The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

I was watching an interesting case tonight where a father, Kevin Fox, neither mentally challenged nor a teenager, confessed after an all night interrogation by police to murdering his own 3 year old daughter, Riley, who had disappeared from their home during the night. Her body was found later that day in a creek.

During the interrogation, the police made up a scenario of what Fox had 'done' which Fox finally confessed to after being awake for more than 24 hours. He later said he was so exhausted that he saw it as his only way out and that it was so preposterous that he 'knew' no one could possibly believe it.

The police focused immediately on Fox and

1. claimed there was no evidence of forced entry even though the back door lock was broken,

2. insisted cctv footage of a truck driving by later that night was Fox's truck even though there were no identifying marks on the truck,

3. ignored witnesses who claimed to see a red Chevy Beretta driving near and parked near the home the night of the abduction.

4. ignored a pair of tennis trainers with the name EBY handwritten on them found near Riley's body,

5. ignored that the house across the street had been burglarized the same night Riley Fox had disappeared,

6.ignored the woman who told them the day Riley disappeared to take a look at her ex-boyfriend, Scott Eby, who had made some weird statements that day about Riley and lived less than a mile from the Fox home.

7.The same day, police were sent to Scott Eby's home on a suicide attempt alert from a friend. While there, Eby asked if they had found Riley yet.

8.DNA from the rape kit was recovered but it was not sent to the crime lab for months after Fox had been arrested. The crime lab was called and told to stop testing the DNA for some reason. It took the defense lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, to get it tested. The rape kit excluded Kevin Fox as the perpetrator and Fox was released after eight months in prison.

Scott Eby was later identified as the killer while in prison for the sexual assault of a relative. He confessed to being the owner of the shoes, having burglarized the house across the street, driving a red Chevy Beretta, opening the door with the broken lock, taking Riley, raping her and drowning her in the creek.

The police focused in on a suspect while ignoring all the other obvious evidence listed above. Sound familiar? The Foxes sued the Wilmington police and were awarded $15.5 million reduced to $8 million on appeal. However, all the detectives involved continued working in the department. If not for Kathleen Zellner having the DNA tested, Fox would likely have been convicted of the murder of his own little girl and sentenced to a very long time, if not life, in prison. Or even death. After all, he had confessed and only the guilty would confess to murder unless they're a child or mentally deficient? Right? Right?

[Chris_Halkides]

"Fox claimed that during an all-night interrogation, detectives threatened him with being raped in jail, said his wife and father abandoned him, and promised he could go home if he confessed he accidentally killed Riley. Fox was tired, scared and vulnerable. He agreed to say he inadvertently killed his daughter. “By then, he was like a whipped dog, just saying ‘yeah, yeah’ to anything,” Zellner says." ABA

I watched the same program. Because of the pressure and tactics from the interrogators, Mr. Fox said that he killed his daughter by accident. Yet he was charged with first degree murder and might have faced the death penalty. The police giving a promise of leniency* is something that is commonly encountered in the stories of people who have falsely confessed (the police usually deny this). My memory is hazy; was that true for Amanda also?
*meaning that the police encourage people to confess to a lesser crime than the one they are ultimately charged with. The Frank Esposito arson case comes to mind.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I was watching an interesting case tonight where a father, Kevin Fox, neither mentally challenged nor a teenager, confessed after an all night interrogation by police to murdering his own 3 year old daughter, Riley, who had disappeared from their home during the night. Her body was found later that day in a creek.

During the interrogation, the police made up a scenario of what Fox had 'done' which Fox finally confessed to after being awake for more than 24 hours. He later said he was so exhausted that he saw it as his only way out and that it was so preposterous that he 'knew' no one could possibly believe it.
.....

That was on ABC's 20/20. I enjoy that series, too, but the two-hour format seems like repetitive padding. Everything relevant could easily be presented in an hour.

In this case, as in others, I was left wondering why the innocent "suspect" didn't stop talking and demand a lawyer. In their re-creation of the 12-hour interrogation (which the cops conveniently failed to record even though they were equipped to do so), he is depicted as angry enough to stand up and curse out the cops, but he never said "lawyer." For an American who grew up watching "Law & Order," "CSI," "NCIS," etc., etc., "lawyer" should be on the tip of their tongue in a police station.

What was really chilling was the real video of the investigator trying to get the young son to implicate his father, apparently asking him 168 times to say daddy did it, leaving the kid in hysterical tears.

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I was watching an interesting case tonight where a father, Kevin Fox, neither mentally challenged nor a teenager, confessed after an all night interrogation by police to murdering his own 3 year old daughter, Riley, who had disappeared from their home during the night. Her body was found later that day in a creek.

During the interrogation, the police made up a scenario of what Fox had 'done' which Fox finally confessed to after being awake for more than 24 hours. He later said he was so exhausted that he saw it as his only way out and that it was so preposterous that he 'knew' no one could possibly believe it.

The police focused immediately on Fox and

1. claimed there was no evidence of forced entry even though the back door lock was broken,

2. insisted cctv footage of a truck driving by later that night was Fox's truck even though there were no identifying marks on the truck,

3. ignored witnesses who claimed to see a red Chevy Beretta driving near and parked near the home the night of the abduction.

4. ignored a pair of tennis trainers with the name EBY handwritten on them found near Riley's body,

5. ignored that the house across the street had been burglarized the same night Riley Fox had disappeared,

6.ignored the woman who told them the day Riley disappeared to take a look at her ex-boyfriend, Scott Eby, who had made some weird statements that day about Riley and lived less than a mile from the Fox home.

7.The same day, police were sent to Scott Eby's home on a suicide attempt alert from a friend. While there, Eby asked if they had found Riley yet.

8.DNA from the rape kit was recovered but it was not sent to the crime lab for months after Fox had been arrested. The crime lab was called and told to stop testing the DNA for some reason. It took the defense lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, to get it tested. The rape kit excluded Kevin Fox as the perpetrator and Fox was released after eight months in prison.

Scott Eby was later identified as the killer while in prison for the sexual assault of a relative. He confessed to being the owner of the shoes, having burglarized the house across the street, driving a red Chevy Beretta, opening the door with the broken lock, taking Riley, raping her and drowning her in the creek.

The police focused in on a suspect while ignoring all the other obvious evidence listed above. Sound familiar? The Foxes sued the Wilmington police and were awarded $15.5 million reduced to $8 million on appeal. However, all the detectives involved continued working in the department. If not for Kathleen Zellner having the DNA tested, Fox would likely have been convicted of the murder of his own little girl and sentenced to a very long time, if not life, in prison. Or even death. After all, he had confessed and only the guilty would confess to murder unless they're a child or mentally deficient? Right? Right?

One of the claims made by Vixen is that police/prosecutors would never railroad innocent suspects and become fixated on suspects. If this is true, how do you explain the above case.

[Stacyhs]

Chris, the police never told Amanda or lead her to believe they would charge her with a lesser crime during the interrogation; she never understood that they thought SHE had killed Meredith or participated in the actual murder until she stood before a judge and was actually charged. She only understood that they thought she had brought Patrick to the cottage, that he had killed Meredith, and that she had blocked it out.

I don't think that police should be able to lie to suspects in order to get them to confess.

I'm having a discussion, if you can call it that, with some idiot in a comment section who sees no problem with the police violating the legal rights of suspects because that's how "criminals get away with things". He sees these violations as "mistakes", "technicalities, and "inconsistencies" that lead to criminals walking and that they only hurt the innocent. Specifically, in the recent Elder/Natale-Hjorth conviction in Italy of Off. Rega he thinks Off. Varriale's lying about both he and Rega having their guns that night and then conspiring with their commander to cover up that lie is just an "inconsistency" and does not cast any doubt on his credibility as to his version as to what happened that night.

Funny note: I've been accused of being Amanda Knox, a family member, or a close friend and this yahoo has now accused me of being either a family member or close friend of the Elders or Natale-Hjorths. I've made it clear that I don't know who is telling the truth as to whether Rega attacked Elder or not, only that the two officers did not follow protocol and that Varriale did lie about the guns which puts his credibility in jeopardy. You'd think I was denying Elder had actually killed Rega which I made clear I did not by this guy's reaction. People are so WEIRD.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

That was on ABC's 20/20. I enjoy that series, too, but the two-hour format seems like repetitive padding. Everything relevant could easily be presented in an hour.

In this case, as in others, I was left wondering why the innocent "suspect" didn't stop talking and demand a lawyer. In their re-creation of the 12-hour interrogation (which the cops conveniently failed to record even though they were equipped to do so), he is depicted as angry enough to stand up and curse out the cops, but he never said "lawyer." For an American who grew up watching "Law & Order," "CSI," "NCIS," etc., etc., "lawyer" should be on the tip of their tongue in a police station.

What was really chilling was the real video of the investigator trying to get the young son to implicate his father, apparently asking him 168 times to say daddy did it, leaving the kid in hysterical tears.

One thing I've learned from the Knox case: NEVER, EVER talk to the police without a lawyer if you even think you're connected to a crime bigger than a parking ticket.

What they did to that little boy was disgusting. Nothing like traumatizing him for life.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Chris, the police never told Amanda or lead her to believe they would charge her with a lesser crime during the interrogation; she never understood that they thought SHE had killed Meredith or participated in the actual murder until she stood before a judge and was actually charged. She only understood that they thought she had brought Patrick to the cottage, that he had killed Meredith, and that she had blocked it out.
.....

Something like that appears to be a fairly common police tactic. "We think it was so horrible that you just blacked out. Now if you blacked out, you wouldn't remember it, right? So you can't claim you didn't do it. We know you did it. You just don't remember it. We want to help you. Just admit it and you're outta here." Etc. After 10 or 12 hours, you might believe it.

Once again, the magic word is "LAWYER." And for Amanda, another might have been "EMBASSY."

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Chris, the police never told Amanda or lead her to believe they would charge her with a lesser crime during the interrogation; she never understood that they thought SHE had killed Meredith or participated in the actual murder until she stood before a judge and was actually charged. She only understood that they thought she had brought Patrick to the cottage, that he had killed Meredith, and that she had blocked it out.

I don't think that police should be able to lie to suspects in order to get them to confess.

Cops trained in the Reid Technique don't need to outright lie. All they need to do is cut off the interviewee every time the suspect talks about anything diverging from the police's theory. Reid Technique trains interrogators in how to get suspects to imagine what could have happened, but that imagining is always in furtherance of the initial police theory.

In shot, interrogations are **never** about eliciting information. Their goal is always confession.

But you make a good point above in the Kercher case. What was it that, at interrogation, Knox and/or Sollecito confessed to? Both of them, in essence, confessed to something that everyone agrees did not happen. Indeed, they confessed to something essentially useless at trial, a trial where both of them were charged with being active participants in the murder. Neither of them confessed to that.

A hallmark of false confessions is that they don't resemble anything to do with the facts. That's why using the "confessions" as a part of the murder trial in the Kercher case is almost textbook false confession.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Funny note: I've been accused of being Amanda Knox, a family member, or a close friend and this yahoo has now accused me of being either a family member or close friend of the Elders or Natale-Hjorths. I've made it clear that I don't know who is telling the truth as to whether Rega attacked Elder or not, only that the two officers did not follow protocol and that Varriale did lie about the guns which puts his credibility in jeopardy. You'd think I was denying Elder had actually killed Rega which I made clear I did not by this guy's reaction. People are so WEIRD.

The weirdest one for me was when I was accused of being related to one of the West Memphis 3. That one was just bizarre.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Cops trained in the Reid Technique don't need to outright lie. All they need to do is cut off the interviewee every time the suspect talks about anything diverging from the police's theory. Reid Technique trains interrogators in how to get suspects to imagine what could have happened, but that imagining is always in furtherance of the initial police theory.
.....

Which is another reason why all interrogations should be recorded, and juries should be skeptical of claims police make that are not supported by recordings.

[Bill Williams]

The Reid technique's nine steps of interrogation are:

1. Positive confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.

2. Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.

3 Try to minimize the frequency of suspect denials. (Note: even if you have to hit them on the head for 'lying', meaning that they should be punished for denying the police's party line.)

4. At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the acknowledgement of what they did.

5. Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.

6. The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme of the discussion toward offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.

7. Pose the "alternative question", giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.

8. Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession. (Note: this was never done, and is the principle reason why the confessions were false.)

9. Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).

People who have looked into the false confession in Perugia in 2007 will recognize immediately the dynamics highlighted. Note - none of this requires interrogators to outright lie.

[Stacyhs]

No, the Reid technique does not require lying and yet the police so often do. For example, suspects are often told they failed a lie detector test when they did not or that family members have turned against them or that there are witnesses or other evidence that doesn't exist.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No, the Reid technique does not require lying and yet the police so often do. For example, suspects are often told they failed a lie detector test when they did not or that family members have turned against them or that there are witnesses or other evidence that doesn't exist.

The best interrogations have no need for lying or misleading. The best ones rely on leading. Leading the suspect to confess to the scenario that the interrogator came into the session with, that's the goal.

Good interrogators know that if the suspect confesses to a set of facts contrary to the evidence, then something has gone wrong. The 'leading' has probably become 'misleading' or outright lying by the interrogator.

[schmidt61]

REASONS FOR THE*DECISION
Translated by Teddy, of*http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com
April 2009, N. 16986).
It emerges from the court documents that of the three personal meetings that the defendant claimed to have had with the victim prior to the homicide, only one has been proven: the one a week before the homicide, in the basement of 7 Via della Pergola in the apartment of the boys from the Marche region in which Amanda and Meredith were also present, where Guede showed an interest in Amanda, which he spoke of, without however showing any interest towards Meredith (witness Stefano Bonassi). With regards to the meeting at “Domus” [discotheque] on the night of Halloween, in which he claimed to have exchanged a few words and a kiss (he clarified it was on the cheek when testifying; furthermore the meeting was organized a few days before the homicide, in the house of some Spanish friends, with whom the English girl had no connection), none of his friends and none of Meredith’s friends (in particular Amy Frost, who was with her all night) saw the two speaking together or even being anywhere near each other. Regarding the meeting at the local [bar] the “Shamrock”, on the day of the rugby World Cup final between England and South Africa, played in Paris on 20 October 2007 and won by South Africa, which was transmitted in TV in the aforementioned local [bar], she met during the course of it the defendant who apparently made fun of Meredith for the defeat of her team, none of the friends who he frequented most at that time, Alex Crudo and Philip Michael Maly, also present at the transmission of the match, had noted Guede talking with Kercher, who they did not even know, indeed it was the defendant himself that reminded them, after the homicide, that that girl was present that day in that bar.
In addition, none of the boys from the Marche region, who had also made salacious comments about Amanda on the occasion of one of the two visits that Guede had made to their home (it was the defendant himself who said to his friend Benedetti in the Skype conversation to have only been twice in the house of the Marche boys: page 42 of the transcripts) had noticed Guede show any interest in Meredith, reporting instead his interest for Knox; not even his friends Crudo and Maly, that he frequented continuously, had ever heard him speak of an interest towards the girl; furthermore Philp Maly also contradicted Rudi’s version that stated when they met in the centre of Perugia he had confided to him [Maly], that on that that same evening of 1st November he [Rudi] had an appointment with a girl.




The highlighted quote the judge saying that the first meeting took place a week before the murder night. Which is only meeting that is "proven." It is October 25th the night Amanda and Raffaele met and we all know where they spent the night. After Raffaele and Amanda left Le Chic and ended up at his apartment.

[schmidt61]

had noticed Guede show any interest in Meredith, reporting instead his interest for Knox; not even his friends Crudo and Maly, that he frequented continuously, had ever heard him speak of an interest towards the girl; furthermore Philp Maly also contradicted Rudi’s version that stated when they met in the centre of Perugia he had confided to him [Maly], that on that that same evening of 1st November he [Rudi] had an appointment with a girl. from https://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/>

PERUGIA POLICE HEADQUARTERS FLYING SQUAD 3rd section SUBJECT: Summary of witness information given by: MALY Philipp Michael born on 07.18.1985 in Vienna (Austria), now living in Perugia at Strada Ponte Valleceppi n.16 apartment n.8 tel.348-7850609. On December 10, 2007 at 14:00, in the Offices of the Perugia Flying Squad. Before the undersigned police Officials and Officers, Chief Inspector M. NAPOLEONI and Assistant Lorena ZUGARINI, the person indicated in the subject is present who declares as follows: It is noted that the English language interpreter Aida Colantone is present, who is used by the above-mentioned office as the person indicated in the subject does not understand the Italian language. “I have been in Italy since September 30, 2007 and I am attending a 3-month Italian course at the Foreigners’ University. I have known Rudy Guede Hermann since about October 20, I met him on the cathedral steps because he was with my friend Alex Crudo.
I have never met him on my own nor have we exchanged cellular phone numbers but I have seen him 6/7 times with Alex, Sofia, Mohammad and other friends. Only once have I eaten at his home with other friends. I didn’t know Meredith except I once saw her at the Shamrock pub while we were watching a rugby match. Later my American friends, after her death, told me she was one of the young women who watched the match that evening in the pub. Rudy was also there that evening but he never spoke to Meredith. Rudy never told me he had a date with Meredith or that he liked her, I repeat I didn’t know Meredith and I never heard Rudy or anyone else talk about her.
Once Rudy told me he liked a young woman called Alessia, German and I give her cell 333/5648047. I do not know Amanda Knox, nor Raffaele Sollecito nor Patrick Diya. On the evening of October 31, around 19 or 20 I went with my friend Alex, with Mohammad and with Sofia, Alex’s sister, to the Ipercoop to look for wigs and masks for Hallowen [sic].
Page 2
Later I went back home and after we went with the people I mentioned above to the Rock Castle pub. I am certain I never saw Rudy that evening. On November 1 I was at home during the whole day and perhaps also the evening, in any case I am certain I never saw Rudy nor during the day on November 1 nor on the evening of November 1. I am totally certain I saw Rudy the last time 4 or 5 days before Hallowen [sic] in a venue having a kebab in this street U. Rocchi. I can categorically say I have not seen Rudy since Meredith’s murder. My friend Alex, after Rudy’s arrest, told me Rudy had popped by his home on the day of the murder. I found out about this murder from other friends and by seeing many police officers at the scene of the crime, but this at least two or three days after the crime. I cannot remember exactly what I did on November 2, 2007 but I certainly never saw Rudy and I repeat I haven’t seen him since 4 or 5 days before Hallowen [sic]. I have nothing else to add.” The above-mentioned person is made aware by the judicial authorities that in his quality as a witness he is bound to secrecy so as not to prejudice the investigations which are in progress.

It would appear the Judge only read page one. I guess since both Alex and Phillip who Rudy claims to see him the night of the murder which they deny. Doesn't matter since they are only in Perugia for 3 months.

I don't how this works but since this judge is trying to say Rudy never mention the date with Phillip but that did they meet in the town center. Rudy said in his deposition he saw Phillip after going to the kabob place getting the time of 8:26 or 8:27 from him before heading back to the cottage. Mignini says Amanda was in the area of Piazza November lV when she got Patrick text at 8:18. That based on the cell tower this text connected with didn't cover Raffaele apartment. Even the call Amanda made to Meredith phone on Nov 2th proves that it does cover his apartment.

[Stacyhs]

So you're telling us that Guede is a liar? I'm shocked!!

[schmidt61]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

So you're telling us that Guede is a liar? I'm shocked!!

Rudy lie was that he went to cottage before 8 pm Nov 1st. Found no one home. So he went to see his friend Alex Crudo. Then he went to have a Kabob when he sees Phillip Maly. He mention that he has a date with girl. He finds out the time from Phillip it 8:26/8:27 and heads back to the cottage. He still finds no one home. Meredith then arrives a few minutes latter around 15 minutes which matches Mignini time line that Meredith walks past the CCTV at 8:41. While Massei agrees with the defense that Meredith at around 9 pm.
Since both Alex and Phillip say didn't see Guede that night at all it would leave me to believe whenever Guede arrive at the cottage he broke the window and waited for a reaction from anyone that might have been home. Or coming from the parking garage roof. Since that was where people might hear the smashing window.

In Phillip deposition he did state he last saw Guede at the Kabob place just not Nov1st.

[Stacyhs]

I agree. Guede lied about coming to the cottage earlier to see Meredith because he wanted to cover in case anyone saw him in the area around that time; it's when he broke the window. He then waited nearby to see if there was any reaction from anyone. Having stood on that garage roof myself, anyone there might well have heard glass breaking if no cars were driving by which, of course, Guede would have made sure weren't before he threw the rock.

[acbytesla]

I haven't looked at this thread in a while. Wonder if any of you have seen the trailer for Stillwater a new Matt Damon film. The movie is to released in July.

Anyway, it seems to steal a few elements from the Amanda Knox saga.

Also, I was wondering if there have been any developments regarding the exoneration of Amanda for the callunia offense? Last I recall, the ECHR was waiting on Italy but that was 6 months to a year ago.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Just to update readers here on the ECHR - Committee of Ministers (glacially slow) progress (as typical of the cases against Itay) in this case:

Italy has 56 pending leading cases before the Committee of Ministers (CoM). One of these cases is Knox v. Italy.

Of these 56 cases, Knox v. Italy is one of the 15 awaiting an Action Plan or Report from Italy.* Italy did provide a preliminary communication (as denoted by the CoM) to the CoM on 10 January 2020. Italy acknowledged the ECHR judgment in that communication. It paid the Just Satisfaction to Knox as reported 3 January 2020.

The earliest pending leading case awaiting an Action Plan or Report is De Tommaso v. Italy 43395/09 ECHR final judgment date 23 February 2017. The ECHR final judgment date for Knox v. Italy is 24 June 2019 and the CoM has likewise not received an Action Plan or Report. However, the CoM has received an Action Plan from the Italian government for the case Cordella and Others v. Italy 54414/13, final judgment date also 24 June 2019, involving the failure of the Italian government to address the health effects of air pollution from a steel plant.

So onlookers expecting a resolution of Knox v. Italy may need to exercise patience.

As a guide as to what can be expected, one may consider the pending leading case Cafagna v. Italy 26073/13 ECHR final judgment date 12 January 2018. The CoM has received 3 communications from Italy on this case, with the latest an Action Plan or Report received 25 June 2020. This Action Plan or Report states that, as an Individual Measure, Cafagna was acquitted in new proceedings and, as General Measures,



Google translation

The CoM has not yet finalized its evaluation of Italy's efforts to redress the violations of international law declared by the ECHR in Cafagna v. Italy.


* Of the other 41 cases, the CoM reports that Italy has filed a required Action Plan or Report in 34 cases; in 7 cases, no Action Plan or Report was required.

Sources:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22],%22EXECLanguage%22:[%22ENG%22],%22EXECState%22:[%22ITA%22],%22EXECIsClosed%22:[%22False%22],%22EXECType%22:[%22L%22]}

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-48795

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2020)589F

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I haven't looked at this thread in a while. Wonder if any of you have seen the trailer for Stillwater a new Matt Damon film. The movie is to released in July.

Anyway, it seems to steal a few elements from the Amanda Knox saga.

Also, I was wondering if there have been any developments regarding the exoneration of Amanda for the callunia offense? Last I recall, the ECHR was waiting on Italy but that was 6 months to a year ago.

Here ya go, AC. Italy is dragging its feet per usual. Domani, domani......

Amanda did mention in an interview that she is still pursuing having the calunnia charge overturned but that it's "very expensive". We discussed why and what her and he lawyers' tactics may be in the last few pages, so if you're interested, take a look.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Here ya go, AC. Italy is dragging its feet per usual. Domani, domani......

Amanda did mention in an interview that she is still pursuing having the calunnia charge overturned but that it's "very expensive". We discussed why and what her and he lawyers' tactics may be in the last few pages, so if you're interested, take a look.

Thanks. It seems as if this has been going on forever.

I'm interested. Just no longer obsessed by it. Hope her life is going well. Yours too.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Thanks. It seems as if this has been going on forever.

I'm interested. Just no longer obsessed by it. Hope her life is going well. Yours too.

Hers seems to be; she and Chris are expecting a baby.

[Sherkeu]

I haven't posted in this thread for a long while.
It was so obvious, with even a basic look at the REAL evidence, that Knox was innocent. I read everything!!
I was left with nothing to add to convince otherwise.

Is there anyone left in here who STILL thinks she is guilty? Skimming the last couple pages about legal remedies didnt tell me much. The talk about her having to PAY to be exonerated sounds so ridiculous.
She should get MILLIONS in restitution for what they did to her life.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Hers seems to be; she and Chris are expecting a baby.

That doesn't means she's happy. Just knocked up.

Anyway, best to her and you.

[whoanellie]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Thanks. It seems as if this has been going on forever.

I'm interested. Just no longer obsessed by it. Hope her life is going well. Yours too.

Great to see you drop in AC

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Is there anyone left in here who STILL thinks she is guilty?

There are.

What they cannot do is say why, not in a manner which addresses even the most basic holes in any of the prosecution's/convicting court's claims.

They also have never produced a guilt-timeline, one that includes either Raffaele Sollecito and/or Amanda Knox as part of it.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

There are.

What they cannot do is say why, not in a manner which addresses even the most basic holes in any of the prosecution's/convicting court's claims.

They also have never produced a guilt-timeline, one that includes either Raffaele Sollecito and/or Amanda Knox as part of it.

They cannot say why that includes any logic or actual forensic or credible witness evidence. Their "whys" include: 'canoodling' outside the cottage, doing splits at the questura, they can see it in her eyes, body language, she's a slut, all her 'lies', an April Fool's Day prank she pulled in college, blaming an innocent man, etc.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

They cannot say why that includes any logic or actual forensic or credible witness evidence. Their "whys" include: 'canoodling' outside the cottage, doing splits at the questura, they can see it in her eyes, body language, she's a slut, all her 'lies', an April Fool's Day prank she pulled in college, blaming an innocent man, etc.

The brilliance of the Marasca-Bruno report of Sept 2015 was its brevity and simplicity. Even if all those things had been true, it still did not make up for the basic, unassailable fact that there was no forensic presence of either Sollecito or Knox in the murderroom. None.

Me, I fell for it, though, when guilters threw this kind of mud on the wall to see if some of it would stick. Point being, none of it, even if true in total, made up for that one unassailable fact.

As per the lies, I wasted copious evenings tracking down the alleged lies. To be fair, I tracked down the lies as alleged by the guilters themselves. Harry Rag/The Machine (internet poster and chief guilter) was my main source, although their were others.

I found 13 unique lies alleged. Most were duplicates of "lies", which guilters did not distinguish as being essentially one lie. There were 13 of them.

Strangely, 11 of them turned out to be lies Raffaele was supposed to have told. Almost universally, what the guilters had done was taken Raffaele's statements at his own interrogation as fact, where he had in fact separated himself from Knox - then they regarded it as Sollecito "lying" when he reverted back to his original story - that Knox had been at his place during the crucial murder hours.

They actually missed a lie, a lie which actually did draw attention to Knox. Knox, like all of Meredith's friends, lied about Meredith's marijuana use. They lied, trying to divert attention from the fact that Meredith had been watering the marijuana plants in the basement flat to the cottage.

When Detective Ficarra pulled Knox into the interrogation room on the late night of Nov 5th, Ficarra's words were, "It's time for truth." That had been a direct reference to Knox lying about Meredith's relationship with marijuana.

But I forgive the guilters for not including that one, because it had nothing to do with the murder. It's just that none of the other ones claimed did either.

And I fell for it.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by whoanellie

Great to see you drop in AC

Thanks Nellie.

Hope everything is going well in your life as well!

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The brilliance of the Marasca-Bruno report of Sept 2015 was its brevity and simplicity. Even if all those things had been true, it still did not make up for the basic, unassailable fact that there was no forensic presence of either Sollecito or Knox in the murderroom. None.

If K&S had anything to do with the crime they surely would have had an attempted mutual alibi well worked out. What we get is totally the opposite with Raffaele being almost totally remiss in his recollection of events.

The way I've always looked at it it that if an alleged lie was in any way significant, the very act of its exposure would have to directly implicate K&S in the crime. No alleged lies have done any such thing, which seems to compliment your point above. What we have instead is 2 befuddled potheads trying to make sense of a perfectly ordinary evening when nothing was particularly memorable.

Hoots

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TomG

The way I've always looked at it it that if an alleged lie was in any way significant, the very act of its exposure would have to directly implicate K&S in the crime. No alleged lies have done any such thing, which seems to compliment your point above.

Hoots

None of the lies that guilters listed, even if true as actual lies, prove anything in relation to involvement or non-involvement in the actual crime. It's as if guilters were on a character assassination crusade, rather than interested in who'd done the murder.

I remember the first time I'd been "called out" for challenging the evidence which had once been used to establish guilt for AK or RS. What was the "call out"?

"Why are you supporting someone who had sex on a train? Don't you know that's who you're supporting?"

What does supporting or not supporting train-sex veterans have to do with anything?

Me, my bad, I spent way way too many evenings down the rabbit hole trying to find �� everything there was to find by that train-sex claim. My bad, not theirs. (For the record, there was no train sex. As lurid as it would have been otherwise, the point remains: why "call me out" on such a non sequitur? Purely my bad for getting sucked in.)

Like "the lies", most of the historic bad-mouthing of (mostly) AK turned out to be bogus, but even if true added nothing to understanding how a beautiful soul was murdered that night.

As per the M-B report, none of it explained why there was no forensic evidence connecting either AK or RS to the crime. Even if all that other stuff had been true.

Unless the object of the enterprise was to engage in character assassination.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

None of the lies that guilters listed, even if true as actual lies, prove anything in relation to involvement or non-involvement in the actual crime. It's as if guilters were on a character assassination crusade, rather than interested in who'd done the murder.

I remember the first time I'd been "called out" for challenging the evidence which had once been used to establish guilt for AK or RS. What was the "call out"?

"Why are you supporting someone who had sex on a train? Don't you know that's who you're supporting?"

What does supporting or not supporting train-sex veterans have to do with anything?

Me, my bad, I spent way way too many evenings down the rabbit hole trying to find �� everything there was to find by that train-sex claim. My bad, not theirs.

Like "the lies", most of the historic bad-mouthing of (mostly) AK turned out to be bogus, but even if true added nothing to understanding how a beautiful soul was murdered that night.

As per the M-B report, none of it explained why there was no forensic evidence connecting either AK or RS to the crime. Even if all that other stuff had been true.

Unless the object of the enterprise was to engage in character assassination.

Frankly, they remind me of today's Big Lie supporters: deflect attention to anything and everything except the actual evidence because it doesn't support your side and try to make something out of nothing.

[TomG]

Cop mediator / translator Anna Donnino admittted in court to using techniques to make Amanda doubt her recollection of events. She also stated that she tries to "cultivate a rapport" with the individual in question. She said "I do it habitually with everybody, I didn't do it only that night, I do it all the time."

We know that the ECHR judgement concluded that Donnino acted improperly in "adopting a motherly attitude towards Amanda" If that's the case and the calunnia is eventually thrown out it could have ramifications on other cases. If Donnino stated that she does this habitually then it's conceivable that other convictions where Donnino has acted this way are unsafe.

Hoots

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TomG

Cop mediator / translator Anna Donnino admittted in court to using techniques to make Amanda doubt her recollection of events. She also stated that she tries to "cultivate a rapport" with the individual in question. She said "I do it habitually with everybody, I didn't do it only that night, I do it all the time."

We know that the ECHR judgement concluded that Donnino acted improperly in "adopting a motherly attitude towards Amanda" If that's the case and the calunnia is eventually thrown out it could have ramifications on other cases. If Donnino stated that she does this habitually then it's conceivable that other convictions where Donnino has acted this way are unsafe.

Hoots

True. I wonder if Donnino is still working as a translator for the police.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

True. I wonder if Donnino is still working as a translator for the police.

I suspect that in the murky, byzantine world of Italian law enforcement and judiciary, old allegiances die very hard indeed. Until there's finally no viable alternative, at least.

(In the same vein, one might ask whether the likes of Mignini, Giobbi and Massei received any formal censure over the catastrophic way they led the investigation, prosecution and (initial) adjudication of these gigantically wrong & ill-conceived convictions. And I think we all know the near-certain answer to that question, also....)

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

(In the same vein, one might ask whether the likes of Mignini, Giobbi and Massei received any formal censure over the catastrophic way they led the investigation, prosecution and (initial) adjudication of these gigantically wrong & ill-conceived convictions. And I think we all know the near-certain answer to that question, also....)

This is not only an Italian issue. Canada has had many high-profile, publicly scrutinized wrongful convictions exposed. Most of them have implied devastating criticisms of police, prosecutions, investigators and courts. Rarely does even a Royal Commission actually name names, but one doesn't have to read very far to discover otherwise high profile people running and ducking for cover.

Not often enough, someone is censured. Sometimes like Mignini, there's a face-saving kicking upstairs. More pay, but they can't do the same damage.

Our local university's law school has a fledgling innocence project. They've been quick out of the gate with some locally high-profile successes. Behind every one of them are law enforcement "professionals" who dig in with their wrongful indictments, as if what is obvious is not obvious.

It's not just Italy.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I suspect that in the murky, byzantine world of Italian law enforcement and judiciary, old allegiances die very hard indeed. Until there's finally no viable alternative, at least.

(In the same vein, one might ask whether the likes of Mignini, Giobbi and Massei received any formal censure over the catastrophic way they led the investigation, prosecution and (initial) adjudication of these gigantically wrong & ill-conceived convictions. And I think we all know the near-certain answer to that question, also....)

Hell, Mignini got a promotion, AIUI. So did Massei. He was promoted to the Court of Appeal in Perugia:

Quote:

Decreta la conferma del dott. Giancarlo MASSEI, nato a Bevagna l’1 giugno 1953, nell’incarico di Presidente di Sezione della
Corte di Appello di Perugia con decorrenza dal 7 novembre 2015
Conferimento di funzioni giudicanti di secondo grado

Translation by Google

Quote:

It decrees the confirmation of Dr. Giancarlo MASSEI, born in Bevagna, the first of June, 1953, in the office of Section of President of the Court of Appeal of Perugia with effect from 7 November 2015.
Conferral of second degree judicial functions.

As for Edgardo Giobbi, I don't know exactly what this means but it seems he was promoted in some way just last month:

Quote:

EDGARDO GIOBBI, VICAR OF THE QUESTORE OF BERGAMO, PROMOTED TO SENIOR MANAGER

Edgardo Giobbi, 52 years old from Rome, collaborated with the Central Operational Service (SCO) of the Bergamo Police Headquarters, in the investigation into the crime of Yara Gambirasio.

With the new office, the Vicar Giobbi, becomes the new direct collaborator of the Police Commissioner Maurizio Auriemma.

Bergamo, April 6, 2020 - In today's session of the Board of Directors for the staff of the State Police, the Vicar of the Police Chief of Bergamo, Edgardo Giobbi, was promoted to Senior Manager .

The Police Commissioner Maurizio Auriemma (in the photo), in his own name, of the officials and all staff of the Police Headquarters, expresses to dr. Giobbi the warmest congratulations for the important goal achieved.

The staff of this magazine also express heartfelt congratulations to the new Senior Manager, dr. Giobbi, for the new and important office to which he was called to carry out. Ad maiora semper!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

This is not only an Italian issue. Canada has had many high-profile, publicly scrutinized wrongful convictions exposed. Most of them have implied devastating criticisms of police, prosecutions, investigators and courts. Rarely does even a Royal Commission actually name names, but one doesn't have to read very far to discover otherwise high profile people running and ducking for cover.

Not often enough, someone is censured. Sometimes like Mignini, there's a face-saving kicking upstairs. More pay, but they can't do the same damage.

Our local university's law school has a fledgling innocence project. They've been quick out of the gate with some locally high-profile successes. Behind every one of them are law enforcement "professionals" who dig in with their wrongful indictments, as if what is obvious is not obvious.

It's not just Italy.

Nope, not just Italy. Same thing here. Mainly prosecutors, and sometimes 'experts' who, rather than admit they were wrong, dig in in order to save face and further their careers. A stunning example is prosecutor Kym Worthy, who despite overwhelming evidence, including a confession by the actual killer and a ballistic test confirming the murder weapon, that a 14 yr. old had been wrongly convicted off four murders after he pleaded guilty on the advice of his lawyer, fought the overturning of that conviction all the way to the state Supreme Court. And won. The state SC actually ruled that actual innocence is not a valid reason to withdraw a guilty plea. The real killer signed an affidavit that the 14 yr. old had had nothing to do with the murders.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...nvictions.html

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...nvictions.html

Blimey, that was depressing.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

True. I wonder if Donnino is still working as a translator for the police.

I just ran across this, although I've read it before. It is from a landmark Canadian wrongful conviction study in 2007, which summarized the most notorious of Canadian legal blunders:

Quote:

Coercive police questioning of witnesses, particularly those who are psychologically vulnerable,
can lead to false allegations, either because the witnesses come to believe the allegation, or to
avoid further police questioning. For example, in the Milgaard case, repeated and coercive
questioning by police of the three youths who were with Milgaard at the time of the murder
occurred led them to make false and highly damaging allegations against him and were the basis
of his conviction. Likewise, in the much more recent case of the murder of Breann Voth by
Derek Post, improper police interviewing techniques with a drug addicted “witness” led her to
allege that she had seen two men – the original suspects – commit the crime. The trial judge had
this to say about the interview:

I am disturbed that [the witness] is asked to close her eyes and imagine she’s
watching a movie. The interrogation encourages her to engage in speculation
and imagine herself in various places. I find the nature of the questions and the
circumstances under which they were made, shocking…[the investigator]
encourages her to imagine a story. It is an atmosphere ideal for implanting false
memories.

Each of the examples above provides lessons for police investigators, and are used in VPD
training regarding wrongful convictions, the content of which is summarized below. First and
foremost, investigators are taught that while they must demonstrate professionalism and
compassion toward complainants, their role is to determine the facts, not to act as an advocate.
An investigator’s responsibility to an accused person is the same as it is to a complainant:
conduct a fair and ethical investigation following best practices motivated only by a search for
the truth. As described elsewhere in this section, tunnel vision is frequently implicated in
wrongful convictions.

The trouble is, as mentioned elsewhere, police interrogations are not forums for establishing the truth. They are pressure cookers designed to get people to confess to what the police already assume is an iron-clad set of facts.

https://www.millerthomson.com/assets..._in_Canada.pdf

[Stacyhs]

Absolutely. Mignini had already made up his mind that the killer was female due to the body being covered and that it was an 'inside job' from day one. Since Laura and Filomena had ironclad alibis and Amanda behaved outside the cottage as he didn't think she should, his tunnel vision was already as narrow and concrete as the Chunnel.