The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[LondonJohn]

See the post I was responding to, here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13951700#post13951700

Yes, I know very well the post you were responding to. The clue should have been in my direct reference to it.

My question stands exactly as before: please explain how you’re interpreting that post in that way. To give you a hint: nothing in that post makes direct or oblique reference to this being “like a USA vs Italy football match”, nor does that post in any way come anywhere remotely near to implying that sentiment on the part of the poster. Outside of your own imagination, that is….

 

[Vixen]

The highlighted part? The very definition of a suspect-centred investigation, rather than an evidence-based investigation. "She broke, and told us what we already knew."

Thanks for clearing that up, Vixen. Indeed, Mignini saw the crime-scene for himself. He proceeded to order that the victim's body temperature NOT be taken on site, thus denying investigators the opportunity to set time of death precisely.

So, seeing the crime-scene makes Mignini an expert?

But you did make eight posts in 23 minutes. That alone makes you an expert!

That is how police operate by having suspicions and suspects. The best detectives are the ones who can think exactly like a criminal and thus have well-built in ******** detectors. I've worked with ex-detectives. One guy from Australia who worked with me in insolvency was an ex-detective back home and he was red-hot in spotting the bankrupts and dodgy directors who lied about their assets. These guys are trained in 'examination'. There are even Examiners qualifications.


They don't waste their time on the innocent without any motive because at the end of the day they have to explain it all before a High Court judge.

 

[LondonJohn]

To detract police attention away from herself.

She thought she could play the damsel in distress not realising she had just confessed to being at the crime scene. Hearing the thud and harrowing scream other witnesses also reported.

Even in her 'gift' follow up letter to the police she claimed she had seen Patrik in blurry shades of green at the basketball court.


She thought Italian police would automatically nail the Black guy on her say so.

You might have missed it (looks like you did, judging by this post), but the ECHR ripped apart Knox’s criminal slander conviction, with especially damning criticism reserved for the disgusting and unlawful way in which Knox was interrogated on 5th/6th November. You should probably look into that ECHR judgement, since I imagine you might not want to embarrass yourself again in this manner. (And it’s “distract”)

 

[Bill Williams]

The highlighted part? The very definition of a suspect-centred investigation, rather than an evidence-based investigation. "She broke, and told us what we already knew."

Thanks for clearing that up, Vixen. Indeed, Mignini saw the crime-scene for himself. He proceeded to order that the victim's body temperature NOT be taken on site, thus denying investigators the opportunity to set time of death precisely.

So, seeing the crime-scene makes Mignini an expert?

That is how police operate by having suspicions and suspects. The best detectives are the ones who can think exactly like a criminal and thus have well-built in ******** detectors. I've worked with ex-detectives. One guy from Australia who worked with me in insolvency was an ex-detective back home and he was red-hot in spotting the bankrupts and dodgy directors who lied about their assets. These guys are trained in 'examination'. There are even Examiners qualifications.


They don't waste their time on the innocent without any motive because at the end of the day they have to explain it all before a High Court judge.

Instead of explaining away suspect-centred investigations, you simply double-down on the very definition of suspect-centred investigations.

"They don't waste their time on the innocent"!?!?!? Let those words sink in a bit. You seem to be the only one left in the thread who does not see it. Apparently there's a universe out there in the Knox-shaming crowd, where only the guilty are even investigated, even before any evidence is available.

Hey! That's exactly what had happened in Perugia in 2007!

Yet it is gratifying to see you double-down on it. This thread is now bringing some lurkers out, to become posters. Mostly, I'm sure the lurkers are saying about the likes of me, "why are you engaging this person?"

Good question.

 

[Vixen]

You might have missed it (looks like you did, judging by this post), but the ECHR ripped apart Knox’s criminal slander conviction, with especially damning criticism reserved for the disgusting and unlawful way in which Knox was interrogated on 5th/6th November. You should probably look into that ECHR judgement, since I imagine you might not want to embarrass yourself again in this manner. (And it’s “distract”)

The ECHR refers to Boninsegna case in which she was acquitted. It claimed the police were too nice to her, conforting her and patting her hand.

From Collins English Dictionary:

Detract:

2. (transitive)
to distract or divert

 

[Vixen]

Instead of explaining away suspect-centred investigations, you simply double-down on the very definition of suspect-centred investigations.

"They don't waste their time on the innocent"!?!?!? Let those words sink in a bit. You seem to be the only one left in the thread who does not see it. Apparently there's a universe out there in the Knox-shaming crowd, where only the guilty are even investigated, even before any evidence is available.

Hey! That's exactly what had happened in Perugia in 2007!

Yet it is gratifying to see you double-down on it. This thread is now bringing some lurkers out, to become posters. Mostly, I'm sure the lurkers are saying about the likes of me, "why are you engaging this person?"

Good question.

How is it 'coercive interrogation' unless they believe a person is innocent. Why would they need to coerce someone into admission if they are guilty.

 

[LondonJohn]

How is it 'coercive interrogation' unless they believe a person is innocent. Why would they need to coerce someone into admission if they are guilty.

Wow. You really do know next to nothing about coerced false confessions*. And seeing as they are entirely central to the unlawful convictions of both Knox and Sollecito, that’s quite something. Even for you.


* As a quick primer for you though: the clear majority of unlawful coerced false confessions are extracted from those whom law enforcement believe - erroneously - to be either high on their list of suspects or the suspect. As you’d have learned if you’d bothered to do even a modicum of proper research into the subject. Ah well, plus ça change…..

 

[LondonJohn]

The ECHR refers to Boninsegna case in which she was acquitted. It claimed the police were too nice to her, conforting her and patting her

As I said: you might want to examine* the ECHR communication regarding Knox’s criminal slander conviction (that is, the conviction that has now been entirely discredited by the ECHR), if you’d prefer to save yourself further embarrassment on this matter.


* That is to say: examine with a correct and full understanding of the context and the principles at stake, a full understanding of the ECHR and each signatory state’s obligations under the Convention, and a sufficiently good understanding of jurisprudence principles in general. Or you could wing it and/or just make **** up. Who’s to know which way the dice will fall!!

 

[Welshman]

Welshman, all good points.

In your point number 3, you left out stating that the unreliable ("invalid") DNA profile was that of Kercher; I took the liberty of inserting that identifier in your quoted post above.

There was no dispute that the DNA profile on the handle was that of Knox. It was there because she had used the knife in Sollecito's apartment to prepare food, not because of any criminal act.

The fabrication of assumptions by Massei and other Italian judges, false inferences from unreliable or fraudulent evidence, is apparently a feature brought over from the inquisitorial Italian judicial system supposedly largely eliminated by the 1988 reforms of the Italian Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure.

An interesting article authored by a professor and a research fellow from Yale Law School, relying on European legal experts for information, discusses the inquisitional system in Italy (and in France and Germany) as of 1977. One point of interest made in the discussion of the Italian inquisitional system is that the judges did not, in practice, pay attention to any procedural irregularities (violations of procedural law) committed by the police or prosecutor. The power of the police was increased by the failure of the prosecutor or judge to review the actions of the police. The prosecutor or judge did not inquire as to whether an arrest was the result of illegal conduct by the police or whether an interrogation was unlawful. The judge sometimes would ask for a procedure to be redone if the original procedure, such as an interrogation, was found to have been "defective".



Source:

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstr...J240_December1977_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
p. 257 -259

In the 15 years since Meredith's murder, I am surprised PIP have not raised the question why the prosecution had to resort to using evidence with zero credibility and full of holes such as the knife if they had a solid case. Having to use evidence with no credibility is a sign the prosecution have such a weak case and lack of evidence, they are prepared to use evidence with no credibility.

 

[Welshman]

Read the court documents and the trial transcripts and you'll find out!

Vixen can't answer any of my questions and none of the courts addressed these questions.

 

[Welshman]

That is how police operate by having suspicions and suspects. The best detectives are the ones who can think exactly like a criminal and thus have well-built in ******** detectors. I've worked with ex-detectives. One guy from Australia who worked with me in insolvency was an ex-detective back home and he was red-hot in spotting the bankrupts and dodgy directors who lied about their assets. These guys are trained in 'examination'. There are even Examiners qualifications.


They don't waste their time on the innocent without any motive because at the end of the day they have to explain it all before a High Court judge.

Vixen talks about the best detectives which can't be applied to the corrupt and incompetent buffoons of the Perugia police. If police don't try and convict innocent people why were Amanda and Raffaele viciously railroaded by the police when they had no case.

 

[Bill Williams]

How is it 'coercive interrogation' unless they believe a person is innocent. Why would they need to coerce someone into admission if they are guilty.

Just look at that statement again and give it some thought.

So, what is at issue here are the investigators beliefs. The problem in Perugia in 2007 was that they believed the pair were guilty, when they weren't. The police and Mignini acted on that belief, well before any actual evidence was found or even before Rudy Guede was known - as he'd fled to Germany.

I'd hate to live in a country where the police's beliefs were the core of prosecution's. I mean, why even accord the accused rights when you 'know' they're guilty, you can just feel it! Who needs actual evidence?

 

[Numbers]

... the ECHR ripped apart Knox’s criminal slander [malicious accusation ("calunnia")] conviction, with especially damning criticism reserved for the disgusting and unlawful way in which Knox was interrogated on 5th/6th November. ....

LondonJohn, I took the liberty of clarifying the wording in your post idenifying the name of the Italian crime for which Knox was convicted.

LondonJohn, thanks for reminding us of the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy, which found that Italy had violated Knox's rights under three provisions of the European Convention: Articles 6.1 with 6.3c (unfair trial resulting from interrogation without a defense lawyer), Articles 6.1 with 6.3e (unfair trial resulting from failure to provide a fair interpreter), and Article 3 under its procedural limb (failure to conduct a fair and independent investigation of a credible claim of mistreatment by the police).

The final judgment Knox v. Italy is currently awaiting resolution under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers (CoM) of the Council of Europe.

It's of interest to compare Italy's performance in resolving final judgments of the ECHR to that of other countries, such as the UK, of roughly similar populations (Italy's population is about 60 million, that of the UK, about 67 million).

Knox v. Italy is one of 60 Leading cases against Italy pending before the CoM. Italy has 165 closed (finally resolved) Leading cases, so about 27% of the total leading cases against Italy are pending. Of the 60 pending leading cases, 50% have ECHR final judgment dates (FJD) no older than 2018, while the oldest FJD among the pending Leading cases is 1997.

In comparison, the UK has 10 Leading cases pending, with 204 closed leading cases, so about 10% of the total Leading cases against the UK remain pending. Of the 10 pending cases, 50% have FJD no older than 2021, while the oldest FJD among the pending Leading cases is 2001.

Comparing Italy to the other large-population western European democracies (Spain, 47 M; France, 65 M; Germany, 84 M) also shows that Italy has the highest proportion of pending Leading cases to total Leading cases and the slowest rate of reaching final resolution of the Leading cases (as a group) under CoM supervision.

Source:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22]}

(analysis conducted using the appropriate filters to isolate the relevant data)

 

[MarkCorrigan]

How is it 'coercive interrogation' unless they believe a person is innocent. Why would they need to coerce someone into admission if they are guilty.

Seriously?

No, seriously? Are you claiming that the police cannot coerce people in an interrogation if they believe they are guilty?

You do know it's possible to coerce someone into a confession even if the confession is true, right?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

This is supposed to be a serious discussion thread.

Yes, and I'm seriously pointing out your flagrant hypocrisy. You cry foul about people treating you shabbily and being insulting and yet lay about you with insults of your own. Not to mention you seem to have a severely distorted view of what constitutes an insult. Recently for example you accused Stacy of being sexist. I'd like very much if you could point out the exact post in which Stacy was sexist.

I understand that there are some individuals who are just here for the sport of trolling. I hope you are not one of them as I cannot think of anything more yawn-inducing.

Holding you to account for your posting history is not trolling, any more than pointing out you regularly lean on questionable sources is trolling, or pointing out that you falsely represent yourself is trolling.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is a whole genre of 'senseless' teenage thrill killing.

Erin Caffey, who in prison shows off her beautiful singing voice, got her boyfriend to slaughter her entire family and then spent the rest of the day having sex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGhc8IfviM

The 'Scream Murders'.

Kim Edwards got her boyfriend to kill her little sister and mother and they then spent the rest of the day eating ice-cream and watching Twilight.

The Memphis Three killings - one of them was the instigator.

I consider the murder of Meredith Kercher to be in the category of 'senseless thrill-seeking' by immature adults, although I would add the caveat that at age 23 and considerably older by about three four years than the others, Sollecito was surely old enough to distinguish between reality and fantasy and to have put a stop to it. Instead, he of all parties had zero motive other than as a totally anti-social cold evil game player. Even the cops described him as 'icy cold'.

 

[LondonJohn]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/71669637fdb0f9d61a.png[/qimg]

It’s interesting (no, it’s really not) how Vixen totally fails to grasp the codependency dynamics of couples-murderers: without exception, both partners will have spent many months at a minimum (and often years) gradually testing each other’s boundaries and upping the ante step by step. As such, there’s almost invariably an escalating pattern of antisocial behaviour on the part of the couple, and frequently a committal of lower-grade criminal activity as the couple develops an ever more complex psychological bond of trust and validation.

Of course, Knox/Sollecito fit this profile with almost uncanny accuracy. Oh, hold on………

 

[whoanellie]

Knox had a belief that all she had to do was point to a Black guy. It didn't ever occur to her when she covered up for Guede, according to the final Marasca-Bruno, who state in their written reasons she named Lumumba just in case anyone saw the Black guy coming out of the cottage at the time, that in fervorously grabbing police chief Napoleoni by the arm and frogmarching her on arrival at the cottage to the toilet to point to the crap in the bog that (a) Guede's DNA was on the police database as he was an immigrant and (b) that fecal matter contains very little DNA as the bacteria degrades it rapidly.


Biology not her strongest subject at school.

Apparently it wasn't Vixen's either:

Vixen on biochemistry:

"Likewise, DNA, being a protein, doesn't usually stick unless there are moist or oily conditions, such as saliva, perspiration, moist skin cells, blood and other bodily fluids."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11175075#post11175075

“I was trying to convey that DNA is found in protein (referring to bodily fluids, such as greasy sweat from sebaceous glands).”
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12851828#post12851828

"NB: In a DNA model the 'rungs' strictly speaking are four-cornered squares with a different sugar/amino-acid on each corner, but to keep it simple, we will not concern ourselves with that, here."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12880109#post12880109

Vixen on cell biology:

"She extracted the cell from its nucleus"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11418330#post11418330

Vixen on genetics:
"Humans have two pairs of chomosomes either XY or YY. The former is female and you can extract mtDNA for the haplotype, the latter are male and you can perform Y-haplotype profiling on a male but not on a female."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12872356#post12872356

"Only female DNA can be identified from mtDNA (mitochodria) as only females have the X chromosome from which the mtDNA is extracted. Likewise only males can have Y-haplotypes identified as it carries down from the male line. If you want to know the mtDA background ask your mother or sister to be tested and that will tell you, likewise females can find out about the male line via their father or brother."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12872223#post12872223

 

[Vixen]

Just look at that statement again and give it some thought.

So, what is at issue here are the investigators beliefs. The problem in Perugia in 2007 was that they believed the pair were guilty, when they weren't. The police and Mignini acted on that belief, well before any actual evidence was found or even before Rudy Guede was known - as he'd fled to Germany.

I'd hate to live in a country where the police's beliefs were the core of prosecution's. I mean, why even accord the accused rights when you 'know' they're guilty, you can just feel it! Who needs actual evidence?

How you see it:

There is a brutal murder in Perugia between 1st and 2nd Nov 2007 between Halloween and All Saints Day (a Bank Holiday over much of Europe dedicated to the deceased). The detectives homed in on Knox and Sollecito because Mignini had a grudge against Americans (cf Doug Preston) or had some kind of fixation. So, the detectives in wanting to please Mignini, concentrated on these two. Sollecito came in for heavy coercive interrogation because the police thought they could 'get Knox' via Sollecito pointing the finger at her. In so doing, Sollecito came out with three different police statements just to get the rogue cops off his bag, having been reduced to a trembling wreck, and when asking the cops for a calendar so that he could distinguish between Halloween and the day before, he was rudely and roughly refused.

How it worked in reality:

There is a brutal murder in Perugia between 1st and 2nd Nov 2007 between Halloween and All Saints Day (a Bank Holiday over much of Europe dedicated to the deceased). Literally tens of dozens of people were invited in for questioning, including Filomena and all of Meredith's friends. Sophie and her boyfriend 'Shaky' had their telephones tapped. Like Filomena they spent literally hours at the Questura, as did the boys downstairs, all of Knox' friends from the internet café. Police then checked the stories of each of the persons interviewed and followed up on discrepancies. Knox and Sollecito ended up as prime suspects because of (a) Knox' confession that she was present when Mez was murdered and (b) Sollecito telling the police he had lied in his first statement in order to provide Knox with an alibi, as she had asked him to.

Yes, Sollecito was very strongly suspected right from the start, when he sauntered into the police station with a knife. Having found shoeprints in the hallway, police immediately made him remove his trainers to test them. They then discovered he had had a flood on the night of the murder and had dismantled the U-Bend. It was reasonable for the police to suspect he had been cleaning up after the murder because who removes a U-Bend when you have a flood, as that is likely to flood the floor some more. He didn't have a blockage.

So you see, there is little that smacks of a Shawshank Redemption set up by the police.

In any case, the police are just the prosecution side, they still have to show 'probable cause' to the arraigning magistrate, or reasonable prospect of success in prosecuting. It is the court which decides guilt, not the police.

The Italian State for the victim would have little interest in prosecuting the wrong person knowingly as you keep suggesting.

 

[Vixen]

Seriously?

No, seriously? Are you claiming that the police cannot coerce people in an interrogation if they believe they are guilty?

You do know it's possible to coerce someone into a confession even if the confession is true, right?

I did not say they cannot. If you believe Sollecito was fitted up you need to explain a reasonable motive for them to have done anything of the sort, given Sollecito was from the middle classes, bespectacled, a student, well-dressed and driving the latest Audi and using the latest Pro Mac Book. Plus a maid to come around and clean his flat, which his father paid for.

You claim the police 'coercively interrogated him'. I want to understand why they would, given there was a potential mass murderer on their hands, with hundreds of students fleeing Perugia overnight.