Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[MDDVS]

It doesn't worry you when testimony doesn't conform with reality?

 

[MDDVS]

Also, how come there was no Amanda's DNA under Meredith's fingernails?

 

[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.

Had the defence experts asked her during the incidente probatorio, when they were invited for month and they didn't come, she would have provided them all what was requested.

After that, the evidence is settled.

Had Bongiorno requested them at the preliminary hearing, maybe she would have provided them too.

In 2009, still there was no clear request of raw data.

Anyway, what you think matters little. What matters is the principles of procedure: in 2009 to discuss raw data would have meant re-opening the discussion about the same piece of evidence, factually re-presenting the evidence again, evidence which was already settled. This would be not fair in procedure. As a rule you need to preliminarily decide some boundaries of what you intend to discuss, because the evidence is never discussed entirely, and you are not supposed to change the boundaries only at the end when you see it's getting bad.

But they did.

Sollecito Appeal Document 2010

Bra clasp:

On the basis of the forensic documentation in the possession of the Prosecution since the preliminary investigation, but deposited in the court records only on 30 July 2009, even though it’s not possible to establish with certainty the quantity of material found on the bra clasp, it’s possible to demonstrate that it is Low Copy Number.

Knife:

On the basis of the acts deposited on 30 July 2009, in addition, it was documented the lack of correspondence between what was stated in the “Technical report of the Genetic Forensic Investigation” – for which the quantification of trace B of exhibit 36 results as positive – and what follows from the quantification with the fluorometer, whose result is “too low”, i.e. negative.

9th October 2009, The first level court rejects all requests for an independent review of the DNA evidence because it would result in “a variety of elements and of assessments”.

P47 Elements of proof considered essential were not made available to the defense. Sollecito’s shoe print was supposedly found on the floor under the duvet. The defense did not have the photo album that included this shoe print, that was dated 7 November 2007 16:30. The defense complained in a hearing of 8.11.2007 that it was left at a disadvantage, and despite the defense’s complaints, the judge gave a decisive interpretation to this shoe print.

Pg 50: The defense claims that documents that were essential in supporting the prosecution’s theory were not made available. This went on all the way into the first level trial, and defense requests on the matter were ignored.

Pg 51: Following the preliminary investigations, the defense was given access to Stefanoni’s report, but it only showed the number of alleles, without any other information. On 24th June 2008 the defense requested the Prosecutor for the electropherograms which led to the DNA results. The Prosecutor rejected the request with the following justification “because the entitlement provided by article 415bis relates only to the documents submitted into the court records”. In response to this the defense, on 3rd July 2008, requested the laboratories of the Scientific Police for the numerical RFU values and the peaks for all exhibits or, in alternative, a CD ROM containing the raw data for RFUs and peaks. On 11th July 2008 the request was rejected with the following justification “on the graphs provided by the Scientific Police there are already to be found the bars with the generic values related to the fluorescent peaks”.

As a result, the defense found itself lacking important information when the preliminary hearings commenced. In these preliminary hearings, on 16th September 2008 the defense reiterated its request to have the numerical RFU values and peaks for all exhibits, or as an alternative the CD ROM containing the raw data for RFUs and peaks.

The GUP invited Stefanoni to provide the information requested by the defense. On 25th September 2008 a CD ROM containing the data was provided to the defense.
At the hearing of 27th September 2008, the defense requested additional documents due to the fact that the data provided was incomplete. For this reason, the defense requested the GUP to have the log files.

To this request, after requesting Stefanoni’s opinion, the Judge rejected the request with the justification “the information in the log files would not be necessary (which is data that is never shown in forensic cases, coming from standard approved parameters in the international arena and that one must assume is in use in all laboratories that work in Genetic Forensic analysis)”.

In the hearing of 4th October 2008, Sollecito’s defense consultant forced Stefanoni to take note that a recommendation of the International Society of Forensic Science states that the most utilized method for interpreting mixed DNA traces “takes into consideration the area and height of the peaks”. At this point the GUP requested Stefanoni to make available by 8th October 2008 the data relating to the calculation of the area of the peaks for exhibit 165B, including the diagrams for the second electropherograms run for exhibit 36B.

On 8th October 2008 Stefanoni provided the “CD ROM containing the data relating to the electrophoresis run of the amplification of exhibit 165/B (pieces of Bra cloth with clasp)”, as well as “CD ROM containing: data for samples relating to the two electrophoresis runs of the amplification of 36/B (knife) electropherograms of the second electrophoresis run”.

So only after the completion of the preliminary hearings did the defense have access to data that permitted defense consultants to see the area of the peaks and conclude that the quantity of DNA was extremely modest, and that the interpretation of the Scientific Police did not respect in the slightest international guidelines for DNA analysis. Lack of discovery was also highlighted on 18th July 2009 during the testimony of Adriano Tagliabracci (defense consultant), when the Prosecution asked questions of a nature which showed that they were in possession of information/data that had not been provided to the defense regarding the quantity of biological material on the bra clasp. The Prosecutor was forced to admit that it had access to information provided by the Scientific Police that was never submitted into the case files or to the GUP (Preliminary Judge Micheli) who sent Knox/Sollecito to trial.

In other words, the Prosecution did not provide full discovery of the genetic results.

 

[Machiavelli]

But they did.

Sollecito Appeal Document 2010

Bra clasp:

On the basis of the forensic documentation in the possession of the Prosecution since the preliminary investigation, but deposited in the court records only on 30 July 2009, even though it’s not possible to establish with certainty the quantity of material found on the bra clasp, it’s possible to demonstrate that it is Low Copy Number.

Knife:

On the basis of the acts deposited on 30 July 2009, in addition, it was documented the lack of correspondence between what was stated in the “Technical report of the Genetic Forensic Investigation” – for which the quantification of trace B of exhibit 36 results as positive – and what follows from the quantification with the fluorometer, whose result is “too low”, i.e. negative.

9th October 2009, The first level court rejects all requests for an independent review of the DNA evidence because it would result in “a variety of elements and of assessments”.

P47 Elements of proof considered essential were not made available to the defense. Sollecito’s shoe print was supposedly found on the floor under the duvet. The defense did not have the photo album that included this shoe print, that was dated 7 November 2007 16:30. The defense complained in a hearing of 8.11.2007 that it was left at a disadvantage, and despite the defense’s complaints, the judge gave a decisive interpretation to this shoe print.

Pg 50: The defense claims that documents that were essential in supporting the prosecution’s theory were not made available. This went on all the way into the first level trial, and defense requests on the matter were ignored.

Pg 51: Following the preliminary investigations, the defense was given access to Stefanoni’s report, but it only showed the number of alleles, without any other information. On 24th June 2008 the defense requested the Prosecutor for the electropherograms which led to the DNA results. The Prosecutor rejected the request with the following justification “because the entitlement provided by article 415bis relates only to the documents submitted into the court records”. In response to this the defense, on 3rd July 2008, requested the laboratories of the Scientific Police for the numerical RFU values and the peaks for all exhibits or, in alternative, a CD ROM containing the raw data for RFUs and peaks. On 11th July 2008 the request was rejected with the following justification “on the graphs provided by the Scientific Police there are already to be found the bars with the generic values related to the fluorescent peaks”.

As a result, the defense found itself lacking important information when the preliminary hearings commenced. In these preliminary hearings, on 16th September 2008 the defense reiterated its request to have the numerical RFU values and peaks for all exhibits, or as an alternative the CD ROM containing the raw data for RFUs and peaks.

The GUP invited Stefanoni to provide the information requested by the defense. On 25th September 2008 a CD ROM containing the data was provided to the defense.
At the hearing of 27th September 2008, the defense requested additional documents due to the fact that the data provided was incomplete. For this reason, the defense requested the GUP to have the log files.

To this request, after requesting Stefanoni’s opinion, the Judge rejected the request with the justification “the information in the log files would not be necessary (which is data that is never shown in forensic cases, coming from standard approved parameters in the international arena and that one must assume is in use in all laboratories that work in Genetic Forensic analysis)”.

In the hearing of 4th October 2008, Sollecito’s defense consultant forced Stefanoni to take note that a recommendation of the International Society of Forensic Science states that the most utilized method for interpreting mixed DNA traces “takes into consideration the area and height of the peaks”. At this point the GUP requested Stefanoni to make available by 8th October 2008 the data relating to the calculation of the area of the peaks for exhibit 165B, including the diagrams for the second electropherograms run for exhibit 36B.

On 8th October 2008 Stefanoni provided the “CD ROM containing the data relating to the electrophoresis run of the amplification of exhibit 165/B (pieces of Bra cloth with clasp)”, as well as “CD ROM containing: data for samples relating to the two electrophoresis runs of the amplification of 36/B (knife) electropherograms of the second electrophoresis run”.

So only after the completion of the preliminary hearings did the defense have access to data that permitted defense consultants to see the area of the peaks and conclude that the quantity of DNA was extremely modest, and that the interpretation of the Scientific Police did not respect in the slightest international guidelines for DNA analysis. Lack of discovery was also highlighted on 18th July 2009 during the testimony of Adriano Tagliabracci (defense consultant), when the Prosecution asked questions of a nature which showed that they were in possession of information/data that had not been provided to the defense regarding the quantity of biological material on the bra clasp. The Prosecutor was forced to admit that it had access to information provided by the Scientific Police that was never submitted into the case files or to the GUP (Preliminary Judge Micheli) who sent Knox/Sollecito to trial.

In other words, the Prosecution did not provide full discovery of the genetic results.

Defence claims, rejected by all courts. Even by Hellman.

 

[Numbers]

Failure to provide original evidence=Violation Art. 6

Nonsense. Authentic and complete documentation can only be provided in the form of electronic data files. If Stefanoni were an ethical and competent forensic scientist, she would have provided them.

The failure of a prosecutor to provide the original, best evidence in a case results in a finding of an unfair trial by the ECHR, Violation of Article 6.3d - failure to allow examination of a witness for the defense, or 6.3b - failure to provide adequate facilities to the defense, with Violation of Article 6.1, failure to provide a fair trial.

There are at least two ECHR cases with these judgments:

GEORGIOS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE 59506/00
The prosecution did not allow original evidence consisting of bank checks and computer records into evidence in a case involving fraud, in which these items were the best evidence.

LASKA AND LIKA v. ALBANIA 12315/04 17605/0
The prosecution did not allow into evidence balaclavas worn by the applicants in an identity parade for comparison to those used by the robbers.

The ECHR wording in the latter case {bold added}:

The Court considers that in the circumstances of the applicants' case, fairness demanded that they be enabled to argue that the balaclavas they were required to wear at the identification parade, which constituted the decisive evidence for the applicants' conviction, were entirely different from those worn by the robbers. However, they were denied an opportunity at the trial to redress the irregularities which occurred at the identification parade. In this connection, the Government did not invoke any public interest grounds for withholding such evidence, and no such grounds are apparent from the domestic proceedings.

The last statement (bolded) in the above paragraph from the ECHR judgment is critical. The same conclusion by the ECHR can be expected with respect to the Electronic Data Files and the other evidence denied to the defense in the Knox-Sollecito trials. There were no public interest grounds for withholding the evidence (which would have potential exculpatory value) and therefore the trial was unfair. Also, with respect to EDFs, international standards (which the ECHR will likely quote) call attention to the need for this data to be provided to the defense for fairness. The ECHR is highly likely to use these international (including US ABA) standards as its evidence that denial of EDFs and other forensic data resulted in an unfair trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei talking about Sollecito's intent to perpetrate a sexual violence together with Guede, Sollecito and Guede "united" together, equally active, sharing a same purpose, related to the arousal in the context of violence and sex:

It is fortunate you quoted this part. Because Massei is relying on dodgy evidence; even IF the hooks are not contaminated. The alleged action Massei invents (out of thin air) would not leave a single Y-Haplotype, mixed in with other haplotyes (One Meredith's and three others male) on the hook.

At best you've demonstrated that Massei has no idea what's going on, because as I quoted, it was not a party, and the sexual initiative was all Rudy's.

And about the violent intent of Amanda Knox, also within a sexual context, an intent/motive she "shared with Rudi and Raffaele":

If it weren't for assertions without proof, there'd be no case against AK and RS. Here Massei simply asserts, mainly because he has found them guilty, not because there's any evidence of Amanda being involved. The part you quoted says nothing, except that Massei is asserting she must have been involved.

Once again, then, Massei is contradicting himself with what he says is Rudy's lust which instigates this. It is Rudy who goes into Meredith room by himself when Meredith is alone. The ONLY way Massei can subsequently put Amanda and Raffaele in that room is with his equally ludicrous claim they simply made a "choice for evil".

Then you also have Massei talking about violent charachters of Sollecito and Knox; talks about Raffaele's interest for violent Manga and aroused byt the mixture of sex and violence, and also mentions that drug-fuelling is an element that matters ("not foreign") to the reasons of the murder, this goes for both Knox and Sollecito who were both "active" in pursueing the "subjugation" of Meredith:

This is the weakest part of Massei's already weak case. ".... a soggiogarne la volontà e consentire così a Rudi di sfogare i propri impulsi lussuriosi", it's still Rudy's lust which Amanda and Raffaele are supposed to inexplicably join in with?

And what's the proof of this invention of Massei's?

Che tale partecipazione, attiva e violenta, abbia coinvolto anche gli attuali imputati in concorso con Rudi deriva da quanto si è osservato parlando delle lesioni subite da Meredith, dell'esito delle indagini genetiche, dalle impronte di piede nudo rinvenute in varie parti della casa.

Where are the other bare-foot prints other than on the bathmat? And please do not point to a non-blood print in the hall, esp. when you also posit a clean-up in that very same hall.

There is no "rito" or "riti" in the prosecution arguments.

And after complaining that I didn't supply sources, neither do you.

Then again, it's fruitless to supply sources for you. Because then you simply assert that the sources cited don't say what they say.

Or you accept some item of rogue testimony over what was found by judges. Even convicting judges.

And then..... you counter by demonstrating, like above, even Massei contradicts himself as to the nature of the crime.

 

[Numbers]

Defence claims, rejected by all courts. Even by Hellman.

Therefore, to be found contributing to an unfair trial, a violation of Article 6 by Italy, if and when this part of the case goes to the ECHR.

The repeated rejection, with no valid reason, is further indication of unfairness.

Only a significant public interest, such as protection of national security or protection of the identity of an informant, would be acceptable reasons to withhold potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense.

 

[Kauffer]

She says "scratch", and there is no way out from this. It's a testimony.

Let me try to understand the significance of this.

Your position is that the mark on Ms Knox's neck is in fact a wound caused by Ms Kercher during her life or death struggle with Ms Knox in Ms Kercher's bedroom, shortly before Ms Knox brutally, sociopathically and maliciously stabbed her to death with attendant blood spatter as part of an exsanguination of in excess of two litres of blood. Is that basically it?

What evidence do you have that the mark on Ms Knox's neck was caused in such a fashion?

 

[Kauffer]

Had the defence experts asked her during the incidente probatorio, when they were invited for month and they didn't come, she would have provided them all what was requested.

After that, the evidence is settled.

Had Bongiorno requested them at the preliminary hearing, maybe she would have provided them too.

In 2009, still there was no clear request of raw data.

Anyway, what you think matters little. What matters is the principles of procedure: in 2009 to discuss raw data would have meant re-opening the discussion about the same piece of evidence, factually re-presenting the evidence again, evidence which was already settled. This would be not fair in procedure. As a rule you need to preliminarily decide some boundaries of what you intend to discuss, because the evidence is never discussed entirely, and you are not supposed to change the boundaries only at the end when you see it's getting bad.

Data should be provided as a matter of course as part of the file of evidence. It is not complete without it. Haven't you been listening?

What data did the Carabinieri scientists turn over in connection with the analysis of 36I?

Why do you consistently defend the lack of discovery of potentially exculpatory evidence in connection with matters pertaining to the provision of justice?

Or is your definition of "evidence" in fact "stuff that supports the prosecution case"?

 

[Kauffer]

Peter Gill on police pressure to report favourable results

The fallout from the closure of Britain's Forensic Science Service (FSS) in 2012 continues with additional budgetary problems threatening the provision of reliable and relevant information provided by labs in criminal cases.

"In the face of budget cuts, the NAO (National Audit Office) found that police were tailoring their requests for forensic work rather than ordering a range of tests.

Professor Peter Gill, the pioneer of mass genetic profiling, said that the shift to in-house DNA testing would be “disastrous” with scientists under pressure to come up with results to secure convictions. “Forensic science is now becoming police-controlled,” Professor Gill told The Independent. “It’s difficult enough when you’re not working for the police; you’re put under a lot of pressure to report what the police want you to report. “If you’re not protected from that, then the more vulnerable forensic scientists are going to report cases wrongly. I’m absolutely convinced this is happening now. You can’t put forensic science solely in police hands. It would be disastrous.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...would-be-disastrous-warn-experts-9991356.html

 

[Bill Williams]

Data should be provided as a matter of course as part of the file of evidence. It is not complete without it. Haven't you been listening?

What data did the Carabinieri scientists turn over in connection with the analysis of 36I?

Why do you consistently defend the lack of discovery of potentially exculpatory evidence in connection with matters pertaining to the provision of justice?

Or is your definition of "evidence" in fact "stuff that supports the prosecution case"?

That is Machiavelli's working definition with regards to the hickey on Knox's neck. It's photographed as a hickey by the police, but no matter - since one person at one time said it may have been a scratch - that settles it: that proves it's a scratch.

Mignini himself in his statement to the Micheli court says that this was a case of a Halloween ritual-killing, which Micheli eventually says is a fantasy (and then commits the pair to trial anyway!), but does that stop Machiavelli?

Machiavelli claims there is no evidence that Mignini EVER advanced this as a Satanic rite killing. Yet both Mr. Kercher and Barbie Nadeau say different. Does that mean that Mignini, in fact, DID advance this? No, it means that two people close to the case said he did; neither of whom have a particular reason to advance untruths about Mignini. That's the sum total of what was offered to him when he complained there was no citation supporting the claim..... Mr. Kercher even acknowledged in his book that this issue was controversial. Nadeau on page 158 of Angel Face says that Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini continued this way.

So, there is not "no evidence", there are these two bits of evidence. Evaluate them as you will, discount them if you want. Machiavelli (back in Oct 2013) mercifully does not call Mr. Kercher a liar, M. just says that Mr. Kercher has been listening to the wrong sources. But M. did call Nadeau an, "approximate reporter," back then, esp in comparison to Andrea Vogt on issues such as these. (Read back in Oct 2013 on this thread...).

Machiavelli claims that a phone-number was found in Knox's calling list in her mobile of a drug dealer, and that he's not claiming that this has anything to do with the murder - except that it does, because he goes on to say that the murder is a drug-fueled frenzy. And since M.'s working definition of "evidence" is stuff that bolsters Mignini's case, then that must then be a fact.

Machiavelli claims that Judge Massei says that the sexual violence inflicted upon the victim is in equal share between the three people convicted (two convicted by Massei). Yet in two sections of the Massei report, Massei specifically says that this is a sexual crime, with Rudy's lust as the problem - and that Rudy goes into Meredith's room (where she is alone) to attack her.

And because in other sections, Massei says that AK and RS are co-equal abusers "just because".... M. then claims that this second Massei-theory must be the truth, gain, "just because. At best Massei simply does not know how this crime was committed, much less that AK and RS is involved. Massei's confusing accounting of this should tip the reader off thusly, but no matter, Machiavelli just chooses the one which benefits Mignini and ignores the other.

This has not been a good day for Machiavelli. He chides posters to provide evidence to back up their claims, then when that evidence is provided, he further asserts that the evidence doesn't say what it obviously says.

 

[Numbers]

The failure of a prosecutor to provide the original, best evidence in a case results in a finding of an unfair trial by the ECHR, Violation of Article 6.3d - failure to allow examination of a witness for the defense, or 6.3b - failure to provide adequate facilities to the defense, with Violation of Article 6.1, failure to provide a fair trial.

There are at least two ECHR cases with these judgments:

GEORGIOS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE 59506/00
The prosecution did not allow original evidence consisting of bank checks and computer records into evidence in a case involving fraud, in which these items were the best evidence.

LASKA AND LIKA v. ALBANIA 12315/04 17605/0
The prosecution did not allow into evidence balaclavas worn by the applicants in an identity parade for comparison to those used by the robbers.

The ECHR wording in the latter case {bold added}:

The Court considers that in the circumstances of the applicants' case, fairness demanded that they be enabled to argue that the balaclavas they were required to wear at the identification parade, which constituted the decisive evidence for the applicants' conviction, were entirely different from those worn by the robbers. However, they were denied an opportunity at the trial to redress the irregularities which occurred at the identification parade. In this connection, the Government did not invoke any public interest grounds for withholding such evidence, and no such grounds are apparent from the domestic proceedings.

The last statement (bolded) in the above paragraph from the ECHR judgment is critical. The same conclusion by the ECHR can be expected with respect to the Electronic Data Files and the other evidence denied to the defense in the Knox-Sollecito trials. There were no public interest grounds for withholding the evidence (which would have potential exculpatory value) and therefore the trial was unfair. Also, with respect to EDFs, international standards (which the ECHR will likely quote) call attention to the need for this data to be provided to the defense for fairness. The ECHR is highly likely to use these international (including US ABA) standards as its evidence that denial of EDFs and other forensic data resulted in an unfair trial.

Another relevant ECHR case:

NATUNEN v. FINLAND 21022/04

43. Failure to disclose to the defence material evidence, which contains such particulars which could enable the accused to exonerate himself or have his sentence reduced would constitute a refusal of facilities necessary for the preparation of the defence, and therefore a violation of the right guaranteed in Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see C.G.P., cited above). The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284) and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons (see C.G.P., cited above).

47. Even though the police and the prosecutor were obliged by law to take into consideration both the facts for and against the suspect, a procedure whereby the investigating authority itself, even when co-operating with the prosecution, attempts to assess what may or may not be relevant to the case, cannot comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't know DF, even though (in my opinion) the DNA found on the bra-clasp is possibly from contamination and can't be date stamped, it's still evidence,

Science is based on evidence. With evidence, it is important that the evidence is repeatable. . . . . .Oops, we left the object in solution. It is not really evidence because it was destroyed.

 

[Numbers]

That is Machiavelli's working definition with regards to the hickey on Knox's neck. It's photographed as a hickey by the police, but no matter - since one person at one time said it may have been a scratch - that settles it: that proves it's a scratch.

Mignini himself in his statement to the Micheli court says that this was a case of a Halloween ritual-killing, which Micheli eventually says is a fantasy (and then commits the pair to trial anyway!), but does that stop Machiavelli?

Machiavelli claims there is no evidence that Mignini EVER advanced this as a Satanic rite killing. Yet both Mr. Kercher and Barbie Nadeau say different. Does that mean that Mignini, in fact, DID advance this? No, it means that two people close to the case said he did; neither of whom have a particular reason to advance untruths about Mignini. That's the sum total of what was offered to him when he complained there was no citation supporting the claim..... Mr. Kercher even acknowledged in his book that this issue was controversial. Nadeau on page 158 of Angel Face says that Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini continued this way.

So, there is not "no evidence", there are these two bits of evidence. Evaluate them as you will, discount them if you want. Machiavelli (back in Oct 2013) mercifully does not call Mr. Kercher a liar, M. just says that Mr. Kercher has been listening to the wrong sources. But M. did call Nadeau an, "approximate reporter," back then, esp in comparison to Andrea Vogt on issues such as these. (Read back in Oct 2013 on this thread...).

Machiavelli claims that a phone-number was found in Knox's calling list in her mobile of a drug dealer, and that he's not claiming that this has anything to do with the murder - except that it does, because he goes on to say that the murder is a drug-fueled frenzy. And since M.'s working definition of "evidence" is stuff that bolsters Mignini's case, then that must then be a fact.

Machiavelli claims that Judge Massei says that the sexual violence inflicted upon the victim is in equal share between the three people convicted (two convicted by Massei). Yet in two sections of the Massei report, Massei specifically says that this is a sexual crime, with Rudy's lust as the problem - and that Rudy goes into Meredith's room (where she is alone) to attack her.

And because in other sections, Massei says that AK and RS are co-equal abusers "just because".... M. then claims that this second Massei-theory must be the truth, gain, "just because. At best Massei simply does not know how this crime was committed, much less that AK and RS is involved. Massei's confusing accounting of this should tip the reader off thusly, but no matter, Machiavelli just chooses the one which benefits Mignini and ignores the other.

This has not been a good day for Machiavelli. He chides posters to provide evidence to back up their claims, then when that evidence is provided, he further asserts that the evidence doesn't say what it obviously says.

Many of these guilter allegations (drug-fueled party/murder, sex for drugs, etc.) are not in the trial transcripts or court records, AFAIK. These are merely guilter fantasies and defamations.

No credible evidence of the reality of these claims is provided by the guilters. But, again, these claims have no relevance to the court case.

It should be pointed out that it was actually Ms. Kercher who was carrying on a sexual relationship with someone involved in drugs, who was growing marijuana in the downstairs flat of the cottage.

 

[Kauffer]

Another relevant ECHR case:

NATUNEN v. FINLAND 21022/04

43. Failure to disclose to the defence material evidence, which contains such particulars which could enable the accused to exonerate himself or have his sentence reduced would constitute a refusal of facilities necessary for the preparation of the defence, and therefore a violation of the right guaranteed in Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see C.G.P., cited above). The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284) and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons (see C.G.P., cited above).

47. Even though the police and the prosecutor were obliged by law to take into consideration both the facts for and against the suspect, a procedure whereby the investigating authority itself, even when co-operating with the prosecution, attempts to assess what may or may not be relevant to the case, cannot comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1.

We keep going on about it don't we, that the calunnia case, the murder case and all of the other cases cannot survive ECHR scrutiny without the judgement of clear Article 6 and other violations. The terrible tragedy is that procedures do not allow for anything other than the wheels of justice to grind exceedingly slow and that both Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox must suffer for it. Indeed, the concern is that Mr Sollecito may even find himself back in prison for a period of time before an ECHR ruling, in which case we shall see how efficient the CofM is in forcing the Italians into restitutio integrum.

But these are very much cases the Italian Government will wish it did not have to deal with.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Science is based on evidence. With evidence, it is important that the evidence is repeatable. . . . . .Oops, we left the object in solution. It is not really evidence because it was destroyed.

-

You and me may think it's bad evidence, but it's still evidence,

And don't forget, a lot of science now-a-days is statistical science. For example, a lot of cancer research is statistical in nature and thus doesn't have to be accurately (100%) repeatable for it to not still be considered good science,

Now that's a real strawman arguement. Ha ha,

d

-

 

[Planigale]

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.

This is interesting. I have always been skeptical about the allegation and disapproving about those who post and say that the Kercher family were involved in the online harassment of Sollecito and Knox.

Mach who probably does have knowledge of the pro-guilt web sites says that the documents they have posted come from the Kercher family lawyers, The Kercher family lawyers would only release these documents with the active encouragement of their clients.

I now have to reverse my opinion, and accept that the Kercher family are actively supporting pro-guilt web sites. Therefore they are actively pursuing a pro-guilt PR campaign.

This shows the problems of tying the civil case for pecuniary damages into the criminal case. Although it would be contrary to ECHR provision of a fair trial for prosecutors authorities to leak these documents, this does not apply to interested parties.

 

[Kauffer]

This is interesting. I have always been skeptical about the allegation and disapproving about those who post and say that the Kercher family were involved in the online harassment of Sollecito and Knox.

Mach who probably does have knowledge of the pro-guilt web sites says that the documents they have posted come from the Kercher family lawyers, The Kercher family lawyers would only release these documents with the active encouragement of their clients.

I now have to reverse my opinion, and accept that the Kercher family are actively supporting pro-guilt web sites. Therefore they are actively pursuing a pro-guilt PR campaign.

This shows the problems of tying the civil case for pecuniary damages into the criminal case. Although it would be contrary to ECHR provision of=n a fair trial to leak these documents, this does not apply to interested parties.

The game's long been up as far as the Kercher family's position in all of this is concerned. They can't really be hiring themselves a pit bull of a lawyer who, for more than seven years has been asserting the guilt of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito both inside and outside court, whilst at the same time behaving in a circumspect manner in front of the media, with plenty of disingenuous chat about the "search for the truth" or whatever it is they like to call what they have been doing to these defendants AND behaving passively behind the scenes.

Nor can they be permitted to sue contemporaneously for a multi million euro settlement, where their enrichment depends upon the convictions and be expected to remain in any sense, impartial, which is what justice demands.

The incentives for the Kerchers are and always have been, all wrong.

I strongly expect, once this case has bitten the dust, either directly in Italy or via the ECHR and the Council of Europe, that these people or their lawyer will claim that "Knox and Sollecito got off on technicalities". And doubtless, "We have been denied justice". Of course what it will really mean is that all they will have been denied is money.

 

[Planigale]

I asked
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".

So you do not identify the telephone number nor do you provide the real name of the individual since I assume by the use of the quotation marks "Lorenzo" this is not his name.

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.

So you say she had phone contact with person A "Lorenzo". But had sex with a completely different person "Frederico". According to Knox she had a single 'romantic' encounter with "Frederico" (not in Perugia) which did not result in sex. So this allegation is not supported by her diary (If you differ the please provide quote). Please reference court testimonies, ideally give quotation but at minimum whose testimony, when, and which court case. You claim multiple sex contacts but have failed to provide evidence of one.

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.

So you admit the articles did not identify "Frederico" or "Lorenzo". The articles named lawyers. Have these cases been signed off by cassation?

The 'police' document does NOT say what you say it does. It does not say Knox had sex or contacts with drug dealers. It does say that a contact / acquaintance of Knox had contact with drug dealers. It does not say Knox had any knowledge that this individual had contact with drug dealers.

To summarise your case so far.

Knox had a telephone contact with "Lorenzo", but we do not know what type of contact that was, a text, an incoming call, an out coming call, whether the calls connected, or a saved number. We do not know this because you do not provide the number. Most sources say "Lorenzo's" number was on her phone but do not claim any communication.

Knox had a 'romantic' encounter with a separate individual "Frederico" who was Italian. That did not result in sex. This was not in Perugia, was prior to her residence in Perugia, and there is no evidence of further contact. "Frederico" was not a Perugian resident.

Unnamed other people were convicted of drug dealing in Perugia in 2010. These people may have been known to "Frederico". There is no evidence they had direct contact telephonic or physical contact with Knox. There is no evidence they sold drugs to Knox.

The police document you quote does not say that Knox had contact with the convicted drug dealers.

Mignini appears to be quoted in some sources, something he should not have been doing knowing that Knox's case was on-going.

Remember Knox was screened for drugs and no evidence of cocaine use was found. No-one ever has seen Knox use cocaine. She admitted to alcohol and cannabis use.

 

[Antony]

With respect, that's not an accurate comparison of Perugian and British investigatory mistakes. Firstly, Jill Dando was shot dead on her doorstep.

Not sure why this point is relevant.

Secondly, Barry George was an individual with a relevant criminal history who lived half a mile away. In order for the British police to have matched the stupidity of the Perugians in this case, they would have needed to pin the crime on Helen Doble, Ms Dando's neighbour, who found her body.

That would follow a pattern depressingly familiar in UK cases, too, going back to Timothy Evans. I can think of 2 cases more recently, but unfortunately I can't remember the names involved.

One was a young man who drove to his parents' farm and called the police, after either (he claims) receiving a distress call from them and then discovering their bodies or (the prosecution claim) killing them himself. There is disputed firearm evidence in this case. The other was a small child that went missing, and a youth who helped the police search for her was convicted of murdering her on the basis of traces of blood on a golf club he used to look through undergrowth. It was shown later that the blood was probably picked up from grass near the body as he searched, and he was exonerated.

It was perfectly reasonable that George should have been a person of interest.

Others say it was reasonable that Amanda Knox should be a person of interest. But yes, George should have been eliminated early on as well, and was pursued really because of pressure on the police to solve the case. He was also a far too convenient suspect.

As it turned out, the spurious forensic evidence that convicted George was eventually discredited and he was released following a re-trial. But it did take seven years.

This evidence (a speck of gunpowder residue "found" on George's jacket at a time when the police badly needed it to charge him) was very much in the category of the knife and bra-clasp "evidence" in the Kercher case. It should never have turned an implausible prosecution narrative into judicial fact.