Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[js202]

I'm on the fence about the conspiracy thing. Are wrongful convictions conspiracies or not? How about when three people who don't all know each other get together to poop in someone's toilet, steal her stuff, prank her, rape her and kill her. Is that a conspiracy?

Absolutely it's a conspiracy; an unprecedented one, at that. And as a postulation to solve the would-be mystery of Meredith Kercher's murder, it's a theory only rank imbeciles and/or smug and irrational, highly nationalistic Brits and Italians seem to favor.

 

[Diocletus]

As always you make good points. I will pull out my copy of AK's book at some point. Or as you point out, maybe it is RS's book... It will be interesting to see the horrible slander that has been commited against the Hon. Mignini.

Per Vogt's article:

The court order, signed by Florence judge Limongi and deposited in the Florence court clerk’s office September 18, sets a preliminary hearing for January 22, 2015 in Florence. It cites the addresses of two different Perugia attorneys as the legal addresses for Sollecito and Gumbel, who are not required to appear in court. The order for “rinvio di giudizio” lists specific offending passages in the preface and on pages 75, 101, 102, 146, 147, 176, 177, 178,n 185 216, 217 and 219-222. The 11-page order is in response to a complaint filed by lawyers on behalf of Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, the original prosecutor in the Perugia case. A number of the claims refer to criminal abuse of office allegations that were thrown out by courts in Italy.​

LOL. Mignini doesn't even speak English, so he had to get someone to translate the passages so he could understand all of the mean things Sollecito said about him.

And, it's not that it's untrue that the courts said that Mignini was an office abuser, it's just that later they decided that they were out of time to send him to jail. It would be awesome if they got to put Mignini under oath and depose him about all of his shenanigans, but I get the impression that they aren't big on disclosure over there.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Charming

I think she's strange because she seems dopey, she runs an obscure website, and I'm pretty sure she's smelled Mignini's farts. She's a freelancer for a reason.

I'm on the fence about the conspiracy thing. Are wrongful convictions conspiracies or not? How about when three people who don't all know each other get together to poop in someone's toilet, steal her stuff, prank her, rape her and kill her. Is that a conspiracy?

You have a delightful turn of phrase.

 

[toto]

Amanda's calls to Meredith

Referring to page 170 of the PMF.org translation of Nencini, the judge writes that Amanda is “expressly encouraged” to ring Meredith and goes on to write:

From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even the time to repeat the first ring.​

Filomena rings, according to Nencini, for 36 and 65 seconds.

Amanda Knox, according to her book “Waiting to be Heard” writes, p.67 that she rings Meredith but a recording said it was out of service. Then she rings Meredith’s Italian number which went straight to voicemail.

Do posters here think Nencini is being fair to characterise Amanda’s calls as indicating that she knew she was dead so no point in letting the phone ring? Filomena’s calls do show worry, if they continue for half a minute and more.

Nencini writes on p. 174 that

she inexplicably made only one telephone call to the English cell phone service of the victim, as the first telephone call of 2 November 2007, contrary to what she claimed in the account written by her on 9 November 2007.
…
here we are faced with the first element of obvious falsehood in the narration created by the defendant.​

Does not Nencini confirm above that she made TWO calls, albeit brief ones?
Edited to add: I see Nencini is referring to the English cell service; also Amanda seems to have got the chronology of the two calls she made the wrong way round?

 

[Diocletus]

Referring to page 170 of the PMF.org translation of Nencini, the judge writes that Amanda is “expressly encouraged” to ring Meredith and goes on to write:

From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even the time to repeat the first ring.​

Filomena rings, according to Nencini, for 36 and 65 seconds.

Amanda Knox, according to her book “Waiting to be Heard” writes, p.67 that she rings Meredith but a recording said it was out of service. Then she rings Meredith’s Italian number which went straight to voicemail.

Do posters here think Nencini is being fair to characterise Amanda’s calls as indicating that she knew she was dead so no point in letting the phone ring? Filomena’s calls do show worry, if they continue for half a minute and more.

Nencini writes on p. 174 that

she inexplicably made only one telephone call to the English cell phone service of the victim, as the first telephone call of 2 November 2007, contrary to what she claimed in the account written by her on 9 November 2007.
…
here we are faced with the first element of obvious falsehood in the narration created by the defendant.​

Does not Nencini confirm above that she made TWO calls, albeit brief ones?
Edited to add: I see Nencini is referring to the English cell service; also Amanda seems to have got the chronology of the two calls she made the wrong way round?

Nencini seems to vacillate between a gossipy old woman and a gum-chewing teenage girl. Can we have a regular adult next time, please?

 

[AmyStrange]

What does this add to the discussion?

-

What does that add to the discussion? She's not two strange ladies, naturally.

I suppose she's "strange" because you don't like her viewpoint. Indeed, how can anyone who doesn't go along with the pathetic conspiracy clap-trap be considered "normal" to the pathetic AK fan club?

-

Really S? That's a hell of a thing to say especially after reading the rest of what you wrote.

At least Andrea Vogt doesn't hide behind an anonymous name when she trolls, nor is she as bad as Brenda Leyland in her trolling, unlike other people here.

I find that she writes like she's trying to be objective, but you can tell her bias by the adjectives she uses. It's a dead give away.

I find myself doing the same thing sometimes, so I'm not perfect either, but at least I'm willing to admit it, and you can find out my real name by going to my website in the sig below,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

We don't need no steenkin' logic...

-

Nencini seems to vacillate between a gossipy old woman and a gum-chewing teenage girl. Can we have a regular adult next time, please?

-

I feel sorry for all the other defendants whose trials he's sit on, especially if that REPORT is an example of his logic,

d

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini's bowl of linguini

Nencini has no compunctions about regurgitating every last silly PG argument, from the cigarette butt to Meredith's friends handling her bra clasp, to the number of times the phone rang. It is as if he is throwing a bowl of linguini against a wall and hoping that some of the strands stick. If Amanda were the consummate liar and actress that Mignini claims, would she not let the phones ring longer?

 

[acbytesla]

Referring to page 170 of the PMF.org translation of Nencini, the judge writes that Amanda is “expressly encouraged” to ring Meredith and goes on to write:

From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even the time to repeat the first ring.​

Filomena rings, according to Nencini, for 36 and 65 seconds.

Amanda Knox, according to her book “Waiting to be Heard” writes, p.67 that she rings Meredith but a recording said it was out of service. Then she rings Meredith’s Italian number which went straight to voicemail.

Do posters here think Nencini is being fair to characterise Amanda’s calls as indicating that she knew she was dead so no point in letting the phone ring? Filomena’s calls do show worry, if they continue for half a minute and more.

Nencini writes on p. 174 that

she inexplicably made only one telephone call to the English cell phone service of the victim, as the first telephone call of 2 November 2007, contrary to what she claimed in the account written by her on 9 November 2007.
…
here we are faced with the first element of obvious falsehood in the narration created by the defendant.​

Does not Nencini confirm above that she made TWO calls, albeit brief ones?
Edited to add: I see Nencini is referring to the English cell service; also Amanda seems to have got the chronology of the two calls she made the wrong way round?

So? What does it matter? Does it prove guilt in any way? All it really allows for is wild speculation as to what was going on in Amanda's mind. I"m really curious about what Nencini says about the lack or relationship between Rudy and Amanda/Raffaele. For me, this is extremely significant. People don't conspire with strangers to commit murder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The sound of silence

No PG commenters here (or elsewhere in my experience) decried Mignini's various legal actions against journalists, his shutting down of Frank Sfarzo's blog, or this latest attempt to stifle criticism of the Perugian authorities. This is a silence that shouts.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Los Angeles woman freed after spending 17 years in prison for murder she didn't commit - CA USA
BY Deborah Hastings New York Daily News
Friday, October 10, 2014, 5:23 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/innocent-woman-freed-17-years-prison-article-1.1970453

"Susan Mellen, a mother of three, was ordered immediately released Friday. 'In this case, the justice system failed,' said the judge... "
-

Witness' Dubious History Puts A 16-Year-Old Murder Conviction In Doubt - CA USA
By Corina Knoll

http://www.latimes.com/local/great-...-conviction-doubts-20140930-story.html#page=1

"June Patti had a hunger to be heard.

"A large woman with scarlet-dyed hair and a loud, raspy voice, Patti was a known drug addict who presented herself as a paralegal. Raised in the Redondo Beach area, she moved to northwest Washington state in the 1990s and soon became a local fixture, quick to phone law enforcement. One year she called 800 times, recalled Skagit County Sheriff Will Reichardt... "

-

 

[lonepinealex]

Referring to page 170 of the PMF.org translation of Nencini, the judge writes that Amanda is “expressly encouraged” to ring Meredith and goes on to write:

From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even the time to repeat the first ring.​

Filomena rings, according to Nencini, for 36 and 65 seconds.

Amanda Knox, according to her book “Waiting to be Heard” writes, p.67 that she rings Meredith but a recording said it was out of service. Then she rings Meredith’s Italian number which went straight to voicemail.

Do posters here think Nencini is being fair to characterise Amanda’s calls as indicating that she knew she was dead so no point in letting the phone ring? Filomena’s calls do show worry, if they continue for half a minute and more.

Nencini writes on p. 174 that

she inexplicably made only one telephone call to the English cell phone service of the victim, as the first telephone call of 2 November 2007, contrary to what she claimed in the account written by her on 9 November 2007.
…
here we are faced with the first element of obvious falsehood in the narration created by the defendant.​

Does not Nencini confirm above that she made TWO calls, albeit brief ones?
Edited to add: I see Nencini is referring to the English cell service; also Amanda seems to have got the chronology of the two calls she made the wrong way round?

But the length of a call is counted from the point of connection isn't it? Not the start of the first ring. Maybe Filomena left a message when she heard it go to voicemail.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nencini also defends Stefanoni against the charge that she used the suspect-centered method of analyzing the bra clasp egrams. This plus his disingenuous comments about her lack of reporting peaks gives some credence to the hypothesis that he and the SCC wish to protect the reputation of the forensic lab. The report by Conti and Vecchiotti could have helped lead Italian forensics forward, a little bit like the Swecker-Wolf report helped straighten out North Carolina's state crime lab. Instead, the SCC and Nencini are helping to guide Italian forensics backward. The Kercher's lawyer Mr. Maresca was once quoted as saying that Italy was showing the world, and the United States, how to do forensics. For the sake of innocent defendants everywhere, I certainly hope not.

Hi folks
Chris Halkides you are the person lying here. You should recall that the defence themselves admit Stefanoni presented the electropherograms in October 2008. Then she even deposited the electropherograms with peaks heigths as requested.
In the electropherograms all peaks are indicated.
You should also recall that the attribution of all peaks was pointed out and all were discussed by all experts in court.

So, Stefanoni provided information about all alleles. She reported all peaks, since she presented the full chart, and she answered question about all of them; all this is the contrary of what you assert.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

But the length of a call is counted from the point of connection isn't it? Not the start of the first ring. Maybe Filomena left a message when she heard it go to voicemail.

-

Or is the length of the call started from when the phone picks up or when voicemail picks up?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Hi folks
Chris Halkides you are the person lying here. You should recall that the defence themselves admit Stefanoni presented the electropherograms in October 2008. Then she even deposited the electropherograms with peaks heigths as requested.
In the electropherograms all peaks are indicated.
You should also recall that the attribution of all peaks was pointed out and all were discussed by all experts in court.

So, Stefanoni provided information about all alleles. She reported all peaks, since she presented the full chart, and she answered question about all of them; all this is the contrary of what you assert.

-

Welcome back Mach,

I believe you are misrepresenting what Chris said, but I'll let him explain that to you himself,

d

-

 

[lonepinealex]

-


-

Or is the length of the call started from when the phone picks up or when voicemail picks up?

d

-

Not sure. By connection I mean after the phone or voicemail picks up and it stops ringing, if you see what I mean. Isn't that standard on phones, since people can set the number of rings differently?

 

[Machiavelli]

No PG commenters here (or elsewhere in my experience) decried Mignini's various legal actions against journalists, his shutting down of Frank Sfarzo's blog, or this latest attempt to stifle criticism of the Perugian authorities. This is a silence that shouts.

Personally I am not silent. I expressed and glad to express again I strongly support Mignini's decision to file legal actions against liars guilty of criminal defamation. I see a clear red line between criticism and unproven wild assertions about people. Those who spread malicious defamatory lies are criminals.
Actually my criticism is the other way around. I would have preferred that Mignini had started much more legal actions, and that several other people besides Mignini started legal actions. I think the legal lawsuit response was little, much smaller than what it deserved.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Personally I am not silent. I expressed and glad to express again I strongly support Mignini's decision to file legal actions against liars guilty of criminal defamation. I see a clear red line between criticism and unproven wild assertions about people. Those who spread malicious defamatory lies are criminals.
Actually my criticism is the other way around. I would have preferred that Mignini had started much more legal actions, and that several other people besides Mignini started legal actions. I think the legal lawsuit response was little, much smaller than what it deserved.

-

What about the people who lied about the evidence against Raffaele and Amanda? For example, the 40 stab wounds that I see many commenters making in the comment sections of many articles about the case,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Not sure. By connection I mean after the phone or voicemail picks up and it stops ringing, if you see what I mean. Isn't that standard on phones, since people can set the number of rings differently?

-

I do see what you mean, and I'm not sure what's exactly standard on phones,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

Personally I am not silent. I expressed and glad to express again I strongly support Mignini's decision to file legal actions against liars guilty of criminal defamation. I see a clear red line between criticism and unproven wild assertions about people. Those who spread malicious defamatory lies are criminals.
Actually my criticism is the other way around. I would have preferred that Mignini had started much more legal actions, and that several other people besides Mignini started legal actions. I think the legal lawsuit response was little, much smaller than what it deserved.

Is there any chance that Machiavelli actually IS Mignini?