Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

But you left out possibility c) Machiavelli is just an anonymous Internet poster that makes up crap to cast the police/prosecution in the best possible light.

(or did you )

Or D) Machiavelli is Mignini himself.

Or E) Machiavelli is actually a room (The Machiavelli room) in the basement of the Questura, filled with beefy mustachioed Italian policemen, muffin topping elegant Italian stools, furiously querying google and other search engines, all in service to - and part of the costs with their own budget line - of a propaganda campaign purely designed to mislead the public and promote the reputation of Italian justice.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CASE OF MINELLI v. SWITZERLAND 8660/79 25/03/1983 {excerpt}

37. In the Court’s judgment, the presumption of innocence will be violated if, without the accused’s having previously been proved guilty according to law and, notably, without his having had the opportunity of exercising his rights of defence, a judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty. This may be so even in the absence of any formal finding; it suffices that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty.

Numbers

You have very kindly provided a number of ECHR rulings on Article 6 cases; do you know what the outcome were for any of the applicants, were any of their verdicts quashed, were any their sentences reduced, did any of the rulings result in trials being re-run?

 

[acbytesla]

Do you mean the 23 second Pasquali video found on youtube (maybe there is a longer/better version of it ?). The Pasquali video show indeed that the glass fell inside. But does it also show that no glass fell outside ?


It is not that easy.

a) a person who threw the rock from within may have deliberatedly placed shards of glass on Filomenas rag

Huh? If one viewed the way the glass was scattered throughout the room, one would know that it would be virtually impossible for the rock from within and get those results and why would they have deliberately placed shards of glass on Filomena's rag?

b) a person who faked the break in may have thrown the stone from the outside

Sure this is possible, but then where is the proof that the break in was staged? So this very important point in the prosecution case doesn't really have a single piece of evidence that supports it.

The lack of glass outside may, of course, be due to the outside shutters being closed, while a person from within threw the stone.

But it is unlikely given the way tiny pieces of glass were scattered throughout the room all the way to the door.
Greetings[/QUOTE]

 

[toto]

In fact they didn't know who he was. They only knew that Knox used to work at "Le Chic" on some evenings, they wanted to capture who she met, who she talked to and what she said.



Obviously what attracted their attention was the Italian statement "Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata!" (translation: "We will meet later. Have fun!") on the murder evening, since she testified that she didn't meet with anyone.

Of course everyone in the English speaking world understands "See you later" as basically "goodbye (and probably see you sometime in the future)"

 

[Machiavelli]

-


-

Out of over a thousand post, s/he has only set the "probably innocent" crowd straight ten times, and all of those were in points of law, and not from true knowledge of the case, unless perception is now considered knowledge.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise v, so show me where s/he has continually set many of the "probably innocent" crowd straight, without an equally probable perception of innocence also being introduced in rebuttal.

That should be easy, because "continually" infers many,8

d

-

Kauffer was claiming just now that Buratti stated that Lumumba's phone was bugged prior to Nov. 5th.
I pointed out that Kauffer's claim is false: Buratti didn't state that.
Is that a point of law, or is it about facts of the case?

I showed that the bathmat footprint measurement match Sollecito and not Guede (the 'innocentisti' crowd didn't reply, just objected 'ex post' that the result shouldn't be considered relevant on preliminary considereatons). Is that a point of law?
I showed that Stefanoni did not refuse to disclose files: is that a point of law?
I showed that Conti and Vecchiotti were reported saying that they had the utmost cooperation from the polizia scientifica and they had oobtained all the data they had requested; I showed that Vecchiotti was caught lying as she quoted from a trial transcript and at the same time she stated she was hearing things for the first time. Is this a point of law?
I have shown that scientific research has found luminol to be far more sensitive and more soecific than TMB and the latter also being indirect, is that a topic of law?
I have shown that the claim that Quintavalle was contradicted by Chiriboga was a false claim. Is that a point of law?
I have shown that the claim that the prosecution put forward a satanic motive was unsupported and contrary to the trial papers. Is that a point of law?
I have shown that reported cooperation between Carlizzi and Mignini was a fictional tale and obviously contrary to reality. Is that a point of law?
I reported that De Felice did not state anything fron which one could infer the police was already after Lumumba. Is that a point of law?
I have shown some of the contradictions in the lone perpetrator scenario as for some phisical evidence, like showing how this is inconsistent with the stepping on the pillow, how the post-mortem sexual abuse scenario conflict with autopsy and physical evidence, how the theory of Guede committing a quick attack conflicts with physical evidence and autopsy, how the scenario of washing his trousers conflicts with physical evidence due to lack of. dripping, how the theory of him locking the door is contrary to physical evidence, and these are only some examples from the issues in this subject; are these points of law?
I pointed out how there are egregiius contradictions in Knox's account, also emerging from her Dec. 17 interrogation. Is that a point of law? I reminded how she claimed false memory and not lying under coercion: is that just a point of law?

In fact, I believe many of the things that I pointed out they do have something to do with words, with reading statements and papers, and with logical inference. They often have something to do but just partly, with the law or the context.

 

[anglolawyer]

Mach

Do you think they bugged Le Chic after they arrested everybody and shut the place down? Why would they do that?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Kauffer was claiming just now that Buratti stated that Lumumba's phone was bugged prior to Nov. 5th.
I pointed out that Kauffer's claim is false: Buratti didn't state that.
Is that a point of law, or is it about facts of the case?

I showed that the bathmat footprint measurement match Sollecito and not Guede (the 'innocentisti' crowd didn't reply, just objected 'ex post' that the result shouldn't be considered relevant on preliminary considereatons). Is that a point of law?
I showed that Stefanoni did not refuse to disclose files: is that a point of law?
I showed that Conti and Vecchiotti were reported saying that they had the utmost cooperation from the polizia scientifica and they had oobtained all the data they had requested; I showed that Vecchiotti was caught lying as she quoted from a trial transcript and at the same time she stated she was hearing things for the first time. Is this a point of law?
I have shown that scientific research has found luminol to be far more sensitive and more soecific than TMB and the latter also being indirect, is that a topic of law?
I have shown that the claim that Quintavalle was contradicted by Chiriboga was a false claim. Is that a point of law?
I have shown that the claim that the prosecution put forward a satanic motive was unsupported and contrary to the trial papers. Is that a point of law?
I have shown that reported cooperation between Carlizzi and Mignini was a fictional tale and obviously contrary to reality. Is that a point of law?
I reported that De Felice did not state anything fron which one could infer the police was already after Lumumba. Is that a point of law?
I have shown some of the contradictions in the lone perpetrator scenario as for some phisical evidence, like showing how this is inconsistent with the stepping on the pillow, how the post-mortem sexual abuse scenario conflict with autopsy and physical evidence, how the theory of Guede committing a quick attack conflicts with physical evidence and autopsy, how the scenario of washing his trousers conflicts with physical evidence due to lack of. dripping, how the theory of him locking the door is contrary to physical evidence, and these are only some examples from the issues in this subject; are these points of law?
I pointed out how there are egregiius contradictions in Knox's account, also emerging from her Dec. 17 interrogation. Is that a point of law? I reminded how she claimed false memory and not lying under coercion: is that just a point of law?

In fact, I believe many of the things that I pointed out they do have something to do with words, with reading statements and papers, and with logical inference. They often have something to do but just partly, with the law or the context.

-

Yes you tried to show that all of these probably guilty perceptions are facts, but they were all equally rebutted with a probably innocent perception, which you haven't shown to be less true than your own perceptions, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[analemma]

I have shown some of the contradictions in the lone perpetrator scenario as for some phisical evidence, like showing how this is inconsistent with the stepping on the pillow, how the post-mortem sexual abuse scenario conflict with autopsy and physical evidence, how the theory of Guede committing a quick attack conflicts with physical evidence and autopsy, how the scenario of washing his trousers conflicts with physical evidence due to lack of. dripping, how the theory of him locking the door is contrary to physical evidence, and these are only some examples from the QUOTE]
You have not SHOWN any of this.
You have just raised the odd point here and there that purports to contradict some sort of straw man argument you built to that no one here would ever propose.
I thought that something like nine out ten experts at the trial contended that there was nothing to contradict the single attacker theory.
Could you give sites for these contradictions so we could address them?
In fact, the whole pro guilt cliché refuses to give any time or detailed description of how the multiple attacker theory could be supported.

 

[Dan O.]

Mach

Do you think they bugged Le Chic after they arrested everybody and shut the place down? Why would they do that?

It's quite obvious when you stop to think about it. By bugging the facility while it is closed and the proprietor is in jail, the bug is less likely to be discovered.

 

[Kauffer]

We don't actually know that Machavelli is correct on those points of law. He may simply be cherry picking and misinterpreting the statutes and there is no one here with sufficient depth of knowledge of Italian law to refute his points. But where Machiavelli may be correct about Italian law, he often runs head on into ECHR. As Machiavelli tries to support the Italian police, prosecution and courts by his legal arguments, he is only shifting the issue to a systemic problem in all of Italy.

One of the difficulties is that there is no case law to draw on together with the problems of conferring clear meaning from translations of the Italian language, but one of the key pieces of information in my opinion is that for the treatment of circumstantial evidence in order to establish a fact. Such evidence must be:

1) Serious 2) Precise 3) Concordant

This case has thrived at trial on evidence which most common law practitioners would argue, did not possess one or more of these characteristics and have been interpreted by two of the three courts against the defendants whereas (and known to the courts), it would have been perfectly possible to improve the quality of the evidence by insisting on greater disclosure or discovery.

It's a bit like having in your possession a jigsaw puzzle but electing to leave a large number of the pieces in the cupboard before trying to put it together.
They admit the egram but not the EDF. How can that possibly make sense in the light of the ECHR's insistence on "equality of arms"?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I have shown some of the contradictions in the lone perpetrator scenario as for some phisical evidence, like showing how this is inconsistent with the stepping on the pillow, how the post-mortem sexual abuse scenario conflict with autopsy and physical evidence, how the theory of Guede committing a quick attack conflicts with physical evidence and autopsy, how the scenario of washing his trousers conflicts with physical evidence due to lack of. dripping, how the theory of him locking the door is contrary to physical evidence, and these are only some examples from the

You have not SHOWN any of this.
You have just raised the odd point here and there that purports to contradict some sort of straw man argument you built to that no one here would ever propose.
I thought that something like nine out ten experts at the trial contended that there was nothing to contradict the single attacker theory.
Could you give sites for these contradictions so we could address them?
In fact, the whole pro guilt cliché refuses to give any time or detailed description of how the multiple attacker theory could be supported.

-

Yeah, one of my problems with the multiple attacker theory is the lack of bruising on the wrist. There may have been multiple people there, but no one was restraining her except one person, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

It's quite obvious when you stop to think about it. By bugging the facility while it is closed and the proprietor is in jail, the bug is less likely to be discovered.

Probably off topic, but this is what brought down Richard Nixon in watergate. The bug originally placed in the democratic head quarters was inadvertently placed in an unused office, occupied by secretaries and filled with their less than helpful daily gossip. Gordon Liddy took it upon himself to re-position the bug to a more useful location, while on his way to bug a different location that same night that Nixon had authorized. The rest is history.

The point seems solid that bugging Patricks's bar after Patrick was arrested doesn't seem to make too much sense. Unless, Mignini believed there might be STILL OTHERS involved in the Kercher killing, perhaps members of the same elusive satanic sect bedeviling him, that he thought responsible for the Narducci death in 1985, and the monster of Florence murders, and his losing case in Florence against Calamandrei, and MIgnini's having been indicted for abuse of office.

Mignini did claim the Kercher murder was a crime 'related to the rites of Halloween', so Mach, you really should cross that off your list.

Also, the introduction of there being a "satanic sect" into the Monster of Florence investigations came from Michele Giutarri, (head of the monster squad - and Mignini's co-convicted abuser of office - reversed on technical grounds due to venue, with the charges subsequently allowed to languish), according to Mach's favorite authors Spezi and Preston.

 

[Kauffer]

Kauffer was claiming just now that Buratti stated that Lumumba's phone was bugged prior to Nov. 5th.
I pointed out that Kauffer's claim is false: Buratti didn't state that .

Didn't he? Here's a translation of his testimony.

ANSWER – the suspects by then so from day 2, starting from day 2 to follow developments of the investigative activity gradually wiretaps became authorized.

QUESTION – So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.

ANSWER-Yes, then let’s talk about the first interceptions, no?

QUESTION – I am not asking you in chronological order, then Rudy Guede, Lumumba?

ANSWER – Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti.

QUESTION – Then even friends?

ANSWER – Yes.

 

[anglolawyer]

Didn't he? Here's a translation of his testimony.

ANSWER – the suspects by then so from day 2, starting from day 2 to follow developments of the investigative activity gradually wiretaps became authorized.

QUESTION – So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.

ANSWER-Yes, then let’s talk about the first interceptions, no?

QUESTION – I am not asking you in chronological order, then Rudy Guede, Lumumba?

ANSWER – Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti.

QUESTION – Then even friends?

ANSWER – Yes.

The what?

 

[Kauffer]

The what?

Oooh! Did I 'forget' to highlight that or perhaps I failed to notice what was in plain sight! Perhaps the nemesis will translate this and the rest differently.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Didn't he? Here's a translation of his testimony.

ANSWER – the suspects by then so from day 2, starting from day 2 to follow developments of the investigative activity gradually wiretaps became authorized.

QUESTION – So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.

ANSWER-Yes, then let’s talk about the first interceptions, no?

QUESTION – I am not asking you in chronological order, then Rudy Guede, Lumumba?

ANSWER – Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti.

QUESTION – Then even friends?

ANSWER – Yes.

-

Interesting. Why would they need to bug PL before he was arrested, if they weren't investigating him before the "accusation"?

I've been reading a lot of the discussion here about getting Amanda a lawyer before she signed that statement. I find it difficult to understand why they didn't. Is that how they do things in Italy? I'm not a big fan of doing things that way, but that's just my opinion,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

Numbers

You have very kindly provided a number of ECHR rulings on Article 6 cases; do you know what the outcome were for any of the applicants, were any of their verdicts quashed, were any their sentences reduced, did any of the rulings result in trials being re-run?

Coulsdon,

It may be more difficult to track down the outcomes. You could try looking at the Committee of Ministers site on the Council of Europe collection of sites.

The responsibility for any retrials rests with the respondent State under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. I believe in many cases there is no issue with the State working to appropriately restore a person whose rights have been violated; by belief, I mean I don't know for sure.

In my spot checking, I found that the Committee of Ministers had very serious complaints about Albania not proceeding in a timely way to retry certain individuals who had been subjected to unfair trials. The CoM and the EoC don't have a police force or a military to enforce the Convention, so I presume that negotiation, discussion, verbal shaming, and nagging (collectively "jaw-boning" in the US) may be important tools.

 

[acbytesla]

Didn't he? Here's a translation of his testimony.

ANSWER – the suspects by then so from day 2, starting from day 2 to follow developments of the investigative activity gradually wiretaps became authorized.

QUESTION – So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.

ANSWER-Yes, then let’s talk about the first interceptions, no?

QUESTION – I am not asking you in chronological order, then Rudy Guede, Lumumba?

ANSWER – Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti.

QUESTION – Then even friends?

ANSWER – Yes.

I can't believe the logical trap that Machiavelli has created for himself with this. Doesn't he recognize that Patrick was arrested on the 6th and there would be no purpose in bugging him after he was arrested.

 

[Numbers]

Didn't he? Here's a translation of his testimony.

ANSWER – the suspects by then so from day 2, starting from day 2 to follow developments of the investigative activity gradually wiretaps became authorized.

QUESTION – So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.

ANSWER-Yes, then let’s talk about the first interceptions, no?

QUESTION – I am not asking you in chronological order, then Rudy Guede, Lumumba?

ANSWER – Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti.

QUESTION – Then even friends?

ANSWER – Yes.

The what?

{emphasis added to 1st quote.}

Notice not only that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects, they were suspects from DAY 2, which I interpret as Nov. 3, 2007 (Meredith's body having been discovered on DAY 1 = Nov. 2, 2007).

Reconcile the above testimony with Amanda and Raffaele not being warned to get lawyers when Raffaele (and Amanda, in effect) were called to the police station on the night of Nov. 5, 2007.

I'm sure that poster Mach will come up with some alternative translation and/or interpretation, which he/she will explain in 1000 words or more.

 

[Numbers]

Probably off topic, but this is what brought down Richard Nixon in watergate. The bug originally placed in the democratic head quarters was inadvertently placed in an unused office, occupied by secretaries and filled with their less than helpful daily gossip. Gordon Liddy took it upon himself to re-position the bug to a more useful location, while on his way to bug a different location that same night that Nixon had authorized. The rest is history.

The point seems solid that bugging Patricks's bar after Patrick was arrested doesn't seem to make too much sense. Unless, Mignini believed there might be STILL OTHERS involved in the Kercher killing, perhaps members of the same elusive satanic sect bedeviling him, that he thought responsible for the Narducci death in 1985, and the monster of Florence murders, and his losing case in Florence against Calamandrei, and MIgnini's having been indicted for abuse of office.

Mignini did claim the Kercher murder was a crime 'related to the rites of Halloween', so Mach, you really should cross that off your list.

Also, the introduction of there being a "satanic sect" into the Monster of Florence investigations came from Michele Giutarri, (head of the monster squad - and Mignini's co-convicted abuser of office - reversed on technical grounds due to venue, with the charges subsequently allowed to languish), according to Mach's favorite authors Spezi and Preston.

Didn't Patrick's bar remain closed after he was arrested? Who would have been keeping it open?