Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Agatha]

Once again, several posts have gone to AAH for various breaches of the rules, chiefly for rule 0 and rule 12. Some otherwise acceptable posts have also gone to AAH for either quoting or responding to rule breaches.

Several of you appear to be unable to debate without being uncivil, impolite and personal. This is unacceptable on ISF, and if you wish to avoid further moves, cards or even suspensions, you must alter your posting styles.

As a last resort, this thread may have to be returned to moderated status and I doubt that this is wanted by anyone, least of all the moderation team.

May I remind you that if you are talking TO each other, you MUST be polite. If your post talks ABOUT another member of the forum, you are almost certainly breaching rule 12, so don't do it. Concentrate on the arguments and not the arguers.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

This is a continuation from Part 21. The cut-off point was arbitrary and you may freely quote from previous threads here. Thank you.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Methos]

Obviously you didn't try to list all of judge Massei's blunders or we'd be in Continuation Part 22 by now!

Well, I guess the discussion of Massei's blunders is one of the reasons we are in Continuation Part 21.

I just mentioned the part about Curatolo because it has always fascinated me how tortured Massei's logic was to fit Amanda and Raffaele into the crime. You can't have it both ways. Curatolo's testimony makes it clear he is confused. His testimony of seeing the costumes and disco buses on the same evening he sees Amanda and Raffaele is more compelling than saying he sees the SP in their white outfits the next day. There is a direct correlation between sighting Amanda and Raffaele with the costumes and buses. The only correlation he has regarding seeing the SP is he says it was the next day, but that could easily be confused. But Massei disregards the testimony that should have far more credibility in order to enter into his reasoning the testimony with far less credibility. I mean it's at least as bad as ignoring scientific evidence and expert witness testimony from the lead forensic technician in order to claim the Luminol traces were made from Meredith's blood and justifying that by saying "what else could it be?".

It's indeed fascinating. Curatolo is confused at best or simply making things up on behalf of the prosecution at worst. I wonder how he was "found" in the other two cases he testified?

The other thing is the tortured logic used by Chieffi to bring back his credibility. It doesn't matter that Curatolo describes the night of Halloween, Knox and Sollecito where elswhere that night so it's impossible that he has seen them that night, ergo he must have seen them on the night of the murder (Why not any other night? Because he said so and because "heroin is not a hallucinogen").

 

[Welshman]

How on earth can Vixen claim there was no interrogation. Vixen says she does not agree that the conduct of the prosecution showed the prosecution had a weak case and a lack of evidence. Vixen does not explain why she disagrees and besides the interrogation Vixen did not address the issues raised in my posts regarding the conduct of the prosecution and the arguments the PGP have to resort to.

 

[acbytesla]

How on earth can Vixen claim there was no interrogation. Vixen says she does not agree that the conduct of the prosecution showed the prosecution had a weak case and a lack of evidence. Vixen does not explain why she disagrees and besides the interrogation Vixen did not address the issues raised in my posts regarding the conduct of the prosecution and the arguments the PGP have to resort to.

I think she is trying to say that Amanda was just invited over for midnight tea and crumpets and a loud discussion where they could call her a liar over and over again. That's not an interrogation.

 

[Methos]

You saw one of the (numerous) court orders Edda had to get.

No, I didnt. I frankly don't care and it says nothing about Amanda.

The fact is there is no reason to believe Knox or Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder and all your scummy remarks about everyone ancillary to Amanda and this case is not becoming.

That's another myth spun from this cropped document by the self proclaimed fighter "against the Seattle message machine" Barbie Latza Nadeau.

There are two court dates on that document, Barbie for reasons only known to her wrote in the article titled "Behind the Co-Ed Murder Scandal" that:

On more than one occasion Edda had to go to court to collect child support from Curt.

Well, nice play with words here, "twice" is "more than one occasion" so Barbie isn't exactly lying, but "On more than one occasion" implicates: "much more than one occasion" something that was turned into "again and again" on TJMK and what seems to be what Vixen bases her "(numerous) court orders" on.

If the "Mythbusters" were into this kind of thing, they could do a season or two just on this case. (My 0.02 Euro)

 

[Desert Fox]

I think she is trying to say that Amanda was just invited over for midnight tea and crumpets and a loud discussion where they could call her a liar over and over again. That's not an interrogation.

It is a fact that the police do not like the term interrogation in general.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is a fact that the police do not like the term interrogation in general.

Machiavelli in these threads was the first that I knew who claimed that the interrogation ended by 2 am Nov 7. He also claims that what happened prior to that was an interrogation of a "person informed of the facts", so technically it was not an interrogation of a suspect as the innocentisti claim.

Vixen has yet to get the memo.

 

[TruthCalls]

Machiavelli in these threads was the first that I knew who claimed that the interrogation ended by 2 am Nov 7. He also claims that what happened prior to that was an interrogation of a "person informed of the facts", so technically it was not an interrogation of a suspect as the innocentisti claim.

Vixen has yet to get the memo.

You know, I never did understand the phrase "person informed of the facts". What exactly does that mean? Amanda was at Raffaele's on the night of the murder and she had advised the police of that on numerous occasions prior to the interrogation. So what "facts" did Amanda know, as a witness, that would benefit the investigation?

 

[Planigale]

Machiavelli in these threads was the first that I knew who claimed that the interrogation ended by 2 am Nov 7. He also claims that what happened prior to that was an interrogation of a "person informed of the facts", so technically it was not an interrogation of a suspect as the innocentisti claim.

Vixen has yet to get the memo.

What mach and others do not get is it is irrelevant to the ECHR whether under Italian law Knox or Sollecito were technically suspects. It does not matter that in Italy the PM (Mignini here) is the person who officially declares a person suspect and until that point the police are free to interview without the interviewee having benefit of legal advice. The ECHR is quite happy to over rule national law, the ECHR will be interested in whether they were de facto suspects and take the view the right to a lawyer begins then. It is the responsibility of the Italian government and legal system to be in line with ECHR not vice versa.

 

[Desert Fox]

What mach and others do not get is it is irrelevant to the ECHR whether under Italian law Knox or Sollecito were technically suspects. It does not matter that in Italy the PM (Mignini here) is the person who officially declares a person suspect and until that point the police are free to interview without the interviewee having benefit of legal advice. The ECHR is quite happy to over rule national law, the ECHR will be interested in whether they were de facto suspects and take the view the right to a lawyer begins then. It is the responsibility of the Italian government and legal system to be in line with ECHR not vice versa.

I wish in the US, the Supreme Court would take a much harder line with regards to interrogations.

You see many of the exact same issues with US cases.

 

[bagels]

22 continuations? We're going to get to the bottom of this mystery. Something tells me if we can find out who left the 16 bloody footprints around and near the body, and the bloody palm print next to the body, we may be able to crack this case. There were signs of a sexual assault, did they manage to retrieve any DNA from the rapekit? That could also yield clues.

 

[Desert Fox]

22 continuations? We're going to get to the bottom of this mystery. Something tells me if we can find out who left the 16 bloody footprints around and near the body, and the bloody palm print next to the body, we may be able to crack this case. There were signs of a sexual assault, did they manage to retrieve any DNA from the rapekit? That could also yield clues.

I found this picture of the culprit

 

[Kauffer]

What mach and others do not get is it is irrelevant to the ECHR whether under Italian law Knox or Sollecito were technically suspects. It does not matter that in Italy the PM (Mignini here) is the person who officially declares a person suspect and until that point the police are free to interview without the interviewee having benefit of legal advice. The ECHR is quite happy to over rule national law, the ECHR will be interested in whether they were de facto suspects and take the view the right to a lawyer begins then. It is the responsibility of the Italian government and legal system to be in line with ECHR not vice versa.

I think this is substantially correct. But I also think that under Italian law they were suspects entitled to Article 6 protection. The Boninsega MR is good evidence on this point. It also cites Hellmann in support. What is mainly at issue is the confusion produced by the different treatment of the same evidence in two trials, namely the first statement (but also the use of the 1st memoriale based on its being a voluntary statement - which seems, so clearly to be contrary both to Italian and ECHR law) and the construction placed on the law by Gemelli in allowing this evidence to be used to convict Knox in the callunia case. Yet, according to Gemelli, she ceased being a witness after the signing of 1:45 (he must be wrong about that since the statement was supposed to be the writing up of her verbal "confession", so she must have been a suspect prior to the signing of the written statement - and you don't give suspects any statements to sign.

I think the ECHR will conclude that Knox should have had a lawyer before she said anything of interest to the police, that all statements used to convict her were inadmissible AND that Italian law is in agreement with these positions and was wrongly applied.

Consequently, a few people are going to have to return to school to be taught what the law says and what it means.

 

[Bill Williams]

22 continuations? We're going to get to the bottom of this mystery. Something tells me if we can find out who left the 16 bloody footprints around and near the body, and the bloody palm print next to the body, we may be able to crack this case. There were signs of a sexual assault, did they manage to retrieve any DNA from the rapekit? That could also yield clues.

Let's make this one the last.....

 

[Desert Fox]

Let's make this one the last.....

I am sure that Amanda would not mind being forget with respect to this. . . . .

 

[NotEvenWrong]

22 continuations? We're going to get to the bottom of this mystery. Something tells me if we can find out who left the 16 bloody footprints around and near the body, and the bloody palm print next to the body, we may be able to crack this case. There were signs of a sexual assault, did they manage to retrieve any DNA from the rapekit? That could also yield clues.

Yes, but if we find the person who left the 16 bloody footprints, the bloody palm print, and the DNA inside the victim's vagina, how do we know there weren't 18 other people involved in a sacrificial Halloween right and they just cleaned up really well without leaving any evidence of cleaning and leaving only one person's evidence behind? Bet you can't answer that one, smart guy. Please don't cite forensic science articles, we already know about the big money involved to protect this random not-rich not-famous person.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, but if we find the person who left the 16 bloody footprints, the bloody palm print, and the DNA inside the victim's vagina, how do we know there weren't 18 other people involved in a sacrificial Halloween right and they just cleaned up really well without leaving any evidence of cleaning and leaving only one person's evidence behind? Bet you can't answer that one, smart guy. Please don't cite forensic science articles, we already know about the big money involved to protect this random not-rich not-famous person.

Massei & Nencini ruled Amanda and Raff were guilty of murder and sexual assault of Mez ('aggravated murder'). The pair claimed they were 'tried twice', so we could say they are 'twice-convicted', by their own account.

Bruno-Marasca of the Supreme Court ruled Amanda certainly, and Raff, almost certainly, were at the scene of the murder. Official. Amanda washed off Mez' blood. Official. Amanda 'covered for Rudy': fact, when she falsely accused Patrick of the crimes. Official.

Micheli, Galati, Massei, Nencini and Bruno-Marasca ruled as a fact, there was more than one perpetrator. All courts confirm Rudy is not considered the prinicpal killer. Fact. Official.

Amanda (A) + Raff (B) + Rudy (C) + unknown person/s (x) = at the scene of the crimes. (K: constant).

K = A + B + C + x


The police and the courts are not looking for x.


Therefore, as the killer is officially (fact) not C:

. ' . the killer = A or B.

QED ::

Case closed.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Massei & Nencini ruled Amanda and Raff were guilty of murder and sexual assault of Mez ('aggravated murder'). The pair claimed they were 'tried twice', so we could say they are 'twice-convicted', by their own account.

Bruno-Marasca of the Supreme Court ruled Amanda certainly, and Raff, almost certainly, were at the scene of the murder. Official. Amanda washed off Mez' blood. Official. Amanda 'covered for Rudy': fact, when she falsely accused Patrick of the crimes. Official.

Micheli, Galati, Massei, Nencini and Bruno-Marasca ruled as a fact, there was more than one perpetrator. All courts confirm Rudy is not considered the prinicpal killer. Fact. Official.

Amanda (A) + Raff (B) + Rudy (C) + unknown person/s (x) = at the scene of the crimes. (K: constant).

K = A + B + C + x


The police and the courts are not looking for x.


Therefore, as the killer is officially (fact) not C:

. ' . the killer = A or B.

QED ::

Case closed.

Ah yes. Thank you Vixen. This is indeed quite simple. You even have a mathematical formula with mathematical symbols to prove it's a proof and it is indeed quite proofy looking.

I wonder if we apply this exact same reasoning to other endeavors it works as well...

Let's see... if we take the side we want to be true, and cite legal authority figures (whether they base their reasoning on sound principles and logic or not) and ignore every other piece of evidence and every other (higher) authority figure (such as the Italian Supreme Court), then we can, I believe, come to any conclusion we want. And then, if we write QED... then yes, I believe we can be completely wrong and simultaneously claim it is a logically air-tight proof. This is quite ingenious, actually. No thought required.

OK, let's try it. In colonial Massachusetts circa 1692, we had a bunch of evil sluts accused of being witches. They went through the proper trials and procedures. Many legal figures, such as Magistrate Samuel Sewall, Deputy Governor Thomas Dunforth, and the Court of Oyer and Terminer were involved. It was all very official. They caught and convicted 25 people! 20 were executed!!

We have to take the authorities' words for it. It was official, after all.

Don't you see Vixen? K = A + B + C + x and witches equal the integral of AB dx. If we take the derivative of crazy with respect to K we see that indubitably the witches were indeed witches and thankfully the courts kept the people of Massachusetts safe. Thank God they were captured!!!

Oh, QED. quod erad demonstrandum. That is Latin Vixen. This gives retarded arguments more weight and people who write that are actually quite smart and not at all crazy. So I thought I would include it as proof to you the witches have been caught and you are safe.

Side note: I do like how you think "mathematically". It shows quite clearly how one can come to the conclusions you do.

 

[Vixen]

Ah yes. Thank you Vixen. This is indeed quite simple. You even have a mathematical formula with mathematical symbols to prove it's a proof and it is indeed quite proofy looking.

I wonder if we apply this exact same reasoning to other endeavors it works as well...

Let's see... if we take the side we want to be true, and cite legal authority figures (whether they base their reasoning on sound principles and logic or not) and ignore every other piece of evidence and every other (higher) authority figure (such as the Italian Supreme Court), then we can, I believe, come to any conclusion we want. And then, if we write QED... then yes, I believe we can be completely wrong and simultaneously claim it is a logically air-tight proof. This is quite ingenious, actually. No thought required.

OK, let's try it. In colonial Massachusetts circa 1692, we had a bunch of evil sluts accused of being witches. They went through the proper trials and procedures. Many legal figures, such as Magistrate Samuel Sewall, Deputy Governor Thomas Dunforth, and the Court of Oyer and Terminer were involved. It was all very official. They caught and convicted 25 people! 20 were executed!!

We have to take the authorities' words for it. It was official, after all.

Don't you see Vixen? K = A + B + C + x and witches equal the integral of AB dx. If we take the derivative of crazy with respect to K we see that indubitably the witches were indeed witches and thankfully the courts kept the people of Massachusetts safe. Thank God they were captured!!!

Oh, QED. quod erad demonstrandum. That is Latin Vixen. This gives retarded arguments more weight and people who write that are actually quite smart and not at all crazy. So I thought I would include it as proof to you the witches have been caught and you are safe.

Side note: I do like how you think "mathematically". It shows quite clearly how one can come to the conclusions you do.

It's called logic. Raff is often quoted as saying, 'Only one person did it, and that was Rudy.'

Amanda asserts the same, although how they definitively know 'Only Rudy did it', when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'

Thus, if Raff + Amanda claim 'Rudy did it alone', and the law says he did not deal the fatal stab wound, and that Amanda and Raff were at the murder scene (as decreed in perpetuity by the Supreme Court) we can only logically conclude Amanda and Raff were there in order to be able to confidently assert, 'Only Rudy was there and he did it'.

After all, they should know who was there, and they are hardly going to admit to their own presence, although Amanda did put it in large in her gift letter to the police that she was there and heard Mez scream and heard a thud.

In her prison intercept with Mom, Edda, she says, 'It's not every day you witness a murder' (paraphrase).

 

[Methos]

Massei & Nencini ruled Amanda and Raff were guilty of murder and sexual assault of Mez ('aggravated murder'). The pair claimed they were 'tried twice', so we could say they are 'twice-convicted', by their own account. Bruno-Marasca of the Supreme Court ruled Amanda certainly, and Raff, almost certainly, were at the scene of the murder. Official. Amanda washed off Mez' blood. Official. Amanda 'covered for Rudy': fact, when she falsely accused Patrick of the crimes. Official.
Micheli, Galati, Massei, Nencini and Bruno-Marasca ruled as a fact, there was more than one perpetrator. All courts confirm Rudy is not considered the prinicpal killer. Fact. Official.
Amanda (A) + Raff (B) + Rudy (C) + unknown person/s (x) = at the scene of the crimes. (K: constant).

K = A + B + C + x


The police and the courts are not looking for x.


Therefore, as the killer is officially (fact) not C:

. ' . the killer = A or B.

QED ::

Case closed.

On the first highlight: you might have realised by know, that Italian justice isn't a best of five or best of seven game, like in sports in the US, it's the score standing when the final whistle blows, just like in football here in Europe, one could say that Knox and Sollecito won their finals after extra time and a penalty shoot out.

On the second sets of highlights: The Italian courts have created quite a few judicial truths, during this mess, like confirming multiple attackers and taking the knife that killed Meredith Kercher out of Guede's hands...
I'm not interested in "official" or "judicial truths" I want to know "the truth". Period.

Do you want an example? Bruno and Marasca wrote related to the calunnia on page 21 of their report:

... e furono persino ribadite, dopo qualche tempo, in sede di convalida dell'arresto del Lumumba, innanzi al Gip procedente.

The problem I have here is that the report about that hearing has only this quote:

l'interessato dichiara:"mi avvalgo della facoltà di non rispondere."

as the recording of that hearing confirmes...

As I said, I'm interested in "The truth", not some substitute "judicial truth".