BREAKING: John Ramsey Secretly Files Civil Suit Against CBS

Have you noticed the silence from team Ramsey lately?  It’s definitely in contrast to the flurry of threats and lawsuits filed last winter.   First there was the $150 million lawsuit against Dr. Werner Spitz who made it clear, after investigating the case for a number of years, he was of the opinion that Burke Ramsey was responsible for his sister’s death.  Next was the whopping $750 million slander suit against CBS, and others, involved in the making of the September 2016 documentary.

With the exception of some brief local Michigan coverage that showed Burke in court with his lawyer Lin Wood, there hasn’t been much else reported on the status of the suits.  One can always log on to the court site (The Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan) for updates, but it’s interesting that the usually boisterous Wood hasn’t said much as of late.

Even more interesting is the civil suit that John Ramsey filed (also against CBS) on September 14th, almost a year after the others!  He’s represented by attorney John A. Lesko.  Thanks goes to Cottonstar for keeping a keen eye on this case, and bringing it to our attention.

Just like us, you’re probably wondering what’s the difference between John’s suit and the others?  The biggest difference is absolutely no PR.  Not only that, the court documents outlining John’s complaint are nowhere to be found online.  Why so hush-hush?

If you’re not filing to send a message, which has always been the Ramseys’ modus operandi – well, that, and making a few bucks – then what’s the purpose?

It certainly leads one to wonder if Burke’s other suits are failing in court.  Perhaps the Ramseys are facing financial loss and this is John’s way of saving the sinking ship.

The first status conference is set for December 15.

In the meantime, stay tuned for our analysis of the complaint.

View the documents…

John Ramsey vs CBS, Complaint, 9.14.17

John Ramsey vs CBS, Exhibits

shakedowntitle.com

 

 

 

A Week Later, Stephen Paddock’s Motive Still a Mystery. Really?

Why

64-year-old Stephen C. Paddock flew low under the radar. He avoided interaction with many of the people around him, and his manner was direct and brusque. He was known to stay up all night gambling, but it was as if he was the only reveler at his own party.
 
They still don’t know why. – CNN.com
no clues

Stephen Paddock never left a suicide note, nor a declaration of intent. His family doesn’t know why he did it.  The police aren’t sure.  The media have no idea.  Does that mean we can’t apply our minds and put the psychological puzzle together?

Of course we can! ….  (more at link)

TRUE CRIME AUTHOR PROVIDES MOTIVE

A pair of cowboy boots is shown in the street outside the concert venue after a mass shooting at a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Las Vegas

shakedowntitle.com

Slinging Mud at Mignini

“My room, obviously was not as medicinally clean as Laura’s.” Amanda Knox

In Knox’s memoir, she describes the aftermath of Massei’s verdict and sentencing.  She claims in her story to feel trapped and angry. She’s afraid of the spiteful, bitterness she feels welling up inside her. She feels [in January 2010, in her frozen cell] the Italians have made a “mockery” of the word justice.

What’s strangely absent is the sort of despair we’d expect someone in her position to feel.  Jail.  How would she survive? What about the social stigma?  Would she ever recover? What about the young life she had lost and still appeared to be losing?

But none of that is evident, because if it were, it would mean Knox had acknowledged what had happened, and understood [even if she didn’t accept] the consequences. That’s how grief works.  When the reality of one’s situation is authentic, and one is authentic about it, then so is the grief that arises.  Grief is an integral part to healing, even if our grief is a kind of self-pity directed to ourselves.

But Knox doesn’t even seem to grieve.  Instead she presents an indignant portrait of herself in her narrative: she’s not heartbroken or grinding her teeth in self-righteous frustration. She’s merely trapped and angry. That sounds like someone in a bad relationship, not someone enduring the personal catastrophe of imprisonment [whether deserved or not]. And she’s afraid of her own spite and bitterness.  Again, that sounds like someone in a bad romance.

And then it emerges – if she is not to blame, who is, besides the Italians [as a nation] making a mockery of justice [in an American sense of the word.]

Despite her aversion to her own spite and bitterness, Knox in her memoir takes a shot at Mignini, citing his conviction for abuse of office for manipulation and intimidation; but she doesn’t seem to have anything to say either about Massei or his 400+ page report on his findings.

Knox doesn’t seem to wish to argue the judgement of the case.  If you were innocent, wouldn’t you wish to thoroughly and comprehensively debunk the charges against you?  On the other hand, if you were guilty, wouldn’t you be facing potential contempt of court charges for putting it in words and arguing against a judgement?

The only way to get away with doing that is by selectively cherry-picking your narrative, and mincing through a few very cleverly chosen words.

Compare the legitimacy of this statement, for example:

The Italians have made a “mockery” of the word justice.

To this one:

Judge Massei/Mignini/The Court of Assisi have made a mockery of justice.

Making a mockery of a word is fine; accusing legal professionals of impropriety in your case is grounds for a lawsuit. But I’m guessing Knox was hoping a lay reader might miss the nuance.

Let’s deal briefly with Knox’s “indictment” of the prosecutor who first convicted her. Is Mignini a dirty prosecutor?  Does he have a case to answer for?

The case against MIGNINI

There is certainly smoke. In 2004, two prosecution offices – one in Florence, the other in Perugia – engaged in a public battle over the right to pursue the Narducci case. Part of this battle involved the prosecutors using various dirty tricks to undermine one another.  Mignini was at the centre of this, and could very easily have been tempted to cross certain legal lines, but did he? If there was smoke, was there fire?

Just a month after winning his case against Knox, a Florence court found Mignini guilty of “exceeding the powers of his office.” What Knox fails to mention in her memoir is firstly that Mignini was also acquitted on three accounts of fabricating evidence*, and secondly that he too appealed his conviction. In November 2011, at around the same time Knox won her appeal, so did Mignini.

That Knox even with the benefit of hindsight selectively left certain information – like this –  out of her memoir, regarding Mignini, given her memoir was published in April 2013, seems more than a little mischievous. It was a serious enough misrepresentation for Mignini to file a lawsuit against an Italian publication for publishing extracts of Knox’s memoir [her book has not been published in Italy for legal reasons].

The Italians have made a “mockery” of the word justice.**

Now, it’s not that unusual for top criminal prosecutors to face criminal charges, public ire and abuse.  We’ve seen this in other cases too, including Oscar Pistorius [Gerrie Nel], Jodi Arias [Juan Martinez] and O.J. Simpson [Marcia Clark].***

In our opinion, the timing of the witch-hunt against Mignini, slap bang during the Knox trial, wasn’t accidental, and the fact that Mignini lost Knox’s appeal is, we think, partly because his resources, his attention, his focus, was distracted by having to contend simultaneously with spurious allegations [such as those in Frank Sfarzo’s blog] that suddenly came out of the woodwork during the appeal.

It’s no excuse for Mignini that he dropped the ball and lost the case [as discussed in Foxy Knoxy Fights Back], but taking pains to clear his own name while prosecuting the Knox case provides at least some sinister context for why the defense team seemed to be on the ball. A defense counsel seeming to be on top of their case and actually having a credible case, as we’re about to see, is the difference between chalk and cheese.


*Mignini was accused of manufacturing a fake audio recording, but this was later demonstrably proved to be authentic.

**On June 1st, 2010, Knox was back in court to face slander charges.  Eight police officers filed suit after she accused them of physical violence used to pressure her into falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba. News reports at the time, notably abcnews.go.com, quoted Knox’s lawyers saying she had cut her hair two days after the verdict on December 5th, 2010.

Her court appearance today [June 1st, 2010] was the first time Knox had left the Capanne prison outside Perugia since she was convicted of murder on Dec. 5, and the first time she had been seen in public in six months. Looking somewhat tense, she sported a new, boyishly- short haircut and wore white pants and a yellow blouse. Her lawyers told reporters that Knox had cut her hair very short two days after her conviction.

“She had wanted to cut her hair for a while,” her lawyer Maria Del Grosso said, “but she waited until after her sentence because she was afraid that all people would talk about was her hair. “The focus should be on the legal aspects of this case, and not on Amanda’s look,” said Del Grosso.

***In Marcia Clark’s case, while trying to win the state’s case against O.J. Simpson, Clark’s ex-husband sold topless images of his then wife to the tabloids taken while they were on their honeymoon in France.

Foxy Knoxy book cover

shakedowntitle.com

Meredith

Francesco Sollecito’s Testimony

Key to abbreviations

GCM:  Giancarlo Massei Judge Chairman

FS:  Francesco Sollecito Raffaele Sollecito’s father

GB:  Giulia Bongiorno Solicited defense lawyer Attorney

MC:  Manuela Comodi Prosecutor Public Ministry

SP:  Serena Perna Counsel for Stephanie Kercher Attorney

GM:  Giuliano Mignini Prosecutor Public Ministry

CDV:  Carlo Dalla Vedova Knox defense lawyer Attorney

Translation via Google

raffaele and dad2

EXAMINATION

The witness Sollecito Francesco is introduced….

GCM:

He is the father of Sollecito Raffaele.

FS:

Yup.

GCM:

In relation to this particular bond that exists with the current defendant, he has the power to abstain from the deposition, can use this faculty in the ways that ….

FS:

No, no, I intend to lay down, I will answer the questions.

francesco and curt

GCM:

So giving up on this faculty he witnesses, becomes a witness to all the other witnesses for whom this particular bond of kinship does not exist with one of the defendants and so he is required to answer all the questions and answer by saying the The truth when it comes to the case and the Court should assess that it has not been answered, it is exposed to the responsibilities provided for by the law, must read the statement of commitment and give its generality.

Aware of the moral and legal responsibility I assume with my deposition, I am committed to telling the whole truth and not hiding anything from my knowledge.

Sollecito Francesco was born in Giovinazzo on June 4, 1948.

GB:

Dr. Sollecito what activity is currently doing.

FS:

I am a surgeon and specialist in urology and legal medicine.

GB:

Are you Raffaele Sollecito’s father?

FS:

Yup.

GB:

How many children do you have?

FS:

Two.

GB:

Can you tell us the situation of your family, that is if Raffaele’s mother is alive or dead.

FS:

Raffaele’s mother died on June 20, 2005.

GB:

She kind of relationship has with her children at the attendance level of phone contacts of confidence.

FS:

They are their father, their friend, their confidant, their sincere confidant, because for the good that I want to them I can not advise them for the best.

GB:

She is aware that Raffaele Sollecito his son had obviously moved to Perugia for what reasons Raffaele did before he was arrested.

FS:

As I made my point in the first answer, I know of my son all because any decision he has taken has obviously been consulted and confided with me, so he came to Perugia because he wanted to do this experience of autonomy and start telling his life A little far from home, and we preferred, we chose the enrollment at the university here in Perugia, because in Perugia there is a college called Onaosi, which is a medical insurance college, so there are some Conditions for the physician’s children to be there. So we chose Perugia of common accord for these reasons.

FS:

Yes, as I told you I am, I was his confidant, so he told me everything.

GB:

What did he tell you about Amanda?

FS:

He had told me immediately that he had met this girl with whom he had a good understanding, who [he] treated her and cuddled her as if she were a little girl, and told me some episodes that we would say a bit nice about their relationship.

GB:

By a funny episode what do you mean?

FS:

He once told me, for example, that he had washed her hair, that had dried her hair, in short, that is, caressing it, let’s say.

GB:

How long have you been talking about Amanda?

FS:

For a few days, I can not remember the exact day, however, for a very short time.

GB:

So from these conversations you had with son noted a particular affection for Amanda?

FS:

Certainly, I knew there was a good story.

GB:

But in the past did Raffaele have talked to other girls in these terms and what kind of relationship had he had?

FS:

In these terms he had never spoken to me, he had spoken to me earlier, but I talked to him several months earlier, about another story, but very short with an Italian girl this time, I assume I do not remember that it was Brindisi from our parts , Apulian, but he did not speak it with any emphasis, he did not talk about how Amanda absolutely spoke. Besides, that story was short if I did not remember three or four days anymore.

GB:

When she says she did not talk about how she talked about Amanda, would you like to better explain this concept?

FS:

Because Amanda talked to me every day when we felt for one reason or another, he had told me that they had been on a trip to Assisi told me that very evening the phone call she was referring to, that they would do the next morning A trip to Gubbio, they planned a trip to Gubbio.

GB:

During that one-night phone call you talked about this movie they had seen at the cinema, about the trip to Gubbio, she knew what her son’s evening programs were.

FS:

No, he had not spoken to me about his evening programs.

GB:

She knew who she was that night.

FS:

Yes, I knew he was with Amanda certainly.

GB:

She is aware that Raffaele Sollecito his son had obviously moved to Perugia for what reasons Raffaele did before he was arrested.

FS:

As I made my point in the first answer, I know of my son all because any decision he has taken has obviously been consulted and confided with me, so he came to Perugia because he wanted to do this experience of autonomy and start telling his life A little far from home, and we preferred, we chose the enrollment at the university here in Perugia, because in Perugia there is a college called Onaosi, which is a medical insurance college, so there are some Conditions for the physician’s children to be there. So we chose Perugia of common accord for these reasons.

GB:

When was Raffaele moving to Perugia?

FS:

Immediately after graduation, then in 2002.

GB:

Then Raffaele was studying that faculty reminds him?

FS:

Computer Science and has won an Erasmus scholarship after the first year and always agreed with me decided to do this new experience and therefore also choose as a venue for the performance of the Erasmus Germany.

GB:

But Raffaele then graduated.

FS:

Yup.

GB:

When you graduated.

FS:

He graduated in jail in February 2008.

GB:

But why ever when it was supposed to graduate instead.

FS:

November 15, 2007.

GB:

So the day of graduation was already in jail Raffaele.

FS:

The day of graduation was already in prison.

GB:

She said she had an intense relationship and even a continuous phone call with her son, more or less how many times a day did you feel, did you feel?

FS:

We felt every day several times a day.

GB:

Now let me ask you if she remembers, in particular, what has happened in certain days, I will try to refer to the days immediately preceding that of the corpse of the corpse. November 2007 if she remembers having heard with her son, and in particular if she remembers a phone call that is on the tabs at 20.42 and what she remembers if she remembers the phone call.

FS:

I call the phone very well, it’s a phone call I made to him right after leaving the cinema, I saw a nice movie with my wife, I think if I do not remember well …

GB:

Excuse her has a new companion.

FS:

I have my wife, I married on September 6, 2005.

GB:

Then?

GB:

That night she over this call you talked about the most and less, did other phone calls had other phone contacts sent sms.

FS:

I sent my son an sms before I went to sleep, I was also going to call him but knowing he was still with this girl and having had a long conversation with him a short time ago, I did not consider it appropriate to break the notes with him and I sent them Just a good morning message, I had nothing to say to it anyway.

GB:

Was Goodnight’s a thing she often did?

FS:

I was pretty often, of course when … so many times not to call for not being too present I would just send a good morning message to both Raffaele and Vanessa to my other daughter.

GB:

There are also sms to his daughter of the same tenor.

FS:

Yes, but of course I do not keep them all when I send them back many times.

GB:

This message to which you refer I have asked for the production, taking a message from a technical advisor, now I will show it to you and tell me that you will confirm the document that was produced in the event, if this sms at least the Tenor that she remembers the sms she sent. This is a photograph we had produced as President as you remember, I do not remember the fairy of the hearing, it is the sound that was produced in photography whose content is “good night” sent by Raffaele Sollecito’s father to the evening of one November, then regardless of when and how it came, if you remember that this was the tenor of the sms.

FS:

Yes, yes, it’s my phone and it’s my message.

GB:

She recognizes her device as her message.

FS:

Sure, but there should be one if I do not remember another photo where there is also the time and date.

GB:

It was the next question, now I always show her his cell phone, and in the display there is a time if she is also confirming this, if this is the photo she has made me with her technical consultant.

FS:

Yes, right.

GCM:

It can tell the time since he recognized it.

FS:

The timetable that is written here is 00:10 but I honestly remember to have sent you an excerpt before this now sincerely, but I can not tell you why my phone was registered this time, I am not competent in the matter .

GB:

She feels her son one November at 20.42.

FS:

Yup.

GB:

Then send this evening sms or she remembers a timetable.

FS:

Before midnight I find myself here shortly after midnight.

GB:

After that when Raffaele suffers and why he suffers.

FS:

I called him the next morning around 9am and 9pm and I called him back because I knew my son’s habits when he did not have university assignments usually slept late in the morning, but that morning I knew he ought to Go to do this trip to Gubbio and I wanted to know for my curiosity as I had been with him in the months, in the previous times I came to Perugia to find my son with my wife we ​​had been together with us three, both in Assisi At Gubbio, so it seemed he wanted to go back to the stages of the beautiful experiences we had lived together, so when he told me that night he wanted to go to Gubbio with Amanda I was pleasantly curious, so on the morning at 9am and twenty telephones Knowing that he was in habit, as I had already said he woke up rather late, because I thought he had already been up for hiking.

GB:

In that phone call she found her messy confused son.

FS:

No, no, my son slept, I immediately realized that he was still in bed to sleep, so I stopped talking, I said, “Well, I do not think I’ll call you later.”

GB:

When it was then that Raffaele felt that day.

FS:

I called her around 12 and a half less than a quarter a minute.

GB:

In this additional call …

FS:

Always with the same intention of knowing more or less when they finally left and instead he told me that he had gone to Amanda’s house that something that had been a bit worried him had come to him because they had found some signs of illness for which they thought That there was a theft.

GB:

His son’s hypothesis then when you heard about the phone that morning was it a question of which one?

FS:

That there was a broken glass, there were signs, then a break in a room in this house, and they thought there was a thief who had done a theft.

GB:

She gave some advice to her son, he said to do something.

FS:

Yes, let’s say that the first thing I came to tell him is to feel with my sister, since my daughter is a carabinieri officer, to ask her how to behave, for us it is not very important that there are some Theft in the house, because we live in a place where unfortunately almost every day happens that there are these thefts in the houses, so let’s say, although obviously being somewhat alarmed by what my son told him, I suggested him to look a bit in I go around quietly and then call Vanessa to know how it was to behave.

GB:

After this call you know that Raffaele was called in the following days several times in the Questura we have interceptions among the acts, the court then will see these transcriptions, I believe they are among those we have asked today transcription, I wanted To know whether Raffaele was worried or whether she was worried about these continuous summons in the Questura.

FS:

No, Raffaele was not worried at all and consequently could not even give me a particular concern, he told me that he was often called to the Questura, so many times he went there alone with Amanda for so many times, because he wanted to be heard by inquirers for Knowing just how things went, in short, having some information, and I did not find anything strange in this.

GB:

When Raffaele Raised when one of his statements and interrogators was found on a knife, why did Raffaele have a knife?

FS:

He used to put a knife in his pocket, but this is a fact that dates back to his adolescence because we had a country villa and he had fun with a knife to engrave something on tree barks or to remove barks from pine trees To make objects, to model objects, then more or less from that age on had taken this habit to carry this knife.

GB:

In the case of accusative hypotheses it is assumed a theft at Meredith’s home I would like to know what his son’s economic conditions are.

FS:

The current economic conditions of my son are certainly good, because he has inherited some property for which he has some income because of the premature departure of his mother.

The management of this annuity, however, was obviously entrusted to me, but of course I have never sent him what he was saying I do not say indispensable but also appropriate for the performance of his or her life in Perugia or anyway, University activity.

GB:

There are also eavesdropping on it, and then the court will obviously examine it, you can tell me whether it was even in those days that she pressed Raffaele to take the money she had deposited, what she recalls.

FS:

Yes, but it was something I did not do, I did only at that time, I did quite often, because Raffaele just because he did not have this need for money, he needed it when he needed it without having to face so many problems.

GB:

Did your son smoke spinelli take amazing drugs?

FS:

I certainly know that there was this opportunity at the age of 17 I came to know simply because a Prefecture had arrived at home for me to report to Raffaele on the day of the day In order to be heard about it and I had been careful in that occasion apart from the fact that I was a bit angry at this issue to inform a lawyer because it was still necessary to inform the prefecture if it was possible to postpone this date and this Now to another, because he was in Perugia to study and so he could not attend when he was called, then the last of these last spinelli I heard after I knew him after his arrest.

GB:

But she knew Raffaele’s friends and knew who was here in Perugia, or the Perugia environment she did not know.

FS:

No, no, I knew Raffaele’s many friends from the college, and even friends who lived a bit on his last year’s experience, that is, they had appartments on their own, one in particular he was just living alongside him they had prepared a Examing together, we went to dinner together when I came to Perugia to let me know her friends.

GB:

She had ever met these friends Rudy Ghedè.

FS:

No, I never heard him call.

GB:

Raffaele has never spoken to Rudy Ghedè.

FS:

No, I’ve never heard of mentioning, of course, of all the news we all know that came out in the newspapers.

GB:

Listen, but at this point I would like you to focus on another profile in this process, it turned out that you would have passed a dossier to Telenorba for this reason she is under trial, can tell me what it is.

FS:

We have been myself and like me all my family, we have always been very convinced of Raffaele’s absolute innocence and his complete extraneousness to this terrible affair, so from the very first moment we have always worked hard in full respect of the legality of seeking All that could be useful for him to get rid of him, so when we got through the lawyers even the movies of Meredith’s first home inspection, we just scanned them and we found, we got both the first and second movies site inspection.

GB:

How did you get them?

FS:

Through Maori’s attorneys who had made a regular request to the PM, the Attorney. So we just looked at them and analyzed them and we noticed some really amazing differences and changes between the first and the second survey, and this seemed to us very relevant because it seemed that there had been a complete reversal of the state of the sites and we Prepared the so-called Dossier to prove that it was practically composed of photographs that we had obtained from the video with still images and showed the situation during the first inspection of the various rooms and the situation of the same rooms after the first inspection to the second inspection.

GB:

But by dossier I want to know what you mean.

FS:

That is, show the difference that there was the situation between the first and the second inspection.

GB:

You have added documents, you have …

FS:

No, no, no, we were limited to objective data only, we did not add or remove anything, but I kept it in this, because I consider it quite accurate to make sure that there was a date on each frame, Now when these things were done, the date and time when the shooting was made and therefore to prevent anyone from refuting the authenticity of the truthfulness of what we were trying to demonstrate.

GB:

She remembers what was the element that brought her son into custody.

FS:

Yes, the attribution of a footprint left by a person in Meredith’s Room at Raffaele Sollecito.

GB:

Within these interceptions, among other things, there are comments that are made to say no to you personally about the police and they also refer to this episode, the reasons for this, some strong expressions may Explain what you can imagine.

FS:

First of all, I want to point out that I believe that our telephone conversations are still private conversations, but beyond this as you may have noticed unless it has been possible to hear until now those phone calls I have never used any particular expression Forbidding the investigators and even less of the prosecution or the public prosecutor in particular. Regardless of this, it is clear that we could only be adrift if so we can say that there were, gross errors were made in giving assignments that had cost and still cost the jail to my son.

GB:

No, sorry for now we were talking about the eavesdropping of shoe imprint.

FS:

I refer to the shoe’s footprint, because what I had been able to guess on the footprint was that incorrect attribution of the footprint of Raffaele’s shoe and created the reason for the GIP to validate Raffaele’s hold. When we noted that there was this mistake, that that shoe could not be attributed to Raffaele in any way and instead the report of the Scientific Police said that it was compatible not only as a model but also as a brand and measure, we have Really disconcerted, it was enough to count the number of circles that were reproduced on that imprint so that I could easily guess that that shoe could not be compatible with my son’s, and yet Raffaele was still in jail.

MC:

President, I do not want to interrupt the exam, but I would like to recall that the witness is a witness, though a qualified witness from the very close kinship and has agreed to answer, but must observe the rules of all the witnesses and instead it seems to me to be I did not interrupt it before, however, but I would like to recall that being accused, now almost imputed because it was achieved by the Article 415a Notice, I do not think that in relation to the Telenorba dossier, I do not think it can Freely refer to it here.

1366015543952.cached

GB:

President then I immediately tell them that if they had not been asked, that is, it seems to me a little discretion, on the one hand the public prosecutor asks to be intercepted, we hear the interception, in these interceptions they feel the comments of the family members on Telenorba On the police on the shoe print, we oppose that interception saying they are not part of the process, they are acquired, at this point since they are acquired I must explain that the complaints refer to a shoe imprint that is now processively of Ghedè , I think it’s almost necessary otherwise we did not get the material, that is what it is.

GCM:

As far as the public prosecutor’s opposition is concerned, it may be reminded of the witness and applies to all witnesses that witnesses can not, unless we have a specific qualification on the specific subject so that in answering can not distinguish technical knowledge But the fact that this is not the case, but this is not the case, it is not possible to give an assessment but only to follow the facts, as far as the other aspect is concerned, raised by the public prosecutor about the position of the witness still under investigation According to what emerges from it, it should be noted that the questions attended to intercepted conversations that somehow have been asked, and in other respects the witness on these aspects may still use the faculty of not responding to what he does not and already so can continue.

LM:

Do you know if you have any problems with your child with the sink, there have been leaks in the water spill.

FS:

No, I did not know no, he told me if I did not remember the night of the phone call he was, while he was washing dishes or doing something in the kitchen he had poured water on the ground, yes.

LM:

You know if the landlord intervened by a plumber.

FS:

Yes, of course, it has intervened now how I did not know it, I know perfectly well that my son called the owner and she called a plumber and then went to fix it, of course.

LM:

So there was a second hydraulic operation.

FS:

There was definitely a second operation to remedy probably no previous repairs.

LM:

Thank you.

MC:

The plumber’s call from the apartment owner for the second time, the second call when there was.

FS:

I can not tell it, because it is one thing that has managed my son directly.

MC:

But before or after the murder.

FS:

Before.

MC:

Before the murder.

FS:

Yes, yes, before the murder.

MC:

So the plumber twice came, went to Raffaele’s home.

FS:

Yes, but there are two different plumbing.

MC:

So even the water loss from the kitchen tube has happened before the murder.

FS:

Yup.

MC:

She told you.

FS:

Yes, the murder had happened earlier.

MC:

How many days before?

FS:

I can not tell.

MC:

Did you usually send sms to your son?

FS:

No.

MC:

She ever sent it to me.

FS:

I sent him some time.

MC:

Only that night.

FS:

I explain to you, maybe I can explain it better to say this I called my son mainly with the cell phone, because the contract that I with my manager allows me to have four free phone numbers, which I can call at any time and one of these four numbers It corresponds exactly to my son’s number, so I often and happily called him on my cellphone because I did not even pay for the phone call, obviously when I do not remember well if I did not pay for it if it did not exceed a certain amount of time Or else but I did not mind this problem, I sent the sms to both my son and my daughter when I had nothing to say or nothing to add to the phone calls that I had previously made, because as I said before all ‘Bongiorno lawyer I’m with my son and with my daughter I felt every day and even several times a day, so there was no reason to say it was over quotation marks. So sometimes I could send out simple goodnight messages.

MC:

Do you remember before the night of the late evening of November 1st when he sent another sms to his son?

FS:

No, I do not remember it.

MC:

If a few days earlier, a few weeks earlier, a few months earlier.

FS:

I honestly do not remember it, because I told you something that happened very slowly, so I can not remember it.

MC:

That night she said she had already heard her son at what time?

FS:

At 20:40 around nine o’clock less than a quarter of an evening as soon as I left the cinema.

MC:

So was he in the street when he called him?

FS:

Yup.  article-1192548-053C7985000005DC-568_306x423

MC:

And Raffaele where was he?

FS:

I do not know.

MC:

She did not ask.

FS:

No.

MC:

At 23:14 when she sends the sms where she was.

FS:

In my house, I was going to bed.

MC:

He knows when he received his son sms.

FS:

From the tabs I could read at 6:02 am the next morning.

MC:

She usually answered her to sms.

FS:

No.

MC:

Did not he call him at home?

FS:

Very occasionally, I already explained to him the reason why it was not the case, I know that my wife occasionally called him from fixed to fixed, that is, from my fixed-line telephone at Rafael’s fixed.

MC:

When the next day she said she called him the next morning and called her son to what time, around what time?

FS:

Around 09.20 – 09.30.

MC:

And where was your son?

FS:

She was in bed to sleep for how she responded she was still sleeping.

MC:

Then call him back?

FS:

Around one less than a quarter.

MC:

What does it tell you?

FS:

I first asked him if he had gone on a trip with Amanda to Gubbio so he had told me the previous night and then he told me they had not yet got off, because Amanda had discovered this thing at her home and he had gone To see, he realized that there was this failure for which they thought there was a theft.

MC:

As she answered her where Raffaele was.

FS:

He told me he was at Meredith’s house.

MC:

That was at Meredith’s House in Della Pergola Street.

FS:

Yup.

MC:

What did she say to her more?

FS:

I advised him to check to check out well and then to call my daughter to ask her how to behave.

MC:

And then in the other phone calls, because there have been many.

FS:

Well afterwards he called me to tell me that there was a tragedy and so we were all afraid worried and we tried to know something more, so there were a number of subsequent calls, but always after he told me that you are not It was a theft, but much more.

MC:

Can report what, what particulars …

FS:

That Amanda’s friend had been killed.

MC:

So did she say so?

FS:

More or less, now I can honestly say the words sincerely two years away, but the sense was obvious.

MC:

Did your son love the knives?

FS:

No, he did not like the knives.

MC:

But he did not.

FS:

Yes, I had already said it before, it was a habit to carry it around, so much so that knowing that it had this habit in one of the many phone calls we made from the moment Meredith’s death occurred When she was arrested, I also advised her not to carry it around, because I knew that he was so accustomed to holding it in my pocket, even if she did not realize she had so many times.

MC:

But how many were there.

FS:

I have never contacted them, I can say that someone bought it together from the internet, because they are also collectible knives, and those handcrafts hand made.

MC:

All right.

GM:

You remember how many consultants you have had from now on.

FS:

Do not mind at this moment, no, if I have time to think about it.

GB:

No, but I object to these questions, because we have to make a counter exam on our articulations, now determine how many consultants and how many lawyers right is inadmissible.

GCM:

The opposition is welcomed.

GM:

You said that you have tried to, you have been activated to help Raffaele’s position before no.

FS:

sure

GB:

No, I was told by the opposition that I could not ask any questions about the investigation carried out at Telenorba, but I limited my examination when the intervention was done, then If it starts again I have to start again, I was told not to open that forehead and I was attentive.

GCM:

That aspect had only been highlighted if maybe the defense wanted to proceed on those circumstances it would have been necessary to appoint a defender and hear the heads in the assisted forms, so it was over with Telenorba, but now the question did not happen to me.

GM:

I only wanted to know if you have contacted politicians in this activity.

FS:

But no.

GB:

It is opposed to all these, this story of politicians has once again nothing to do with this process, so if we have to open a whole series of speeches that only serve to openly mediate an aspect that has no procedural relevance we are not interested in under Process is Raffaele are asked questions about the process.

GCM:

Sorry the head is not common to other parts too, so the area on which you can ask, maybe determined or how much the defense has indicated in the text list, and what has been the subject of questions and this may not have been Touched like appearance, so maybe only on the questions that were the subject of the examination the counter exam is just so called.

GM:

I have no other questions.

SP:

Two clarifications to the question asked before the Maori lawyer did, except that I understood correctly, in the phone call that she says she entertains her son on the first November at 20: 42-45, if I did not understand , Raffaele had already told her the problem again of the sink that lost water?

FS:

No. Then I said that in that phone call he had told me that he had poured water on the ground.

SP:

He referred to the sink.

FS:

Yes, it’s clear to the ground water that came out of the kitchen sink yes.

GCM:

In that phone call if you can specify which …

FS:

In the phone call of 20:43 that he is at home obviously at that moment told me he had had …

GCM:

On the one of November.

FS:

Yes, he had told me that he had had this problem with the drain of the washbasin, he had had it at that moment, that day that evening that was something he had had there, I first explained that the problem he had detected all The beginning was not the drain, but it was of the tap, it was the mixer that did not go because no hot water came out and the water came out without pressure, so he called the plumber to solve this problem, The plumber has replaced the faucet, I probably assume, but I’m not a plumber, but it’s clear that in order to be able to replace the faucet to a washbasin, however, it has to act underneath the washbasin and may even have a punctuation between quotes with drainage. Maybe the problem of discharge may have occurred later or because the plumber has packed us, or because it came out has occurred as a problem with the previous one.

SP:

So basically there had been this problem of sink wash that had occurred?

FS:

Yes, this water loss.

SP:

She spoke before the stop that was made to Raffaele she knows and she referred to the shoe’s footprint, but she knows if the public prosecutor has still considered other items before signing the decree or not, Shoe imprint on which she has already replied.

FS:

I remember that Raffaele had been seized in his shoes and two knives, I remember anything else.

SP:

I have no other questions.

CDV:

Just a clarification about his daughter and the phone call that has intervened between Raffaele and her sister, is her daughter bigger than Raffaele?

FS:

Yup.

CDV:

Relationships are between Raffaele and her sister.

FS:

Good ones, they were seen and felt often before.

CDV:

She at one point thought she would suggest calling her sister to Raffaele.

FS:

Yup.

CDV:

Because?

FS:

Because Vanessa is a carabinieri officer.

CDV:

Raphael was worried at that moment so much that he needed such advice from a carabinieri officer.

FS:

It is not that he was worried more than that, he thought there was a theft, of course I was not in the place I could not really understand myself personally, I suggested to my son to feel with my daughter, because he might even give him some advice He might have explained things, so he could have some more advice.

CDV:

If she did not have a carabinier daughter, she would have advised her to call the 112 directly.

FS:

Definitely certain.

CDV:

Thanks, I’m done.

GB:

Just to clarify this chronological sequence, the first time she knew about problems on the tap or on the wash basin.

FS:

I heard about the tap several days before.

GCM:

When he first says, first respect.

FS:

Compared to the date, the call, that is, before, the first November, many days before the first November.

GCM:

Of the 20:42 call.

FS:

Of the 20:42 and 43 of the first November, many days before the first November.

GCM:

Of the 20:42 call.

FS:

Of 20: 42-43 of November 1st.

GB:

So there was a faucet problem a few days earlier than the first November.

FS:

Yup.

GB:

What’s new on November 1st?

FS:

That the kitchen basin drain had broken and that water had been poured on the ground.

GB:

Thanks, I was interested in this sequence.

GCM:

Excuse me just a few things, ask the defender, the phone call with reference to this discharge on the first November in the evening what was it? That is, what would Raffaele have to solicit her son.

FS:

My son told me that while he was washing the dishes he realized he was losing water.

GCM:

This a few days before.

FS:

No, that night?

GCM:

That evening?

FS:

Yup.

GCM:

Because she first asked the public prosecutor who asked her when she made the phone call at 20:42 her son where she said she did not know.

FS:

I said this because it’s obvious that I called from a cellphone from another cell phone in theory my son could be anywhere. But referring to the loss of discharge I have to deduce at this time I categorically deduced that my son at that time was at his home.

GCM:

Because your son tells you he was at home.

FS:

He was in the house and he was hitching in the kitchen and this was a mess. He had noticed while he was washing dishes pouring water on the ground.

GCM:

While washing the dishes.

FS:

While washing the dishes.

GCM:

She asked her son if she was alone, so we found out she was …

FS:

No, he was with Amanda, I knew very well.

GCM:

Your son told him.

FS:

Yes she told me it was with Amanda.

GCM:

Then he also talked about the next morning phone call she does to her son at 9:20 PM she says for how she responded to me she slept, here it may be more precise than what she meant, that is, she told her.

FS:

Let’s say it was a while to answer a little while …

GCM:

Did you call him on the cellphone?

FS:

Yup.

GCM:

Did you call him?

FS:

I called him on the cellphone, he was late for answering, then when he replied, I heard the sound of sleep, that is, it was almost as if I had woken him with my phone call, so since I had nothing to ask him and I had already deduced, and if she was still in bed to sleep she was certainly not gone anywhere, I closed it out telling him I called him later.

GCM:

She asked her if she was alone if …

FS:

At that time no, I did not pose this problem sincerely.

GB:

I asked for the production of the photos exhibited to the witness, because in previous hearings I had only photocopies.

GCM:

The parties observe nothing, the court acquires the photos for their usability.

raffaele and dad3

shakedown.com

 

“Had this case been tried in America, Knox never would have been convicted…”

“It’s one of the many failings of Italian justice that it never delivers conclusive, door-slamming certainty.  What usually happens is that the door is left wide open to take the case to the next level, first to appeal and then to the cassazione, the Supreme Court.”  — Tobias Jones, the Guardian

Did Italy do an injustice to Knox?  I think it’s apparent, Italy’s liberal appeals system did Meredith wrong. After one trial, three appeals and two guilty verdicts, one can safely say, evidence exists in this case, and the quality of that evidence could very feasibly have resulted in a conviction in America.  The fact that the same evidence that resulted in two guilty verdicts which could then be re-scrutinized on appeal, under the basis that the defense simply disagreed, is a much harsher indictment of Italy’s appeal system than it is of their justice system, or investigators, as a whole.

italy appeal

The murderofmeredithkercher.com provides a cogent summary of how the American legal system differs from Italy’s:

In the United States, once you are convicted, an appeal is limited to arguments over procedural and legal errors. After the initial verdict, questions of fact and the introduction of new evidence is only allowed in exceptional circumstances. That is not the case with the Italian legal system. The second stage in the Italian criminal process is a second examination of some elements of the evidence with new triers of fact. That being said, the second trial is not a complete retrial.

Simply put, each successive appeal in Italy does amount to interrogating successively smaller and smaller pieces of the true crime pizza.  If the original trial is the pizza, then the first appeal applies itself to a small fraction of the case file, the second to an even smaller fraction, and the final appeal is left to juggle a few toppings picked off a final slice.

A graphic produced by the Wiki team at themurderofmeredithkercher.com illustrates this fragmentation process at a glance.  What it doesn’t show [because there is almost nothing left to show], is the final layer, the toppings, where Knox’s case was broken down even further into a controversial final appeal heard by Marasca/Bruno which she and Sollecito ultimately won*.

The murderofmeredithkercher.com also provides the ambit of the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal in a nutshell:

  1. Hellmann…ruled that the Appeal Court would like to hear again from a witness (Antonio Curatolo) who put Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the vicinity of the crime scene, thus invalidating their alibi.
  2. Hellmann also decided to appoint experts to re-evaluate two items of evidence — the knife allegedly used in the murder and the victim’s bra clasp that was found to contain Sollecito’s DNA.
  3. During the trial Hellmann would expand the scope of the case to allow five prisoners to examine the veracity of Guede’s accusations against Knox and Sollecito.

A typical excuse for why a defendant ought to have another chance in court is because of a [usually unfair] “trial by media.” As it happens, any case that attracts massive media attention tends to involve massive police resources.  Because the community are in uproar, there is more pressure on the cops than usual to deliver a suspect.

What’s crazy is how the defense invariably accuse the cops of mischief while they scramble under the unmitigating glare of the media.  It’s when the media are watching that the cops are least likely to take any short cuts.

So each and every case that’s in the media, like Knox, like O.J., like Madeline McCann, will inevitably get heightened attention from the police.  It will also get heightened criticism of the investigation. That’s every defense team’s golden ticket – lousy crime scene technicians and corrupt police.  Can you name one high-profile case in America in which the defense didn’t attack the investigators for sloppy work somewhere along the line?

doubt

Now, let’s get back to the premise of this chapter. Would Knox have been convicted if tried in America? Is the evidence burden sufficient? Given the evidence burden against her, she would, in my view, have faced the same odds as O.J. Simpson or Stephen Avery.

Let’s imagine Knox was tried and convicted in America.  What are the chances she’d be exonerated on appeal in America? Well, what are the chances she’d even be granted an appeal? Let’s check.

  1. In America, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the overall percentage of verdicts that are reversed on appeal is 12%. Nearly 50% of all cases are overturned on appeal in Italy, according to the Guardian.
  2. An important factor to consider within this contention that Knox would have been acquitted in America, is simply how few cases in America actually make it back to court on appeal.  italy knox trial

In Italy, and certainly in the Knox case, the qualifications to re-present certain aspects of a case are shockingly light.  Take for instance the new experts brought in to review the DNA.  If you want to pose the question: would a similar review be granted as easily in America? Most certainly no, it would not.

Appeals for criminal cases in America are heard on the basis of error in trial procedure, or in terms of a judge’s misinterpretation of the law.  Appeals aren’t granted willy-nilly based on sheer disgust of a verdict.  You would never see DNA being argued on appeal in America simply because the defense felt it wasn’t sufficient.  If that were the case American courtrooms would also be backlogged until 2170.

To apply the appeal standard in Italy to a high-profile case in America, the appeal attempts of Michael Skakel are worth noting.  Skakel was convicted of Martha Moxley’s murder in 2002.  He unsuccessfully petitioned for appeals in 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2010, mainly using an argument that two other individuals had knowledge of a different killer, and all five times he was denied an appeal.

It wasn’t until later in 2010, when Skakel filed an appeal on the basis of incompetent representation** [by lawyer, Mickey Sherman] that he was finally able to bring his arguments to court.**

  1. A final point to consider is the argument about a backlog of cases in Italy having some bearing on this case. Italy is back-logged by millions of cases, but what does that have to do with Knox?  Her appeal was granted and went to trial just one year after her original conviction.

In 2013 The Atlantic rued the “Tragedy of Italian Justice”.  As if any failing of their justice system should automatically render Knox’s case unfair.  But, how many times have Americans disagreed with criminal verdicts?   How about O.J. Simpson, Stephen Avery, Casey Anthony, Robert Durst, Jodi Arias [sentencing] and Michael Jackson, to name a few.

Would you then make the claim that the entire American justice system is a sham and nobody’s good at their job, like local blogger Frank Sfarzo did so emphatically about the justice system in Perugia.

“Nobody here’s good at their job. If they were, they wouldn’t be in Perugia.” — Frank Sfarzo to Rolling Stone***

Italy hates Amanda Knox for the same reason America loves her.  It’s more pride than anything else. A few years back, I was one of those who thought the case was a mess.  But the lousy English translations of the testimony, and the British and American media’s interpretations**** didn’t help these impressions either.

 “There is a feeling that the whole case is flawed***** and that a US citizen should not have to go to jail because of that.” — Express UK


*The third appeal [effectively the fourth final trial leading to Knox’s eventual acquittal] is covered in the final narrative of this series: Denouement. Despite “winning” their respective appeals, neither were able to claim compensation for “wrongful imprisonment.”  It is one thing to find someone not guilty by the fairly strict criminal standard of reasonable doubt, but suing for compensation has another burden to deal with, although it’s a lower standard on the legal ladder.  In civil law the burden is to prove, on a balance of probabilities whether one is entitled to compensation. O.J. Simpson famously won his criminal case [acquitted based on reasonable doubt] but lost the civil case lodged against him by the Goldman family [convicted based on a balance of probabilities.]

**The spurious nature of Skakel’s accusations against his lawyer are borne out in the redaction by the Stamford Advocate of the story announcing  the appeal, and Skakel’s unfounded [as it turned out] accusations against his attorney.

Though Michael Skakel won his appeal when it was eventually granted in 2013, the Connecticut Supreme Court reinstated Skakel’s murder conviction with a 4–3 majority decision in December 2016.

***Frank Sfarzo’s allegations about Italy’s Justice system as quoted by Rolling Stone have since been redacted.

****It’s seldom acknowledged that Knox’s PR company took it upon themselves to translate the Italian court transcripts for and behalf of their American client to English-speaking [British and American] media.  The impact of this and other stratagems to subtly texture [and shift] the narrative in the English-speaking mainstream, is analysed in detail in the next book in this series: Extradition.

*****The “feeling” that the Italian justice system was flawed didn’t materialize by accident.  According to the New York Times in October 4th, 2011 [immediately after Knox’s acquittal when such admissions didn’t matter]: “…a neighbor of Ms. Knox’s who is a superior court judge in Seattle, said that he spoke about the case to Senator Cantwell, a friend of his. When Ms. Knox was convicted in 2009…Cantwell issued a statement saying in part, “I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial.” This was an ironic statement in itself, because by vaunting “Anti-Americanism” in its reasoning, America was admitting their own anti-Italy views, in terms of undermining Italy’s justice system.

DESPICABLE and FOXY KNOXY FIGHTS BACK 

are available on AMAZON KINDLE

shakedowntitle.com