Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

How would he get funds to compensate the Kerchers?

He won't.

 

[Machiavelli]

According to you, prosecutors are allowed to speculate about motive instead of bringing evidence. Perhaps that's what Massei was doing to.

The "instead of bringing evidence" is not part of my thought, it has been arbitrarilly added by you.

Prosecutors are allowed to speculate. Full stop.

They are also expected to bring sufficient evidence for the charges.

 

[Machiavelli]

Could your name calling be related to the fact that Preston is a successful writer of novels and nonfiction and Spezi a successful journalist and nonfiction writer, while others are not so successful as authors?

Mignini has written a book, hasn't he?

No, he hasn't.

 

[Bill Williams]

The "instead of bringing evidence" is not part of my thought, it has been arbitrarilly added by you.

Prosecutors are allowed to speculate. Full stop.

They are also expected to bring sufficient evidence for the charges.

Where you and I part company is that they have never done that latter thing - my opinion is that this is reflected in the motivations reports which literally reinvent the crime with their own speculations.

But you and I will never agree on that. I know little about the ECHR, but if the others on this thread are right, it may take an application there to sort this out for justice's sake.

Thanks for your time Machiavelli - you are a passionate person. You are passionate about defending Mignini: all of us hope to have one friend like you, passionate about us.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh right. It's just that if I, as a normal private citizen with no connection whatsoever to the case, contacted a lawyer connected to (for example) the recent conviction of Lewis Daynes for the murder of Breck Bednor here in the UK, and asked for copies of documents etc, do you know what the answer would be? Well, I probably wouldn't even get an answer. It's none of my business, you see, and it's a waste of the lawyers' time to be providing it to me. Unless, of course, that lawyer is not as ethically proper as (s)he should be, and that lawyer sees some sort of advantage from providing me with those documents etc.......

(Which comes back to my point from a while back: either those requesting and receiving this information are much more than the "concerned private citizens" they pertain to be, or the lawyers providing this information are playing a very interesting game.)

"very interesting game" is big words.

Those lawyers consider the case over by now, and yes, we are friends, we are no longer people unconnected to the case. Sorry but really I can't follow you. You perfectly know that there are several people writing on this forum who were in contact with the Knox family or her defence lawyers, people who have received many kind of documents, including medico-legal documents and censored crime scene photos.
And they did so years ago, many years before we had any contacts with the Kercher lawyrs, and long before the site themurderofmeredithkercher.com existed.
Would you call Knox and Sollecito's parties "unethical" for releasig those trial documents to the FoAs? If you meant to complain about that being unethical or strange, you are a bit late. Would now regard the Knox/Sollecito's behaviour of releasing court documents to friends as "strange"? Would you call that "unathical" and suspiciously depict it as a "very interesting game" because of "some sort of advantage" they may get?

I don't care how you see it. I care what might be the incentive for those lawyers taking the time (unbilled, presumably) and the trouble to interact with "ordinary Joe" random strangers. And the incentive and motivation for the Kercher family to authorise these interactions, if they indeed have done so.

The incentive is obvious: it is the same incentive for which a community like PMF is engaged in internet activity. It is a negative incentive, that is the existence of a political PR campaign by the pro-Knox side.

It is obvious that the Knox camp has been play politically, and will go on playing politically in the media arena as well as behnd the scene. It is also obvious to us that they also played some dirty tricks at other levels, such as within the Italian judiciary, and in alliance with other subjects.

 

[Machiavelli]

Where you and I part company is that they have never done that latter thing - my opinion is that this is reflected in the motivations reports which literally reinvent the crime with their own speculations.

It's a problem with your peculiar way of thinking: you think the "motive" or the "narrative" are "evidence".

 

[Diocletus]

"very interesting game" is big words.

Those lawyers consider the case over by now, and yes, we are friends, we are no longer people unconnected to the case. Sorry but really I can't follow you. You perfectly know that there are several people writing on this forum who were in contact with the Knox family or her defence lawyers, people who have received many kind of documents, including medico-legal documents and censored crime scene photos.
And they did so years ago, many years before we had any contacts with the Kercher lawyrs, and long before the site themurderofmeredithkercher.com existed.
Would you call Knox and Sollecito's parties "unethical" for releasig those trial documents to the FoAs? If you meant to complain about that being unethical or strange, you are a bit late. Would now regard the Knox/Sollecito's behaviour of releasing court documents to friends as "strange"? Would you call that "unathical" and suspiciously depict it as a "very interesting game" because of "some sort of advantage" they may get?



The incentive is obvious: it is the same incentive for which a community like PMF is engaged in internet activity. It is a negative incentive, that is the existence of a political PR campaign by the pro-Knox side.

It is obvious that the Knox camp has been play politically, and will go on playing politically in the media arena as well as behnd the scene. It is also obvious to us that they also played some dirty tricks at other levels, such as within the Italian judiciary, and in alliance with other subjects.

Tell maresca to lay off the hair grease.

 

[Bill Williams]

Where you and I part company is that they have never done that latter thing - my opinion is that this is reflected in the motivations reports which literally reinvent the crime with their own speculations.

It's a problem with your peculiar way of thinking: you think the "motive" or the "narrative" are "evidence".

So say you. Yours is such a powerful agenda, truthfully I am not sure you are able to discern things like that. You have said before that you regard folk like me as "enemy", and I have taken that to mean that you will purposely distort anything (or any one person) to fit your own narrative of why that is so.

Your style here is one of enemy combat rather than understanding. Speaking personally, there is not much enlightening in your posts - they serve a very focussed goal, to defend Mignini - not even so much to convince others of AK and RS's guilt.

But that is just me. Your mileage varies. I am sure there are those who agree with you.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It's a problem with your peculiar way of thinking: you think the "motive" or the "narrative" are "evidence".

-

I have a peculiar way of thinking too and so do you Mach, in my opinion. No insult intended.

For example, you think the rules of evidence are more important than the evidence itself, Please, correct me if I'm wrong here. There are other people who are peculiar like that too, but that don't make it any less peculiar.

Another example, I personally started out thinking they were guilty and then probably innocent and I then became arrogant and aggressive and insulting, but time has made me just want to have an intelligent conversation about the whole thing and forget all the bs.

That's my peculiar way of thinking,

d

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

resurrection of a old fallacy

But the presence of Knox's blood on the murder scene - and thus possibly on the knife - stems not from Knox's possible wounds, but from another element: the certainty of the presence of Knox's blood in the small bathroom.
SNIP
Knox's blood so was actually there on the murder scene, in a context where it was mixed with Meredith's blood, it was not there on the previous night and it was an object of lies.

Your comment deserves this response: link

DNA can derive from blood, saliva, perspiration, and sebaceous fluid, etc. I would hope that the Carabinieri do not claim that one can deduce what type of fluid or tissue produced the DNA. As for Ms. Knox's blood, are you using the fact that she said the bathroom had been clean to infer the age of the blood? The spot of blood on the faucet was pretty small, and Ms. Knox was not Mrs. Doubtfire when it came to household chores. Ms. Knox's pillow had a small spot of blood which is consistent with the hypothesis that her earlobe was bleeding.

Ms. Knox's forensic traces have been the subject of seven years of lies from the PG commentariat. There is no mixed blood, and there is no excuse for perpetuating this particular lie. As for the location of trace 36-I, here is a link showing the proper way to hold a chef's knife.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

oh yes we do need those stinkin' peak heights

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.

What about defense experts brought onto the case later? Don't they have a right to see the best evidence? Trying to interpret egrams without the peak heights is a little like flying an airplane without a map or compass. What you are describing is an indefensible legal system.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your comment deserves this response: link

DNA can derive from blood, saliva, perspiration, and sebaceous fluid, etc. I would hope that the Carabinieri do not claim that one can deduce what type of fluid or tissue produced the DNA. As for Ms. Knox's blood, are you using the fact that she said the bathroom had been clean to infer the age of the blood? The spot of blood on the faucet was pretty small, and Ms. Knox was not Mrs. Doubtfire when it came to household chores. Ms. Knox's pillow had a small spot of blood which is consistent with the hypothesis that her earlobe was bleeding.

Ms. Knox's forensic traces have been the subject of seven years of lies from the PG commentariat. There is no mixed blood, and there is no excuse for perpetuating this particular lie. As for the location of trace 36-I, here is a link showing the proper way to hold a chef's knife.

If there had been mixed-blood, I'd probably be a guilter. It was in reading Massei on this issue, after reading harry Rag's carpet bombing of news comments-sections, that helped turn me around.

Massei continually talks about Knox's biological material mixed with Meredith's blood. It sounds as-if Massei is quite careful in making the distinction.... in fact, the way Massei describes how (in his fantasy) that Knox's biological material ends up being mixed with Meredith's blood, is as Massei narrates - it is in rubbing Meredith's blood off of herself, that Knox sloughs off skin cells which remain mixed.

Now there's a whole host of questions being begged with that description. Any idiot can see what they are - for one thing, why is no trace of a blood-covered Knox found in Meredith's room? (Esp. when Massei does not describe a clean-up in that room, selective or otherwise!)

Nencini's report is just not specific enough for a reader to tell what he's claiming.... is he claiming Knox's blood is mixed with Meredith's? Nencini is just not that clear.

But on and on it goes. Suffice it to say - like reading Follains' "A Death in Italy" - reading Massei makes one wonder, really, if he actually thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent, it's just that to say so would mean implying that the police and prosecutors are frauds.

Come to think of it, I think even Harry Rag has given up on mixed blood. Someone can correct me if I have that wrong.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, there's more evidence than just the DNA on the bra-clasp.

I tend to think of most of it as probably bad evidence or at least the innocent explanation makes more sense, but I do understand why the probably guilty crowd thinks the sheer weight of it is just way too much to ignore. I just disagree with them on the quality of the evidence, but some of the evidence IS better than the rest, but it's still evidence none the less.

But, this is all just my opinion,

Mark Crislip is a doctor who writes on science based medicine who has a good quote:
"If you collect individual cow pies into a larger pile, it does not transmogrify into gold."

I don't see what we have is data points, I see what we have is are in effect cow pies.

 

[JREF2010]

If there had been mixed-blood, I'd probably be a guilter. It was in reading Massei on this issue, after reading harry Rag's carpet bombing of news comments-sections, that helped turn me around.

Massei continually talks about Knox's biological material mixed with Meredith's blood. It sounds as-if Massei is quite careful in making the distinction.... in fact, the way Massei describes how (in his fantasy) that Knox's biological material ends up being mixed with Meredith's blood, is as Massei narrates - it is in rubbing Meredith's blood off of herself, that Knox sloughs off skin cells which remain mixed.

Now there's a whole host of questions being begged with that description. Any idiot can see what they are - for one thing, why is no trace of a blood-covered Knox found in Meredith's room? (Esp. when Massei does not describe a clean-up in that room, selective or otherwise!)

Nencini's report is just not specific enough for a reader to tell what he's claiming.... is he claiming Knox's blood is mixed with Meredith's? Nencini is just not that clear.

But on and on it goes. Suffice it to say - like reading Follains' "A Death in Italy" - reading Massei makes one wonder, really, if he actually thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent, it's just that to say so would mean implying that the police and prosecutors are frauds.

Come to think of it, I think even Harry Rag has given up on mixed blood. Someone can correct me if I have that wrong.

Nencini's report reminds me of someone from 2007 that doesnt know anything and has much mixed up and yet is trying to support his political team.

In Italy it seems they like to pass the buck knowing "someone else" has to make a real decision and its not their fault if things get whacked up, because theres so many people throwing crap at the wall, judges like Nencini are left with too much to digest, so they do like a Fast Food court, and zip through some headlines and write a retarded, fictional report that hardly no one can understand and actually makes little sense.

Hellman, took the biggest pieces of evidence and focused on those which is logical. He took the Knife, the bra clasp and the eye witness.
All the other garbage evidence was lesser of importance, as most would see it. The big three were focused on in depth and we all know how that came out.

For a second I saw logic rising and the truth slowly surfacing, Matteni, to Micheli, to Massei, to Hellman and the three main pieces of evidence of the case.

Then the retarded judge, Nencini, he was just stupid, like going backwards or hopelessly unable to take the time to read 7yrs of evidence and testimony.

I really feel more people on the forums pro-guilt and pro-innocence know more about the case than Nencini seems to.

He was literally a waste of time other than "trace I".

 

[Kauffer]

This is the opinion of Halkides and of the pro-Knix crowd. It is not the opinion of courts and law, since they have all rejected the defence instances on the point. The procedure provides for appropriate legal options to pursue their access to the material and processes that build the evidence, and the defence chose not to follow those available paths on several points. It was their steategic choice. Even posters like Diocletus have admitted that the "late discovery" complain was a pretext.



Because they were requested to do so. There was a written request for raw data deposited at the time of their appointment.
Also Stefanoni allows access to raw data when she was requested: Novelli was allowed access to the raw data files directly at the laboratory computers. This happened when the evidence discussion phase was formally re-opened by the Hellmann court on this piece of evidence. The defence did not make thus request; they chose to wait for Vecchiotti's work (this obviously suggests that they knew they were corrupt).



I do not defend any specific disclosure nor lack thereof, I only defend procedure principles, since I believe there are principles of law involved. In all directions. Specifically, I am against the use of "lack of discovery" on this case as an artificial pretext meant to serve as a defence ploy (and often also as a propaganda ploy outside the courtroom).

Maybe it would be better on some aspects to have much more details about pieces of evidence available to the parties and to the public from the beginning of a trial, better only under some aspects, not all. But it is not in the nature of a trial to have that, nor to re- open discussion on the formation of pieces of evidence ad infinitum. There is a matter of principle of this that you really seem to not understand. A trial is not a scientific investigation, it is a process of decision -making; discussion cannot be refined or reopened freely. This principle is valid for all justice system, not just for the Italian one.
Evidence is something that is "formed" or shaped in an adversarial process, by which parties are supposed to have equal possibility to access information. But once it's formed, it's shaped. It has that shape, it was made through that process and contains that information, it may not be possible nor fair, procedurally, to re-assess original material and process through which it was formed.

A trial is about evidence and in matters of evidence and access to it, the principle of "equality of arms" is operative. I'm really not actually sure what it is about this situation you are trying to defend. Your arguments are obtuse. Massei ordered disclosure; the prosecution did not comply. What you are saying is that parties connected to the prosecution had access to all the evidence but that parties connected to the defence did not. That is unsustainable.

Why did Barni/Berti turn over their data if it is not relevant?

If the case ends up in front of the ECHR as it will if Cassation confirms in March, then it will attract violations based purely on the lack of discovery.

This idea of yours about the shaping and forming of evidence, sounds very much like manipulation of facts, some of which are not even in evidence, to produce a pre-determined result.

You really need to start doing some work on the relationship between the ECHR, the Italian constitution and Italian ccp to discover how utterly out of step your view of Italian law is - that it could possibly be hermetically sealed from the influence of internationally agreed human rights legislation, as you seem to think, is entirely illusory. The problem is, of course, that a considerable number of the Italian judiciary seems to believe the same.

Yet decision nos 348, 349 (2007) and 113 (2011) of the constitutional court, and decision no 2800 of the Court of Cassation (2007) should provide you with the framework you (and they) need.

 

[Wattson]

Mark Crislip is a doctor who writes on science based medicine who has a good quote:
"If you collect individual cow pies into a larger pile, it does not transmogrify into gold."

I don't see what we have is data points, I see what we have is are in effect cow pies.

Agree 100%. There is no evidence. NONE.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Mark Crislip is a doctor who writes on science based medicine who has a good quote:
"If you collect individual cow pies into a larger pile, it does not transmogrify into gold."

I don't see what we have is data points, I see what we have is are in effect cow pies.

-

I just don't believe that because someone calls something a cowpie, that makes it a cowpie.

Besides, why should the other side take your evidence and arguement's seriously, when you won't take their's seriously?

d

-

 

[codyjuneau]

There is zero chance that the Kerchers will ever recover any money.

.
I hope they stiff Maresca.

Cody
.

 

[Planigale]

Actually, you didn't quote a statement by Stefanoni. You made a rather different argument, you stated that Stefanoni should have said that it was not certain beyond reasonable doubt that Knox was wielding a knife.
You built this reasoning, in my opinion, onto an illogical process.
You mixed up then some criticism about Stefanoni on legal grounds, which are also legally flawed.



Actually, I did not make a connection between the scratch and the possible blood on the knife. The scratch is a dubious or suspicious element, but there is no sure link between the scratch and blood.
There were actually some other "lesions" or "marks" that were photographed on Knox's body, and noted by Lalli, but he admits in his testimony he doesn't remember about them.

But the presence of Knox's blood on the murder scene - and thus possibly on the knife - stems not from Knox's possible wounds, but from another element: the certainty of the presence of Knox's blood in the small bathroom.

This element is sure, from her own admission and from common sense we can assume it was not there on the previous evening, and above all it is also tagged by another aspect: for being the subject of one of her lies (actually the subject of more than one). In fact, Amanda Knox lied about her blood on the tap, as she told that as she noticed she speculated about whether it had come from her ears, but noticed it was already cobbled on and decided it was not her blood based on the assessment about the size of the bathmat print.
Prosecutor Crini expressed his outrage talking about the stupidity of this lie: Amanda Knox had no memory about bleeding in the bathroom, but this is intrinsicaly not credible: she would have obviously known if she had bled in the bathroom, from her ear or from any other wound.
Not remembering such event is not realistic, not credible.
And frankly, to think that maybe you may be bleeding, but decide that you don't bsed on the calculation of the size of a stain, is unrealistic. When one thinks he/she may have a bleeding wound, they would just immediately just check their own body for wounds, before indulging to deductions.

Knox's blood so was actually there on the murder scene, in a context where it was mixed with Meredith's blood, it was not there on the previous night and it was an object of lies.
In addition to this, we have Knox's DNA - that was attributed to "body fluids" by experts Berti and Barni - which is located at blade insertion. And we know that something most common in stbbings is that, while the victim's blood is found on the weapon point, the murderer often gets cut with the part of the blade close to the handle.
I don't have photos of Knox's hands, thus I don't have confirmation elements; but this presence of a suspect's DNA at the blade insertion is itself a typical indicator, something that points towards a stabbing. The murderer's DNA at the insertion of the blade is not an unlikely event but instead something rather typical in stabbings.

In reverse order.

1) "The murderer's DNA at the insertion of the blade is not an unlikely event but instead something rather typical in stabbings."

Please reference this statement that the murder's DNA is typically found at the insertion of the blade in stabbings (I will accept incorporation of non fatal stabbings as the mechanism should be similar.

2) The knife was tested for blood - negative. It was microscopically examined for cellular material - negative. My ability to read Italian is limited, but I do not think "body fluid" is used, but 'fluidi biologica'. I remain of the opinion that the meaning is that the fluid obtained by sampling the knike contained DNA donated by Knox.

3) The argument that because there a small drop of blood of Knox in her bathroom or on her pillow deposited at an unknown time means that any or all DNA found must originate from her bleeding at the time of the murder is patently illogical.

Mixed blood has long ago been dismissed.

 

[codyjuneau]

But Rudy Guede is supposed to pay them civil penalties.

When he is released from prison, will he still be obligated to pay?

How would he get funds to compensate the Kerchers?

.
Break into houses and steal things just like he did before Meredith's murder, and just like he intended to do the night he broke into her home but got caught with his pants down when she arrived home and surprised him.

Cody
.