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

[Supercalifragilistic]

Huh?

The famous argument of "so". Automatic fail, I'm afraid.

Hold on, an "automatic fail". What's that when it's at home (except for the obvious conclusion, i.e. you simply don't like the comment)? I for one have never heard of this 'famous argument of "so"' before. Care to expound in adult Engish?

 

[Bill Williams]

Just for the record, doesn't the fact that there are extra profiles on the clasp raise the same question of contamination, whether those extra profiles are male or female?

Without specifically identifying who the extra DNA profiles belong to, how can one say the deposits are condemning, innocent transfer or contamination? Suppose they came from Stefanoni, or another female officer?

The logic being used here by Nencini, is that Meredith Kercher was "a good girl" and didn't have a lot of contact with men, such that they would put their hands on her bra clasp.

Cassazione in 2013 had the unmitigated gall to accuse Judge Hellmann of engaging in a mass of illogic.

Yet in one sentence an unknown internet poster named "carbonjam" (what the hell is that!?) has in a single sentence demonstrated the mass of illogic Nencini uses to convict two innocents.

Add to this other tidbits of massive illogic. It's of this presumed footprint in the hall.... illuminated by Luminol....

​

Luminol is a presumptive test for blood, as it is a presumptive test for a lot of other things which contain trace amounts of metal.

Why does Nencini say that this is Amanda's footprint "in blood"? This despite the confirmatory test (TMB?) saying that this tested negative for blood?

Nencini says that this is a crime scene of someone murdered by stabbing. So what else would it be other than blood?

This despite that the Luminol detects "something" on the ruler beside the presumed footprint, as well as on the technicians protective bootie!!!! Were they sprayed with blood too?

Nencini's court's role in the Italian three-step process is to be a fact-finding court. Presumably those facts are found through evidence.

Nencini has found as factual things not even entered in through evidence - Nencini has established "judicial fact" simply by claiming things, even if they are against the evidence, like that presumed footfall.

It is what is wrong with this process, because even Cassazione has said that things like "multiple attackers" and "staged break-ins" are also "judicial facts", even though they, too, came into this narrative through someone else's trial.....

...... Rudy Guede's trial, the fast-track process which is defined as the usual process with the "trial phase" missing. Meaning, the entering into evidence and cross examination of it phase was missing.

 

[carbonjam72]

Non offensive content, insert here....

Stories that are written at the time that can be questioned in real time have a different value than a True Crime Novel without ANY backing. The police report would be a start. Descriptions of the gold watch from both sources (Prato and Diaz) separately would help. An actual interview with Diaz or the tapes/transcripts of the interview by Nina.

Did Spezi and Preston write about the Diaz burglary and if so what was their source? If it was Nina then no their writing on this would be suspect.

Do you accept Vogt or Barbie as single sources? I did accept Barbie's account on Meredith being cited for public intoxication without a second source. I figured the Kerchers would have howled if it wasn't true.

I believe your last title was a forum violation.

Pardon for the offense, none intended.

I do accept what Barbie and Vogt say, but I find that 75% of it always has to be "unpacked". For example, "Mixed blood and DNA", or "40 Knife wounds and bruises", etc. They deliberately write in ambiguous phrases easily lent to darker interpretation or outright misinterpretations. But if you parse what they say, they are playing right up to the line with what they have to work with. They are adversarial, but they do have some level of sketchy "ethics". So no, I don't discount them entirely, but the facts are often hidden in deep husky outer-matter.

On Diaz or CT, if the police won't let them file a report, make them wait around for hours at the police station or refuse to do anything about their complaints, that is not proof that no complaint was ever filed. (I know you'll ask for sourcing, I think I read the CT in Nina's and/or Candace's books, and the Diaz I believe is pieced together from the Graham article (which you also doubt is real?) and other sources I can't pull to memory at this second).

Sources that rely on the same point of reference, I agree (duh) are not reconfirming. Separate additional facts may be emphasized from two writers, yet still come from the same source document, and we'd never know as readers.

So we're always gauging credibility of sources, and hopefully flexible enough to revise accordingly.

Seems to me though, you have to be willing to accept provisionally the research presented by reasonable and responsible writers, journalistic professionals (not like the daily mail that has repeatedly written fictional accounts of court proceedings that never occurred), in order to connect the dots and see a pattern that may exist.

If you are never willing to 'connect the dots', then you certainly minimize your chance of error. But you also minimize your chance of insight. So I tend to favor the 'suspension of disbelief' in so far as reasonably possible, until such time as it's contradicted or feels implausible.

On a past point, when Mignini arrived at the crime scene on the Day One, he was greeted by Napoleone and Lorena Zugarini (looks like the east german swim coach, famous for kicking in the downstairs door window - which as long as I'm musing, would be a good way of throwing extra glass into the downstair apartment in case Rudy had trailed any inside when he went downstairs for a change of clothes after killing Meredith . Zuggy and Nappy are on the crime scene video greeting Mignini, think I saw it in Vogt's documentary, ironically.

However, even if Guede were not recognized at the earliest moments on day one, MIgnini still had plenty of reasons for framing AK & RS in a group crime, as he had done in the past and was doing at the time. (I do believe they spotted Guede off the bat, but even if not, the framing issue is still in play, imo).

 

[Strozzi]

Do you believe the defence should use what you assert as their main response to overturn the verdict?

CoulsdonUK, because you have a different view of the case than most others on this board including me, please let me ask you to help me understand why the prosecution believe the rock through the window was a staged break-in. I have never understood the basis for their view on that. I am asking about physical evidence developed by the police around the window, both outside and inside.

I've seen some photos and a video of the police in their (preliminary ?) walk around the outside of the cottage where they were looking at suspected blood spots along the sidewalk or path. Did they do much of a search for broken glass or other physical evidence outside below Filomena's window?

Something must have led them to conclude that the rock break-in was staged. Was it physical evidence inside or out? Or did they make this momentous decision based on behavioral interpretations?

 

[carbonjam72]

Mysteries revealed!

Cassazione in 2013 had the unmitigated gall to accuse Judge Hellmann of engaging in a mass of illogic.

Yet in one sentence an unknown internet poster named "carbonjam" (what the hell is that!?) has in a single sentence demonstrated the mass of illogic Nencini uses to convict two innocents.

Add to this other tidbits of massive illogic. It's of this presumed footprint in the hall.... illuminated by Luminol....

.....

...... Rudy Guede's trial, the fast-track process which is defined as the usual process with the "trial phase" missing. Meaning, the entering into evidence and cross examination of it phase was missing.

Grazi Billy! But please, carbonjam72 or CJ72 for short. (I read the forum for a few weeks or months(?) before trying to register, then I tried to pick a name no one had, and I kept picking a name someone had. Finally a frustrated jumble of letters and numbers poured forth, and the infernal system let me in. Plus, we're all sort of carbon in a way, and isn't it really all one long jam - not that that was my intention, it just jumbled out that way. We may never know the truth). Apologies for the thread interruption...

 

[Strozzi]

Pardon for the offense, none intended.

I do accept what Barbie and Vogt say, but I find that 75% of it always has to be "unpacked". For example, "Mixed blood and DNA", or "40 Knife wounds and bruises", etc. They deliberately write in ambiguous phrases easily lent to darker interpretation or outright misinterpretations. But if you parse what they say, they are playing right up to the line with what they have to work with. They are adversarial, but they do have some level of sketchy "ethics". So no, I don't discount them entirely, but the facts are often hidden in deep husky outer-matter.

On Diaz or CT, if the police won't let them file a report, make them wait around for hours at the police station or refuse to do anything about their complaints, that is not proof that no complaint was ever filed. (I know you'll ask for sourcing, I think I read the CT in Nina's and/or Candace's books, and the Diaz I believe is pieced together from the Graham article (which you also doubt is real?) and other sources I can't pull to memory at this second).

Sources that rely on the same point of reference, I agree (duh) are not reconfirming. Separate additional facts may be emphasized from two writers, yet still come from the same source document, and we'd never know as readers.

So we're always gauging credibility of sources, and hopefully flexible enough to revise accordingly.

Seems to me though, you have to be willing to accept provisionally the research presented by reasonable and responsible writers, journalistic professionals (not like the daily mail that has repeatedly written fictional accounts of court proceedings that never occurred), in order to connect the dots and see a pattern that may exist.

If you are never willing to 'connect the dots', then you certainly minimize your chance of error. But you also minimize your chance of insight. So I tend to favor the 'suspension of disbelief' in so far as reasonably possible, until such time as it's contradicted or feels implausible.

On a past point, when Mignini arrived at the crime scene on the Day One, he was greeted by Napoleone and Lorena Zugarini (looks like the east german swim coach, famous for kicking in the downstairs door window - which as long as I'm musing, would be a good way of throwing extra glass into the downstair apartment in case Rudy had trailed any inside when he went downstairs for a change of clothes after killing Meredith . Zuggy and Nappy are on the crime scene video greeting Mignini, think I saw it in Vogt's documentary, ironically.

However, even if Guede were not recognized at the earliest moments on day one, MIgnini still had plenty of reasons for framing AK & RS in a group crime, as he had done in the past and was doing at the time. (I do believe they spotted Guede off the bat, but even if not, the framing issue is still in play, imo).

I question the assumption that the police connected the rock at the cottage with the rock at the lawyers' office, a burglary to which Rudy was linked (by possession of stolen goods). I believe that if Rudy was suspected, rock to rock, the police would have immediately busted in his door looking for him and/or blood evidence in his flat. The police had a tough scene to deal with, the massacred body of a young woman. They had to gingerly step around the victim sprawled on the floor, over the blood smears and blood drops. I'm sure they were in no mood to hold back if they thought Rudy had been there.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Unmitigated Gall?

Cassazione in 2013 had the unmitigated gall to accuse Judge Hellmann of engaging in a mass of illogic.

Yet in one sentence an unknown internet poster named "carbonjam" (what the hell is that!?) has in a single sentence demonstrated the mass of illogic Nencini uses to convict two innocents.

Add to this other tidbits of massive illogic. It's of this presumed footprint in the hall.... illuminated by Luminol....

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971539b74fa8742d.jpg[/qimg]​

Luminol is a presumptive test for blood, as it is a presumptive test for a lot of other things which contain trace amounts of metal.

Why does Nencini say that this is Amanda's footprint "in blood"? This despite the confirmatory test (TMB?) saying that this tested negative for blood?

Nencini says that this is a crime scene of someone murdered by stabbing. So what else would it be other than blood?

This despite that the Luminol detects "something" on the ruler beside the presumed footprint, as well as on the technicians protective bootie!!!! Were they sprayed with blood too?

Nencini's court's role in the Italian three-step process is to be a fact-finding court. Presumably those facts are found through evidence.

Nencini has found as factual things not even entered in through evidence - Nencini has established "judicial fact" simply by claiming things, even if they are against the evidence, like that presumed footfall.

It is what is wrong with this process, because even Cassazione has said that things like "multiple attackers" and "staged break-ins" are also "judicial facts", even though they, too, came into this narrative through someone else's trial.....

...... Rudy Guede's trial, the fast-track process which is defined as the usual process with the "trial phase" missing. Meaning, the entering into evidence and cross examination of it phase was missing.

""Unmitigated gall?" LOL. Your understanding of English is very poor. Unmitigated gall is not usually applied - sensibly - to pronouncements from a Supreme Court. Courts can't be "insolent", by definition. If anyone has unmitigated gall hereabouts it's the typically anti-authoritarian, xenophobic, and frankly sentimental pro-knox posters who would rather conjure a huge conspiracy than admit their smelly, screwed-up heroine is as guilty as sin.

"Unmitigated gall" indeed! Look up gall in your dictionary , if you have one. Courts can have gall? God save us.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla, police reports belong to the state not the victim. If a report was filed, it would still be there.

From my understanding Grinder. The police "issue or create police reports" In the US a victim of a property crime is given a copy of the report so they can provide one to their insurance company. In the US, the FOIA or Freedom of Information Act would probably allow anyone access to a police report. (Still, I'm not sure if there aren't privacy issues that might prevent a reporter from being able to obtain a report) I also have no idea how difficult or easy it is to obtain a police report in Italy. Do you?

 

[Desert Fox]

""Unmitigated gall?" LOL. Your understanding of English is very poor. Unmitigated gall is not usually applied - sensibly - to pronouncements from a Supreme Court. Courts can't be "insolent", by definition. If anyone has unmitigated gall hereabouts it's the typically anti-authoritarian, xenophobic, and frankly sentimental pro-knox posters who would rather conjure a huge conspiracy than admit their smelly, screwed-up heroine is as guilty as sin.

"Unmitigated gall" indeed! Look up gall in your dictionary , if you have one. Courts can have gall? God save us.

Having read parts of their decision, I would say that "Unmitigated gall" is a good statement. It takes liberties that should be thought as virtually criminal in any court.

I am glad you put that statement I highlighted however.
I am going to ask every pro guilt arguer this. . . .
Can you even accept the possibility of being not guilty even if extremely unlikely in your views?

 

[xinonix]

"help me understand why the prosecution believe the rock through the window was a staged break-in."

Mignini has gone to a psychic for help in the past.
I think he must have consulted a psychic about the Kercher murder.
I think any psychic's abilities are fake. But, maybe Mignini had learned some things about the case, and the Psychic was very good at cold reading. Perhaps the psychic could see that Mignini did not want to hear anything about Rudy killing her by himself, so the psychic had to get creative.
While Amanda was not someone that a skeptical person would think was another suspect, she was all they had.
She was 1 of 2 people in town who had a key to Meridith's flat, therefore she was more of a suspect than anyone except Rudy.
Now if you believe Rudy broke the window and climbed in, then anybody who did not have a key could get in because Rudy would open the door for them.
The idea of the staged break-in was great because Amanda would still be the only one who could get in, and if she staged the break in, she did something illegal. Mignini then took the psychic's advice and used it.

 

[xinonix]

"I also have no idea how difficult or easy it is to obtain a police report in Italy. Do you? "


I don't think it would be too difficult. You could get one that said whatever you wanted too.

 

[Desert Fox]

From my understanding Grinder. The police "issue or create police reports" In the US a victim of a property crime is provided a copy of one so that he can present the report to their insurance company. In the US, the FOIA or Freedom of Information Act would probably allow anyone access to a police report. (Still, I'm not sure if there aren't privacy issues that might prevent a reporter from being able to obtain a report) I also have no idea how difficult or easy it is to obtain a police report in Italy. Do you?

At least in the US, they are not real had to get a hold of.
I had a coworker recently drive to Pennsylvania see a girl he met online.
She happened to be twelve however and he knew it.
His police report was/is available online. The only thing removed was the girl's name.

 

[carbonjam72]

A fork in the road...

I question the assumption that the police connected the rock at the cottage with the rock at the lawyers' office, a burglary to which Rudy was linked (by possession of stolen goods). I believe that if Rudy was suspected, rock to rock, the police would have immediately busted in his door looking for him and/or blood evidence in his flat. The police had a tough scene to deal with, the massacred body of a young woman. They had to gingerly step around the victim sprawled on the floor, over the blood smears and blood drops. I'm sure they were in no mood to hold back if they thought Rudy had been there.

But a single perp conviction doesn't necessarily do Mignini much good, given his circumstances at the time - under indictment for abuse of office, AND being made a laughingstock in the trial of the pharmacist Calamandre then underway in Florence in connection with the Monster of Florence crimes (ridiculed because he brought forward cases on the basis of a psychic's allegations of santanic-murder-orgy-cult conspiracies, in that as well as in the Kercher case. Mignini had contact with the psychic Carlizzi in the earliest days - Carlizzi actually 'may be interpreted' to have predicted the Kercher crime on her blog on Nov 1 (?), its actually an eerie coincidence).

Your assumption is Mignini's primary objective was solving the crime. I think that's unclear. I think Mignini's primary objective was career survival and advancement. Your assumption is Italian police actually investigate crimes - also a questionable assumption. They do produce 'criminals' and 'convictions', but finding the actual guilty parties? Their investigations don't resemble genuine investigations.

Did the police know Guede? Was he an informant? Was Guede only free at the time of the killing by virtue of not having been arrested & prosecuted by Mignini, AND actually sprung from Milan by the Perugian police after a phone call from Milan? That's a reason to downplay Guede's role and pin the crime on someone, anyone else. And that would help Mignini. Isn't that exactly the story he tried to tell at first?

It certainly is an assumption to suggest that Guede was known, recognized or suspected, and ultimately protected by Mignini and the Perugians. But it's also an assumption to conclude otherwise.

Whose theory fits better? I'm asking...

 

[acbytesla]

At least in the US, they are not real had to get a hold of.
I had a coworker recently drive to Pennsylvania see a girl he met online.
She happened to be twelve however and he knew it.
His police report was/is available online. The only thing removed was the girl's name.

Your coworker sounds like a real winner.

But one thing I've noticed about a lot of things in the US, is much of this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I wonder how universal that is in the US. Or in this case Perugia.

 

[acbytesla]

At least in the US, they are not real had to get a hold of.
I had a coworker recently drive to Pennsylvania see a girl he met online.
She happened to be twelve however and he knew it.
His police report was/is available online. The only thing removed was the girl's name.

Your coworker sounds like a real winner.

But one thing I've noticed about a lot of things in the US, is much of this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I wonder how universal that is in the US. Or in this case Perugia.

 

[Bill Williams]

""Unmitigated gall?" LOL. Your understanding of English is very poor. Unmitigated gall is not usually applied - sensibly - to pronouncements from a Supreme Court. Courts can't be "insolent", by definition. If anyone has unmitigated gall hereabouts it's the typically anti-authoritarian, xenophobic, and frankly sentimental pro-knox posters who would rather conjure a huge conspiracy than admit their smelly, screwed-up heroine is as guilty as sin.

"Unmitigated gall" indeed! Look up gall in your dictionary , if you have one. Courts can have gall? God save us.

Ad hominem. Not badly ad hominem, but ad hominem nonethelss.

You've addressed none of the points in the post you responded to.

Why is it that guilters argue this way?

 

[Bill Williams]

Grazi Billy! But please, carbonjam72 or CJ72 for short. (I read the forum for a few weeks or months(?) before trying to register, then I tried to pick a name no one had, and I kept picking a name someone had. Finally a frustrated jumble of letters and numbers poured forth, and the infernal system let me in. Plus, we're all sort of carbon in a way, and isn't it really all one long jam - not that that was my intention, it just jumbled out that way. We may never know the truth). Apologies for the thread interruption...

What the hell happened to carbonjam71?

 

[Desert Fox]

Your coworker sounds like a real winner.

But one thing I've noticed about a lot of things in the US, is much of this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I wonder how universal that is in the US. Or in this case Perugia.

Other than being a story teller, he seemed to be a nice guy.

It is pretty common in multiple settings. . . . I vaguely knew somebody else who turned out to also be a child molester and the police report was available for him as well.

 

[carbonjam72]

What the hell happened to carbonjam71?

That earlier model has been recalled due to factory defects, and threats of product liability law suits.

 

[carbonjam72]

Registered party

Other than being a story teller, he seemed to be a nice guy.

It is pretty common in multiple settings. . . . I vaguely knew somebody else who turned out to also be a child molester and the police report was available for him as well.

Do you have to register your office parties with the police?