Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

.
I have no idea CJ.

Do you have a sample of what you think it might match?

Cody
.

Good question. Didn't Mignini have to sign the original arrest order, or was that Matteini? I'm sure the satan's bobo has put his john hancock on some docs somewhere in this case.

But I have to admit, I'm not sure. I see a sweeping line in the first letter, so maybe a G, maybe a J, I don't know.

I can't imagine why Big Mig would be signing investigatory letters for the hate sites, unless it was to guarantee it gets buried.

This dietrologia, is addictive, I must admit.

I would be curious to know more about that doc though.

 

[Planigale]

Well, I suggest you stop posting sympathetically on Michael's disgusting little website, where in september he wrote

Meredith was murdered because of Knox's deep resentment, anger and jealousy towards her. But, the act itself was carried out as a sexual thrill kill between lovers. It was a ritualistic murder, but the ritualism in this case was sexual.

and

The ancient Roman short sword used by the Roman legionaries was called the gladius. It was the same word for penis. The Romans saw them as symbolically being the same thing, only one penetrates for love and the other for war. Or consider the not unsubtle sexual symbolism of the vampire who orgiastically penetrates their victim's neck with their fangs. After all, and it's an important point, if the intent was simply to kill her alone, why then not dispense with knives and use a far less bloody and more practical method, especially when you're killing your victim in your own home.

More rubbish from those who believe in guilt they can not even get their fantasies right.

1) penis is latin for a tail and consequently came to be used for that tail like object men have.
2) classic roman poetry of the sort we did not read at school (Catullus) used mentula for that organ.
3) Gladius is a short sword, and that is it. A little sword becomes a gladiolus like my mam has in her back yard.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, calm down.

Wow. Your posts are riddled with assertions, and rarely provide anything to back them up.

As opposed to:

(snip)

There is no citation of any source on your part. And there can't be, since you can see the prosecution closing arguments say something different.
You perfectly know Nadeau is not a source, since you can read the actual trial papers, while Nadeau quotes nothing.

No I do not make unfounded assertions. Sometimes I have some knowledge about few things directly, which one can take or leave. But I am the person who backed his positions with arguments most on his forum, albeit I know you regularly fail to notice that and mostly you "see" my assertions as not backed; and I know you often call my statements "assertions" even many times when they are in fact just denials of some other unfounded statement.

It is true that the concept of "burden of proof", in various declinations, plays a major role in the contrast between my view and the innocentisti.

Back to the fact: you have nothing to support your claim that Mignini put forward a satanic motive, or a "ritualistic killing" scenario; moreover, the trial papers are just against you: Mignini's argument was about a "little party" that degenerated into some argument or violence in which a sexual element played a role. You will say that this is an unsupported assertion, while it is what is written in the trial papers, and I do not consider this something due to be proven. If you want to maintain that thtere was a "ritualistik killing" scenario, then you should prove with facts and reasonable argumentations that the prosecution scenario was not that of a non-premeditated party which had degenerated, as it is written in the prosecution arguments.

 

[MichaelB]

You deny the documented fact that Amanda Knox had phone contact with drug dealers and had sexual contact with at least 1 of them?

.

In the small pro-Knox supporters conspirational minds.



The authors of books and documentaries are not witnesses or suspects in murder cases.
Don't forget Bachrac, Dempsey, Sfarzo and all the US mainstream media btw.



Don't miss an opportunity to state some BS.



It is full of authentic trial documents actually.


Your looks like a justification, the kind: others lie, so it's good for Knox and Sillecito to lie. Interesting implicit admission that they are liars.

Regarding the highlighted part: It's not full of authentic trial documents at all actually. All of the original Italian downloadable PDF's have been altered and cut and pasted on to pages. God knows what's been edited out or rewritten. All of the courtroom chatter between the lawyers and Massei before, in between and after witnesses started and finished has been removed.

Giulia Bongiorno's lengthy speech to the court on September 14, 2009 after all the fraud was discovered has been removed and doesn't exist as far as the fake wiki goes.

The opening statements from Jan 16, 2009 aren't posted. Neither are both of Rudy Guede's depositions or his Skype Chart. Amanda's diary hasn't been posted either.

What possible reason was there to break the original PDF's unless your friends were trying to deceive people? And btw, everything on there comes from IIP and Amanda herself.

It's also interesting your friends have avoided translating defense witnesses or even prosecution witnesses for that matter they were so useless. The toto translation posted is just what they got from Nencini. He's suppose to be the star witness, why isn't he featured and fully translated so everyone can see?

 

[Planigale]

You deny the documented fact that Amanda Knox had phone contact with drug dealers and had sexual contact with at least 1 of them?

So since you demand proof of others can you provide it your self when you make an assertion? If you can you will find most of us will accept it. If you assert it without reference to sources then we are justified in remaining skeptical.

1) Knox's telephone records have been published, can you identify the number of the drug dealer to prove the phone contact?
2) Can you provide evidence that Knox had sex with that individual. (Making out / snogging / groping does not count).
3) Can you provide evidence of conviction (Italian language fine) for drug dealing of that same individual?

 

[Dougm]

What possible reason was there to break the original PDF's unless your friends were trying to deceive people? And btw, everything on there comes from IIP and Amanda herself.

It's also interesting your friends have avoided translating defense witnesses or even prosecution witnesses for that matter they were so useless. The toto translation posted is just what they got from Nencini. He's suppose to be the star witness, why isn't he featured and fully translated so everyone can see?

I think your question answers itself. Why, indeed, would a wiki site that purports to have authentic trial transcripts to prove guilt, only translate and publish selected documents? I'll give everyone three guesses, and the first two don't count.

 

[Desert Fox]

Regarding the highlighted part: It's not full of authentic trial documents at all actually. All of the original Italian downloadable PDF's have been altered and cut and pasted on to pages. God knows what's been edited out or rewritten. All of the courtroom chatter between the lawyers and Massei before, in between and after witnesses started and finished has been removed.

Giulia Bongiorno's lengthy speech to the court on September 14, 2009 after all the fraud was discovered has been removed and doesn't exist as far as the fake wiki goes.

The opening statements from Jan 16, 2009 aren't posted. Neither are both of Rudy Guede's depositions or his Skype Chart. Amanda's diary hasn't been posted either.

What possible reason was there to break the original PDF's unless your friends were trying to deceive people? And btw, everything on there comes from IIP and Amanda herself.

It's also interesting your friends have avoided translating defense witnesses or even prosecution witnesses for that matter they were so useless. The toto translation posted is just what they got from Nencini. He's suppose to be the star witness, why isn't he featured and fully translated so everyone can see?

Those are is some pretty strong claims?

 

[MichaelB]

I think your question answers itself. Why, indeed, would a wiki site that purports to have authentic trial transcripts to prove guilt, only translate and publish selected documents? I'll give everyone three guesses, and the first two don't count.

Yep

The fake wiki gets all the science mixed up. You'd think Machiavelli would educate them. Their knife page says Amanda's DNA on the handle was LCN and registered 'too low' in the Qubit like Sample B when in fact Amanda's DNA was 4ng and it was sample C that was also 'too low' not A.

They say the alleged DNA of Raffaele on the hook was abundant and wasn't LCN when it was LCN.

Every page has a different time for when Nara claimed to hear a scream.

The luminol page says Arnone and Ippolito sprayed the luminol but they were the photo and video guys who didn't spray anything. They just recorded the incompetence.

On and on it goes. And yet they're the ones constantly accusing the innocence side of spreading false infomations.

 

[Machiavelli]

Regarding the highlighted part: It's not full of authentic trial documents at all actually. All of the original Italian downloadable PDF's have been altered and cut and pasted on to pages. God knows what's been edited out or rewritten. All of the courtroom chatter between the lawyers and Massei before, in between and after witnesses started and finished has been removed.

Giulia Bongiorno's lengthy speech to the court on September 14, 2009 after all the fraud was discovered has been removed and doesn't exist as far as the fake wiki goes.

No "fraud" was discovered by Bongiorno.
Actually I have that transcript, entirely. If it's not there on the site, it's gonna be there soon.

Nothing is cut from the documents.
However, we don't have all the documents.
Also, it's possible not all of them are published. Untile a few months ago we hadn't posted Knox's Dec. 17. interrogation, and later we also got the transcript from Sollecito's interrogation.

It is interesting that you point out that some documents are still missing from themurderofmeredithkercher.com site, since the remarkable thing - to me - is the absence of so many key documents from Knox's blog, among them the court transcriptis of the prosecution closing arguments of both sessions of 2008 and 2009.

The opening statements from Jan 16, 2009 aren't posted. Neither are both of Rudy Guede's depositions or his Skype Chart. Amanda's diary hasn't been posted either.

But they will be. The Skype chat however is particularly complex because in a large part it's dialect, not Italian, therefore you would hardly make sense of the original.

What possible reason was there to break the original PDF's unless your friends were trying to deceive people? And btw, everything on there comes from IIP and Amanda herself.

Absolutely not. Our papers do not come from Amanda Knox. The legal representatives of the Kercher family have provided us almost all of them.

However, by accusing us of attempting to deceive people, you fall into the same, particularly stupid contradiction of those who were accusing "the police" of leaking the bathroom picture in order to deceive the public. It is a particularly stupid accusation that you make while at the same time you are asserting that we got those materials from Amanda herself: because, if we published altered or cut trial papers in order to deceive the readers, and the original PDFs were available on Knox's blog alone, the alteration would be immediately visible; any innocentista on befalf of Knox could say "look, this is the original document, it has been altered".
It would make no sense to attempt to deceive by publishing a fake document when the defence already has original documents.
Just as it would make no sense to try to "deceive" the public by leaking misleading documents such as a "red" bathroom photo, when the defence lawyers had the photos of the non-red bathroom and they could immediately respond by saying in the media "look the bathroom was clean".

You did not prove that trial documents published on the site were false.
But you accuse us - like others accused the police or the prison doctors - of an alleged "deception" that would be not oly short-lived but completely idiotic.

By the way, we do not post the original PDFs but the OCR scans, because we decided to respect the law. Several documents cannot be photographed or posted as originals - at least not by us, since we are not a party in the trial. Some might be, however I am not a technical administrator of the site.

It's also interesting your friends have avoided translating defense witnesses or even prosecution witnesses for that matter they were so useless. The toto translation posted is just what they got from Nencini. He's suppose to be the star witness, why isn't he featured and fully translated so everyone can see?

Everyone can see already. That not everybody can understand everything, it is not exactly a problem that we shall have the burden to solve. Very few people are capable of doing good a translation job, and it's very costly.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no citation of any source on your part. And there can't be, since you can see the prosecution closing arguments say something different.
You perfectly know Nadeau is not a source, since you can read the actual trial papers, while Nadeau quotes nothing.

No I do not make unfounded assertions. Sometimes I have some knowledge about few things directly, which one can take or leave. But I am the person who backed his positions with arguments most on his forum, albeit I know you regularly fail to notice that and mostly you "see" my assertions as not backed; and I know you often call my statements "assertions" even many times when they are in fact just denials of some other unfounded statement.

It is true that the concept of "burden of proof", in various declinations, plays a major role in the contrast between my view and the innocentisti.

Back to the fact: you have nothing to support your claim that Mignini put forward a satanic motive, or a "ritualistic killing" scenario; moreover, the trial papers are just against you: Mignini's argument was about a "little party" that degenerated into some argument or violence in which a sexual element played a role. You will say that this is an unsupported assertion, while it is what is written in the trial papers, and I do not consider this something due to be proven. If you want to maintain that thtere was a "ritualistik killing" scenario, then you should prove with facts and reasonable argumentations that the prosecution scenario was not that of a non-premeditated party which had degenerated, as it is written in the prosecution arguments.

Sigh.

Read upthread Mignini's own words I posted. You may have set a record for yes-buts....

But you have save me some work. I was going to repost your words from Oct 2013 where you admit Nadeau and Mr. Kercher said what they said. (For the record, Mr. Kercher concedes that the Satanic rite theory was "controversial". So, whether or not Mignini actually said that, you eventually got around to admitting they wrote what they wrote.)

Last time you called Nadeau a liar and said that perhaps Mr. Kercher listened to the wrong source.)

Still - I'm about done with you. You are the guy, noted by others, who asserts that Knox traded sex for drugs, and offer no evidence at all.

Good for you Machiavelli.

 

[Machiavelli]

So since you demand proof of others can you provide it your self when you make an assertion? If you can you will find most of us will accept it. If you assert it without reference to sources then we are justified in remaining skeptical.

1) Knox's telephone records have been published, can you identify the number of the drug dealer to prove the phone contact?

Yes, I can identify it as the person named "Lorenzo".

2) Can you provide evidence that Knox had sex with that individual. (Making out / snogging / groping does not count).

Evidence was that Ms. Knox had sex with Federico, another drug dealer, a friend of Lorenzo. Court testimonies and her own diaries are evidence of that.

3) Can you provide evidence of conviction (Italian language fine) for drug dealing of that same individual?

Yes, I linked at least three local newspaper articles in the past dealing with the news. Those are 2010 articles, if I remember correctly. They mention the names of the three defence attorneys, three known Perugian lawyers. There was no denial of this news at the time, and it is not reasonable to assume that local newspapers are making up stuff, because it would require a rather big conspiracy to use the names of three actual lawyers in the news.
In addition, there is a photography of a police informativa to the Procura of 2008, which has been reported by several magazines. That document looks authentic under any point of view, neither Knox nor Sollecito sued the magazines for publishing a fake document and it would be not so easy and rather dangerous to fabricate a fake one. That one was only an investigation document and not a trial paper, thoug.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sigh.

Read upthread Mignini's own words I posted. You may have set a record for yes-buts..

..

You posted nothing that contradicts what I explained.
And, independently from what you posted, the rest of what is written in the documents from which you picked your quotes, explains exactly what I said: that it was a non premeditated murder; that it was a "festino" (little party) that degenerated, that the party turned into an argument/violence but also some sexual and perverse context.

What this "party" (or meeting) really was, and the reasons why this "party" turned into something violent, have been the object of various different speculations by different judges and prosecutors.

You make the mistake of confusing these speculations with the "motive" (or with the "scenario").

But you have save me some work. I was going to repost your words from Oct 2013 where you admit Nadeau and Mr. Kercher said what they said.

I do not admit absolutely anything about what other people say (neither I deny it). It is yours, and only yours the duty to quote them, if you want to quote them.
It's not up to me to admit or deny them, and I have no interest in what other people have said.

(For the record, Mr. Kercher concedes that the Satanic rite theory was "controversial". So, whether or not Mignini actually said that, you eventually got around to admitting they wrote what they wrote.)

Absolutely not, it's not my task to admit, and I am not interested in what they wrote.
I am interested in the point that your claims are absolutely unsupported when we get to the actual trial.

Last time you called Nadeau a liar and said that perhaps Mr. Kercher listened to the wrong source.)

I never called Nadeu a liar. However I don't consider her instant book as an accurate source.

Still - I'm about done with you. You are the guy, noted by others, who asserts that Knox traded sex for drugs, and offer no evidence at all.

No, I said that Knox had phone contacts and sexual contacts with drug dealers; specifically with a ring of three drug dealers who were good family guys who were accused of smuggling drugs to students, sometimes in exchange of sex.
The "trade" sex for drugs is absolutely not the topic of my assertion about Amanda Knox; the object of my statement is phone contacts and sexual contacts with drug dealers. An inference, out of common sense, from this, would be that those contects had occurred for one of two reasons, either because of Knox's interest in random sex with "strange guys" not different from Rudy Guede and from his very same environment (therefore, no argument to put distance between her and Guede and no charachter objection against a sex-themed party scenario), or because of her interest in drugs (therefore no argument to object a drug-fuelled party scenario), or for both reasons.

 

[MichaelB]

No "fraud" was discovered by Bongiorno.
Actually I have that transcript, entirely. If it's not there on the site, it's gonna be there soon.

Nothing is cut from the documents.
However, we don't have all the documents.
Also, it's possible not all of them are published. Untile a few months ago we hadn't posted Knox's Dec. 17. interrogation, and later we also got the transcript from Sollecito's interrogation.

It is interesting that you point out that some documents are still missing from themurderofmeredithkercher.com site, since the remarkable thing - to me - is the absence of so many key documents from Knox's blog, among them the court transcriptis of the prosecution closing arguments of both sessions of 2008 and 2009.



But they will be. The Skype chat however is particularly complex because in a large part it's dialect, not Italian, therefore you would hardly make sense of the original.



Absolutely not. Our papers do not come from Amanda Knox. The legal representatives of the Kercher family have provided us almost all of them.

However, by accusing us of attempting to deceive people, you fall into the same, particularly stupid contradiction of those who were accusing "the police" of leaking the bathroom picture in order to deceive the public. It is a particularly stupid accusation that you make while at the same time you are asserting that we got those materials from Amanda herself: because, if we published altered or cut trial papers in order to deceive the readers, and the original PDFs were available on Knox's blog alone, the alteration would be immediately visible; any innocentista on befalf of Knox could say "look, this is the original document, it has been altered".
It would make no sense to attempt to deceive by publishing a fake document when the defence already has original documents.
Just as it would make no sense to try to "deceive" the public by leaking misleading documents such as a "red" bathroom photo, when the defence lawyers had the photos of the non-red bathroom and they could immediately respond by saying in the media "look the bathroom was clean".

You did not prove that trial documents published on the site were false.
But you accuse us - like others accused the police or the prison doctors - of an alleged "deception" that would be not oly short-lived but completely idiotic.

By the way, we do not post the original PDFs but the OCR scans, because we decided to respect the law. Several documents cannot be photographed or posted as originals - at least not by us, since we are not a party in the trial. Some might be, however I am not a technical administrator of the site.



Everyone can see already. That not everybody can understand everything, it is not exactly a problem that we shall have the burden to solve. Very few people are capable of doing good a translation job, and it's very costly.

Of course fraud was discovered by Bongiorno and the Knox lawyers. It was finally revealed all the luminol prints and blobs had tested negative for blood, 36B failed to register in the Qubit and Steffi had lied her ass off about 36B "being in the order of a few hundred picograms" and assessed with Real-Time PCR and her RTIGF report had been falsified.

The trial should have ended then. She would have been out of a job and under investigation if that happened in the US. Every case she ever worked on would have been re-examined and people given new trials.

 

[Diocletus]

The "trade" sex for drugs is absolutely not the topic of my assertion about Amanda Knox; the object of my statement is phone contacts and sexual contacts with drug dealers. An inference, out of common sense, from this, would be that those contects had occurred for one of two reasons, either because of Knox's interest in random sex with "strange guys" not different from Rudy Guede and from his very same environment (therefore, no argument to put distance between her and Guede and no charachter objection against a sex-themed party scenario), or because of her interest in drugs (therefore no argument to object a drug-fuelled party scenario), or for both reasons.

LOL. Somebody needs a new hobby.

 

[MichaelB]

Btw, all of the documents come from Amanda Knox and IIP. Because the fake wiki is missing the same ones we are. The fake wiki has posted no new original documents other than the December 17 interrogation and the text messages. In effect your friends stole them and then falsely claimed them as they're own.

And to add to the list, the fake wiki hasn't posted the crime scene photos, Vinci's knife and bra reports, Pasquali’s rock throwing demonstration, the defense CCTV presentation about the police arrival, the defense presentation showing Meredith arrive home or Guede's alleged confession to Mario Alessi.

They didn't even post Guede's diary till last month. Why'd it take 18 months to post that?

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course fraud was discovered by Bongiorno and the Knox lawyers. It was finally revealed all the luminol prints and blobs had tested negative for blood, 36B failed to register in the Qubit and Steffi had lied her ass off about 36B "being in the order of a few hundred picograms" and assessed with Real-Time PCR and her RTIGF report had been falsified.

No fraud except in the Pro-Knox supporters wishing fantasy. Stefanoni provided authentic documentation herself, when requested by the judge (thus, what they got at the trial is what Stefanoni volunterily gave them; if she wanted to commit a fraud, she could have provided counterfeit documentation, and they would have never known).
But not only that: the content of such documentation was also already known to the defence experts, since it was produced together with Prof. Potenza and signed by him. Prof. Potenza was perfectly able to see that it done using a Qbit fluorimeter.
Moreover, not only the "hundred picograms" magnitute was an esteem given by Stefanoni at the preliminary hearing only in a doubtful form, with many caveats, warning she couldn't tell for sure, but also this figure happens to be correct: given the sensitivity of the Qbit fluorimeter and the solution volume, and given the aliquote that was taken away for the other failed testing, in fact the total amount is in a magnitude well above 120-150 picograms, maybe much more

The trial should have ended then.

Ridiculous.

Discover the real world...

 

[Machiavelli]

Btw, all of the documents come from Amanda Knox and IIP. Because the fake wiki is missing the same ones we are. The fake wiki has posted no new original documents other than the December 17 interrogation and the text messages. In effect your friends stole them and then falsely claimed them as they're own.

Believe me we have the original from the Kercher's lawyers. I can tell you that for sure.
And I do have more than those on Knox's blog.

And to add to the list, the fake wiki hasn't posted the crime scene photos,

PMF has ben posting the crime scene fotos for years.

Vinci's knife and bra reports, Pasquali’s rock throwing demonstration, the defense CCTV presentation about the police arrival, the defense presentation showing Meredith arrive home or Guede's alleged confession to Mario Alessi.

Several of things are on PMF, but actually I am favourable to post them all, even if not all of them are in the trial file, as I believe those presentations would bring only further damage to the defence, as long as one can realize how weak and concocted they are. Vinci's presentation about the bathmat print is like shooting your own foot. The rock throwing presentation in a window without shutters. Mario Alessi as a defence witness (do you know who Mario Alessi is?).

They didn't even post Guede's diary till last month. Why'd it take 18 months to post that?

But they did, didn't they?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I believe those are lies, but it's not what I am thinking about when I talk about the lies in Amanda's early account of facts.

-

Thank you Mach, but what lies specifically are you refering to?

Personally, if only murderers lied, then I would give lies a higher probability value, like you obviously do, and please correct me if I'm paraphrasing you wrong here.

Also, I need to see some sources and context for most of those "alleged" lies in order to evaluate them accurately, but to me they seem more like misunderstandings, common memory inconsistencies, or lies about the lies.

The only lie I know about for certain is that Amanda told the cops she didn't or hadn't smoke(d) pot, Maybe from smoking pot myself, I've forgotten,

d

-
ETA: DF, as far as creationism vs evolution is concerned, I can see how evolution doesn't need a creator to maybe explain how life arrived at where it is today, but I don't see how you can rule out a creator (God) using evolution as one of her tools in the creation process. Personally, I tend to agree with Einstein when he described (paraphrasing) God as being all the forces of nature combined together, or as I like to say, "God is gravity". Ha ha.

-

 

[MichaelB]

Like I said, Steffi would have lost her job and been under investigation for this in a US trial.

Perjury #1

Question: After which you passed to the quantification phase?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Quantification which you did with Real Time, I imagine?
Answer: Indeed yes.

Perjury #2

Question – But in your opinion was it in the order of a few nanograms or almost [at the level of] picograms?
Answer – Yes, it was in the order of a few hundred picograms, yes, for the total quantity.

Falsified RTIGF below.

 

[Diocletus]

But not only that: the content of such documentation was also already known to the defence experts, since it was produced together with Prof. Potenza and signed by him. Prof. Potenza was perfectly able to see that it done using a Qbit fluorimeter.

There is no evidence whatsoever that she used the qubit during the incidents probatorio.

but also this figure happens to be correct: given the sensitivity of the Qbit fluorimeter and the solution volume, and given the aliquote that was taken away for the other failed testing, in fact the total amount is in a magnitude well above 120-150 picograms, maybe much more

Lol. Her testimony was cunterfit. And so is your math.