• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
You guys and your telephone cell tower stuff.

Why would Meredith call her bank at 10 PM? She wouldn't. Therefore, someone else was making the call and she was dead.
Click to expand...

Your argument is so busted...

http://www.santander.co.uk/uk/help-support/telephone-banking/
With our UK-based team on hand until 11pm most nights, and an automated service when they go home, you can do your banking by telephone any day of the week at a time that’s convenient to you.
Between 7am and 11pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 10pm on Sundays you can:
  • get answers to any queries you might have about your accounts
  • transfer money
  • check your balance
  • order a statement
  • set up or cancel standing orders and Direct Debits
  • order a new card or PIN
  • pay bills
​
 
Dan O. said:
Your argument is so busted...

http://www.santander.co.uk/uk/help-support/telephone-banking/
With our UK-based team on hand until 11pm most nights, and an automated service when they go home, you can do your banking by telephone any day of the week at a time that’s convenient to you.
Between 7am and 11pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 10pm on Sundays you can:
  • get answers to any queries you might have about your accounts
  • transfer money
  • check your balance
  • order a statement
  • set up or cancel standing orders and Direct Debits
  • order a new card or PIN
  • pay bills
​
Click to expand...

Also, my coffee maker works at 10 PM. However, if you see it working at that time then you can assume that someone else turned it on and I am dead.
 
Angryman Popper reviews Sollecito's appeal and lays down why it won't fly:


She asked the case to go to Sezioni Unite on a lot of points. Some of these points are interesting but were covered already by Cassazione (Chieffi president) so the request of Sezioni Unite is an attempt to double guess the previous SC verdict.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. They screwed up by violating the ECHR on a number of points. Bongiorno wants to tell the court en banc all about it so they can fix it before she has to go over their heads and embarrasses everyone.


On one point, if SC confirms the position, she even asked to raise a question of compatibility of that particular law with the Italian Constitution (something quite daring to be asking at SC level after they have already given the correct interpretation without raising any such doubt).
Click to expand...

Really? It’s “daring” in Italy to raise a point of constitutional law in your defense? How peculiar.


On the point of Guede's statement in the Hellmann's appeal, I believe we had already observed on pmf that AK's lawyers "ruined" a bit the design of Bongiorno. Ghirga had to insist on having Guede comment on that famous letter so Guede responded saying the content of the letter was "verissimo" (absolutely true) and then said even more.
Click to expand...

So we think that if Rudy writes a letter accusing the defendants of the crime, then testifies that it’s “true” without the defendants having the opportunity to cross-examine him on the substance of his story (and other matters), then that is sufficient to satisfy, e.g., the ECHR right to a fair trial? I think not.


In any case the possibility to utilise the final SC sentence of the Guede trial cannot really be doubted and that sentence determined other people were present in the via della Pergola flat with logical reasoning based on evidence that would stand even without Guede's confirmatory declarations.
Click to expand...

Sure, Rudy’s allegations should be superfluous; after all, he's a liar. But who cares what some other court said in some other guy’s summary trial. To hold that to conclusively establish “multiple attackers” is illegal. You see, this denied the defendants a trial on the issue of multiple attackers, which deprived them of their "alternate" theory of the crime defense. Not good.


BTW, in the first instance trial they were both convicted without any of the 2 elements and SC never raised arguments against that reasoning.
Click to expand...

Aha. So we have a harmless error, then? Who can say? The inquiry is whether they were denied a fair trial on the basis of this error committed by the ISC and Nencini, and the answer is yes.


Nencini, apart from the above, is very careful and conscious of the law (and Constitution) as in the appeal reasoning he stressed Guede responded to Knox's lawyers and that, at least for Amanda Knox, what Guede said is usable (Cassazione had already accepted that).
Click to expand...

This is just dishonesty by Nencini, and proof that Nencini has no idea what he’s talking about. What about all the stuff that the lawyers couldn't ask and the accusing witness wouldn't respond to and was not made to respond to? That's a denial of fair trial.

Actually, the main problem with Nencini is that he made a bunch of unprecedented, testimony-based fact-findings without actually hearing any witnesses. That was dumb. And illegal. Vaduva v. Romania (25 February 2014)


I do not see how this can be attacked by GB as Nencini implied these statements are used against her, not against him. For those who do not know or remember, no previous statement coming from a witness can be used against a defendant if the witness does not submit to interrogation of the defendant or his/her defence lawyers (art. 111 of Italian Constitution). Guede said he did not wish to respond to Bongiorno on the matter but then responded to Ghirga on the same point. At that moment all Guede's statements became evidence against Knox, certainly to be weighted and evaluated in order to convict but valid evidence to use, even if the trial did not really need this evidence to convict her (we have much more and she placed herself at the crime scene).
Click to expand...

LOL. I see. This “evidence” could only be used against Knox . . . just like the illegal interrogation evidence couldn’t be used in the murder trial. It was like the Chinese Wall. Problem is that no one is fooled--all of this illegal and bogus evidence came in and was used to the prejudice of the defendants, denying them a fair trial. Pakshayev v. Russia (13 March 2014)

Oh, and you get to have access to the lab's raw data. Horvatic v. Croatia
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
I don't know about all of that. But they have better operators.
Click to expand...

I wonder if in other jurisdictions, the defense can argue corruption and dishonesty without getting prosecuted yourself. Unfettering the defense may go a long way by itself.
 
I'm a little confused Dan. I thought Planigale was asking if the phone could have been at the apartment..meaning Raffaele's
Click to expand...

Dan O. said:
I've looked for similar structures that could have caused a handoff to 30064 while Meredith was in the cottage. What I find however is that the entrance to the cottage itself will block reception from 30064 and force the phone to make it's connection to Piazza Lupatelli which is a direct line of sight. While it may be possible (like 1-3%) to find locations in the back of the cottage where 30064 is stronger than Piazza Lupatelli, I doubt that the signal from Piazza Lupatelli would ever drop below the minimum threshold to force the handoff.
Click to expand...

I have always wondered about the walls of the cottage itself Dan. It looks like the house is a thick stone walled cottage, but it might alternatively be stucco. Old style wood lath and plaster walls can be pretty dense but I'm not sure how big an obstruction it is to radio waves. Worse is a more modern stucco building where metal chicken wire and metal lath is used. The metal wiring of the lath causes much more of an obstruction for radio waves than the wood or plaster does. Meredith's room does NOT have a window opening pointing toward the Piazza Lupatelli tower but does have a window opening facing the valley and probably 30064.
 
Schizo party in the streets...

Diocletus said:
You guys and your telephone cell tower stuff.

Why would Meredith call her bank at 10 PM? She wouldn't. Therefore, someone else was making the call and she was dead.
Click to expand...

I like the emphasis of the argument, as that what is reasonable is enough to outweigh what is merely 'not impossible'.

The fevered mind can find endless inconsistencies in the tiniest of details and magnify them into monstrous significance.
 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
I like the emphasis of the argument, as that what is reasonable is enough to outweigh what is merely 'not impossible'.

The fevered mind can find endless inconsistencies in the tiniest of details and magnify them into monstrous significance. There's a word for people who do this: schizophrenics.
Click to expand...

Generally on JREF - they are referred to as groupies [or truthers in another CT].
The term you used is probably over the line if my reading of FM is accurate.

But, your call.
 
platonov said:
Generally on JREF - they are referred to as groupies [or truthers in another CT].
The term you used is probably over the line if my reading of FM is accurate.

But, your call.
Click to expand...

Hate to ask, but what is FM?

(Possibly over shot the endzone).
 
anglolawyer said:
My memory may be awry but didn't Comodi put it to Pellero (defence expert) that the records showed her phone connected with 30064 several times before and that, because it was unlikely she had ever been in the vicinity of Lana's garden, having no reason to go there, in all probability her phone did connect to 30064 even when at the apartment? We have to know where her phone was at the time of each connection to be sure. The translation was posted here recently.

It's the one where she says the postal police cannot have interfered with the phone because she, Comodi, says so (her meaning possibly being that she was asking the expert to assume hypothetically that there had been no deletions, rather than that she was reserving the right to stipulate key facts).
Click to expand...
.
This seems like another of the many, many things that could so easily have been tested instead of analyzed to death with theory and thought experiments, and then guessed at. Just take the phone in question or an identical one to the cottage, make lots of phone calls from different parts of the cottage at the pertinent time of day, do the same thing around Lana's house, tabulate the results, make a graph and bingo, a no nonsense easy to understand result that any jury could grasp. MO.

Cody
.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Hate to ask, but what is FM?

(Possibly over shot the endzone).
Click to expand...

Glad you asked that I was wondering too.

carbonjam72 said:
I like the emphasis of the argument, as that what is reasonable is enough to outweigh what is merely 'not impossible'.

The fevered mind can find endless inconsistencies in the tiniest of details and magnify them into monstrous significance. There's a word for people who do this: schizophrenics.
Click to expand...

Hate to be prissy (probably my middle name), but schizophrenia is an unpleasant illness (if you believe in the concept of psychiatry), characterised by auditory hallucinations and disordered thought. The fevered mind is usually delirious characterised by visual hallucinations. I suspect that the nearest disorder would be mania or hypomania, which can verge in to psychosis, where individuals can become obsessed with details and can begin to read secret messages in normal events. I accept that this is not that different from the more paranoid end of schizophrenia but here people tend to feel things have special meaning for them personally - the newscaster is talking directly to them.
 
Planigale said:
Glad you asked that I was wondering too.



Hate to be prissy (probably my middle name), but schizophrenia is an unpleasant illness (if you believe in the concept of psychiatry), characterised by auditory hallucinations and disordered thought. The fevered mind is usually delirious characterised by visual hallucinations. I suspect that the nearest disorder would be mania or hypomania, which can verge in to psychosis, where individuals can become obsessed with details and can begin to read secret messages in normal events. I accept that this is not that different from the more paranoid end of schizophrenia but here people tend to feel things have special meaning for them personally - the newscaster is talking directly to them.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. I got grumpy. (and have edited accordingly).

I was struck by the mania for details, and willingness to impose a malicious confirming interpretation to every slightest trace perception - whether that's evidence, statements & testimony, or 'micro-expressions'.

I don't know what the right word is, but it's not normal, reasonable, balanced, fair, or all that logical.
 
anglolawyer said:
My memory may be awry but didn't Comodi put it to Pellero (defence expert) that the records showed her phone connected with 30064 several times before and that, because it was unlikely she had ever been in the vicinity of Lana's garden, having no reason to go there, in all probability her phone did connect to 30064 even when at the apartment? We have to know where her phone was at the time of each connection to be sure. The translation was posted here recently.

It's the one where she says the postal police cannot have interfered with the phone because she, Comodi, says so (her meaning possibly being that she was asking the expert to assume hypothetically that there had been no deletions, rather than that she was reserving the right to stipulate key facts).
Click to expand...

Comodi claims that Meredith most likely never walked in the vicinity of Lana's garden. How can Comodi know r assume that? Lana's garden is not far from the cottage and if I understand it correctly Lana's garden is just outside Perugia's ancient city wall also and not far from another gate through the wall. Meredith's cottage is also just outside the city wall. How can Comodi infer that Meredith never went for a walk in that direction. Does Comodi believe that Meredith was so frequently sleeping off druken nights that during her six or so weeks living at the cottage Meredith never went for a 10 or 15 minute walk along the outer edge of Perugia's ancient city wall?
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Comodi claims that Meredith most likely never walked in the vicinity of Lana's garden. How can Comodi know r assume that? Lana's garden is not far from the cottage and if I understand it correctly Lana's garden is just outside Perugia's ancient city wall also and not far from another gate through the wall. Meredith's cottage is also just outside the city wall. How can Comodi infer that Meredith never went for a walk in that direction. Does Comodi believe that Meredith was so frequently sleeping off druken nights that during her six or so weeks living at the cottage Meredith never went for a 10 or 15 minute walk along the outer edge of Perugia's ancient city wall?
Click to expand...

Commodi really can't. In fact its the kind of thing that shouldn't have gone unchallenged by the defense. There is a great path that goes through the Parco San Angelo that is less than about two football pitches away from the cottage. Anyone who has used Google's streetview knows that it would make a great walk.
 
Last edited:
If so, how can that possibly work when it's the same crime and within the context of the evidence, much of which applies to him just as with Knox (the lack of alibi, strange behaviour at the crime scene, genetic and footprint traces left at crime scene, evidence for multiple attackers and staging and so on)? It seems to me, his appeal, the very foundation of it, is a complete mess.

This guy Michael site administrator with 15000 posts reckons this gets the verdict across the line.

Only one word, genetic, seems to be even relevant
And which reference to genetic for Sollecito?
The bra clasp?
 
The media in Italy is not reporting the news, they are making mischief.

Barbie Nadeau is mischief maker #1, as the more mischief she makes, the more money flows to her. She's the the most successful at monetizing the tragedy.

Chief in this is the way The Beast, or the local Perugian outlet is claiming that Raffaele is distancing himself from Amanda. This has been the mischief they were praying would happen in 2008, and Raffaele said two things and has not wavered since: "She was with me that night," and, "What has any of this got to do with me?"

Both great observations, and hardly what they'd hoped when they put him in solitary for 6 months.

To put to rest the mischief making of the media, this is the preface to Raffaele's appeals document:

"In this petition, as we have done in the past, we will analyze both the position of Raffaele Sollecito as well as that of Amanda Knox, not only because the incorrect assessment of the evidence against [Knox] has, like in a system of communicating vessels, ended up affecting the position of [Sollecito], but also -- and this is the essential point -- because the "cascading" culpability of Sollecito has not been linked to specific findings in the case (serious, precise, and consistent); rather, it has been the result of an illogical and impersonal application of guilt by association."​
Click to expand...

Horrors! Raffaele has a different position than Amanda!!!!! And it turns out Bongiorno agrees 100% with Amanda's own observation about why they've dragged Raffaele into this, "He's collateral damage."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom