Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Actually, maybe anglolawyer's really on to something. Since Ms Kercher was wearing jeans and it's a judicial fact that you can't be raped wearing jeans, this was why they started to think that the sexual contact was consensual. So we have Guede's semen in her bedroom; we've probably got his blood in her vagina from his cuts; we've probably got Silenzi's sperm in the room as well. Perhaps the dominant discussion in those early days was characterised by a framing of the case within the boundaries of known judicial fact.

There was a case years ago where a man was found not guilty of rape in Italy because the woman was wearing a dress. The argument was that she could run faster in a dress than a man could wearing pants around his ankles. Might have been mid 1990s.

Edit: If you add in the case of statutory rape of a fourteen year old where "Amorous Feelings" were not considered, I think there may be an anti-woman bias to the Italian legal system.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach was almost correct. It's on page 71/72 just after she talks about the white sticky substance.

​

This would be a significant issue if it were not for Stefanoni totally blowing it by saying that the jeans were found turned inside out which quite clearly in multiple photographs they were not. Since Stef chose not to include photos of these findings we don't know if she was confused about which side of the jeans go to the outside or if somebody else inverted the jeans while repacking them or if she was remembering the sweatshirt which was still inside out and was reversed on camera during the december visit.

Stefanoni was showing photos of these findings. Later, she also spoke about the sweatshirt saying it hat it's sleeves reversed.
Now, a fact is that you are not able to dispute Stefanoni's assertion that there were blood drops on the inside of the jeans. You try to speculate she got "confused", but it's your speculation; another fact is there wasn't a defence party who objected about this detail. They were all there in the courtroom, they didn't dispute it. We have pictures that suggest trousers are not reversed, yet even those pictures show only part of the jeans, most of them is covered by the duvet. In any event, the blood drops in the inside stands as a finding and I shall consider it undisputed.

 

[Diocletus]

Stefanoni was showing photos of these findings. Later, she also spoke about the sweatshirt saying it hat it's sleeves reversed.
Now, a fact is that you are not able to dispute Stefanoni's assertion that there were blood drops on the inside of the jeans. You try to speculate she got "confused", but it's your speculation; another fact is there wasn't a defence party who objected about this detail. They were all there in the courtroom, they didn't dispute it. We have pictures that suggest trousers are not reversed, yet even those pictures show only part of the jeans, most of them is covered by the duvet. In any event, the blood drops in the inside stands as a finding and I shall consider it undisputed.

This is a very good find, Machiavelli! Anglo has been looking for those drops--they are the missing drops of blood that dripped from the cuts on Rudy's hand.

 

[Diocletus]

I wish things were as cut and dried as you seem to think.

I think Kauffer is dead on. The mere admittance of the callunnia appeal to ECtHR will be the beginning of the end of this thing: 1) Knox will win the ECHR proceeding on the merits, 2) extradition will be flummoxed, and 3) the murder conviction will fall (sooner or later).

 

[anglolawyer]

I think Kauffer is dead on. The mere admittance of the callunnia appeal to ECtHR will be the beginning of the end of this thing: 1) Knox will win the ECHR proceeding on the merits, 2) extradition will be flummoxed, and 3) the murder conviction will fall (sooner or later).

Then I shall repose my trust in the soundness of your collective judgment.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is a very good find, Machiavelli! Anglo has been looking for those drops--they are the missing drops of blood that dripped from the cuts on Rudy's hand.

Oh goody! Can we have the DNA results please? You'll find the jeans carefully stored with the towels or possibly still stuffed in the apartments freezer. If not there, the laundry basket. Hint: don't worry about mixed profiles, just Photoshop out the ones that don't fit Knox the suspect.

Can we please have the fibre results soon as well?

ETA while I'm on the subject of fibres, can we see the results of tests on the clothes Amanda cunningly hid in plain sight on her bed? Assuming they were totally negative, what does Mach think of Barbie's theory that they were naked when they carried out the attack?

 

[Kauffer]

Amorous

There was a case years ago where a man was found not guilty of rape in Italy because the woman was wearing a dress. The argument was that she could run faster in a dress than a man could wearing pants around his ankles. Might have been mid 1990s.

Edit: If you add in the case of statutory rape of a fourteen year old where "Amorous Feelings" were not considered, I think there may be an anti-woman bias to the Italian legal system.

Actually re. your edit, it's worse! She was 11. And he was her 60 year old social worker. Of course the law in Italy says that 60 year old social workers can sleep with their consenting clients as long as they are 16. In all other instances the rules are less onerous. As long as she's not got anything to do with him professionally, he can sleep with her when she's 14 if it's consensual.

And if, when she's 14, he puts her in a pair of jeans, it will always be consensual.

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/pedophile-free-court-rules-girl-love-article-1.1562229#bmb=1

 

[Desert Fox]

Actually re. your edit, it's worse! She was 11. And he was her 60 year old social worker. Of course the law in Italy says that 60 year old social workers can sleep with their consenting clients as long as they are 16. In all other instances the rules are less onerous. As long as she's not got anything to do with him professionally, he can sleep with her when she's 14 if it's consensual.

And if, when she's 14, he puts her in a pair of jeans, it will always be consensual.

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/pedophile-free-court-rules-girl-love-article-1.1562229#bmb=1

I recently had an ex coworker get 10 years for attempting (was stopped by the police before it got that far) to have sex with a 12 year old while he was 30. In Italy, he might have gotten off completely due to Amorous Intent.

I am curious what is the Italian punishment for attempting to have sex with a minor and not actually getting to the sex act before being stopped?

 

[Diocletus]

The man was found guilty. It was only the aggravating circumstance what the SC objected.

A lot of posters here don't seem to have any other argument but to express a vague and generic derogatory attitude of intolerance for, and wish to delegitimize, the Italian judicial authorities. These people will always pick up pretexts here and there that manifest something they dislike about the system. They could play the same rhetorical trick about any system or authority in the world. Cherry pick things that can be presented as looking bad and parade them as a diversion from the evidence on the suspects. And each of those 'examples' (jeans decisions, earthquake etc.) is also all twisted and spun.
This attitude tells much about their utter prejudice and bias, as well as conveying the impression that they insufferably perceive the weakness of their arguments.

No problem: just tell your judiciary to suck less and it will all be good.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh goody! Can we have the DNA results please? You'll find the jeans carefully stored with the towels or possibly still stuffed in the apartments freezer. If not there, the laundry basket. Hint: don't worry about mixed profiles, just Photoshop out the ones that don't fit Knox the suspect.

So, to recap, we now have Rudy blood on:

1) The hilt part of the knife imprint on the bedsheet
2) The pillow palm print
3) The inside of the jeans
4) the vaginal swab
5) the towels on the floor
6) the purse
7) the phones
8) downstairs

Prove me wrong.

 

[Kauffer]

Consensus

The man was found guilty. It was only the aggravating circumstance what the SC objected.

A lot of posters here don't seem to have any other argument but to express a vague and generic derogatory attitude of intolerance for, and wish to delegitimize, the Italian judicial authorities. These people will always pick up pretexts here and there that manifest something they dislike about the system. They could play the same rhetorical trick about any system or authority in the world. Cherry pick things that can be presented as looking bad and parade them as a diversion from the evidence on the suspects. And each of those 'examples' (jeans decisions, earthquake etc.) is also all twisted and spun.
This attitude tells much about their utter prejudice and bias, as well as conveying the impression that they insufferably perceive the weakness of their arguments.

Are you serious? This is what Cassation said in the Lamberti case:

"Italy's supreme court ruled that the verdict did not sufficiently consider "the 'consensus', the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the girl's feelings of love".

It was a five year sentence!! She was 11 years old.

And on the jeans issue, what is it we have missed?

If we are guilty of "cherry picking" to make you all look bad, then feel free to cherry pick back. What, in connection with these two decisions, was admirable and laudable? What have I "twisted and spun"?

I've already asked you to tell me what the earthquake scientists actually said that was thought actionable with a manslaughter charge.

 

[Bill Williams]

The man was found guilty. It was only the aggravating circumstance what the SC objected.

A lot of posters here don't seem to have any other argument but to express a vague and generic derogatory attitude of intolerance for, and wish to delegitimize, the Italian judicial authorities. These people will always pick up pretexts here and there that manifest something they dislike about the system. They could play the same rhetorical trick about any system or authority in the world. Cherry pick things that can be presented as looking bad and parade them as a diversion from the evidence on the suspects. And each of those 'examples' (jeans decisions, earthquake etc.) is also all twisted and spun.
This attitude tells much about their utter prejudice and bias, as well as conveying the impression that they insufferably perceive the weakness of their arguments.

This is what I dislike about the system - a PM can waltz into a stopped interrogation, stopped because EVERYONE acknowledged that the person in front of them was now a suspect and not simply someone "informed of the facts"....

And this PM could without asking a single question of this person discern:

- that she was afraid of Patrick Lumumba (someone who it turned out had nothing to do with the crime, so why should be be afraid of him unless the police had told her she should be?)
- just had had a giant weight lifted off her shoulders through confession
- wanted to keep talking, ie. making spontaneous statements.​

No matter that the issue of "spontaneous statements" was police need, they needed those things to avoid being seen as beating a confession out of her. It was incredibly lucky that Knox complied with exactly what they needed.

Remember, this PM discerned all this without asking a single question, just observing her demeanour and behaviour. For the life of me I do not know how someone can tell that someone else wants to - by complete accident - participate in that narrow judicial practise of "making spontaneous statements"......

...... which for the PM in making the case to come, was so essential. My oh my Amanda Knox was able to discern from the ether the exact thing Mignini needed, and without any prompting from him just so happened to comply.

So, Mignini with those three truisms about Amanda Knox communicated to him only through his own astute observation, he in fact DOES speak. He in fact DOES goad her to continue making statements - despite the fact that she is now universally agreed to be a suspect and now needs both a lawyer and a competent translator (rather than the mediator - her words - Anna Donnino).

He says to her, "If you wish to continue I can act as if only a notary and record these things." He then claims in 2010 to Drew Griffin that this is why he was not in violation of the law.

This is the pretext I pick up on and dislike about the law, as interpreted by Giuliano Mignini.

 

[Kauffer]

Evidence

So, to recap, we now have Rudy blood on:

1) The hilt part of the knife imprint on the bedsheet
2) The pillow palm print
3) The inside of the jeans
4) the vaginal swab
5) the towels on the floor
6) the purse
7) the phones
8) downstairs

Prove me wrong.

Interestingly, your eight instances of blood are better inferred from the evidence than any of luminol hits. I say we raid Steffi's house for all the missing stuff in this case with a Mission Impossible crew.

 

[Bill Williams]

I recently had an ex coworker get 10 years for attempting (was stopped by the police before it got that far) to have sex with a 12 year old while he was 30. In Italy, he might have gotten off completely due to Amorous Intent.

I am curious what is the Italian punishment for attempting to have sex with a minor and not actually getting to the sex act before being stopped?

Maybe she was wearing tight jeans which, acc. to Italy, would make any non-consensual activity impossible....

 

[Samson]

Good spot by MisterPink about the timing of the last music track listened to on Nov 2 am - finished just in time to nip down to Quintavalle's shop.

You are missed here Vibio

 

[Dan O.]

Stefanoni was showing photos of these findings. Later, she also spoke about the sweatshirt saying it hat it's sleeves reversed.
Now, a fact is that you are not able to dispute Stefanoni's assertion that there were blood drops on the inside of the jeans. You try to speculate she got "confused", but it's your speculation; another fact is there wasn't a defence party who objected about this detail. They were all there in the courtroom, they didn't dispute it. We have pictures that suggest trousers are not reversed, yet even those pictures show only part of the jeans, most of them is covered by the duvet. In any event, the blood drops in the inside stands as a finding and I shall consider it undisputed.

You are simply wrong Machiavelli. My claim is that we cannot know what Stefanoni's problem was in that testimoni. You are the one cherry picking the parts of her testimony that you want to keep and brushing aside the photographic evidence that we do have showing the full length of the pants laid out unreversed contradicting her direct statement saying that they were found compleatly reversed.

I presented multiple possibilities for the source of Stefanoni's error. We have no information suggesting any of the possibilities is more likely than the others so to choose or dismiss any possibility is committing the sin of speculation. Unless you can produce the photographic evidence showing that the blood drops were indisputably on the inside on the geans, this fact has not been established.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't see why 'failing to predict an earthquake' isn't a fair approximation of the above.

Neither does Scientific American nor every other science organization on the planet.

One of the accused, though, has muddied even these waters by saying, "I am still not sure what the charges were which were brought against me."

Still - "failing to predict an earthquake," pretty much has to be an approximation of the exact-charge brought against these seismologists. That is unless that specific crime is mentioned in their code.

This conversation reminds me of the argument over a local headline.... "Woman convicted for running over and killing a child." The quibble was that the specific charge she was actually convicted of, was, "Dangerous driving causing death." Listening to some quibble is like listening to some here who say, "No she wasn't convicted of running over that child."

In some weird way, one wants to simply agree - as long as the woman is held accountable for something to do with the wrongful death.

 

[Samson]

Here is a post from PMF

And there is more .
I notice no reference is given to the system whether or not it was set to automatically update (network time) or if it was even in the correct time zone.

The fact that some files were opened and later modified only goes to show that they were being used in P2P applications aMule & Azureus.. there are no logs to suggest these files were opened in any viewing application.

There is a screen shot of spotlight showing file attributes for "Naruto ep 101.avi" - the file name is truncated in the screen shot..
Note the file size is reported as 261.6MB - no evidence of how big this file was on the 1-2 Nov.
261MB seem rather small for a video file that is 25 minutes long.
The file was last opened on 9.26 pm 1 November 2007 by aMule.
Last modified on 6 Nov

This suggests to me that Naruto was still being downloaded, and that why there is a modification date of 6 Nov (file was closed when computer shutdown)
No evidence there was any human interaction at all.

Because this is obviously crucial to the defence, is there anything to argue here? My only observation is 261 meg looks about right, better quality than youtube for example.

 

[Desert Fox]

Maybe she was wearing tight jeans which, acc. to Italy, would make any non-consensual activity impossible....

She willing did go with him to the hotel room so it is much more like the 11 year old and 60 year old case.

 

[Desert Fox]

Because this is obviously crucial to the defence, is there anything to argue here? My only observation is 261 meg looks about right, better quality than youtube for example.

AVI sucks a compression (in comparison to MP4) so that is likely just a stub of a movie.
Even so, a DVD quality MP4 will be about 2 Gigs