implementation was changed in the last forty years. Perhaps that case was an aberration, and they make fun of that judge in law school?

No, that case is cited as a precedent, and an indication as to how a Court would rule today. Here is part of that quote from the Senate hearing on the UK-US treaty again:

Quote:

...it would be both difficult and inappropriate to strictly apply U.S. law regarding double jeopardy in the extradition context because there is considerable variation among nations in how and when double jeopardy may apply... Thus, U.S. courts have held that even where foreign procedures would have violated our double jeopardy bar had they occurred in the context of a criminal prosecution, this was not a basis for denying extradition. U.S. ex. rel Bloomfield v. Gengler...) Thus, neither the terms of the proposed treaty or any other extradition treaty, nor U.S. caselaw, would per se bar extradition because procedures in the U.K. (or other foreign state) would not comport with U.S. double jeopardy requirements.

Note that the issue being discussed in relation to the U.S./U.K. treaty is a much clearer case of double jeopardy than the one we're discussing (a U.K. law allowing an acquitted person to be retried if "fresh and compelling new evidence" emerges).

Quote:

Then perhaps someone cannot be extradited to face a second trial with an acquittal in the Trial of the First Instance either?

Then the extradition treaty is meaningless and it may as well not exist. Even someone who had been convicted in the first two stages could claim the process was invalid, because they would have been tried twice by a jury for the same crime.

Quote:

I think what she's getting at is that wouldn't matter, and here's what she says specifically about how the US would deal with the double jeopardy claim in the case of Amanda Knox:

Yes, her statement is that Amanda can't be extradited because "neither the United States or the Italian Republic can claim extradition for an act that is not considered a crime in the other signatory nation". Erm, what does that have to do with anything, let alone double jeopardy?

As she says herself 'What follow are simply generalities, and these points certainly don't constitute a legal treatise or legal advice". How courts have ruled in practice is a better guide than this article, to put it mildly.

Quote:

Only if it applies in the same way, those precedents are germane and still stand. She's saying 'No' now specifically, those cases are suggesting it (if it works the way you think it does) forty years ago.

The quote I posted above is from 2003 and deals with a recent extradition treaty discussed during a Senate hearing, indicating those precedents are indeed germane and still stand. On the other hand, you're citing an introductory article on a tourism website, which gives no references or cites at all.

You mention a case being from forty years ago as if the length of time somehow makes its ruling invalid, but the fact is any court is going to take into account both how previous courts have ruled on the same issue, and the impact its ruling might have on future cases. But if you know of more recent rulings which supercede the ones I've cited, then by all means mention them.

Quote:

I think she means that the underlying principle in the US by it's very nature would make that trial invalid. That the legal principal in the US doesn't have to be codified in the treaty to apply, it's covered by it not being a crime in the signatory nation, meaning by virtue of the acquittal it's no longer a crime that can be tried.

No she doesn't, she's just muddled up. Murder is considered a crime in both Italy and the U.S., so the clause she mentions is completely irrelevant here. You're being far too kind to her.

Quote:

I think what she's saying is that's not good enough. Maybe Italy is out of step on the double-jeopardy issue and there's no need to emulate them?

Again, you're putting words into her mouth. Double jeopardy exists in theory in Italy in exactly the same way as it does in practice - i.e. once a final conviction is reached - so her comment that it exists in theory but not always in practice is, once again, simply incorrect.

Quote:

Which specifically addresses the issue under discussion.

Probably because she saw that article where another journalist mentioned it and thought it would be a good, topical angle for her own article. She's still wrong.

Quote:

Different sovereigns would be considered an exception to the absolute protection of double jeopardy, I don't think that suggests the legal principle has somehow been infringed upon and must also be codified. I think that was a mistake you were making and I wasn't able to get across why I thought that was wrong.

Sorry, I'm really not sure what you mean. Separate sovereigns isn't the issue here.

Quote:

That might mean that's because it didn't have to be.

No, it didn't have to be, but it certainly could have been, and the two parties specifically chose not to include it. If the U.S. considers that the basic structure of Italy's legal system is objectionable enough to refuse extradition, including such a clause might have been a good idea, wouldn't you think? Not signing an extradition treaty would have been an even better one.

Quote:

Why do you make that assumption? Those are pretty short treaties, how long do you want to make them? It could be completely unnecessary as Italy is already well aware and wouldn't even ask, which is what Comodi and Mignini suggested by their comments.

Come on Kaosium! They didn't include a clause about double jeopardy in the requested state because it would make the treaty too long?

Quote:

In some of the links I posted before, and as I recall some of your links too, I found that one of the goals of the people writing these treaties is how to deal with double jeopardy in regard to both nations and with a third nation, all of which are exceptions to the legal principle of double-jeopardy as it stands. My suspicion is they're trying to extend those protections, none of which has anything to do with infringing upon the protections that already exist.

The U.S. isn't one of those countries trying to extend double jeopardy principles to a third state, so far as I'm aware, nor apparently does it acknowledge a person's right not to be tried twice when the trial takes place in different countries (e.g. Megrahi or the Gabe Watson case). However, obviously this isn't relevant here.

Quote:

Perhaps the reason they needed to find out if the verdict was final was to see if it could be considered the same trial, and he was not going back to face another one? That's also true in the Canadian case, both these guys were convicted by those courts, they weren't going to face another trial like Amanda (and possibly Raffaele) would. That's what double-jeopardy is supposed to prevent, it's not really about the technical details of how that occurs in different countries, and I still have no (real) idea how the Turkish legal system worked in the Seventies, so I don't know how that would apply anyway.

No, if you read the the ruling, the court was considering whether it was a final judgment because it was only at that point that he could be extradited - when the conviction was final under Turkish law. If the case had been returned to the first court to be re-tried for a third time, he wouldn't have been extradited because a final verdict hadn't been reached. He could have been extradited after that.

Quote:

However if the most important issue is being forced to face another trial for a crime they've been acquitted of, that wouldn't apply. As has been noted, Amanda and Raffaele were always innocent until proven guilty all the way through the Supreme Court. Their status never changed in that regard, they weren't actually serving their sentence, and they owe Raffaele money just like they had to pay Patrick.

I think the point with the double-jeopardy protections is that an acquittal before a jury trial like that can't be struck down and then the accused be forced to stand another trial. Italy is different in this regard in that it can require that, but other countries don't have to emulate them, and can refuse to subject their citizens or those under their legal protection to that.

No one is asking the U.S. to "emulate" Italy's application of the double jeopardy principle. But the fact is that U.S. extradition courts don't require that other countries implement double jeopardy in exactly the same way they do. That's the whole, unarguable point here.

Quote:

I wonder if that whole process is thus considered one trial for the purposes of double jeopardy protection? However for some reason, perhaps related to the presence of a jury, that wouldn't be the case with the Italian legal system? The Supreme Court of Cassation doesn't have the power to convict Amanda or Raffaele, the most it can do it order another trial which isn't allowed under double jeopardy and the extradition process will protect those rights. Perhaps if it was more like that Turkish system of the Seventies and could convict Amanda and Raffaele, then it wouldn't matter, as they wouldn't be forcing them to face another trial, which is what double-jeopardy specifically prevents?

I think you're clutching at straws, looking for minor differences between the various cases to try and come up with a reason why the application of the law would be different this time.

Do you really think that what happened to Turkish guy - being acquitted by the first court, tried again by that court when the Supreme Court didn't like the first verdict, acquitted again, and finally convicted by a higher court, on the basis of evidence which the U.S. extradition court acknowledged might be a bit shaky - is somehow less a violation of his rights and less a case of double jeopardy than what might happen in this case? That he'd be on the first plane out of the country, while in the next court Amanda's retrial and conviction would count as double jeopardy? Looks like double standards to me.

Quote:

Mignini and Comodi were freaking for a reason, they're both lying liars but in this case they were desperados trying to keep Amanda and Raffaele in country specifically because they said they wouldn't be able to get them back to toy with them some more, even if they thought up some clever technicality upon which to scuttle their acquittal. My suspicion is they and Amanda Sorensen are right, and there's something here you're missing.

They weren't desperately trying to keep them in the country, they already knew they lost the case. (Nearly) everyone did. You're reading too much into manipulative closing arguments, which were probably aimed more at the press than they were at the judges.

If I'm missing something, then by all means point it out! As I said I've already changed my mind in the course of the discussion, and I'd be change it again if you can give me a convincing reason to do so.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

to distraction trying to read it.

Originally Posted by Bill W. Williams

Originally Posted by Bill Williams
One thing is clear - the release of the Massei report did not end this. It obviously did not end this for the Hellmann court.

The implication is plain - will the Hellmann motivations report do what the Massei report could not?

Not on the calunnia charge it won't!

I know you disagree there, and I don't mean to beat you into submission in the pursuit of 'ideological purity' or anything, but I am extremely curious as to how he'll support that charge with the evidence available to him. I've asked those who would know best how to do it in the official manner numerous times to try to support it, with nothing but a cacophony of crickets chirping in response. I think on this one the Hellmann Report will be subject to the same criticisms as the Massei Report, as no matter what he does it's going to have to ignore exculpatory indications and rely on misleading things taken out of context as Massei did with his Motivations Report on the subject, and he's not going to be able to just copy and paste from Massei:

Thank you for treating me civilly on this important point. Perhaps me as a partial-guilter can say to all the other guilters out there that it IS possible to discuss this rationally, without tell me I'm too much of a boob for a well considered and (what is to me a reasoned, the only sane decison one can reach) somewhat controversial belief about the appropriateness of the calunnia conviction.

There is way, way too much name calling and impugning of motives here. I guess that is why in the British parliamentary system, the House of Commons has the government and opposition benches separated by two sword lengths.

Thank you for reasoned and considered responses. I may be pulling out of the Sharon Feinstein Blog (I am "Another Bill Williams" over there, although the first Bill Williams ain't too shabby....). It really is hard to get sustained agreement of what the actual facts are.

Someone has a tag line that I agree with - everyone has a right to an opinion, but everyone does not have a right to dispute the facts.

[komponisto]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Thank you for treating me civilly on this important point. Perhaps me as a partial-guilter can say to all the other guilters out there that it IS possible to discuss this rationally, without tell me I'm too much of a boob for a well considered and (what is to me a reasoned, the only sane decison one can reach) somewhat controversial belief about the appropriateness of the calunnia conviction.

So, then, perhaps we might discuss that, because I happen to find the calunnia conviction inexplicable, irrational, and frankly offensive to my sense of justice.

Before the verdict, I said that a conviction on the calunnia charge would amount to a signal that the jury -- or at least some members thereof -- did not particularly believe that Knox was innocent of the murder (but were obliged to acquit due to the lack of compelling evidence). This is still my interpretation, and it is somewhat borne out by (some of) Hellmann's post-trial comments (though admittedly not by others, e.g. where he said that they did not invoke section 530.2).

Here is the definition of calunnia:

Quote:

"Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years."

Wikipedia further comments:

Quote:

The mens rea of calunnia requires awareness and a willingness to blame someone of a crime that the accused knows is innocent.

I see absolutely no justification for thinking that Amanda Knox is guilty of this crime. The only evidence for it is the signed statements themselves, which we already know to have been made under irregular, coercive conditions.

If you believe that Knox is herself innocent, there is no reason at all to think that she knew that Lumumba was innocent. At most, you could argue that she had no good reason to suspect he was guilty -- that the aggressive suggestions by the police to this effect weren't very strong evidence against him, and should not have been sufficient to convince her to sign the statements. Well, perhaps Amanda did not rise to the highest level of epistemic rationality on this occasion. But, you know, the circumstances were kind of extenuating! Do you really think Amanda deserves three years in prison for insufficient critical thinking under duress?

La Stampa labels calunnia "one of the most odious" of crimes. This, and numerous other comments and reactions to the charge -- especially by Italians -- suggest to me that this offense is not meant to cover Amanda's situation with respect to Lumumba (as that situation is understood by me and other innocentisti). Thanks to Hellmann and his court, however, people now speak of Amanda as if she were guilty of a crime of real malice toward Patrick Lumumba -- which is diametrically opposed to the truth. Amanda had nothing at all against Patrick; as she explained in her testimony, she liked him.

Lumumba himself has confirmed Knox's friendliness toward him before she entered the interrogation that resulted in the signed "accusations". Yet bizarrely and perversely, he -- like the rest of the guilter crowd -- treats this as some kind of aggravating circumstance accompanying the calunnia, rather than what it actually is, which is evidence that she isn't guilty of that crime!

(This is but one more example of the kind of psychological disconnect that plagued Amanda throughout this whole ordeal. When she testified in Massei's court about how much she like Lumumba, she thought she was defending herself. Little did she know it would be thrown right back in her face, as "evidence" that her "crime" was particularly egregious.)

Quite frankly, if anyone deserves to go to jail for the crime of critical thinking failure, it's Patrick Lumumba. For at this point, his inability to put two and two together -- the harsh treatment he himself received, plus the statements that came out of Amanda's interrogation -- and ask himself whether there might not be a better explanation for Amanda's "accusation" than malice or manipulative she-devilry, combined with a campaign of sympathy-trolling that has long worn out its welcome, not to mention actual accusations that Amanda is guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, all add up in my view to a crime against Amanda more severe than any that she may have committed against him.

I'd give him a sentence of two weeks.

[Fine]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

One forensic technique would be to compare the print on the mat with reference prints of the suspects.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=3970


To be more accurate, a footprint expert would want to see multiple reference prints for each suspect. We have no indication that this was done.

Further, an expert may want to create sample prints on similar materials to learn what variables affect how the resulting print appears. We have no indication that this was done.

What we know was done was someone claiming to be a forensic expert measured the footprint on the mat to millimeter precision and declared that the numbers matched similar measurements of Raffaele's reference footprint. There was apparently no science presented to validate the procedure. Nor was the procedure conducted in a blind method to prevent intentional or unintentional confirmation bias.

______________________

Dan,

That someone, Doctor Lorenzo Rinaldi, doesn't just claim to be a forensic expert. He's the Director of the division of Legal Identification, Polizia Scientifica, Rome. (See HERE and HERE.)

As it happens, Doctor Rinaldi also does handwriting analysis, which reminds me of this iron-clad evidence presented in the first trial............

Mignini: "I have had a graphologist look at their handwriting, and that man confirmed that Amanda Knox is aggressive, narcissistic, manipulative, transgressive, and has no empathy; she likes dominating people, she doesn't like people to disagree with her, and she's very negligent overall." (See: HERE.)

So, did the scientists ever put a drop of holy water on Amanda's skin to view the expected explosive reaction? Or did budgetary constraints prevent that, too?

///

[geebee2]

I agree double jeopardy is irrelevant. The point is that there isn't a shred of solid evidence against Knox or Sollecito, which means that they will be confirmed innocent by the Italian courts. Doubtless Mignini will try to appeal, but that would be simply to extend the time when his own actions will come under scrutiny. I really don't see the point in arguing about wholly hypothetical situations.

[halides1]

David Collins wrote, "Sonia Giugliarell said the sex-crazed American was bedding FIVE lovers when she was arrested for murdering fellow student Meredith Kercher, 21.

"Language tutor Sonia, 41, said: 'There was a demon inside her that nothing could control. Knox slept with different men to make herself feel important and powerful.'"

Fine and Komponisto,

Thanks for some good comments this morning.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by komponisto

Here is the definition of calunnia:


Quote:
"Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years."
Wikipedia further comments:


Quote:
The mens rea of calunnia requires awareness and a willingness to blame someone of a crime that the accused knows is innocent.
I see absolutely no justification for thinking that Amanda Knox is guilty of this crime. The only evidence for it is the signed statements themselves, which we already know to have been made under irregular, coercive conditions.

If you believe that Knox is herself innocent, there is no reason at all to think that she knew that Lumumba was innocent. At most, you could argue that she had no good reason to suspect he was guilty -- that the aggressive suggestions by the police to this effect weren't very strong evidence against him, and should not have been sufficient to convince her to sign the statements. Well, perhaps Amanda did not rise to the highest level of epistemic rationality on this occasion. But, you know, the circumstances were kind of extenuating! Do you really think Amanda deserves three years in prison for insufficient critical thinking under duress?.

The thing that I truly enjoy about my position here, is that no one from TJMK or either of the PMF sites comes rushing to my defence.

Be that as it may, I am the first to admit that the position I come to is out of complete ignorance of Italian law. Truth is, I have no idea how any of the law quoted above applies. I have been burned before using what one might call "a plain reading", given that nuances and eddies and currents of legal systems mean that probably those of us who are not Italian should not comment at all.

The first person I'll call as my witness is Judge Massei. I assume is an experienced jurist, he'd be able to navigate the logical "set-up" given above, and that he knows the law, Italian law of calunnia.

The second person I'll call as a witness is Judge Hellmann, who I also assume is an experienced jurist, fully able to both navigate calunnia law, as well as correct Massei if need be. Most surely, Massei needed to correct Massei on the issue of a staged-break-in - it did not exist.

So those are my legal experts who can fill in all the gaps (many and wide) that I have in interpreting Italian calunnia law.

Lastly, though, lay jurors are not so much jurists as the guardians of common sense.

I am fully on-side with the massive Marriott PR campaign with regard to the treatment at interrogation, and it is full value for being dismissed as illegal by the Italian legal system - well, at the criminal trial that is.

What got me in trouble at the Christmas party held at Marriott's house last night to celebrate the victory of this massive PR campaign, was me opining over mulled-wine that it was the letter Knox wrote when free and clear from interrogation. She waffled on the issue of Lumumba's presence at the cottage.

The Marriott group in fact withheld my Christmas bonus for saying it, but I continued with the line - she's an adult, and should be convicted as a signal to the rest of us that once free and clear from coersion, all of us need to at the earliest opportunity correct the record. Sorry to say it, Knox further confused the record in relation to Kumumba, perhaps not "causing" harm but at the very least participating in the harm.

Marriott himself reminded me as his people were pulling my Porche up to his front door, that I had no understanding of Italian law on this. I admitted to him that I was not a lawyer, but that both Massei and Hellmann were versed in these things, and that Marriott was just bitter that the massive PR campaign had not worked 100%. He winked at me on that one.

I suspected one more trick up his sleeve at the final appeal and left it at that. I appreciated very much that Marriott's people had washed and detailed my Porche.

I think she is convictable but not sentencable. Still, the proof of the pudding is that Knox left for Seattle the next day. Even with Hellmann she's paid her debt to society and should now get on with the life that awaits for her - which, thank MJesus Mary and Joseph, is not an Italian prison.

For me the sticking point is waffling at the earliest opportunity to recant. No, I am not a lawyer. I'd be one of those common sense jurors who'd be tasked with making my best judgment based on my version of common sense.

Where are the PGP to rush to my defense?

[snook1]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

Heaven forbid, no! I'm not interested in personal squabbles.

There's just a website where the fanatics congregate. Good for you that you don't know about it, because it is really gross, riddled with disgusting emoticons (What I love in JREF is that we don't have a vomit or defecation emot here) and I tell you, using my statement analysis and remote psychiatric diagnosis powers I see there's a lot of personality disorders there sociopaths, narcissists, even a psychopath or two

Anyway, I wouldn't bother with them. If there were really death threats, as media reported
1) I'm pretty confident by now those threats are empty
2) it's a task for the Seattle PD to investigate.


Meanwhile Amanda is home, Raffaele is home, they are healing and about to make some serious money from their book deals - it's time to relax and let go

That's such a great post. Thank you!!

[smkovalinksy]

Just making an observation. Something I noticed over at pmf which truly puzzles me; I mean, it baffles me:

Much is being made of an author - an ex-FBI profiler - who has written a book warning us that our gut instincts can betray us: We cannot believe that nice, decent, church-going, respectable people can be killers:

Quote:

The man sitting in front of Mary Ellen O’Toole was, she says, a well-mannered guy. “He was low-key. He was nice. He didn’t swear.” He was very proud of his work, which he described in polite, pleasant tones.

His name was Gary Ridgway. His other name was the Green River Killer. His work was killing at least 49 women in Washington state throughout the 1980s and 1990s. He did it all while maintaining marriages, parenting and church-going, and he seemed very much the word neighbors often use to describe men who turn out to have headless torsos in their freezers. Which is to say, he seemed very, very nice.

The niceness paradox. O’Toole worked as a profiler for the FBI for 30 years, headquartered in Quantico. She interviewed the Unabomber. She worked on the Polly Klaas abduction, the Red Lake school shooting and the investigation of David Parker Ray — the Toy-Box Killer who tortured women in a high-tech homemade dungeon. What she found was that the most dangerous criminals were often the ones who came across as the most harmless. That’s how they were able to continue harming people.

“Over the years, I used to hear this all the time.” Other investigators would explain to her why they had disregarded suspects: “I just looked at him, man to man, and I could tell” that he was a good guy.

OK, this is obviously being posted in reference to Knox. And yet elsewhere, they cite articles from 2009, and the recent pieces, to say that she was instantly recognizable by others as : Weird, unclean, unhygienic, promiscuous, cold, manipulative, unfeeling, robotic, inappropriate, flat, selfish, lazy, fake - in short, clearly identifiable as NOT nice. Which is it? Were people fooled by Knox's normalcy? Or instantly repelled by her icy weirdness?

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Fine

______________________

Dan,

That someone, Doctor Lorenzo Rinaldi, doesn't just claim to be a forensic expert. He's the Director of the division of Legal Identification, Polizia Scientifica, Rome. (See HERE and HERE.)

As it happens, Doctor Rinaldi also does handwriting analysis, which reminds me of this iron-clad evidence presented in the first trial............

Mignini: "I have had a graphologist look at their handwriting, and that man confirmed that Amanda Knox is aggressive, narcissistic, manipulative, transgressive, and has no empathy; she likes dominating people, she doesn't like people to disagree with her, and she's very negligent overall." (See: HERE.)

So, did the scientists ever put a drop of holy water on Amanda's skin to view the expected explosive reaction? Or did budgetary constraints prevent that, too?

///

Hey, why bother evaluating 20 years of behavioral history when you can get an expert who can glean all that about Amanda merely by reviewing her writings. It's hard to know who is more impressive; Rinaldi or Giobbi, who was able to determine Amanda's guilt by merely observing her.

What might be even more troubling is the number of 'guilters' who find this type of 'evidence' sound and convincing.

[Grinder]

First of all it's a Porsche pronounce POR shuh which undermines your whole tale. http://german.about.com/library/blaudio_porsche.htm

Look Bill we've gone over this a billion times, once for every PR dollar spent.

She made it perfectly clear in the notes delivered with hours that she couldn't swear to the accuracy of what she had signed. She told Mignini that she was convinced when she signed that Patrick was involved. The police chief's comments make it clear that they squeezed the statement out of her.

If she had written a note at 1:50 in the morning after her statement saying she had to retract her statement because Patrick was innocent, Mignini would have used that to prove she was there, because only the murderers could know Patrick wasn't there.

Why don't the PGP come to your aid? Because they can't explain the chief's quotes the next day or the impossibility of AK "knowing" Patrick wasn't there.

You keep saying she was convictable but not sentenceable, but she was sentenced by both of your witnesses.

Perhaps the Hellmann court saw that the supremes would overturn it because it should have been heard by the Massei court. If so she'll be as innocent as Mignini - do you think the PGP will see it that way?

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The thing that I truly enjoy about my position here, is that no one from TJMK or either of the PMF sites comes rushing to my defence.


Marriott himself reminded me as his people were pulling my Porche up to his front door, that I had no understanding of Italian law on this. I admitted to him that I was not a lawyer, but that both Massei and Hellmann were versed in these things, and that Marriott was just bitter that the massive PR campaign had not worked 100%. He winked at me on that one.

I suspected one more trick up his sleeve at the final appeal and left it at that. I appreciated very much that Marriott's people had washed and detailed my Porche.

I think she is convictable but not sentencable. Still, the proof of the pudding is that Knox left for Seattle the next day. Even with Hellmann she's paid her debt to society and should now get on with the life that awaits for her - which, thank MJesus Mary and Joseph, is not an Italian prison.

For me the sticking point is waffling at the earliest opportunity to recant. No, I am not a lawyer. I'd be one of those common sense jurors who'd be tasked with making my best judgment based on my version of common sense.

Where are the PGP to rush to my defense?

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

Just making an observation. Something I noticed over at pmf which truly puzzles me; I mean, it baffles me:

Much is being made of an author - an ex-FBI profiler - who has written a book warning us that our gut instincts can betray us: We cannot believe that nice, decent, church-going, respectable people can be killers:



OK, this is obviously being posted in reference to Knox. And yet elsewhere, they cite articles from 2009, and the recent pieces, to say that she was instantly recognizable by others as : Weird, unclean, unhygienic, promiscuous, cold, manipulative, unfeeling, robotic, inappropriate, flat, selfish, lazy, fake - in short, clearly identifiable as NOT nice. Which is it? Were people fooled by Knox's normalcy? Or instantly repelled by her icy weirdness?

Whichever suits the purpose of the moment, SM, whichever suits the purpose.

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by geebee2

I agree double jeopardy is irrelevant. The point is that there isn't a shred of solid evidence against Knox or Sollecito, which means that they will be confirmed innocent by the Italian courts. Doubtless Mignini will try to appeal, but that would be simply to extend the time when his own actions will come under scrutiny. I really don't see the point in arguing about wholly hypothetical situations.

Can Mignini appeal it? I thought the person in charge of appealling the 2nd trial would be the prosecutor that was in charge of the 2nd trial.

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Wow just wow.

Amanda has the same agent as Obama. Boy is that going upset some people.

If i was gonna defend myself from a possible extradition(worse case scenario) whose agent would you have?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

Just making an observation. Something I noticed over at pmf which truly puzzles me; I mean, it baffles me:

Much is being made of an author - an ex-FBI profiler - who has written a book warning us that our gut instincts can betray us: We cannot believe that nice, decent, church-going, respectable people can be killers:



OK, this is obviously being posted in reference to Knox. And yet elsewhere, they cite articles from 2009, and the recent pieces, to say that she was instantly recognizable by others as : Weird, unclean, unhygienic, promiscuous, cold, manipulative, unfeeling, robotic, inappropriate, flat, selfish, lazy, fake - in short, clearly identifiable as NOT nice. Which is it? Were people fooled by Knox's normalcy? Or instantly repelled by her icy weirdness?

Of course the supreme irony of this is that the Godfather of criminal profiling, the former FBI supremo John Douglas, has gone on the record stating that not only does nothing point towards Knox's guilt, but that in fact there are plenty of pointers to her innocence. Douglas appears to firmly believe that Knox had nothing to do with the murder.

On top of all that, criminal profiling has been shown to have a certain - but strictly defined - applicability in criminal investigations. It most certainly should never be used as any kind of probative evidence, but can be of use i helping investigators narrow down a suspect pool or home in on particular segments of the wider population. Therefore, the guilt, non-guilt or innocence of any given person cannot ever be assessed on the basis of a criminal profile. Rather, the connection between the person and the crime can only be evaluated by looking at evidence specifically connecting the suspect and the crime.

[geebee2]

I just read over at PMF stilcho quoting Massei

Quote:
Up until 22:13:19 at least, the phone was in the student’s [Meredith’s] house; from 00:31:21 onwards, one can establish the presence of the phone in the garden [parco] of the other abode.


http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic. ... 50#p109350

In my mind this is probably the worst and most stupid mistake in the document. Massei attributes this "deduction" to the police, but it's completely wrong.

It's very probable that the phone was NOT at the cottage at 22:13. I look into this in excruciating detail in my Massei analysis at
http://massei-report-analysis.wikispaces.com/

The problem here is accepting every deduction in Massei without checking that it is correct.
If you do that, of course you will believe AK and RS guilty, that's precisely what the Massei report purports to show.