Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

You can't even prove Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito left his flat let alone that they went to Via Pergola, so sure there's a very clear intention to 'find' evidence supportive of a prosecution and to hide evidence of an exonerating character. Thus we have PLE returning to Via Pergola 46 days after the murder when they had no business going back to a highly compromised crime scene and, thus we have substantial undisclosed forensic evidence.
(...)

The above quoted statement makes no sense.
So there is a "very clear intantion" to "hide evidence of exculpatory character" (?). The causal statement is missing. There is no causal antecedent.
And the statement doesn't remotely address the problem I raised which apparently intended to answer to, that is the complete inconsistency of a conspiracy theory scenario, as well as its total lack of evidentiary support.
In addition to that, no entity such as "the PLE" exists.

 

[Machiavelli]

I already pointed this out to Machiavelli but without your cite. I've noticed he does not usually respond when his erroneous claims are dealt with. I have a growing list. I expect a lot of people here do. He is profoundly dishonest in his posting habits.

Article 192 cpp does not say what you think it says.

Evidentiary laws of the kind of those existing in the jury based system, cannot exist in the Italian system.
The evidence cannot be disallowed or dismissed based on a preemptive filter, as it happens in the US court system.

Art. 192 is not a rule about evidence admission.
It is not a "standard".
It's a rule for evidence assessment, which is something very different. And several people here seem to not understand it.

 

[Machiavelli]

I already pointed this out to Machiavelli but without your cite. I've noticed he does not usually respond when his erroneous claims are dealt with. I have a growing list. I expect a lot of people here do. He is profoundly dishonest in his posting habits.

Btw, I have noticed that nobody was able to deal with the contradictions in the Rudy-lone-perpetrator scenario, as I recently exposed them, and all pro-Knox posters gave up responding.
The people here in my opinion follow a profoundly intellectually dishonest posting habit, but I don't think they even realize it.

 

[Machiavelli]

The drugs, the empty duodenum.

I've said there is no 'duodenum alibi' and my statement is standing unchallended.

If that's too cryptic consider the absence of CCTV footage of Amanda before 9pm when Amanda entered the cottage with Rudy Guede and her key, Machiavelli

.

There was no constant CCTV coverage. The parking lot cam activates only when someone or a vehicle crosses by at the entrance.

 

[Kauffer]

The above quoted statement makes no sense.
So there is a "very clear intantion" to "hide evidence of exculpatory character" (?). The causal statement is missing. There is no causal antecedent.
And the statement doesn't remotely address the problem I raised which apparently intended to answer to, that is the complete inconsistency of a conspiracy theory scenario, as well as its total lack of evidentiary support.
In addition to that, no entity such as "the PLE" exists.

PLE - Perugia Law Enforcement - the police, prosecutor, their lackeys and hired hands - all the guys and girls in the band. Got it?

I merely point out there is and was an intention to deceive, a necessity to find something that could be used as evidence of guilt and to hide exonerating evidence.

Look back to Mignini's lie in his characterisation of Ms Knox's text message to Lumumba.

 

[Kauffer]

Btw, I have noticed that nobody was able to deal with the contradictions in the Rudy-lone-perpetrator scenario, as I recently exposed them, and all pro-Knox posters gave up responding.
The people here in my opinion follow a profoundly intellectually dishonest posting habit, but I don't think they even realize it.

And there we have it!! You still cannot admit your ignorance even when it is pointed out to you twice and you are given the clear proof in citation. Disgraceful!

 

[Bill Williams]

You're not even really interested in either proving or disproving the allegations you make that AK has, "a lifestyle incompatible with taking part to drug fuelled sexual encounters with drug dealers"....

..... you just want people to hold that it is at least possible.

Exactly. Because this is the truth.

And based on that remote possibility you wish to send two innocents to jail for 28 and 25 years respectively? I think I've now heard everything.

Absolutely not. I intend to send them to jail based on a totally different set of evidence. But I also don't wish to allow the pro-Knoxes to use a false characterization as a defensive shield: I intend to take away that shield from their hands, show it is a bogus paper shield.

I was wrong. I needed to have heard your reply to really hear everything.

You want to hold up something as only a remote possibility, so as to take away a shield - based solely on a possibility.

You really ARE on a mission to convict innocent people - regardless.

 

[Kauffer]

Contradictions

Btw, I have noticed that nobody was able to deal with the contradictions in the Rudy-lone-perpetrator scenario, as I recently exposed them, and all pro-Knox posters gave up responding.
The people here in my opinion follow a profoundly intellectually dishonest posting habit, but I don't think they even realize it.

I have no idea what contradictions you think exist in the thesis that Guede attempted a burglary and subsequently killed Ms Kercher, but the thesis that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito committed the crime with Guede is contradicted by multiple evidence points not the least of which is the fact that you have no evidence of Ms Knox in Ms Kercher's room nor any support for the view that despite the lack of evidence, it would have still been possible for her to have been there and killed Ms Kercher, from any forensic scientist, crime scene investigator or other expert testimony.

 

[Dan O.]

Does this sound like something going on here?

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

 

[Samson]

I've said there is no 'duodenum alibi' and my statement is standing unchallended.

.

There was no constant CCTV coverage. The parking lot cam activates only when someone or a vehicle crosses by at the entrance.

The duodenum alibi has very rapidly increasing reliability from 9 02pm onwards.
The drug test tells us they had only marijuana in the months preceding the 5th november. Young women actually very seldom purchase this substance, but young men do.
You failed to address the drug test results, though you may have done previously.
The CCTV camera revealed footage of two people we know were there. That is a fact a real life juror would take into account when you as prosecutor claimed Amanda and Rudy entered the cottage together before 9pm.

 

[Kauffer]

Appeal summary

Article 192 cpp does not say what you think it says.

Evidentiary laws of the kind of those existing in the jury based system, cannot exist in the Italian system.
The evidence cannot be disallowed or dismissed based on a preemptive filter, as it happens in the US court system.

Art. 192 is not a rule about evidence admission.
It is not a "standard".
It's a rule for evidence assessment, which is something very different. And several people here seem to not understand it.

A further citation from the appeal contradicting your claim:

"Forensic evidence is, by its nature, exact and reasoned knowledge of the reality. On the opposite when forensic evidence does not come to a mathematically demonstrable truth, it is not usable in a penal trial because of its ontolological nature [to be scientific it has to be mathematically certain, not being so it is not an element of scientific evidence].
Particularly, an element of forensic evidence lacking certainty does not possess the character of “precision” demanded by article 192 section 2 of the penal procedural code, and hence must not be used in the decisional process."

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no idea what contradictions you think exist in the thesis that Guede attempted a burglary and subsequently killed Ms Kercher, but the thesis that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito committed the crime with Guede is contradicted by multiple evidence points not the least of which is the fact that you have no evidence of Ms Knox in Ms Kercher's room nor any support for the view that despite the lack of evidence, it would have still been possible for her to have been there and killed Ms Kercher, from any forensic scientist, crime scene investigator or other expert testimony.

I think what Machiavelli is referring to is his belief that the autopsy proves conclusively that Ms. Kercher was attacked by multiple perpetrators. He departs from even Judge Massei's court on that, which heard evidence from 8 of 9 experts on the issue of multiple attackers that a single attacker scenario fit all the evidence.

Of course, Machiavelli is simply deferring to Rudy Guede's fast track trial process - one with the "evidence phase missing" - that concluded as "judicial truth" that multiple attackers was real, and that it needs to be shown why AK and RS are NOT they extra assailants.

Of course, neither RS nor AK were represented at Rudy's fast track process.

The other is the alleged "staged break-in". We've been around that issue 1000 times. There is actually no evidence, really, that the break-in was staged - other than assertion of prosecutors, police, judges and now Machiavelli. Judge Nencini even gave a reason why Rudy himself would never stage a break in, in the manner found, because he knew (acc. to Nencini) that the PLE would immediate recognize his M.O.

No one explains, really, why Knox or Sollecito would therefore stage a break-in with Rudy's M.O. known, and THEN have AK point the finger at Lumumba!

That's about it. There really IS no reason to disbelieve the thesis that Rudy did this horrible thing alone.

 

[Numbers]

The emphasized statement is false, according to Italian law.

CCP Article 192 Section 2 requires that evidence be "precise". Each element of evidence must be evaluated for precision before the "osmotic" blending of evidence.

From: information in the summary of Amanda Knox's appeal to the CSC.
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

Article 192 cpp does not say what you think it says.

Evidentiary laws of the kind of those existing in the jury based system, cannot exist in the Italian system.
The evidence cannot be disallowed or dismissed based on a preemptive filter, as it happens in the US court system.

Art. 192 is not a rule about evidence admission.
It is not a "standard".
It's a rule for evidence assessment, which is something very different. And several people here seem to not understand it.

No one except Mach has written that CCP Article 192 is about evidence admission. Mach is apparently misunderstanding the issue at hand, the issue is indeed about the evaluation of evidence.

Here is an English translation of CCP Art. 192:

Article 192
Evaluation of evidence

1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.
2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.
3. The statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offence or a person accused in joined proceedings according to Article 12 shall be corroborated by the other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.
4. The provision of paragraph 3 shall apply also to the statements made by a person accused of an offence that is joined to the one being prosecuted, in the case referred to in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).

Also note the following CCP articles, which are relevant in this case:

Article 188
Moral freedom of the person during evidence gathering

1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

Article 190
Right to evidence

1. Evidence shall be admitted upon request of a party. The judge shall decide without delay by issuing an order, excluding any evidence that is not allowed by law or manifestly superfluous or irrelevant.
2. The cases in which evidence shall be admitted ex officio are set by law.
3. Decisions concerning the admission of evidence may be revoked after hearing the parties.

Article 191
Unlawfully gathered evidence

1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

Source: http://www.altalex.eu/content/italian-code-criminal-procedure

Comment: In view of the above Italian CCP Laws, and it view of the Italian Constitution including Article 111, and the ECHR Art. 6 and 3, it is clear that several of the Italian judges, including Massei, Nencini, and the CSC in quashing Hellmann's acquittal, acted contrary to Italian Law, Italian Constitution, and the Convention. Mach is consistent with these judges in his posted opinions on this site. That is why he is so valuable to understand the thinking behind these violations.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I found the recents posts pointing out that a Perigian journalist was conscripting phony witnesses who then get paid for interviews to TV shows, that was something I wasn't aware of, and quite illuminating. That it was something of a cottage industry is a remarkable fact.

It further shows what a fraud the whole case has been.

Where is your outrage at this sickening behavior?
Are you so concerned with the Kerchers' grief that the suffering of two innocent people means nothing to you?

At first they kept Raf in the case to get to Amanda. Now they're keeping Amanda in the case to get to Raf's inheritance.

It's a fine bunch of criminals they have in Italy, and its shocking the Kerchers would be unable to muster the decency to refrain from stealing money from innocent families.

But do continue to look forward, lest you come face to face with the truth. The fraud must be respected, because Italy is after all a sovereign country. B.S.

Look! Squirrel!

 

[Kauffer]

Look! Squirrel!

Forgive me for playing catch up but: What is your position with regard to the evidence in this case and the guilt or innocence of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito? Do you have any particular connection to the Kercher family?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

false claims

Btw, I have noticed that nobody was able to deal with the contradictions in the Rudy-lone-perpetrator scenario, as I recently exposed them, and all pro-Knox posters gave up responding.
The people here in my opinion follow a profoundly intellectually dishonest posting habit, but I don't think they even realize it.

Machiavelli,

When a commenter makes as many false claims as you have, most of us just scroll by. However, I listed eleven problems with the PG position on luminol to which you have not responded.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

petard

Look! Squirrel!

CoulsdonUK,

Your comment neatly sums up your own contributions to this thread, and your comment earlier today smacks of chutzpah: "You folks are all wasting your time. BTW please fill me in on anything that I should know about."

 

[carbonjam72]

Look! Squirrel!

Are you so concerned with the Kerchers' grief that the suffering of two innocent people means nothing to you?

At first they kept Raf in the case to get to Amanda. Now they're keeping Amanda in the case to get to Raf's inheritance.

It's a fine bunch of criminals they have in Italy, and its shocking the Kerchers would be unable to muster the decency to refrain from stealing money from innocent families.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

When a commenter makes as many false claims as you have, most of us just scroll by. However, I listed eleven problems with the PG position on luminol to which you have not responded.

I don't recall such list.
Knowing the author, I would make the educated guess they were not real problems at all.

I also don't know exactly what you mean with "the PG position", as for me I talk through my arguments, which the pro-Knox are unable to respond to.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Comment: In view of the above Italian CCP Laws, and it view of the Italian Constitution including Article 111, and the ECHR Art. 6 and 3, it is clear that several of the Italian judges, including Massei, Nencini, and the CSC in quashing Hellmann's acquittal, acted contrary to Italian Law, Italian Constitution, and the Convention. Mach is consistent with these judges in his posted opinions on this site. That is why he is so valuable to understand the thinking behind these violations.

You make a series of inferences and conclusions, both about laws and facts, which appear to me as devoid of any basis. I recall you read art. 111 of the Constitution and you inferred the Italian system was an 'adversarial system'. I see a sort of hyperbolic level of ideology working in your analysis, the attribution of some kind of your personal 'absolute' meaning to some pieces of the law, a meaning which is usually unrealistic and extreme, and you elaborate on this personal ideas of yours.
But those ideas are not the law.