Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

What? I'm not about to say whether or not the request for data was a "pretext" ("pretext" for what?). The bottom line is that they were entitled to the data, it was ordered to be provided, and it wasn't. As it turns out, it would have been very useful for the defense, because we now know about all of Stefanoni's data suppression.

Also the data she did supply shows contamination. She claimed in court testimony that no one had ever told her there was contamination in her lab, IIUC. Apparently she failed to look at her data closely enough; she could have told herself.

In terms of ECHR frame of reference, since they are not an appeal court, they are not interested in the reliability of any individual item of evidence per se. However, the ECHR is interested in the fairness of a trial. Thus, if in a trial unreliable evidence was admitted, or if discovery was thwarted, in a way that resulted in an unfair procedure and conviction, then ECHR will judge a violation of Article 6.

 

[Diocletus]

Hellmann didn't think so: he rejected the instance. It was a pretext to request the annulment of Stefanoni's testimony. This is something you admitted.

If by "pretext" you mean "legitimate reason for," then yes, I do admit that. As in, Stefanoni's suppression of the raw data was a legitimate reason to preclude her testimony and dismiss the case. Also, Hellmann didn't care because he already knew that Stefanoni's work was crap, the defendants were innocent, and there was no reason to embarrass the lab beyond what was already known.

I don't think the 2009 request and defence behavior was enough to maintain raw data were requested or that defence wanted them, and I don't think the courts behavior allows to maintain that an order was refused. If the drfence wanted raw data they could have submitted instances to the Supreme Court and other instances before and subsequently. And even if they were refused, it would be not enough to change the outcome of the trial or to annul it.

You only have to ask once. Here: the defense requested all of the data, the court ordered the prosecution to produce it, the prosecution suppressed it in violation of the order, and so the defense sought dismissal of the charges. Yep, that's good enough.

It is a defence's burden, at that stage, to explain the specific purpose why they need certain information, how they want to use it for, why it is necessary, why they couldn't ask for it before, and it's their task to convince the judge and to pursue their interest through other legal channels if not satisfied completely.

More to the point, it is the state's obligation to provide equality of arms.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did Laura say in her testimony that it was just a scratch or a "rather deep" scratch"?

Actually, no. Not exactly. She did not utter the syntagm "deep scratch"; she used a different longer Italian phrase. In her testimony she said several times "scratch", this is what she said multiple times, with no adjectives.
At the end, answering some detailed questions, she said "I'm positive it was a scratch" (not a stain or bruise) " it was even rather thick".
She doesn't say the word "deep" - that is my translation, since I lack an English equivalent - she said "rather thick" using the Italian adjective "spesso"; which does not mean "deep" but rather means something not carved in but instead in relief, sticking out from the surface (a crust, maybe, or an equivalent thickness sticking out).

 

[Numbers]

Hellmann didn't think so: he rejected the instance. It was a pretext to request the annulment of Stefanoni's testimony. This is something you admitted.
I don't think the 2009 request and defence behavior was enough to maintain raw data were requested or that defence wanted them, and I don't think the courts behavior allows to maintain that an order was refused. If the drfence wanted raw data they could have submitted instances to the Supreme Court and other instances before and subsequently. And even if they were refused, it would be not enough to change the outcome of the trial or to annul it.
It is a defence's burden, at that stage, to explain the specific purpose why they need certain information, how they want to use it for, why it is necessary, why they couldn't ask for it before, and it's their task to convince the judge and to pursue their interest through other legal channels if not satisfied completely.



Nothing alike ever "turned out", what turned out is that Prof.Halkides and Prof. Zupancic decided to start a delusional media campaign, showing how desperate the Foas are.

The legal standard internationally including at ECHR is to use the best evidence. Thus, one cannot be convicted of fraud, for example, based on the prosecution producing a copy of an allegedly forged check; the orignal allegedly forged check must be produced. Otherwise, the assumption is that the prosecution or some other party may have manipulated the copy to show a forgery that would not be evident on the original document.

For DNA profiling, the best evidence is the Electronic Data Files. The paper graphs made from the EDFs can be manipulated in any one of several ways to present the data in a deceptive fashion. Therefore, only the EDFs can be considered the best evidence. And this may be considered a general international standard.

 

[Numbers]

Actually, no. Not exactly. She did not utter the syntagm "deep scratch"; she used a different longer Italian phrase. In her testimony she said several times "scratch", this is what she said multiple times, with no adjectives.
At the end, answering some detailed questions, she said "I'm positive it was a scratch" (not a stain or bruise) " it was even rather thick".
She doesn't say the word "deep" - that is my translation, since I lack an English equivalent - she said "rather thick" using the Italian adjective "spesso"; which does not mean "deep" but rather means something not carved in but instead in relief, sticking out from the surface (a crust, maybe, or an equivalent thickness sticking out).

Google Translate renders "spesso" as "thick" or "dense".

Based on the photo from of Amanda Knox standing next to Raffaele Sollecito outside the cottage, the mark on her neck is a wide hickey.

It doesn't have the appearance of a scratch or a cut. I also doubt that fingernails would make such a wide mark.

ETA: Is it possible that people in Italy are not familiar with hickeys? Or maybe just Laura wasn't?

 

[MDDVS]

Actually, no. Not exactly. She did not utter the syntagm "deep scratch"; she used a different longer Italian phrase. In her testimony she said several times "scratch", this is what she said multiple times, with no adjectives.
At the end, answering some detailed questions, she said "I'm positive it was a scratch" (not a stain or bruise) " it was even rather thick".
She doesn't say the word "deep" - that is my translation, since I lack an English equivalent - she said "rather thick" using the Italian adjective "spesso"; which does not mean "deep" but rather means something not carved in but instead in relief, sticking out from the surface (a crust, maybe, or an equivalent thickness sticking out).

Thank you. Is it possible for you to post the whole thing in italian? I would like to read the whole phrase.

 

[MDDVS]

Google Translate renders "spesso" as "thick" or "dense".

Based on the photo from of Amanda Knox standing next to Raffaele Sollecito outside the cottage, the mark on her neck is a wide hickey.

It doesn't have the appearance of a scratch or a cut. I also doubt that fingernails would make such a wide mark.

ETA: Is it possible that people in Italy are not familiar with hickeys? Or maybe just Laura wasn't?

No, I don't think so. Is it easy for you to post the picture, I'd like to have a look.

 

[Samson]

Kauffer,

Thanks for the quote from Peter Gill. This is an issue that was raised by the National Academies of Science in their 2009 report. IIRC they recommended splitting forensic labs away from the police and attaching the labs to universities.

Chris, I must say that I have never before imagined a more profound shift in any world view I could hold. I realise the fates of innocent people have been held in the hands of the wrong authorities.

For example

Arthur Thomas.
Lindy Chamberlain.
Amanda Knox.

I hope this case will help people understand that if they trust science for safe travel, they must trust science for safe justice.

 

[Diocletus]

English equivalent - she said "rather thick" using the Italian adjective "spesso"; which does not mean "deep" but rather means something not carved in but instead in relief, sticking out from the surface (a crust, maybe, or an equivalent thickness sticking out).

Are you sure she wasn't talking about Rudy's turd?

 

[Diocletus]

del

 

[Numbers]

This one

Google Translate renders "spesso" as "thick" or "dense".

Based on the photo from of Amanda Knox standing next to Raffaele Sollecito outside the cottage, the mark on her neck is a wide hickey.

It doesn't have the appearance of a scratch or a cut. I also doubt that fingernails would make such a wide mark.

ETA: Is it possible that people in Italy are not familiar with hickeys? Or maybe just Laura wasn't?

No, I don't think so. Is it easy for you to post the picture, I'd like to have a look.

The link was provided a day or so ago by Desert Fox (1st quote above). If that somehow isn't working, the post was #2196.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you. Is it possible for you to post the whole thing in italian? I would like to read the whole phrase.

At trial, Laura said what caught her attention about the mark was that it was in the same place on Amanda where Laura presumed Meredith had been fatally wounded. Laura said she was sure other people had seen the mark on Amanda, and she initially assumed (feared) that maybe Amanda had been somehow wounded during the attack on Meredith (albeit that Laura at the time of thinking it, she assumed that Amanda was innocent and simply caught up as an innocent bystander).

Nick Squires wrote about the day of Laura's testimony - however, if I understand correctly, Laura's remarks about the hickey never really caught on with anyone else at trial. Apparently, the giant, deep gash Laura saw was not noticed by anyone else; and more importantly when the police photographed Knox on the 6th (4 1/2 days after the murder, not 6 like Machiavelli tried to slip in), the notation on the photo said that it had to be enhanced for the mark even to be visible in the photo.

The larger issue in these testimonies was Amanda's cleanliness, though, not the hickey - as a potential reason why Meredith and Amanda might have been fighting; and subsequently as a possible motive for murder. Yet as Machiavelli reminds us, these are just speculations anyway - you wouldn't want prosecutors to actually enter EVIDENCE at a trial - Machiavelli is all right with turning speculations into hard evidence!

The reality is that the hickey issue is and always has been a non-starter. It functions as yet another item in, "all the other evidence," which when looked into becomes vapourware.

"All the other evidence" is shorthand for everything Mignini tried to throw at this case hoping something would stick. When the DNA and superwitness evidence fell apart in 2011, the "all the other evidence" could be seen for what it was.

 

[Bill Williams]

The fading hickey as photographed on Nov 6.

 

[Desert Fox]

The fading hickey as photographed on Nov 6.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154bfe08d3f0c2.jpg[/qimg]

Definitely not her natural skin tone. . . . .

 

[Diocletus]

The fading hickey as photographed on Nov 6.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154bfe08d3f0c2.jpg[/qimg]

Surprising that she was able to pull through after sustaining that wound.

So let's see if I have this right:

Guede hand wounds not related to crime because nobody saw blood;
Knox neck "wound" related to crime even though no one saw blood.

While they were taking this picture, did they happen to photograph the area of her head where they hit her? Because she had made the allegation in her letter, so naturally they would investigate. Also, there probably wouldn't have been any blood, so obviously any mark would be crime-related, unless it was Guede.

 

[Bill Williams]

Surprising that she was able to pull through after sustaining that wound.

So let's see if I have this right:

Guede hand wounds not related to crime because nobody saw blood;
Knox neck "wound" related to crime even though no one saw blood.

While they were taking this picture, did they happen to photograph the area of her head where they hit her? Because she had made the allegation in her letter, so naturally they would investigate. Also, there probably wouldn't have been any blood, so obviously any mark would be crime-related, unless it was Guede.

This is the part where Machiavelli uses one of his rhetorical escape routes. He'll either say that he was never claiming that Laura's remarks were meant to be "guilt-sounding", or he'll accuse all of us of using Laura as a "human shield" to hide the obviousness of the nature of that mortal wound on Amanda's neck.

Or..... he'll finally admit that Mr. Kercher's and Nadeau's separate writing about Mignini's Satanic cult motive is at the very least on the same level as claiming that Laura's testimony should trump police photos......

 

[Welshman]

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.

I was not admitting in my post that Amanda and Raffaele have lied. My point was the PGP accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying regardless of whether they have lied or not. Unlike the PGP, when I am discussing on the internet, I do not make allegations of lying lightly and will only do so if I have evidence to back up my case.

The reason why I suspect Machiavelli of lying is that he makes accusations but is on vague on details. For instance, he accuses Amanda of having the numbers of drug dealers on the phone. If this was true, who were these drugs dealers? What were their names? When did their numbers end up on Amanda's contacts? What were the numbes of the dealers? Were there were any records of any texts or phone calls between Amanda and the dealers? Was there any evidence Amanda knew the dealers were dealing in drugs? I get supicious when people make accusations but are unable to provide details.

These are details of the lies the prosecution told https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/ http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html to prove the notion the prosecution told numerous lies is not a conspiracy fantasy. It is hypocritical for Machiavelli and other PGP to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when slavishly supporting corrupt police and prosecutors who told numerous lies.

Machiavelli argues that the lies told in books and documentaries don't matter because they are not evidence in court. Regardless of whether these books are evidence in court, it is hypocritical for the PGP to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when ignoring lies told in books. As mentioned in my post John Kercher's book Meredith received glowing 5 star reviews on Amazon. It is hypocritical for PGP to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when giving slavish praise for a book filled with falsehoods.

The Nencini report and the Chiefi report were filled with falsehoods and unlike books on the case, they were court judgements. Strangely the PGP never attack Nencini and Chiefi for lying.

Machiavelli claims themurderofmeredithkercher.com is full of authentic trial documents. The website is full of false claims which do appear in court and evidence is distorted.

 

[Numbers]

Google Translate renders "spesso" as "thick" or "dense".

Based on the photo from of Amanda Knox standing next to Raffaele Sollecito outside the cottage, the mark on her neck is a wide hickey.

It doesn't have the appearance of a scratch or a cut. I also doubt that fingernails would make such a wide mark.

ETA: Is it possible that people in Italy are not familiar with hickeys? Or maybe just Laura wasn't?

No, I don't think so. Is it easy for you to post the picture, I'd like to have a look.

This is the part where Machiavelli uses one of his rhetorical escape routes. He'll either say that he was never claiming that Laura's remarks were meant to be "guilt-sounding", or he'll accuse all of us of using Laura as a "human shield" to hide the obviousness of the nature of that mortal wound on Amanda's neck.

Or..... he'll finally admit that Mr. Kercher's and Nadeau's separate writing about Mignini's Satanic cult motive is at the very least on the same level as claiming that Laura's testimony should trump police photos......

The point is that there are some people in Italy who don't know what a hickey is. That's the basis for this cluster miscarriage of justice.

Probably the police and prosecutors firstly; secondly, the guilters.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is the part where Machiavelli uses one of his rhetorical escape routes. He'll either say that he was never claiming that Laura's remarks were meant to be "guilt-sounding", or he'll accuse all of us of using Laura as a "human shield" to hide the obviousness of the nature of that mortal wound on Amanda's neck.

Or..... he'll finally admit that Mr. Kercher's and Nadeau's separate writing about Mignini's Satanic cult motive is at the very least on the same level as claiming that Laura's testimony should trump police photos......

Laura Mezzetti is a court witness who was undergoing a cross questioning.

Authors and journalists reporting their opinions and stories are not witnesses.

There is no symmetry, legal moral or logical, between a court witness, and a person outside the court who is not a witness and is cross-questioned.

Laura Mezzetti's statement belongs to the trial papers.


Your assertions - or even others alleged assertions - about "satanic" theories or "ritualistic killing" scenario, are just disproven by the court papers.

What you do is you cherry pick the Halloween comment from the prosecution arguments, and you completely omit the rest of the arguments, which presents a theroy which is not a ritualistic killing theory, which is not a satanic theory, but a scenario completely different and incompatible with your (or others') allegations. And also, where the actual meaning of the Halloween comment and the actual place of it in the scale of importance is explained, showing how it is only describing a possible theme inspiring the "party", maybe just about the date of its taking place.

In fact, this is your peculiar MO as a poster. You just shun from direct facts, what you really intend and love to do is to "use" indirectly statements of others, statements which you often interpret yourself and you "attribute" (in fact crooking or twisting them).

You have no intention of admitting that your allegations are unsubstantiated and are unsupported by the trial papers. You simply like to use allegations of others (that you even attribute yourself without quoting them).

I want to repeat: what you say about the "ritual killing" scenario is disproven by the actual prosecution arguments. But not only that: your assertion that the prosecution pushed a premeditated murder is shown to be false, obviously false based on reading the simple legal structure of the charges presented by the prosecution. The prosecution always presented a non-premeditate murder scenario, and never a "ritualistic killing".
Moreover, the word "rito" doesn't even exist in the prosecution arguments.

These are facts, facts from the papers, from inside the curtroom, not alleged comments from people made outside the trial.

And the assertion that Massei presented a "Rudy's lust alone" motive as opposed to the prosecution's theory, is also disproven, by simply reading Massei's statements about Knox and Sollecito at pages 393, 399 and 405, where you can obviously see how your interpretation, about the implication you chose to attribute to the paragraph "Rudy didn't need encouragement to pursue his lustful action", is a wrong implication.
Your interpretation is proven to be your own arbitrary twisting and false. But you have a peculiar attitude, a way of thinking; not just about this or that passage, but overall strange ideas about what you think a motivations report should talk about or what "evidence" and "motive" is.

 

[Diocletus]

Laura Mezzetti is a court witness who was undergoing a cross questioning.

Authors and journalists reporting their opinions and stories are not witnesses.

There is no symmetry, legal moral or logical, between a court witness, and a person outside the court who is not a witness and is cross-questioned.

Laura Mezzetti's statement belongs to the trial papers.


Your assertions - or even others alleged assertions - about "satanic" theories or "ritualistic killing" scenario, are just disproven by the court papers.

What you do is you cherry pick the Halloween comment from the prosecution arguments, and you completely omit the rest of the arguments, which presents a theroy which is not a ritualistic killing theory, which is not a satanic theory, but a scenario completely different and incompatible with your (or others') allegations. And also, where the actual meaning of the Halloween comment and the actual place of it in the scale of importance is explained, showing how it is only describing a possible theme inspiring the "party", maybe just about the date of its taking place.

In fact, this is your peculiar MO as a poster. You just shun from direct facts, what you really intend and love to do is to "use" indirectly statements of others, statements which you often interpret yourself and you "attribute" (in fact crooking or twisting them).

You have no intention of admitting that your allegations are unsubstantiated and are unsupported by the trial papers. You simply like to use allegations of others (that you even attribute yourself without quoting them).

I want to repeat: what you say about the "ritual killing" scenario is disproven by the actual prosecution arguments. But not only that: your assertion that the prosecution pushed a premeditated murder is shown to be false, obviously false based on reading the simple legal structure of the charges presented by the prosecution. The prosecution always presented a non-premeditate murder scenario, and never a "ritualistic killing".
Moreover, the word "rito" doesn't even exist in the prosecution arguments.

These are facts, facts from the papers, from inside the curtroom, not alleged comments from people made outside the trial.

And the assertion that Massei presented a "Rudy's lust alone" motive as opposed to the prosecution's theory, is also disproven, by simply reading Massei's statements about Knox and Sollecito at pages 393, 399 and 405, where you can obviously see how your interpretation, about the implication you chose to attribute to the paragraph "Rudy didn't need encouragement to pursue his lustful action", is a wrong implication.
Your interpretation is proven to be your own arbitrary twisting and false. But you have a peculiar attitude, a way of thinking; not just about this or that passage, but overall strange ideas about what you think a motivations report should talk about or what "evidence" and "motive" is.

Whatever. Even if they couldn't get away with saying it out loud, you know those dirty perverts were all fantasizing about a ritualistic Halloween sex murder.