Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

Acbytesla, is it possible that the prosecutors have quietly told select friendly judges (perhaps not Hellman) that they have "secret proof" that the defendants were present and involved in the murder.

We saw how Mignini mistook Amanda's statement to her mother that "I was there" as her secretly-recorded admission that she was at her house, when to others (Hellman) it is understood from the context that Amanda was speaking of being at Raffaele's flat. Mignini (and Machiavelli) fought and fought for Mignini's interpretation, both because Mignini believes his interpretation to be right and because it serves his purpose. Mignini used it to justify the continued detention of Amanda.

That's the issue, isn't it.

Look what has happened to the issue of detention. Nencini even in bizarrely convicting the pairs says that Knox is "overseas legally". Raffaele is not detained nor even recommended for detention.

The three legal reasons for detention prior to trial are 1) flight risk, 2) tampering with evidence risk, and 3) risk of reoffending.

It seems that Judge Nencini thinks none of those are really at issue here, save for ordering Raffaele's passport be surrendered. It does not make sense why Nencini would say Amanda is "legally abroad" while taking this minor measure against Raffaele, but then again, Nencini does not seem to follow common rules of logic.

Which brings me back to Machiavelli, a prolific poster to this JREF thread. He was here briefly at the announcement of Nencini's release of the motivations report, then disappeared again. Maybe he has better things to do at this time.

Yet is was this case being effectively handed to Florence from Perugia that, for me, has caused Machiavelli to back off. There's no more Mignini to defend.

Officially Mignini's own legal troubles are in the past. He's been effectively cleared of the alleged wrongdoing in relation to the Monster of Florence case. He has a private case against Spezi outstanding, mirroring the dozens of satellite prosecutions he's leveled against just about everyone who's been critical of his handling of the Kercher murder trials.

He's been very selective, too.... even going after Amanda's parents, while glaringly omitting to also charge with defamation the author of the defamation (John Follain - gee, I wonder why Mignini would forget to sue Follain!!!???) or the newspaper the alleged defamation was printed in.

George Clooney's upcoming Monster of Florence film notwithstanding, there currently is no real reason for Machiavelli to post anymore. Machiavelli is interested in defending Mignini, not even so much prosecuting Knox or Sollecito.

So it is with Mignini's legal troubles gone, there's no need to even defend the detention differences between Crini/Nencini and Mignini. This alone is a symbol of the sea-change this case has gone through since 2007 where Mignini had to get Raffaele into solitary confinement at all costs and Knox in prison too.

The defence of that decision waited for later - and people like Machiavelli have been at the forefront on the Internet in justifying Mignini's use and abuse of prosecutor discretion on that count.

I mean, doesn't it strike you as strange that Crini/Nencini view THIS issue so differently?

But Machiavelli does not need to post anymore, really, not even about this. Mignini is in the clear, and the larger case now is in the hands of Cassazione. The only reason to return would be if Mignini himself returns to the world of trouble.

 

[Vibio]

Vibio:
Several of us have asked for exact links to the case where you argue a case where there is no physical evidence and the defendants were convicted.
Might I ask that you are unwilling to provide those references?

No, you're wrong.

I have posted the link twice.

 

[acbytesla]

George Clooney's upcoming Monster of Florence film notwithstanding, there currently is no real reason for Machiavelli to post anymore. Machiavelli is interested in defending Mignini, not even so much prosecuting Knox or Sollecito.

I have to wonder if the MOF movie might get George Clooney into trouble. Keep in mind that George has at least on home on Lake Como in Italy so he is less immune to the wrath of their judiciary.

 

[Desert Fox]

No, you're wrong.

I have posted the link twice.

Has anybody else seem where Vibio posted a link?

 

[Vibio]

George Clooney's upcoming Monster of Florence film notwithstanding, there currently is no real reason for Machiavelli to post anymore. Machiavelli is interested in defending Mignini, not even so much prosecuting Knox or Sollecito.

And speaking of trolls... the entire post at 6841 is a perfect example.

 

[Skind]

No, you're wrong.

I have posted the link twice.

Good, you'll have no trouble doing it again, then.

 

[js202]

No, your post is typical of trollish posters.

If you follow the thread, my post "No, not necessarily", which Halkides later quotes with no context (see his post *#6816), is a legitimate answer to Anode's question. See my post at #6762 as to why.

Halkides deserved the response I gave him.

BTW: The Citation was also the name of the top-of-the-line 1958 Edsel.

Gee…following your absurd logic, knowing that bit of trivia must make me really old.

--

I rest my case.

What are your professional credentials in DNA science comparable to Chris_Halkides? What prevents you from engaging directly with him when he gives argumentation and citations which disprove your beliefs? Try to stay on topic, for once.

This thread pertains to the Meredith Kercher murder, and to debate over the demonstrably wrongful convictions of college students Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It has nothing to do with tu quoque arguments with regard to peccadilloes in the American criminal justice system, nor with non sequiturs with regard to American automobiles that were discontinued thirty years ago.

In terms of mature and legitimate argumentation which furthers your opinion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of the crimes imputed to them by the Italian judicial system, your post count is precisely "zero".

 

[Bill Williams]

And speaking of trolls... the entire post at 6841 is a perfect example.

How so? I can provide the cites if you wish. Have you not read the posts where Machiavelli said that Amanda and her mom were talking, "mafia code"? How is that trollish to simply repeat what he said?

You on the other hand keep saying you know things, like reading Nencini in the original Italian. Like having a cite to a cime where the perp did not leave DNA - when this is a case where only one of three alleged perps left DNA.

You'd need to post a cite to a crime where someone had selectively removed their own DNA to incriminate someone else with the DNA which is left.

 

[Bill Williams]

Has anybody else seem where Vibio posted a link?

I've not seen it. It would be of interest so if anyone, including Vibeo, has it, please repost.

 

[carbonjam72]

Mignini's troubles, if only...

That's the issue, isn't it.

Look what has happened to the issue of detention. Nencini even in bizarrely convicting the pairs says that Knox is "overseas legally". Raffaele is not detained nor even recommended for detention.

The three legal reasons for detention prior to trial are 1) flight risk, 2) tampering with evidence risk, and 3) risk of reoffending.

It seems that Judge Nencini thinks none of those are really at issue here, save for ordering Raffaele's passport be surrendered. It does not make sense why Nencini would say Amanda is "legally abroad" while taking this minor measure against Raffaele, but then again, Nencini does not seem to follow common rules of logic.

Which brings me back to Machiavelli, a prolific poster to this JREF thread. He was here briefly at the announcement of Nencini's release of the motivations report, then disappeared again. Maybe he has better things to do at this time.

Yet is was this case being effectively handed to Florence from Perugia that, for me, has caused Machiavelli to back off. There's no more Mignini to defend.

Officially Mignini's own legal troubles are in the past. He's been effectively cleared of the alleged wrongdoing in relation to the Monster of Florence case. He has a private case against Spezi outstanding, mirroring the dozens of satellite prosecutions he's leveled against just about everyone who's been critical of his handling of the Kercher murder trials.

He's been very selective, too.... even going after Amanda's parents, while glaringly omitting to also charge with defamation the author of the defamation (John Follain - gee, I wonder why Mignini would forget to sue Follain!!!???) or the newspaper the alleged defamation was printed in.

George Clooney's upcoming Monster of Florence film notwithstanding, there currently is no real reason for Machiavelli to post anymore. Machiavelli is interested in defending Mignini, not even so much prosecuting Knox or Sollecito.

So it is with Mignini's legal troubles gone, there's no need to even defend the detention differences between Crini/Nencini and Mignini. This alone is a symbol of the sea-change this case has gone through since 2007 where Mignini had to get Raffaele into solitary confinement at all costs and Knox in prison too.

The defence of that decision waited for later - and people like Machiavelli have been at the forefront on the Internet in justifying Mignini's use and abuse of prosecutor discretion on that count.

I mean, doesn't it strike you as strange that Crini/Nencini view THIS issue so differently?

But Machiavelli does not need to post anymore, really, not even about this. Mignini is in the clear, and the larger case now is in the hands of Cassazione. The only reason to return would be if Mignini himself returns to the world of trouble.

Last I had read, MIgnini's conviction was dismissed in florence, over an issue of venue? Or was it that the same prosecutor he had wiretapped, was prosecuting him, so it was a conflict of interest? I do seem to remember it was a technicality of some sort, but not a dismissal on the merits.

I think I remember, the charges were allowed to expire, but can be re-filed by the prosecutor in Turin, where the case must be re-filed, if it will be.

No idea why they would not re-file if he committed the crimes, and guilt is actually the basis for charges being filed in Italy.

I do believe Mignini is the key to this matter.

At any rate, I don't believe Mignini was ever actually cleared of wrongdoing, just that he was able to delay prosecution based on a technicality. And the charges may or may not be refiled.

I did see a post from Andrea Vogt though, where she said Spezi still faced charges. Is a civil action from Mignini what she was referring to?

 

[codyjuneau]

If Rudy was in fact alone and stated that to his attorney and it was recorded by police for the prosecutor, would Mignini have believed Rudy, thrown up his hands exclaiming "We got it wrong!", and withdrawn his charges against Amanda and Raffaele? Or would the prosecution fail to make the transcript of Rudy's and his lawyer's conversation available to the defense?

If Rudy's attorney, in an effort to negotiate in his client's best interests, told or implied to the police that Rudy was a bit player and that Amanda and Raffaele were involved, the police and prosecutor would readily accept it, high-five each other, take it as "secret proof" of guilt, and as honerable people protect/conceal/withhold Rudy's lawyer's confidential disclosure.

If the police recorded the Knox family in their living quarters and heard two of them (perhaps Amanda's young sisters) speaking in English say something that incorrectly appeared to indicate guilt, the police and prosecutor would take it as "secret proof" of Amanda's guilt (straight frim the family's mouth), while secretly concealing it due to it being the fruit of an illegal or at least publicly-embarrasing audio recording the Knox family's Perugia living quarters.

Someone commented here recently that she has a police officer friend in Britain who told her that police often falsify evidence when they "know" the individual is guilty. I believe that it must be universal.

.
I am sure it is, which is the whole point of having honest experienced judges that don't allow evidence that 'stinks to high heaven' like the knife and the bra clasp in this case.

Cody
.

 

[Skind]

And speaking of trolls... the entire post at 6841 is a perfect example.

Very little in that post could be called trolling by any reasonable person.

Trolling refers to a very specific behaviour and intent to ellict a particular range of responses.

Contentious, even accusatory, postings are not in and as of themselves a form of trolling.

But, ironically, your own post is not only a classic example, there's literally no other reasonable interpretation to your behaviour other than that you are being maliciously provocative.

 

[Vibio]

This thread pertains to the Meredith Kercher murder, and to debate over the demonstrably wrongful convictions of college students Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Uh no. Look at the thread title: It is a "Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case"

It is not a "debate over the demonstrably wrongful convictions of college students Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."

I rest my case.

 

[js202]

Uh no. Look at the thread title: It is a "Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case"

It is not a "debate over the demonstrably wrongful convictions of college students Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."

I rest my case.

Such quibbling is clearly the extent to which you come prepared to discuss the particulars. So, indeed you do rest your, quite paltry, case.

 

[acbytesla]

Duplicate delete

 

[acbytesla]

No, you're wrong.

I have posted the link twice.

He did post his cite. It was the case of Patrick Latko. But of course it DOESN'T really apply. Patrick Latko was convicted on significant circumstantial evidence including a rocky relationship with one of the victims. One of the victims actually called 911 and identified the killer on the call. They also found the broken handle of the knife used in the storage facility. Also, Latko was seen in a video 37 minutes after the 911 call going into a storage facility wearing one set of clothes and coming out wearing another set. Also Latko had also disposed of the floor mats of the borrowed car he drove that night. The defense argued that they couldn't find any blood on his shoes and there would have been blood given that Latko murdered two people that night. But there is no proof that the shoes he was wearing when arrested were the shoes he wore that night.

 

[codyjuneau]

delete duplicate

 

[codyjuneau]

Ok, I see it now, you were right, my goof.

I didn't know the original raw CCTV footage was available to look at anywhere, so thanks for the link. I was just going off what the Italian TV show had posted, and had nothing to compare it to, no point of original reference. So, my mistake.

And you were right, looking at the original frames, and then comparing it to what the TV show posted, it was obvious that it didn't look right. So, again, my apologies.

Funny though, that the percentage of image broadening seems roughly equivalent to the difference between average body type and obesity.

As the issue though, is not whether the woman is Obese, but whether she is Amanda, I'm posting another frame clip I grabbed off the same TV program's site, showing a split screen view of the CCTV lady's and Amanda's faces.

Any ideas on whether Amanda's face is also widened?, Or ideas on how to normalize and compare the two women? (I still think the bulging cheeks is a point of dissimilarity).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_67903537505294d0a3.jpg[/qimg]

.
The interesting thing to me is that even though the woman's image was widened to make her look much heavier set than Amanda, confirmation bias kicked in with many people who were certain she was a dead ringer for Amanda.

In either image, her face definitely looks a bit chipmunkish.

Cody
.

 

[Vibio]

But of course it DOESN'T really apply.

The case perfectly applies to Anode's question. Follow the thread.

 

[Anode]

This is nearly 20 years old but was still very interesting for me to read. A lot of what I read in this link is basically the opposite of what went on in this case.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/revolution/wars.html

"Therefore, DNA identification is not only a way of securing convictions; it is also a way of excluding suspects who might otherwise be falsely charged with and convicted of serious crimes."^5

"Pretrial hearings are required to determine whether the testing laboratory's methodology was substantially in accord with scientific standards and produced reliable results for jury consideration."

"...ideally, a defendant should be provided with the actual DNA sample(s) in order to reproduce the results. As a practical matter, this may not be possible because forensic samples are often so small that the entire sample is used in testing. Consequently, access to the data, methodology, and actual results is crucial...for an independent expert review."^17