The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Did RS proclaim his innocence at his trials or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Do you really think no one notices your moving the goalpost?

An astonishing fact is that all defendants who proceed to trial are 'proclaiming innocence'.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Numbers

This is true.

And, according to the Italian Constitution and Italian law, CPP Article 533, accused persons are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty by the evidence presented by the prosecution and confirmed by a final conviction.

But what is missing in all these arguments about what Sollecito presented during the trials are some other facts.

1. Any co-accused person in a joined trial, not having been finally dismissed, acquitted, or convicted, and not having provided any pre-trial witness statement under CPP Article 64 and warned with the cautions against self-incrimination and calunnia, may not testify in the joined trial, according to CPP Article 197.

In accordance with CPP Article 197, neither Knox nor Sollecito gave testimony at the trials relating to the charges against both of them. Knox did testify with respect to the charge of calunnia against Lumumba, which charge was directed solely at her.

2. However, Knox and Sollecito both provided spontaneous statements during the trial, which are not subject to examination by the defense lawyer or cross-examination by the prosecution or any civil party lawyer, as provided for accused persons by Italian law, CPP Article 494. Each stated their innocence in their respective spontaneous statements. Sollecito gave several spontaneous statements on specific points during the course of the Massei court trial, and one long one (no doubt prepared with the assistance of his lawyers) on 3 December 2009. Knox gave several spontaneous statements and a long one (again, no doubt prepared with help from her lawyers) on 3 December 2009.

3. The whole concept that an accused can lawfully agree to testify about matters relating to the joint charges at a joined trial is contrary to relevant Italian legal principles and law (CPP Article 197).

Only a person 1) previously accused of the joint crime, whose legal status is finally dismissed, finally acquitted, or finally convicted, or 2) being currently accused of the joint crime, having previous to the trial made a witness statement in accordance with CPP Article 64, may agree to testify.

Neither Knox nor Sollecito met these exclusions, so they could not lawfully testify at their trials on matter relating to the alleged joint crime. Knox lawfully testified about the Nov. 5/6 interrogation, because that related to the charge of calunnia against Lumumba, which charge only applied to her.

Guede could lawfully testify at the Knox - Sollecito trials following Guede's final conviction for the murder/rape of Kercher. And, indeed, on 27 June 2011, he gave testimony during the Hellmann court trial, since he had been finally convicted by the 16 December 2010 Giordano CSC panel confirmation of the Borsini court conviction.

You are unneccessarily obfuscating the issue. Whilst a defandant may not testify against a co-defendant, there is absolutely nothing that prevents a defendant in a murder trial in Italy from taking the witness stand and being cross-examined about their own role.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

An astonishing fact is that all defendants who proceed to trial are 'proclaiming innocence'.

Answer the question: Did RS proclaim his innocence at his trials or not?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Answer the question: Did RS proclaim his innocence at his trials or not?

When you have answered the question, yes or no, did Sollecito take the witness stand to explain how he was innocent?

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

You do not have to be present when someone downloads stuff in your P2P folders. I would guess the modern day version of this file sharing is Google Drive.

How the file got there doesn't matter. The file was played on Raffaele's computer in its entirety. Indicating user interaction and alibi.

Hoots

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TomG

How the file got there doesn't matter. The file was played on Raffaele's computer in its entirety. Indicating user interaction and alibi.

Hoots

Not necessarily. Might have taken twenty minutes to download. From what I recall of the court transcripts the last interaction with Sollecito's computer which would have required a user present was when the Amelie film ended when someone must have clicked the box to close it. Anything after that did not require a presence. Nobody clicked on Naruto to open it. In any case it is of little to no relevance to the case as it doesn't demonstrate anyone was actually there to watch it.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

You do not have to be present when someone downloads stuff in your P2P folders. I would guess the modern day version of this file sharing is Google Drive.

Originally Posted by Vixen

You, your husband and your daughter are incorrect. Do read the court transcripts for the forensic IT police analysis.

I didn't say you have to be present when it's downloading. Of course you can start a download and then walk away. I said that the download had to be initiated from his laptop and he had to start playing it. Or do you think the cartoon just started playing all by itself? I think two computer engineers know more about it than you do.

The IT police analysis doesn't mention the Naruto cartoon because they didn't find it; it was found by RS's consultant, D'Ambrosio.
Why don't you provide the relevant quote from his testimony since it's you who made the claim that the Naruto cartoon was downloaded by "someone external" and not Raffaele. Hint: you can't.

In order for the Naruto cartoon to actually play, as it did, it had to be opened by the recipient, in this case Raffaele. As Marasca/Bruno wrote:

Quote:

On the other hand, the examination of Sollecito's computer registered an interaction at 21.20 and then a subsequent one at 21.26 not discovered by the postal police - but by the defendant's consultant D'Ambrosio using different software, MAC), to watch a cartoon (Naruto) lasting 20 minutes, demonstrating that until 21.46 Sollecito was at his house.
This serves to demonstrate the non-involvement of the accused, also evident in light of the Skype call between Guede and his friend Benedetti.

Do you see anywhere in that statement anything about it NOT being RS who interacted with the laptop at 21:20 and 21:26?

They could not tell when the Naruto cartoon was actually downloaded because the idiot police had used the laptop while Sollecito was at the questura which overwrote the data. From the Milani report:

Quote:

Once more it is not possible to know with certainty whether it has been accessed and viewed at a time immediately following the end of the downloading because, as you may notice, at 2.47 am of November 6, 2007, (a time when the person under investigation was detained under interrogation) the previous “last access” date was overwritten.

http://amandaknoxcase.com/milani-report/

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Not necessarily. Might have taken twenty minutes to download. From what I recall of the court transcripts the last interaction with Sollecito's computer which would have required a user present was when the Amelie film ended when someone must have clicked the box to close it. Anything after that did not require a presence. Nobody clicked on Naruto to open it. In any case it is of little to no relevance to the case as it doesn't demonstrate anyone was actually there to watch it.

Untrue. The data concerning interaction after closing the Amelie movie was lost because the police overwrote it when they played around on the laptop on Nov. 6 when RS and AK were at the questura.

Actually, it does matter. What would be the reason for playing a twenty minute cartoon and then leaving the apartment instead of watching it?

It doesn't take 20 minutes to download a 20 min. cartoon.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

When you have answered the question, yes or no, did Sollecito take the witness stand to explain how he was innocent?

When you have answered MY question, which was asked first, then I'll answer yours.

Did RS proclaim his innocence at his trials or not?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I didn't say you have to be present when it's downloading. Of course you can start a download and then walk away. I said that the download had to be initiated from his laptop and he had to start playing it. Or do you think the cartoon just started playing all by itself? I think two computer engineers know more about it than you do.

The IT police analysis doesn't mention the Naruto cartoon because they didn't find it; it was found by RS's consultant, D'Ambrosio.
Why don't you provide the relevant quote from his testimony since it's you who made the claim that the Naruto cartoon was downloaded by "someone external" and not Raffaele. Hint: you can't.

In order for the Naruto cartoon to actually play, as it did, it had to be opened by the recipient, in this case Raffaele. As Marasca/Bruno wrote:



Do you see anywhere in that statement anything about it NOT being RS who interacted with the laptop at 21:20 and 21:26?

They could not tell when the Naruto cartoon was actually downloaded because the idiot police had used the laptop while Sollecito was at the questura which overwrote the data. From the Milani report:


http://amandaknoxcase.com/milani-report/

So now Marasca-Bruno are IT boffs as well as well as genius scientists who know all about Gallileo, whom they quote so lovingly...?

It is a fact that the last computer action that required a definite user input was when someone clicked 'close' on the Amelie film. The Naruto download is a nothingburger that is of no consequence whether it played or not.

[Stacyhs]

I see. So now YOU know more about computers than what the Supreme Court judges stated which came from the actual computer experts. Laughing dog, indeed.

The Naruto cartoon played. So who started it, Vixen? Some 'external' person across town?

What part of 'the data was overwritten' are you not understanding?

Quote:

An unknown activity occurred on November 6, 2007 has hence surely modified the last access date and the last modification date of the “Naruto Ep. 101” file, without, however, modifying the “last opening” date, which instead was still available.

It must be moreover pointed out how the last access date (Tuesday November 6, 2007, 10.18.38 am) and the last modification date (Tuesday November 6, 2007, 1.28.09 pm) of that file correspond to a time coinciding with the seizure of the laptop at Raffaele Sollecito’s dwelling, a time when many other activities on said laptop, vouched for by the system log files, were detected.

It has to be finally noticed that the duration of said animation movie episode is of about 20 minutes. It is not possible to know if the movie has been watched in its entirety or not, since alterations at a later time have overwritten this information, as for instance have the alterations that occurred on Tuesday November 6, 2007, at the time of the seizure of the computer, and later.

https://manualzz.com/doc/en/22037673...0%99s-computer

Seems like I'm the only one actually providing evidence from court documents to support my claim. You've failed to provide anything. Why is that?

[Stacyhs]

Are you going to answer my question or do your usual and just ignore it because you don't want to ...can't... admit you were wrong?

[Numbers]

Knox v. Italy is a pending leading ECHR case before the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. The ECHR found in its final judgment of that Italy had violated Knox's rights under international law, under three articles of the Convention binding Italy and other member States, and that Knox's conviction for calunnia was thus the result of an unfair trial. The CoM is awaiting Italy's required Action Plan for resolving those violations of international law..

Italy has been slow to provide the Action Plans required to resolve ECHR final judgments against it. Here's Italy's record for current pending cases before the CoM:

Italy

Pending Leading Final Judgment Cases: 55
Awaiting Action Plan: 13 (including Knox v. Italy)
Action Plan Received: 35
Action Plan Not Required: 7

How does Italy's performance compare to that of the other CoE member States? Here are three other States showing a range of responsiveness to their international legal obligations to the CoM.

UK

Pending Leading Final Judgment Cases: 7
Action Plan Received: 7

France

Pending Leading Final Judgment Cases: 25
Awaiting Action Plan: 1
Action Plan Received: 24

Russia

Pending Leading Final Judgment Cases: 219
Awaiting Action Plan: 68
Action Plan Received: 82
Action Plan Not Required: 69

Conclusion: Italy's is slow to respond to its international obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights compared to some Council of Europe States, but not as slow as some other Council of Europe States.

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22]}
Appropriate filters applied to obtain the data.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Roughly translated: the official facts are bogus. What is really important are my facts.

Actual facts resolve the case. The prosecution's judicial facts I mentioned don't resolve anything, simply because they are actual lies.

Hoots

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

You, your husband and your daughter are incorrect. Do read the court transcripts for the forensic IT police analysis.

A familiar tactic. Refrain from posting a quote yourself from this obliquely defined source.

The point being constructing a proof-like post, but leave it up to others to figure out both what you are referring to and then digging out the requisite citation themselves.

If you were familiar with your own rendering, you'd be able to quickly settle things - which you never do.

For instance, you bleat on about the forensic DNA work of the Scientific Police. Yet you cannot name one, just one, forensic DNA expert who supports that work. Instead, those very same experts comment on the sloppy collection procedures, as well as the testing protocols used which do not meet international standards.

You, however, simply assert. In the rare case you supply a link to a cite, the cite often completely refutes the very point you tried to make.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TomG

Actual facts resolve the case. The prosecution's judicial facts I mentioned don't resolve anything, simply because they are actual lies.

Hoots

Indeed, the final court, writing 5 1/2 years ago concluded that even if the prosecution's judicial facts were true, all they proved was that RS and AK were in another part of the cottage at a later time.

[Bill Williams]

It may just be me.....

But the 2015 motivations report offered its opinion that even if the various prosecution's judicial facts had been true.....

That that actually proved the pair's innocence.

And if those judicial facts had **not** been true, then there was no case to begin with.

So the choice was: actual innocence vs. there being no case against them.

But that's just me.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Not necessarily. Might have taken twenty minutes to download. From what I recall of the court transcripts the last interaction with Sollecito's computer which would have required a user present was when the Amelie film ended when someone must have clicked the box to close it. Anything after that did not require a presence. Nobody clicked on Naruto to open it. In any case it is of little to no relevance to the case as it doesn't demonstrate anyone was actually there to watch it.

I'm really struggling over who to believe in this issue. The professional opinion consulted in the Milani report indicating the "certain viewing" of the Naruto file... or you. Hmm! It's a tough one.

Hoots

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

A familiar tactic. Refrain from posting a quote yourself from this obliquely defined source.

Very familiar. As is the tactic of never answering a question she doesn't like the answer to.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Let me get this straight. In your view, it is OK to lie when being interviewed by the police as it's a bit stressful, so one is bound to blurt out lies. The real truth is what people write in their prison diaries, as checked by the screws on their rounds.

If you are going to allege lies in this case then you need to be sure that the exposure of the lie reveals some act of criminality or it's not going to be much of a lie. What Raffaele said didn't reveal anything incriminating except that he was an addled pot-head who got his memory of events mixed up. What he said 4 times in his prison diary is always going to be more reliable since the easy option would be to simply rat on Amanda and get himself out of it. He took by far the more difficult option when he didn't need to.

Hoots

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TomG

Actual facts resolve the case. The prosecution's judicial facts I mentioned don't resolve anything, simply because they are actual lies.

Hoots

"Judicial facts" are used to hide behind because the "factual" i.e. scientific facts show that only two people were in Kercher's room that night. And neither of them was Knox or Sollecito.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers

This is true.

And, according to the Italian Constitution and Italian law, CPP Article 533, accused persons are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty by the evidence presented by the prosecution and confirmed by a final conviction.

But what is missing in all these arguments about what Sollecito presented during the trials are some other facts.

1. Any co-accused person in a joined trial, not having been finally dismissed, acquitted, or convicted, and not having provided any pre-trial witness statement under CPP Article 64 and warned with the cautions against self-incrimination and calunnia, may not testify in the joined trial, according to CPP Article 197.

In accordance with CPP Article 197, neither Knox nor Sollecito gave testimony at the trials relating to the charges against both of them. Knox did testify with respect to the charge of calunnia against Lumumba, which charge was directed solely at her.

2. However, Knox and Sollecito both provided spontaneous statements during the trial, which are not subject to examination by the defense lawyer or cross-examination by the prosecution or any civil party lawyer, as provided for accused persons by Italian law, CPP Article 494. Each stated their innocence in their respective spontaneous statements. Sollecito gave several spontaneous statements on specific points during the course of the Massei court trial, and one long one (no doubt prepared with the assistance of his lawyers) on 3 December 2009. Knox gave several spontaneous statements and a long one (again, no doubt prepared with help from her lawyers) on 3 December 2009.

3. The whole concept that an accused can lawfully agree to testify about matters relating to the joint charges at a joined trial is contrary to relevant Italian legal principles and law (CPP Article 197).

Only a person 1) previously accused of the joint crime, whose legal status is finally dismissed, finally acquitted, or finally convicted, or 2) being currently accused of the joint crime, having previous to the trial made a witness statement in accordance with CPP Article 64, may agree to testify.

Neither Knox nor Sollecito met these exclusions, so they could not lawfully testify at their trials on matter relating to the alleged joint crime. Knox lawfully testified about the Nov. 5/6 interrogation, because that related to the charge of calunnia against Lumumba, which charge only applied to her.

Guede could lawfully testify at the Knox - Sollecito trials following Guede's final conviction for the murder/rape of Kercher. And, indeed, on 27 June 2011, he gave testimony during the Hellmann court trial, since he had been finally convicted by the 16 December 2010 Giordano CSC panel confirmation of the Borsini court conviction.

Readers here may wonder why Guede was lawfully able to avoid cross-examination relating to the relevant crimes against Kercher while lawfully testifying as a prosecution witness at the Knox - Sollecito trial before the Hellman court on 27 June 2011. Readers may have the misconception that, under law, persons called to testify must answer all relevant questions under cross-examination. However, under Italian law, CPP Article 197-bis, that is not true for certain classes of witnesses.

Furthermore, readers may be under the misconception that a witness, whether or not that witness is an accused in the trial, must, under law, answer questions under examination or cross-examination relating to his or her potential criminal responsibility. For example, some readers or posters may assume, for example, that should Knox or Sollecito have testified about the relevant crimes against Kercher (including sexual assault and murder), cross-examination would have forced them to reveal their alleged criminal responsibility (although it is clear objectively and by final legal judgment that neither had any involvement in the crimes against Kercher). However, under Italian law, CPP Article 198, a witness is under no obligation to testify about any fact that may reveal or unravel his own criminal responsibility.

Here's the Italian text of CPP Article 197-bis:

Quote:

Art. 197-bis.

Persone imputate o giudicate in un procedimento connesso o per reato collegato che assumono l'ufficio di testimone.

1. L'imputato in un procedimento connesso ai sensi dell'articolo 12 o di un reato collegato a norma dell'articolo 371, comma 2, lettera b), può essere sempre sentito come testimone quando nei suoi confronti è stata pronunciata sentenza irrevocabile di proscioglimento, di condanna o di applicazione della pena ai sensi dell'articolo 444.

2. L'imputato in un procedimento connesso ai sensi dell'articolo 12, comma 1, lettera c), o di un reato collegato a norma dell'articolo 371, comma 2, lettera b), può essere sentito come testimone, inoltre, nel caso previsto dall'articolo 64, comma 3, lettera c).

3. Nei casi previsti dai commi 1 e 2 il testimone è assistito da un difensore. In mancanza di difensore di fiducia è designato un difensore di ufficio.

4. Nel caso previsto dal comma 1 il testimone non può essere obbligato a deporre sui fatti per i quali è stata pronunciata in giudizio sentenza di condanna nei suoi confronti, se nel procedimento egli aveva negato la propria responsabilità ovvero non aveva reso alcuna dichiarazione. Nel caso previsto dal comma 2 il testimone non può essere obbligato a deporre su fatti che concernono la propria responsabilità in ordine al reato per cui si procede o si è proceduto nei suoi confronti.

5. In ogni caso le dichiarazioni rese dai soggetti di cui al presente articolo non possono essere utilizzate contro la persona che le ha rese nel procedimento a suo carico, nel procedimento di revisione della sentenza di condanna ed in qualsiasi giudizio civile o amministrativo relativo al fatto oggetto dei procedimenti e delle sentenze suddette.

6. Alle dichiarazioni rese dalle persone che assumono l'ufficio di testimone ai sensi del presente articolo si applica la disposizione di cui all'articolo 192, comma 3.

And here is the Italian text for CPP Article 198:

Quote:

Art. 198.

Obblighi del testimone.

1. Il testimone ha l'obbligo di presentarsi al giudice e di attenersi alle prescrizioni date dal medesimo per le esigenze processuali e di rispondere secondo verità alle domande che gli sono rivolte.

2. Il testimone non può essere obbligato a deporre su fatti dai quali potrebbe emergere una sua responsabilità penale.

Source of the above Italian texts:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/ne...mezzi-di-prova

Here are translations of the above texts, using Google translate but with my modifications for clarity as guided by the translation provided by Gialuz et al.:

Quote:

Article 197-bis.

Person accused or tried in joined [related] proceedings or for a joined offense [related crime] who undertakes the duty of a witness.

1. The person accused either in joined [related] proceedings under [CPP] Article 12 or of a joined [related] offense under [CPP] Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b), may be heard as a witness if a final [irrevocable] judgment of dismissal [including acquittal], conviction or application of the [agreed] penalty [for minor offenses] under [CPP] Article 444 has been delivered against him.

2. The accused either in joined [related] proceedings as provided for in [CPP] Article 12, paragraph 1, letter c), or of a joined [related] crime as provided for in [CPP] Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b), may be heard as a witness also in the case provided for by [CPP] Article 64, paragraph 3, letter c).

3. In the cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 [of this Article], the witness shall be assisted by a lawyer. If the witness has no retained lawyer, he shall be assisted by a court-appointed lawyer.

4. In the case provided for in paragraph 1, the witness shall not be obliged to testify on facts related to the offense for which he was convicted if, during the trial that convicted him, he had denied his own criminal responsibility or had not made any statement during the proceedings. In the case provided for in paragraph 2, the witness shall not be obliged to testify on facts concerning his own responsibility for the offense [crime] for which he is currently or formerly under prosecution.

5. The statements made by the subjects referred to in this Article shall not be used against the person who has made them in the proceedings against him, in any revision proceedings of his conviction, or in any civil or administrative trial related to the offense that has been prosecuted and ascertained in the the aforementioned judgments.

6. The provisions of article 192, paragraph 3 shall apply to the statements made by a person who undertakes the duty of witness pursuant to this Article. {That is, the statements are not to be used as evidence against another person unless there is credible independent supporting evidence.}

Quote:

Article 198

Obligations of the witness.

1. The witness is obliged to appear before the judge, to comply with the judicial indications regarding the procedural requirements, and to answer truthfully to the questions addressed to him.

2. The witness shall not be obliged to testify on facts which may unravel his own criminal responsibility [from which his criminal responsibility could emerge (arise, become evident)].

And as a probably unnecessary reminder, the meaning of CPP Article 198, paragraph 2, is consistent with the legal principle that no one may be forced testify against themselves (for example, see 5th Amendment to the US Constitution: no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Although, of course, that principle is violated in coerced confessions, which may lead to wrongful convictions. ECHR case-law bases its requirement that in all police interrogations, from the first one, the suspect must have a lawyer present*, upon this principle. This denial of a lawyer during a first interrogation, leading to an unfair trial and conviction, was one of the violations of international law (the Convention) by Italy in their final conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, according to the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy.

* Exceptions allowed only in very limited cases, for example, safety interviews of terrorism suspects; the responding State must justify any exception to the ECHR.

[AnimalFriendly]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Oh dear. It is a pity Sollecito declined to go into the witness box and testify. The trial is the correct place to proclaim innocence.

Oh dear. It is a pity that Guede declined to go into the Hellman's witness box and testify - and be cross-examined - about the events of 11/1/07 at the cottage. Since his own trial was completed and his sentence finalized. The trial was the correct place for (competent) prosecutors to make Guede their star witness vs. the other two. Now why do you suppose they failed to do this?

[Numbers]

Here is the evidence that contradicts the lie propagated by guilters that Sollecito did not proclaim his innocence during the proceedings. Because of the binding provisions of Italian law (CPP Article 197) he and Knox could not lawfully present such statements as testimony, but rather, as provided for under Italian law (CPP Article 494), only by spontaneous statements.

Here is Sollecito's spontaneous statement of 3 December 2009, near the conclusion of the Massei court trial, first in Italian, and then in Google translation.

Quote:

DICHIARAZIONI SPONTANEE DELL’IMPUTATO - SOLLECITO RAFFAELE
IMPUTATO -

Signor Giudice, Presidente Signori Giudici popolari scusatemi il tono ma è un po’ difficile perché scegliere le parole per questo intervento è stato un po’ difficile, infatti utilizzo questa scaletta per non perdermi nelle parole sarebbe molto facile, voi state per decidere della mia vita, qualsiasi parola io posso dire in questo momento sarà meno di quello che sento dentro, io non sto vivendo un incubo sto in realtà sopravvivendo a una situazione drammatica. Sono stato coinvolto in una vicenda assurda di cui non so nulla, ho ascoltato quello che dicono i Pubblici Ministeri e ho capito... e non ho capito ancora quale sarebbe il mio ruolo in questa situazione, in questa vicenda, sento dire che Amanda ha ucciso Meredith perché litigavano per ragione di igiene o per diversità di vedute rispetto agli uomini, un quadro che stento anche ad immaginare, comunque vorrei capire oggi che non mi è affatto chiaro io perché avrei dovuto partecipare all’omicidio. Non trovando nessun motivo che poteva spingermi ad uccidere dicono che sono una specie di cane al guinzaglio, infatti mi hanno definito parole del Mignini “Amanda dipendente” io vorrei che alla Corte fosse chiaro che avevo conosciuto Amanda pochi giorni prima del delitto, sicuramente le ero molto affezionato ma certamente questo significa solo ed esclusivamente che esisteva un legame appena nato ancora tutto da verificare, erano i primi tempi, i primissimi ma in un rapporto di questo genere non esiste alcuna dipendenza e in ogni caso se Amanda mi avesse chiesto di fare qualcosa che non condividevo avrei detto tranquillamente di no, no, come è sempre stato con tutte le persone che conosco e chiunque può darmi ragione figuriamoci se mi avesse chiesto di fare qualcosa di terribile come uccidere una ragazza, ribadisco io non sono un violento non lo sono mai stato e né lo sarò mai, io non ho ucciso Meredith e io non ero in quella casa la sera del delitto, ogni giorno che passa spero che il vero colpevole confessi, adesso è finito questo processo ormai, vi chiedo di restituirmi la mia vita, so che lo farete perché nonostante tutto quello che sto vivendo che è molto pesante ho ancora fiducia nella giustizia. Per me è tutto, vi ringrazio per l’attenzione.

Quote:

SPONTANEOUS REPRESENTATIONS BY THE ACCUSED - SOLLECITO RAFFAELE
Defendant -

Mr. Judge, President Gentlemen Popular Judges excuse me for the tone but it is a bit difficult because choosing the words for this speech was a bit difficult, in fact I use this lineup to not get lost in words it would be very easy, you are about to decide on the my life, any words I can say right now will be less than what I feel inside, I'm not living a nightmare I'm actually surviving a dramatic situation. I was involved in an absurd story of which I know nothing, I listened to what the prosecutors say and I understood ... and I have not yet understood what my role would be in this situation, in this affair, I hear that Amanda has killed Meredith because they were arguing for reasons of hygiene or for differences of views with respect to men, a picture that I can hardly even imagine, however I would like to understand today that it is not at all clear to me why I should have participated in the murder. Finding no reason that could lead me to kill they say that I am a kind of dog on a leash, in fact they called me Mignini's words "Amanda dependent" I would like the Court to be clear that I had met Amanda a few days before the crime, surely I was very fond but certainly this means only and exclusively that there was a newly born bond still to be verified, it was the first times, the very first but in a relationship of this kind there is no addiction and in any case if Amanda had asked me to do something that I did not share I would have said quietly no, no, as it has always been with all the people I know and anyone can agree with me let alone ask me to do something terrible like kill a girl, I repeat I am not violent I am not never been and never will be, I didn't kill Meredith and I wasn't in that house on the night of the crime, every day that passes I hope the true guilty you confess, now this process is over now, I ask you to give me back my life, I know you will do it because despite all that I am experiencing which is very heavy I still trust in justice. That's all for me, thank you for your attention.

Source: http://amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Readers here may wonder why Guede was lawfully able to avoid cross-examination relating to the relevant crimes against Kercher while lawfully testifying as a prosecution witness at the Knox - Sollecito trial before the Hellman court on 27 June 2011. Readers may have the misconception that, under law, persons called to testify must answer all relevant questions under cross-examination. However, under Italian law, CPP Article 197-bis, that is not true for certain classes of witnesses.

Furthermore, readers may be under the misconception that a witness, whether or not that witness is an accused in the trial, must, under law, answer questions under examination or cross-examination relating to his or her potential criminal responsibility. For example, some readers or posters may assume, for example, that should Knox or Sollecito have testified about the relevant crimes against Kercher (including sexual assault and murder), cross-examination would have forced them to reveal their alleged criminal responsibility (although it is clear objectively and by final legal judgment that neither had any involvement in the crimes against Kercher). However, under Italian law, CPP Article 198, a witness is under no obligation to testify about any fact that may reveal or unravel his own criminal responsibility.

Here's the Italian text of CPP Article 197-bis:



And here is the Italian text for CPP Article 198:



Source of the above Italian texts:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/ne...mezzi-di-prova

Here are translations of the above texts, using Google translate but with my modifications for clarity as guided by the translation provided by Gialuz et al.:





And as a probably unnecessary reminder, the meaning of CPP Article 198, paragraph 2, is consistent with the legal principle that no one may be forced testify against themselves (for example, see 5th Amendment to the US Constitution: no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Although, of course, that principle is violated in coerced confessions, which may lead to wrongful convictions. ECHR case-law bases its requirement that in all police interrogations, from the first one, the suspect must have a lawyer present*, upon this principle. This denial of a lawyer during a first interrogation, leading to an unfair trial and conviction, was one of the violations of international law (the Convention) by Italy in their final conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, according to the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy.

* Exceptions allowed only in very limited cases, for example, safety interviews of terrorism suspects; the responding State must justify any exception to the ECHR.

For those who may think that these Italian laws somehow don't apply to this case, I strongly suggest examining the text on page 4 of the transcript of Guede' 27 June 2011 testimony before the Hellmann court. There one will see the following instruction from the judge:

"Il teste, ammonito ai sensi dell' articolo 197 bis del codice di procedura penale, legge la formula di rito."

which, translated by Google, is:

"The witness, warned under article 197 bis of the criminal procedure code, reads the legal formula."

And Guede's testimony brought out by the prosecutor apparently has no direct relation to the events of the crime against Kercher, but primarily is about convicts including Alessi and a letter.

During the non-productive cross-examination, there was this exchange (p. 18 of the transcript):

Bongiorno*: Signor Guede, ci vuole invece parlare dell'omicido di Meredith Kercher e delle cose di cui lei e a conscenza?

Google translation: Mr. Guede, would you rather talk to us about the murder of Meredith Kercher and the things you are aware of?

Saccarelli**: Mi oppongo, non sono fatti attinenti ... mi oppongo decisamente.

Google translation: I object, they are not relevant facts ... I strongly object.

* Sollecito's lawyer

** Guede's lawyer

So there was no substantive cross-examination about the crimes against Kercher, as was Guede's lawful right under CPP Article 197 bis.

Source: http://amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers

For those who may think that these Italian laws somehow don't apply to this case, I strongly suggest examining the text on page 4 of the transcript of Guede' 27 June 2011 testimony before the Hellmann court. There one will see the following instruction from the judge:

"Il teste, ammonito ai sensi dell' articolo 197 bis del codice di procedura penale, legge la formula di rito."

which, translated by Google, is:

"The witness, warned under article 197 bis of the criminal procedure code, reads the legal formula."

And Guede's testimony brought out by the prosecutor apparently has no direct relation to the events of the crime against Kercher, but primarily is about convicts including Alessi and a letter.

During the non-productive cross-examination, there was this exchange (p. 18 of the transcript):

Bongiorno*: Signor Guede, ci vuole invece parlare dell'omicido di Meredith Kercher e delle cose di cui lei e a conscenza?

Google translation: Mr. Guede, would you rather talk to us about the murder of Meredith Kercher and the things you are aware of?

Saccarelli**: Mi oppongo, non sono fatti attinenti ... mi oppongo decisamente.

Google translation: I object, they are not relevant facts ... I strongly object.

* Sollecito's lawyer

** Guede's lawyer

So there was no substantive cross-examination about the crimes against Kercher, as was Guede's lawful right under CPP Article 197 bis.

Source: http://amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

Here's where apparently CPP Article 197 bis, although not cited explicitly, was used in the Massei court trial of Knox and Sollecito. It was used not by Knox or Sollecito, but by Guede, who had not yet been finally convicted for the crimes against Kercher.

On 4 April 2009, Guede was called as a witness before the Massei court by the prosecution. His conviction was made final on 22 December 2009.

Here's the text of the Massei court record from Guede's appearance:

Quote:

DEPOSIZIONE DEL TESTIMONE -- RUDY HERMANN GUEDE

GENERALITÀ – Guede Rudy Hermann, nato in Costa d’Avorio il 26/12/1986

PRESIDENTE – Lei in quanto imputato per gli stessi fatti per i quali è ora processo dinanzi a questa Corte di Assise, lei ha la facoltà di astenersi dal rispondere, dal deporre. Ci sono i suoi difensori, se ne è già dato atto a verbale, i suoi difensori di fiducia, entrambi sono presenti, quindi può scegliere sia di rispondere alle domande e sia di avvalersi della facoltà di non risponde; come ritiene.

TESTE – Mi avvalgo della facoltà di non rispondere.

PRESIDENTE - Si dà atto che si avvale della facoltà di non rispondere. Si prende atto e può accomodarsi.

Google translation, with some help from Collins Reverso:

Quote:

DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS - RUDY HERMANN GUEDE

GENERAL - Guede Rudy Hermann, born in the Ivory Coast on 26/12/1986

PRESIDENT - As a defendant for the same facts for which you are now on trial before this Court of Assizes, you have the right to refrain from responding, from testifying. There are his lawyers, if it has already been acknowledged in the minutes {court records}, his retained lawyers, both are present, so he can choose whether to answer questions or to avail himself of the right not to answer; as you think.

WITNESS - I avail myself of the right not to answer.

PRESIDENT - It is acknowledged that he makes use of the right not to answer. It is noted {in the court record} and you can stand down.

That Guede was given the option of either testifying or refusing to testify suggests that he had been questioned previously in accordance with CPP Article 64, paragraph 3, subparagraph C, since that would be consistent with the requirements of CPP Article 197 bis paragraph 2.

Guede's refusal to testify was then used, under CPP Article 513, in an attempt by Maresca (lawyer for the Kercher family) and the prosecutor (Comodi), to introduce into the court record readings of Guede's 7 December 2007 and 26 March 2008 interrogations. The interrogations would not, of course, be subject to cross-examination. However, under CPP Article 513, such readings into the court record are only lawful if the reading and entry into the court record is agreed to by all the defendants, and Knox through her lawyers lawfully rightly declined permission.

Since neither Knox nor Sollecito had been interrogated under the requirements of CPP Article 64, paragraph 3, subparagraph C, neither could lawfully testify about the crimes committed against Kercher, because of the provisions of CPP Articles 197 and 197 bis.

Source: http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...ni-liviero.pdf

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Are you going to answer my question or do your usual and just ignore it because you don't want to ...can't... admit you were wrong?

The Naruto download is not of any importance IMV. What is important is establishing the last time a person did have user interface which was recorded and provable, and that was when someone clicked 'end' for the Amelie film.

The Naruto thing neither adds nor subtracts anything to the case.

I do know the opinion of the police forensics was that it was some kind of P2P transfer (file sharing).

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TomG

Actual facts resolve the case. The prosecution's judicial facts I mentioned don't resolve anything, simply because they are actual lies.

Hoots

The pair had a lengthy and fair trial, with the best counsel money could buy, Sollecito coming from a well-heeled family. They had the same opportunity to present their case as did the prosecution. The verdict on the merits hearing was guilty as charged beyond any reasonable doubt. The appeal outcome was the same. A two-day Supreme Court annulled the convictions after enormous pressure from the US State Department and politcal lobbying by Bongiorno. As Knox had fled to the USA and the US state department said it had no intention of extraditing her, it was clearly felt unfair to imprison Sollecito alone, bearing in mind it was a fact found that Knox was the one who inflicted the fatal wound.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

A familiar tactic. Refrain from posting a quote yourself from this obliquely defined source.

The point being constructing a proof-like post, but leave it up to others to figure out both what you are referring to and then digging out the requisite citation themselves.

If you were familiar with your own rendering, you'd be able to quickly settle things - which you never do.

For instance, you bleat on about the forensic DNA work of the Scientific Police. Yet you cannot name one, just one, forensic DNA expert who supports that work. Instead, those very same experts comment on the sloppy collection procedures, as well as the testing protocols used which do not meet international standards.

You, however, simply assert. In the rare case you supply a link to a cite, the cite often completely refutes the very point you tried to make.

I can't be bothered to look up the Naruto stuff on your behalf because I honestly don't think it has any relevance to the case. It neither proves nor disproves anything to do with the case.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Indeed, the final court, writing 5 1/2 years ago concluded that even if the prosecution's judicial facts were true, all they proved was that RS and AK were in another part of the cottage at a later time.

Really? Knox was listening to Meredith's harrowing screams and failed to call for medical assistance?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TomG

If you are going to allege lies in this case then you need to be sure that the exposure of the lie reveals some act of criminality or it's not going to be much of a lie. What Raffaele said didn't reveal anything incriminating except that he was an addled pot-head who got his memory of events mixed up. What he said 4 times in his prison diary is always going to be more reliable since the easy option would be to simply rat on Amanda and get himself out of it. He took by far the more difficult option when he didn't need to.

Hoots

Rubbish. In his first interview he lied and he admitted he lied when he informed the police he had only lied the first time because 'Amanda asked me to lie'. He has never withdrawn his statement that the pair were not together between circa 8:45 and 1:00 am.

In the meantime he had a massive load of water all over his floors, failed to answer his dad's phone call and lied about that. Had his phone switched off from about 8:45pm. Claimed he slept until 10:00 am next morning yet it is proven they were playing Fight Club and Nirvana at circa 5:00am.

Claims he was on his computer until 1:00am when the last definite user interface was at 9:20 when the Amelie film ended.

His footprint in Meredith's blood was confirmed on the bathmat, and his and Knox' footprints showed up in the hallway, her room and Filomena's room in the luminol.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Readers here may wonder why Guede was lawfully able to avoid cross-examination relating to the relevant crimes against Kercher while lawfully testifying as a prosecution witness at the Knox - Sollecito trial before the Hellman court on 27 June 2011. Readers may have the misconception that, under law, persons called to testify must answer all relevant questions under cross-examination. However, under Italian law, CPP Article 197-bis, that is not true for certain classes of witnesses.

Furthermore, readers may be under the misconception that a witness, whether or not that witness is an accused in the trial, must, under law, answer questions under examination or cross-examination relating to his or her potential criminal responsibility. For example, some readers or posters may assume, for example, that should Knox or Sollecito have testified about the relevant crimes against Kercher (including sexual assault and murder), cross-examination would have forced them to reveal their alleged criminal responsibility (although it is clear objectively and by final legal judgment that neither had any involvement in the crimes against Kercher). However, under Italian law, CPP Article 198, a witness is under no obligation to testify about any fact that may reveal or unravel his own criminal responsibility.

Here's the Italian text of CPP Article 197-bis:



And here is the Italian text for CPP Article 198:



Source of the above Italian texts:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/ne...mezzi-di-prova

Here are translations of the above texts, using Google translate but with my modifications for clarity as guided by the translation provided by Gialuz et al.:





And as a probably unnecessary reminder, the meaning of CPP Article 198, paragraph 2, is consistent with the legal principle that no one may be forced testify against themselves (for example, see 5th Amendment to the US Constitution: no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Although, of course, that principle is violated in coerced confessions, which may lead to wrongful convictions. ECHR case-law bases its requirement that in all police interrogations, from the first one, the suspect must have a lawyer present*, upon this principle. This denial of a lawyer during a first interrogation, leading to an unfair trial and conviction, was one of the violations of international law (the Convention) by Italy in their final conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, according to the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy.

* Exceptions allowed only in very limited cases, for example, safety interviews of terrorism suspects; the responding State must justify any exception to the ECHR.

The principle in which Guede avoided cross-examination in the Knox/Sollecito trial was the fundamental legal principle (the Fifth Amendment in the USA) of the right not to incriminate oneself. This is a pretty universal right.

Of course Sollecito had the right not to take the witness stand. However, if he was so innocent as Stacyhs keeps claiming and Sollecito himself, then someone accused of a horrendous crime who really is innocent, would have no problem at all in taking the stand and being cross-examined. It's no good making 'spontaneous declarations' as they have little weight.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Are you going to answer my question or do your usual and just ignore it because you don't want to ...can't... admit you were wrong?

Originally Posted by Vixen

The Naruto download is not of any importance IMV. What is important is establishing the last time a person did have user interface which was recorded and provable, and that was when someone clicked 'end' for the Amelie film.

The Naruto thing neither adds nor subtracts anything to the case.

I do know the opinion of the police forensics was that it was some kind of P2P transfer (file sharing).

That was not my question. Stop trying to get out of answering it.

Did RS proclaim his innocence at his trials or not?

But to address your post:

Take your head out of the sand. Most of the data was overwritten when the file was accessed by the police while RS was at the questura. All that remained was the access time. Who do you think accessed and viewed that cartoon at 21:26? Or are you going to claim again that some "external person" did that?

No one is disputing the fact it was a P2P action but that has zero to do with the fact that it was accessed and viewed at 21:26 and played for about 20 minutes. And it has everything to do with the case because all evidence points to Kercher being killed shortly after returning home at 21:00.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That was not my question. Stop trying to get out of answering it.

Did RS proclaim his innocence at his trials or not?

But to address your post:

Take your head out of the sand. Most of the data was overwritten when the file was accessed by the police while RS was at the questura. All that remained was the access time. Who do you think accessed and viewed that cartoon at 21:26? Or are you going to claim again that some "external person" did that?

No one is disputing the fact it was a P2P action but that has zero to do with the fact that it was accessed and viewed at 21:26 and played for about 20 minutes. And it has everything to do with the case because all evidence points to Kercher being killed shortly after returning home at 21:00.

As I keep saying, a 'spontaneous declaration' is meaningless. It is allowed because courts will not be seen suppressing a defendant's right to speak. It is also true that any witness statement that is not open to cross-examination in a trial has very little weight as evidence ceteris paribus. That is why it is of supreme importance that your witnesses turn up to testify on the day, or their statements will be disregarded. It is also very important to present your evidence at the trial as it means zippo to go running to the press and doing it there. Sollcito was not cross-examined and therefore his utterings had little merit.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The principle in which Guede avoided cross-examination in the Knox/Sollecito trial was the fundamental legal principle (the Fifth Amendment in the USA) of the right not to incriminate oneself. This is a pretty universal right.

Of course Sollecito had the right not to take the witness stand. However, if he was so innocent as Stacyhs keeps claiming and Sollecito himself, then someone accused of a horrendous crime who really is innocent, would have no problem at all in taking the stand and being cross-examined. It's no good making 'spontaneous declarations' as they have little weight.

Bull. This has been disproven time and time again but you insist on believing what you need to believe because you cannot face being wrong.

Quote:

In his murder and arson trial in 2007, Justin Chapman* decided not to testify in his own behalf. This meant the jury didn't hear his voice until after it had found him guilty.

Devoted watchers of TV crime shows know this is pretty standard. Legally, the defendant has no obligation to testify. Practically, even an innocent defendant may suffer serious damage on cross-examination by a skilled prosecutor.

Atlanta criminal defense attorney Jack Martin, who has tried numerous high-profile cases, advocates strongly against a defendant taking the stand.

“When the client testifies, it turns the case into whether the prosecution proved its case into whether the jury believes your client,” Martin said. “Typically, you want the jury to answer the first question, not the second.”

A defendant who takes the stand has an almost impossible job, Martin said.

“Even the best actors can’t pull it off,” he said. “Jurors are looking for every little thing. So if the client becomes emotional, the jury will think they’re crocodile tears. If they show no emotion, they can be seen as cold and relentless.”

Martin cited Wayne Williams, convicted in 1982 in the “Atlanta Child Murders” case, as a prime example of the perils of putting your client on the stand.

Under direct examination from his own attorney, Williams came across as a “mild and geeky guy,” Martin said. But under cross-examination from the prosecutor, Williams lost his cool and became angrier and angrier.

“The jury saw a person who could be prone to violence,” Martin said.

Allowing a defendant to testify on his or her behalf can be just as dangerous for someone who’s innocent as it is for someone who’s guilty, Martin said.

“The innocent person doesn’t know what happened, so sometimes it’ll look like they’re hiding something. The guilty person knows exactly what happened and can contrive an explanation.”

The judge instructs the jury not to draw any conclusions from a defendant’s decision not to take the stand. But the jurors, being human, still wonder about that. They may put themselves in the defendant’s place and conclude that they would take the stand in their own defense.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/break...22BrtGzN4ha1O/

*Chapman was unjustly convicted of murder in 2007 and exonerated (with certificate of innocence) in 2016.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Bull. This has been disproven time and time again but you insist on believing what you need to believe because you cannot face being wrong.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/break...22BrtGzN4ha1O/

*Chapman was unjustly convicted of murder in 2007 and exonerated (with certificate of innocence) in 2016.

Of course someone who is innocent can decline to be cross-examined. However, a person who is guilty will rarely allowed themselves to be. All this 'no comment' ******** police have to put up with.

[Stacyhs]

Here's more that contradicts your belief that only guilty people won't testify:

Quote:

Conventional wisdom has it that when a person is blamed for something he didn’t do, he should protest loudly and often, “I didn’t do it!”

However, it’s rare for a person accused of a crime to testify at his own trial. First, he doesn’t have to. If all he’s going to say is, it wasn’t me, the presumption of innocence says that already and carries none of the risks of testifying.

If there’s more to add, like self-defense, mistake, alibi or, I did it, but please give me a break, that’s a different story. He’ll have no choice but to take the stand. However, there are so many risks to testifying that every attorney worth his salt thinks long and hard about recommending it. No matter what the prosecutor’s evidence, if a defendant testifies, that is what will determine the verdict.

What problems come up when a defendant testifies?

It shifts the burden of proof. The burden is always only on the prosecutor, but when there’s two versions of the same event, jurors compare the prosecutor’s story with the defendant’s. Whether the prosecution made its case or not, if they don’t like how the defendant came off, either because they don’t believe him or just don’t like him, they’ll generally convict.


No matter how much prep a lawyer does, if a client has memory problems, cognitive or mental-health issues, or just lacks experience speaking to a group, that person will have a tough time explaining himself and dealing with cross-examination. He may have said one thing to police at one time and changed it another. It might be tough for him to explain why he waived Miranda rights and confessed if he didn’t commit the crime.

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/09/why-...arely-testify/

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Of course someone who is innocent can decline to be cross-examined. However, a person who is guilty will rarely allowed themselves to be. All this 'no comment' ******** police have to put up with.

No, they cannot decline to be cross examined. They can decline to answer any question that self-incriminates.

And your claim that "a person who is guilty will rarely allowed (sic) themselves to be" is just another one of your arsefacts.

But since you seem to believe it, Amanda Knox not only testified, she answered all questions put to her during the cross examination.

You just keep making things up as it suits you. Doesn't work with us.

[Stacyhs]

Answer my question:

Did Sollecito declare his innocence at his trials?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Here's more that contradicts your belief that only guilty people won't testify:

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/09/why-...arely-testify/

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Whether a defendant testifies or not will be based on what evidence the police have. Before the trial, each party is entitled to know what evidence will be presented. The parties then have to decide whether or not to take the stand, bearing in mind the onus of proof is on the prosecution. Therefore, someone who is guilty anyway can take the attitude, so prove it! with a high probability he will get off, as juries tend to be sympathetic towards defendants.

What you are trying to do is claim Sollecito did testify his innocence with his 'spontaneous declarations'. No, he did not, as he was not subjected to cross-examination. In that sense, his declarations had little to zero legal weight.