• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

LondonJohn said:
I’ve told you explicitly, including within the past 24 hours, that this wasn’t a scenario in which the police/PM were targeting two people whom they knew/suspected of being innocent. I even took the trouble - though, clearly, god knows why - of explaining to you in patient detail that by 5th November the police/PM genuinely thought (albeit based on deeply erroneous “reasoning”, tunnel vision, and confirmation bias) that Knox was deeply involved in the murder, and that (at the very least) Sollecito was also committing a serious criminal offence by supporting Knox’s “lie” that the two of them had spent the entire evening/night of the murder together alone in Sollecito’s apartment.
Did you even actually read that post of mine (and, for that matter, several other related posts by me and others)? Why do you keep on with the nonsense that the only alternative narrative to yours is one where the police/PM set out to frame two people whom they knew/suspected to be innocent (then proceed to attack this straw man of yours)/
Click to expand...

I've said the same thing to her several times.
 
LondonJohn said:
AHAHAHAHAHAH!!

Quennell’s “reality” about this case is on such a wildly different plane from actual reality that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so disgustingly risible.

Anyone want to take bets on Quennell’s “100% certainty” actually coming to pass in 2023…? :D
Click to expand...

It will happen shorty after Sollecito's and Gumbel's public admission they lied and apology to Mignini. And when :pigsfly
 
Vixen said:
I have not seen any convincing argument that the police treated Knox and Sollecito any differently from anybody else.
Click to expand...

That's because the police chose not to videotape what they, at the very least, suspected would be a crucial interrogation. Why else call Sollecito in at 10:00 PM unless it was unusually important to them and not wait until the next day?
 
Stacyhs said:
That's because the police chose not to videotape what they, at the very least, suspected would be a crucial interrogation. Why else call Sollecito in at 10:00 PM unless it was unusually important to them and not wait until the next day?
Click to expand...

I cannot remember from where, but the cops were also concerned that Edda Mellas, Knox's mother, was due in Perugia on the 6th (or 7th). The cops thought that with Mellas in town, she'd insist on Knox 'lawyering up', and they'd lose her for their 'investigation'. From this vantage point, that speaks volumes as to the confidence the cops had in their case.

Remember how Mignini reacted when Knox finally had lawyers, who she met at the very first hearing? Acc. to John Follain, a Mignini-friendly tabloid hack, Follain wrote in 'A Death in Italy' that when Mignini saw Knox talking animatedly with her own lawyers, that he (Mignini), "had lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him". Follain wrote that Mignini noted that Amanda , "avoided the prosecutor's gaze."

Why that was important is anyone's guess, but it was a little creepy that Follain thought it important enough to include. And that it was somehow complimentary to Mignini, that Mignini felt somewhat hurt by Knox ignoring him.

Remember, Follain was a Mignini shill at that point, depending on Mignini sometimes for the very thoughts of investigators as the case plodded along, and as Follain planned to monetize things through his book.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
I cannot remember from where, but the cops were also concerned that Edda Mellas, Knox's mother, was due in Perugia on the 6th (or 7th). The cops thought that with Mellas in town, she'd insist on Knox 'lawyering up', and they'd lose her for their 'investigation'. From this vantage point, that speaks volumes as to the confidence the cops had in their case.

Remember how Mignini reacted when Knox finally had lawyers, who she met at the very first hearing? Acc. to John Follain, a Mignini-friendly tabloid hack, Follain wrote in 'A Death in Italy' that when Mignini saw Knox talking animatedly with her own lawyers, that he (Mignini), "had lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him". Follain wrote that Mignini noted that Amanda , "avoided the prosecutor's gaze."

Why that was important is anyone's guess, but it was a little creepy that Follain thought it important enough to include. And that it was somehow complimentary to Mignini, that Mignini felt somewhat hurt by Knox ignoring him.

Remember, Follain was a Mignini shill at that point, depending on Mignini sometimes for the very thoughts of investigators as the case plodded along, and as Follain planned to monetize things through his book.
Click to expand...

They knew Edda Mellas was flying in on Nov. 6 from the wiretapping of Amanda's phone as AK writes in her book. AK writes that Judge Matteini was afraid Edda would take AK back to the US so she had to be arrested before that could happen. Therefore, the police brought in Raffaele the night before in order to get him to withdraw his claim Knox was with him. Once they got him to say she'd gone out, they had enough to arrest her. Of course, all this will be denied.
 
Stacyhs said:
They knew Edda Mellas was flying in on Nov. 6 from the wiretapping of Amanda's phone as AK writes in her book. AK writes that Judge Matteini was afraid Edda would take AK back to the US so she had to be arrested before that could happen. Therefore, the police brought in Raffaele the night before in order to get him to withdraw his claim Knox was with him. Once they got him to say she'd gone out, they had enough to arrest her. Of course, all this will be denied.
Click to expand...

And even then, John Follain wrote that Marco Chiacchiara, lead detective Napolenoi's superior, suggested at the end of the interrogation, even with the 'signed confessions' that Knox and Sollecito be let go and monitored. Mignini suggested otherwise, and Napoleoni ordered the pair detained, to go in front of Matteini for preventative detention.

What strikes me from reading Follain's book, the one most friendly to Mignini, was how unsure the cops actually were early on - about anything.
 
TomG said:
Well, he may have a point, but maybe not for the reasons he's hoping for. The ECHR judgement does offer a reopening of "unfair court proceedings" as "just satisfaction" for the injured party, namely Amanda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UybuIA5rSo&t=95s

So we might get a just resolution to the calunnia next year, who knows.

Hoots
Click to expand...

TomG, thanks for posting a link to this YouTube video on the supervision of ECHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers. IIRC the link has been posted here previously. The link to the video and much other information is available on the website of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR, an agency of the Council of Europe that assists the CoM in its day-to-day work.

See: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution

The ECHR and CoM use the term "just satisfaction" to refer to the (usually token, that is, small) money award for the violation of the rights of an individual (or company). The ECHR and CoM use the term "individual measures" to refer to the measures taken by the respondent state to redress the violation of rights: this term includes the "just satisfaction" (which in some cases is not awarded) and any other measures intended to restore the individual to his/her status prior to the violation. The ECHR and CoM use the term "general measures" to include the measures taken by the respondent state to prevent, insofar as possible, a repetition of the violation in the future.

Italy provided a preliminary communication (a letter) 10 January 2020 to the CoM agreeing that it had violated Knox's rights as found by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy. This letter stated that the just satisfaction had been paid and that certain basic general measures (largely, translation of the judgment to Italian and posting it to several relevant Italian judicial and government websites). It did not include the required Action Plan, which the CoM continues to await.

See: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517
 
whoanellie said:
Given that there had been an intruder and that one of the inhabitants was murdered I would hope so.
Click to expand...

Given that, if AK and RS had been in on the crime, they'd have known that MK's money, credit cards, and cell phones had been or would be taken, so why the need to stage a break-in and then declare nothing had been taken? Just take the objects and leave the door open, which AK knew the roommates would verify had a broken latch. A staged a break-in was entirely superfuous. Just another bit of illogic by the prosecution that the PGP swallow.
 
Stacyhs said:
Given that, if AK and RS had been in on the crime, they'd have known that MK's money, credit cards, and cell phones had been or would be taken, so why the need to stage a break-in and then declare nothing had been taken? Just take the objects and leave the door open, which AK knew the roommates would verify had a broken latch. A staged a break-in was entirely superfuous. Just another bit of illogic by the prosecution that the PGP swallow.
Click to expand...


Plus of course it’s one of the many examples of grossly improper investigative technique by the police/PM, and grossly unlawful acceptance of the prosecution narrative by the incompetent lower courts - all of which has been explained in great detail within these threads for over a decade now (including a time well before the Marasca SC said exactly this en route to acquittal).

And this in turn leads to a deliciously satisfying little meta vignette, in which the PGP have thrown in their own trademark brand of illogic and arse/elbow “reasoning”. It goes like this:

1) Pro-innocence commentators and lawyers for Knox/Sollecito claim that the “staged break-in” theory is illogical & fundamentally ill-conceived, that there’s no credible evidence to support the theory, and that Knox/Sollecito should never have been convicted of the staging charge by any competent court acting lawfully.

2) The Italian Supreme Court states that the “staged break-in” theory is illogical & fundamentally ill-conceived, that there’s no credible evidence to support the theory, and that Knox/Sollecito should never have been convicted of the staging charge by any competent court acting lawfully. The SC acquits the pair on this charge.

Therefore………. (In the twisted logic and cognitive dissonance that’s prevalent among pro-guilt commentators)……….

3) This is a clear indication that the Italian Supreme Court was improperly influenced/bullied/corrupted by Knox’s/Sollecito’s lawyers and/or non-legal advocates.

:D :D :D :D :D

:rolleyes:
 
Numbers said:
TomG, thanks for posting a link to this YouTube video on the supervision of ECHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers. IIRC the link has been posted here previously. The link to the video and much other information is available on the website of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR, an agency of the Council of Europe that assists the CoM in its day-to-day work.

See: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution

The ECHR and CoM use the term "just satisfaction" to refer to the (usually token, that is, small) money award for the violation of the rights of an individual (or company). The ECHR and CoM use the term "individual measures" to refer to the measures taken by the respondent state to redress the violation of rights: this term includes the "just satisfaction" (which in some cases is not awarded) and any other measures intended to restore the individual to his/her status prior to the violation. The ECHR and CoM use the term "general measures" to include the measures taken by the respondent state to prevent, insofar as possible, a repetition of the violation in the future.

Italy provided a preliminary communication (a letter) 10 January 2020 to the CoM agreeing that it had violated Knox's rights as found by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy. This letter stated that the just satisfaction had been paid and that certain basic general measures (largely, translation of the judgment to Italian and posting it to several relevant Italian judicial and government websites). It did not include the required Action Plan, which the CoM continues to await.

See: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517
Click to expand...


It's the only reason I can think of that would prompt a reopening of procedures as PQ claims. I asked him what he would expect from a reopening of the case. He responded:

Confirmation of the Nencini verdict. Italy cannot last in this nasty limbo forever. It has one of the best police & judicial systems in the world, and hosts THREE UN centers of excellence. All the lawyers thought RS & AK did it. Open secret in Perugia. RS lawyers both implied at trial AK led the pack. RS & AK have fought like dogs almost ever since, we list 35 incidents in a very funny post. RS's book title is a jab at Knox. Both Knox & RS books were huge mistakes, in sustaining an open wound. RS lost badly at diffamazione trial (also Gumbel) to GM, for false claims, and had to pay huge damages. AK can still be sued for her book, GM just met her and gave her a chance to withdraw. Knox was actually pretty happy in prison, her mental condition (probably caused by her dad) was coming right. Now, she barely knows up from down - as GM just saw."
Click to expand...

I don't even know if such a thing is possible. Is there any precedent? What follows is just another rambling tirade of bitterness that doesn't support his aspirations.

Hoots
 
whoanellie said:
Given that there had been an intruder and that one of the inhabitants was murdered I would hope so.
Click to expand...

You 100% know there had been an intruder and you also know that Knox and Sollecito 'had nothing to do with the murder'.

Who needs a trial, eh?


Next time, Perugia Police should just contact whoanellie with his Oracle.

"Woo, I see shades of something dark moving across my crystal ball...something shrouded in ether...the picture is clearing... I see a burglar..."
 
Vixen said:
You 100% know there had been an intruder and you also know that Knox and Sollecito 'had nothing to do with the murder'.

Who needs a trial, eh?


Next time, Perugia Police should just contact whoanellie with his Oracle.

"Woo, I see shades of something dark moving across my crystal ball...something shrouded in ether...the picture is clearing... I see a burglar..."
Click to expand...

How many trials have there been? Do Knox and Sollecito stand convicted of murder?

(That whooshing sound you keep hearing is the sound of points flying over your head.)
 
Last edited:
whoanellie said:
How many trials have there been? Do Knox and Sollecito stand convicted of murder?
Click to expand...

Contrary to the misconception of the US press, there has only been one trial. The second instance court did look at specific issues again, which were allowed on appeal.

After a very lengthy trial with all parties fully represented, there was a gulity verdict, which was upheld by the second instance appeal court.

The final Supreme Court were persuaded by maverick Bongiorno (and pressure via political channels [For example, the US State Department intimating that it would not extradite as Hellmann's court caused a 'double jeopardy' situation according to US law]) to annul and it could only do this by using a little used loophole, the Section 230.2 'insufficient evidence' meaning it was futile to send it back to the lower courts. There was a load of waffle about 'press interference' (in Italy the only part that is sub judice is the police investigation part) and a Lazarus-like arising from the dead of Vecchiotti & Conti's legally debunked claims.

The pair got out of jail but the facts found to date stand, even if Knox washing off Kercher's blood from her hands and being present during the murder, together with covering up for Guede, remain as the facts of the matter, even if it is 'insufficient evidence'.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Contrary to the misconception of the US press, there has only been one trial. The second instance court did look at specific issues again, which were allowed on appeal.

After a very lengthy trial with all parties fully represented, there was a gulity verdict, which was upheld by the second instance appeal court.

The final Supreme Court were persuaded by maverick Bongiorno (and pressure via political channels [For example, the US State Department intimating that it would not extradite as Hellmann's court caused a 'double jeopardy' situation according to US law]) to annul and it could only do this by using a little used loophole, the Section 230.2 'insufficient evidence' meaning it was futile to send it back to the lower courts. There was a load of waffle about 'press interference' (in Italy the only part that is sub judice is the police investigation part) and a Lazarus-like arising from the dead of Vecchiotti & Conti's legally debunked claims.

The pair got out of jail but the facts found to date stand, even if Knox washing off Kercher's blood from her hands and being present during the murder, together with covering up for Guede, remain as the facts of the matter, even if it is 'insufficient evidence'.
Click to expand...
So the Italian Supreme Court would have found them guilty if it weren't for political pressure and little used loopholes? Is one of those facts found to date that the extra Y-chromosome DNA could have come from Meredith's girlfriends. Does that still stand?
Vixen said:
"Would, could, should" - we could 'what-if?' all day long.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You 100% know there had been an intruder and you also know that Knox and Sollecito 'had nothing to do with the murder'.

Who needs a trial, eh?


Next time, Perugia Police should just contact whoanellie with his Oracle.

"Woo, I see shades of something dark moving across my crystal ball...something shrouded in ether...the picture is clearing... I see a burglar..."
Click to expand...


No, Vixen. Next time, Perugia police should do their job properly and without breaking Italian law and codes.

And in #3,577 in a seemingly interminable series, the unintended irony of your final sentence is clearly entirely lost on you. For it was Mignini and Giobbi who not only employed an “investigative” approach founded in just such bollocks, but who both also bragged about these investigative “gifts” of theirs: their Holmes-esque “powers” of intuition were - both men clearly implied to the media in those triumphalist days of mid-November 2007 - the special sauce which had allowed them to “solve the crime” so quickly and brilliantly :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
"Would, could, should" - we could 'what-if?' all day long.
Click to expand...


You mean, as in: “What if there had been even a single piece of credible, reliable evidence indicating the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in the Kercher murder?”?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom