Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

On the SGU forum, we had a holocaust denier join the board. The poster was given multiple chances where responds with counter points to every arguement. After a while, when there was no real give and take from that poster, they were banned. When you cannot even disagree with the party line, there is a problem.

In fact Peggy knows to ban is to create problems, but she kept refusing my posts with polite messages. I was replying to specific posts by these four people on the board, but being disallowed.
So I sent them emails legitimately. This was declared by Randy Whoever Fly by night as being subterfuge.
It is obviously not subterfuge to be a member of a forum, and to use the portal, that totally protects all information besides their username, to attempt to communicate what is denied by the administrators, in this case Margeret Ganong and Randy Jackson. (not totally certain of the latter). I do know that he interfered with a presentation in Seattle where Raffaele Sollecito was launching his book by broadcasting a huge image of M Kercher behind him. His wife handed out flyers at the function to better educate the suckers that might be hoodwinked by Raffaele.

 

[anglolawyer]

Indeed she did a very convincing job, and she only stepped off her sliding mat twice, as recorded with Luminol, the bright, blue, infallible nectar of truth. Kermit should do a powerpoint about this. Where is Kermit these days, anyway? I think he lurks here. Just a hunch.

. If memory serves, Hugo (is he still around?) or somebody did a truly fatuous, attention-seeking PowerPoint to prove the impossibility of chucking the rock from the car park area premised on some bat-**** crazy theory or other the details of which I forget. It was greeted with deafening silence, which occasioned great mirth on my part.

 

[Desert Fox]

In fact Peggy knows to ban is to create problems, but she kept refusing my posts with polite messages. I was replying to specific posts by these four people on the board, but being disallowed.
So I sent them emails legitimately. This was declared by Randy Whoever Fly by night as being subterfuge.
It is obviously not subterfuge to be a member of a forum, and to use the portal, that totally protects all information besides their username, to attempt to communicate what is denied by the administrators, in this case Margeret Ganong and Randy Jackson. (not totally certain of the latter). I do know that he interfered with a presentation in Seattle where Raffaele Sollecito was launching his book by broadcasting a huge image of M Kercher behind him. His wife handed out flyers at the function to better educate the suckers that might be hoodwinked by Raffaele.

That is why the holocaust denier was allowed to post on the board. It allows them to have their say. I have pretty much decided that the pro guilt side has little to offer but at least theoretically I would be willing to dialog with them if somebody would discuss the issues with me.

If you notice, I tend to avoid too much in depth analysis because unless Guede reveals exactly what he did every moment (and even there we have memory issues), we are just wildly speculating.

Even if the fliers are garbage, I have no issue with his wife handing out fliers. Free speech is very important to me. The projecting the image (if it is a private setting) is a call to get the disruptor escorted from the building however.

There is a recent case where a group of UK skeptics were handing UK fliers at psychic shows and have been running into trouble with UK libel laws (even though they should not.) If the Catholic Church or Focus on the Family wants to hand out fliers at an atheist meeting, that is fine too.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, Diocletus locates the rape at 9:11, while places the stepping on the pillow at 9:08 and then - leaving really little time to poor exhaused Rudy - he makes him pick up the pillow and place it under Meredith's body at 9.09.
Then he only gives Rudy 2 minutes for washing himself in the bathroom.
Really in a rush.
But this means anyway that at 9:08, when he steps on a blood pool and then on the pillow, Meredith had been already stabbed to death.

So if Guede starts the process of washing himself and committing a rape later than theat moment, since 9:08 is later than the stabbing that lead to her death, we will consider this a post-mortem rape scenario.
We are talking about minutes after he had been stabbed to death. She dies of blood loss and haemorragic suffocation within minutes. If this is the scenario, besides being an improbable one and picked wihout a proof, this scenario is contrary to the evidence.

Oh, I see. You don't think it's possible that she was stabbed and then raped while she was bleeding out? I do.

Why isn't that possible?

 

[Diocletus]

. If memory serves, Hugo (is he still around?) or somebody did a truly fatuous, attention-seeking PowerPoint to prove the impossibility of chucking the rock from the car park area premised on some bat-**** crazy theory or other the details of which I forget. It was greeted with deafening silence, which occasioned great mirth on my part.

These people who have no experience chucking rocks and climbing stuff must have had lame childhoods. The rock chuck is easy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ricarelli's crystal ball

The autopsy report, the lies and story changings of Sollecito, the lies and the calunnia from Knox, the double-DNA kitchen knife, the bra clasp DNA, the luminol prints, the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, the false computer record alibi, physical evidence of staged burglary;

all this exists. It's not made up. So I don't see what's wrong with ruling cautionary measures.

Machiavelli,

False computer record alibi?? The luminol evidence and the bra clasp date from mid-December or later, whereas the hearing before Ricarelli (spelling?) was on 30 November, IIIRC What was legally wrong with cautionary measures was discussed in a manuscript by Benjamin Sayagh called "Arrrested Abroad."

 

[analemma]

The autopsy report, the lies and story changings of Sollecito, the lies and the calunnia from Knox, the double-DNA kitchen knife, the bra clasp DNA, the luminol prints, the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, the false computer record alibi, physical evidence of staged burglary; all this exists. It's not made up. So I don't see what's wrong with ruling cautionary measures.
That "the police didn't look for any" is your judgement, in my opinion completely unfounded. The 'break in' appears to me as obviously fake and also the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators is obvious.
That Sollecito is a weak and depending subject was also true; and that Knox was a dangerous subject, well it is something that some the evidence of which may dispute when we looka at it on a physical level, but I consider this a reasonable inference because of her lies and calunnia and because of her clearly manipulative intent (evidence of this in her hand writen note).

On the contrary: It is ALL made up.
The "''break in' " IS NOT "obviously fake": It is only fake to the Italian Judges who build strawman arguments such as "no one could climb the 4 meter height" and "it would take three climbs" or the latest outrageous Nincini nonsense of "Rudy is too good a burglar to break in this way(even though he had climbed and broke in in the same way in Milan)", so Knox must have faked it. The recent example of the climber who easily climbed up and opened the shutters shows that the Italian Judges are no considering the reality of tehg evidence in their quest to frame knox.
Autopsy evidence that has 8 of nine experts saying that the murder does not indicate multiple or single attackers and the only one expert who says that it was multiple is the one hired by the lawyer who is suing the Knox and solicito for a large cash settlement. The expert hired by the lawyer suing for money seems to impress the Italian Judges the most.
The Italian police are proud of beating an insane statements out a terrified college kids without record of the police tactics and benefit of a lawyer,In spite of the fact that beating up suspects is supposed to be illegal in Italy, but in this case the Judges say it is OK, somehow, because it is Knox.
The non existent luminal prints, the contaminated Bra DNA and double knife evidence are all fantasies that no one would ever dream of taking to court if the police had and judges had not announced case solved before they got all the evidence.
All of this sophistry pales in the light of the procedural dirty tricks played first by the police and eventually by the Judiciary themselves to assure that the defense lawyers were NOT ALLOWED to disprove any of the evidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

On the contrary: It is ALL made up.
The "''break in' " IS NOT "obviously fake": It is only fake to the Italian Judges who build strawman arguments such as "no one could climb the 4 meter height" and "it would take three climbs" or the latest outrageous Nincini nonsense of "Rudy is too good a burglar to break in this way(even though he had climbed and broke in in the same way in Milan)", so Knox must have faked it. The recent example of the climber who easily climbed up and opened the shutters shows that the Italian Judges are no considering the reality of tehg evidence in their quest to frame knox.
Autopsy evidence that has 8 of nine experts saying that the murder does not indicate multiple or single attackers and the only one expert who says that it was multiple is the one hired by the lawyer who is suing the Knox and solicito for a large cash settlement. The expert hired by the lawyer suing for money seems to impress the Italian Judges the most.
The Italian police are proud of beating an insane statements out a terrified college kids without record of the police tactics and benefit of a lawyer,In spite of the fact that beating up suspects is supposed to be illegal in Italy, but in this case the Judges say it is OK, somehow, because it is Knox.
The non existent luminal prints, the contaminated Bra DNA and double knife evidence are all fantasies that no one would ever dream of taking to court if the police had and judges had not announced case solved before they got all the evidence.
All of this sophistry pales in the light of the procedural dirty tricks played first by the police and eventually by the Judiciary themselves to assure that the defense lawyers were NOT ALLOWED to disprove any of the evidence.

+1

 

[carbonjam72]

That is why the holocaust denier was allowed to post on the board. It allows them to have their say. I have pretty much decided that the pro guilt side has little to offer but at least theoretically I would be willing to dialog with them if somebody would discuss the issues with me.

If you notice, I tend to avoid too much in depth analysis because unless Guede reveals exactly what he did every moment (and even there we have memory issues), we are just wildly speculating.

Even if the fliers are garbage, I have no issue with his wife handing out fliers. Free speech is very important to me. The projecting the image (if it is a private setting) is a call to get the disruptor escorted from the building however.

There is a recent case where a group of UK skeptics were handing UK fliers at psychic shows and have been running into trouble with UK libel laws (even though they should not.) If the Catholic Church or Focus on the Family wants to hand out fliers at an atheist meeting, that is fine too.

I actually don't agree that slander is "free speech" or "harmless opinion". I think expressing a false set of facts, that has been well disproven, with the malicious intent to cause harm to people who have already been wronged by that set of disproved lies, is an unambiguous criminal assault, and fully merits criminal prosecution.

Respectful protest versus disruptive protest are different things. But a disruptive protest against a public policy - ie not against a private citizen, is something quite different than the unrelenting personal assault we have seen in this and similar affairs, like the McAnn troll prosecutions.

I think the "right to be forgotten", and related issues of personal privacy, security, and reputational integrity are evolving areas of law, which the ubiquity of the internet and search engine functionality have forced to the forefront.

The restrictive, perhaps draconian laws we see in some countries, are a consequence of previous excesses which the laws were meant to amend. The British Tabloid tradition and the powerful british libel laws are flip sides of the same coin. Anglo could speak more knowledgeably, I'm sure.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

tertiary transfer of DNA during sexual assault

On p. 375 of the ninth edition of Criminalistics, Dr. Saferstein describes tertiary DNA transfer during sexual assault. DNA from a woman's consensual sexual partner was found on the underwear of a man accused of sexual assault. The source of information is Gary Verret Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, November 2001.

 

[Machiavelli]

The autopsy report showed that a single perpetrator was perfectly possible.

The autopsy indicates exactly the contrary. But the pro-Knoxes fail to apply their reason and don't acknowledge it. Once you deny things, it's easy to come to your desired conclusion.

Sollecito's only inconsistency was during the untaped and illegal interview on the night before his arrest.

Let's start saying all his interrogation were perfectly legal, as well as Knox's. But the supporters can't help making up their story. Let's say Sollecito first told a mass of inconsistencies, a non credible and nonsensical witness report, then he admitted to having lied, blamed Knox for this, changed his story and withdrew Knox's alibi. Let's recall that, after that, he never provided an alibi to Knox again, he maintained a version of his changed story before Matteini and after that he refused to answer questions (on Dec. 22 he declared he was refusing to answer since he was satisfied with what he told to Matteini).

Before that and after that, he was perfectly clear.
Knox's situation is exactly the same.

Knox first told a false story stuffed of inconsistency and proven lies. Then,
Knox made declarations without being interrogated, then she repeated false testimonies that placed false evidence against Lumumba in two hand written notes, then when she had the possibility to correct herself, instead of telling the truth and admitting that she told the false, she refused to answer.
Then she kept on placing false evidence in prison diaries, and finally she answered catastrophically to her questioning on Dec. 17.: a progressive growing of inconsistence as the interrogation progresses, statements disproven and in contradiction with rest of her story and court declaration, a disaster; and finally, she she came to talk about the calunnia interrogation, she refused to answer questions again.

There was no Meredith DNA on the kitchen knife

In the mind of the pro-knoxex every piece of evidence disappears automatically.

The clasp was clearly contaminated as it had the DNA of several men on it.]

In the minds of the pro-knoxes the extra alleles are a magic wand that makes Sollecito's profile disappear. They think that evidence should be pure or should disappear. The world doesn't follow their delusional and fraudulent ideology.

luminol prints tested negative for blood.

You perfectly understand that negative tests prove nothing, tests can only confirm not deny. There is no plausible alternative for luminol stains, neither to explain the dynamic nor the substance. Defence fails to indicate possible alternatives. And this is called evidence. Also, the bathmat print (which delusional pro-knoxes also like to deny). There is also no innocent probable explanation for double-DNA on luminol stains and for luminol shoeprint.

The telephone records? Please elaborate.
The false computer record? Tell us more.
The can't be physical evidence of a staged burglary because the burglary was real.

If you claim you were writing and surfing the internet on a computer until late at night and you were not, it's called a false alibi.
"There can't be physical evidence..." talking about circular reasoning.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Let's start saying all his interrogation were perfectly legal, as well as Knox's. But the supporters can't help making up their story. Let's say Sollecito first told a mass of inconsistencies, a non credible and nonsensical witness report, then he admitted to having lied, blamed Knox for this, changed his story and withdrew Knox's alibi. Let's recall that, after that, he never provided an alibi to Knox again, he maintained a version of his changed story before Matteini and after that he refused to answer questions (on Dec. 22 he declared he was refusing to answer since he was satisfied with what he told to Matteini).

Stop right there. You do not know he refused to answer because he was satisfied with what he told to Matteini. That is pure speculation. He more likely chose not to speak on the advice of counsel, as most people do. Had he had counsel from the beginning, he never would have spoken, or at least would have very minimally done so.

 

[Desert Fox]

I actually don't agree that slander is "free speech" or "harmless opinion". I think expressing a false set of facts, that has been well disproven, with the malicious intent to cause harm to people who have already been wronged by that set of disproved lies, is an unambiguous criminal assault, and fully merits criminal prosecution.

Respectful protest versus disruptive protest are different things. But a disruptive protest against a public policy - ie not against a private citizen, is something quite different than the unrelenting personal assault we have seen in this and similar affairs, like the McAnn troll prosecutions.

I think the "right to be forgotten", and related issues of personal privacy, security, and reputational integrity are evolving areas of law, which the ubiquity of the internet and search engine functionality have forced to the forefront.

The restrictive, perhaps draconian laws we see in some countries, are a consequence of previous excesses which the laws were meant to amend. The British Tabloid tradition and the powerful british libel laws are flip sides of the same coin. Anglo could speak more knowledgeably, I'm sure.

Those who are pro guilt would label our arguments as lying and dishonest. Ofet one side or the other will describe the other side as being dishonest. As a result, I consider it far better if all ideas are allowed to be argued. Otherwise, you risk being crucified by your own laws.

 

[Kauffer]

Misleading Niccolo

The autopsy report, the lies and story changings of Sollecito, the lies and the calunnia from Knox, the double-DNA kitchen knife, the bra clasp DNA, the luminol prints, the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, the false computer record alibi, physical evidence of staged burglary;

all this exists. It's not made up. So I don't see what's wrong with ruling cautionary measures.
That "the police didn't look for any" is your judgement, in my opinion completely unfounded. The 'break in' appears to me as obviously fake and also the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators is obvious.
That Sollecito is a weak and depending subject was also true; and that Knox was a dangerous subject, well it is something that some the evidence of which may dispute when we looka at it on a physical level, but I consider this a reasonable inference because of her lies and calunnia and because of her clearly manipulative intent (evidence of this in her hand writen note).

You really can't look at evidence without a huge dollop of confirmation bias. The Ricciarelli hearing predates the infamous 46 days after the murder revisit by the hapless Csi, so your list is a fabrication. No luminol evidence for this silly judge! No bra clasp! "The break-in appears..." Yes right. Italian evidence is located in the world of appearances. Where are the results of a real investigation into the actual evidence in Ms Romanelli's room and on the ground outside? When did this investigation happen?

Will you at least concur now, after all this time, that a break-in would not have taxed the powers of a burglar let alone a superhero? At least tell us you agree with that!

 

[analemma]

The autopsy indicates exactly the contrary. But the pro-Knoxes fail to apply their reason and don't acknowledge it. Once you deny things, it's easy to come to your desired conclusion..

NONSENSE.
Meredith was on her hands and knees with Rudy straddling her and yanking back her hair in with his left hand as her stabbed her with the short knife repeatedly from the right side. When she protected the right of her throat with her hands her leaned down and stabbed and ripped her on the left, unprotected side, of her throat.
This is consistent with the facts to all but pro-guiltier crowd and most Italian judges.
This explanation is simple and straight forward and happens frequently all over the world when women discover burglars and the intruder kills them, but in Italy we have the judiciary spinning fantastic tales about American witches arriving by broomsticks and killing with knives that do not fit the wounds, depositing semen of the burglar under the victim, DNA of the burglar in the victims vagina, and staging break ins that are perfectly consistent with the previous burglaries attributed to the burglar, even though the American witch could not have known about the previous burglar break in details.
Tell me????????How could Knox have staged such perfect burglary without knowing the burglars MOA?
If the whole judicial framing was not such a travesty of justice it would be hilarious.

 

[Diocletus]

You really can't look at evidence without a huge dollop of confirmation bias. The Ricciarelli hearing predates the infamous 46 days after the murder revisit by the hapless Csi, so your list is a fabrication. No luminol evidence for this silly judge! No bra clasp! "The break-in appears..." Yes right. Italian evidence is located in the world of appearances. Where are the results of a real investigation into the actual evidence in Ms Romanelli's room and on the ground outside? When did this investigation happen?

Will you at least concur now, after all this time, that a break-in would not have taxed the powers of a burglar let alone a superhero? At least tell us you agree with that!

It's apparent that they use a process where each successive court defers to the prior court. Main problem is that the prosecutor suppresses evidence in the preliminary proceedings, so by the time you get to the real trial, the deck is already stacked against you based on a bogus set of facts. The most obvious example of this is the most recent isc's insistence that there had to be multiple attackers, beacause some other court said so (in some other guy's trial), but it has happened throughout the case.

All of this is totally illegal, of course (Art 6 ECHR guarantees an impartial and independent tribunal).

 

[analemma]

But the Supreme Court and the Judicial institutions in general are among the most trusted institutions by Italian citizens. Much more compared to political institutions such as the Parliament or the Government.

The Italian population doesn't think that the Justice Institution is the head of the corruption. They know that politics and illicit buisness is the core of corruption. The Justice Institution - its head being the Supreme Court - is seen as an obstacle and a dam to the power of political corruption.

Instead, it is you who see things reversed: you see the Supreme Court as a head of corruption, as a cause of the malfunctioning of the justice system. Compared to my view and to the view of most Italians (not all of them) your view is reversed.

You are comparing one form of corruption with another, with the helpless Italians and, unsuspecting foreigners, in the center.
Is there any doubt that the Italians know better than dealing with the police without lawyers because they know the Police-Judiciary cabal will do whatever is necessary to save face and maintain power.
I would bet that the courts of the Grand Duke of Tuscany were MUCH more trusted by Galileo than the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition and to many Germans the Sicherheitsdienst was more trusted than the Geheime Staatspolizei.

 

[Dan O.]

Machiavelli yet again runs from in depth discussion and circles back to his wall of lies.

What about that staged breakin Machiavelli? How exactly do you believe it was so obviously accomplished? Under the table where the bag of clothes was knocked over by the rock, there are fragments of broken window glass under the clothes. On the other side of the window where the clothes fell out of the wardrobe, there are fragments of glass under the clothes there too. What none of the photographs reveal is this glass on top of the clothes suposedly indicative of a staged breakin. We have the glass spray into the room, the rock deflected towards the desk, the damage to the inner shutter, all consistent with an actual breakin with the rocks trajectory comming from the direction of the car park area. How long do you think it took to stage this? When did it occure? You must have these answers if the staging is so obvious to you.

Why are Italian crime scene investigators so incompetent that they can't document an obviously staged breakin in a way that shows how it was obviously staged?

 

[analemma]

I don't think the geocentrism/heliocentrism (17th century) controversy is a good analogy at all for this case.

The only similarity is that a powerful Italian organization felt that it was more important to maintain its power and prestige and infallibility than it was to try to determine the truth
There are many similarities in the actions of the ISC in this case and the actions of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition in the case of Galileo, because both law enforcement organizations their power and prestige was being questioned and it was important to show that the STATE WAS ALL POWERFUL and the accused was to be subjected to the will of the state no matter what the facts of the situation were.
The way in which procedural decisions in this case have been intentionally made to make defenses impossible is in many ways similar to the Italian case against Galileo.

 

[Numbers]

Criticizing a public official or a person of power publicly, and stating that someone has committed misconduct or a crime, are two very different things.



In Italy, criticism and allegations of unproven facts are different things.

In Italy, there is no difference between a public officer and any other citizen. In all cases, it is always the defendant (the person who made a defamatory claim) who needs to have an iron-clad proof that what he/she says is true. The difference is that the case is usually a criminal one (which raises somehow the burden of proof for the claimant, since a type of malicious intent needs to be proven) and also, it is very easy and cheap for anyone to file a criminal defamation case, so it's not something just for public officers and persons of power.



I believe it, but in fact countries express sovereignty. Populations have different sets of values. From an Italian perspective many things are wrong with the American system. Starting from the judicial system/ human rights area (Guantanamo-like things), to the protection of privacy and environment or human health and commerce, like the fact that in the US citizens are not allowed to have the standards, protections and controls they want on food products.

Translating the highlighted part into English:
If the police beat you in an interrogation, and they don't leave marks or injuries visible to an MD (assuming you are allowed to see one within a few days after the beating), DON'T YOU DARE TELL THE TRUTH THAT YOU WERE BEATEN. YOU WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST YOU. AS WILL YOUR LAWYER AND ANYONE WHO REPEATS WHAT YOU SAY IN PUBLIC.