• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
He first climbs up and opens the outer shutter, then climbs down and throws the rock thru the window and forcing the inner shutter open then climbs back up and perches of the sill while putting his arm thru the broken window to open it, opens the window and he's in.

Correct?
Click to expand...

"Correct" in the sense that this is Judge Massei's recreation. Judge Massei did not necessarily argue the impossibility of the climb, but that Rudy would not have done the climb three times.

What the Channel 5 recreation shows is that someone needn't climb up and down three times. The recreation showed that the shutters could easily be manipulated while standing on the top bar of the window-cover below.

None of this is rocket science. The real disturbing thing is that it took a television documentary, six years following the events, to show what Judge Massei should have allowed in his trial - a re-creation, rather than a thought experiment.
 
anglolawyer said:
Pretty much. The shutter may already have swung open in the wind though.
ETA and, as predicted, Platonov is not going to deal with the conclusive glass spray (nor cough the twenty he owes me). Come on guilters! Vibio, Briars, Machiavelli, Platonov, you tsig - can't one of you address it?
Click to expand...

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Hendry shows that the outer shutters (which could not be latched due to warping of the wood, IIRC) could be opened by someone standing adjacent to the cottage wall on the second level and stretching over to reach the nearer one (the one on the right, facing the shutters from outside).
 
Bill Williams said:
"Correct" in the sense that this is Judge Massei's recreation. Judge Massei did not necessarily argue the impossibility of the climb, but that Rudy would not have done the climb three times.

What the Channel 5 recreation shows is that someone needn't climb up and down three times. The recreation showed that the shutters could easily be manipulated while standing on the top bar of the window-cover below.

None of this is rocket science. The real disturbing thing is that it took a television documentary, six years following the events, to show what Judge Massei should have allowed in his trial - a re-creation, rather than a thought experiment.
Click to expand...

A scene Ghirga declined to show Nencini (who expressed interest in it) because he preferred to describe it in words. Hmmm
 
Machiavelli said:
The CP is compatible with the Italian Constitution and with the EC Convention, as for Constitutional Court and all European organs (unconstitutional parts were repealed by CC in the 50s).

Calling the guilters "authoritarian" is beyond idiocy and thus self-defeating. Lines about Fascism, talking lightly or ignorantly about the topic is normally not appreciated. You won't be taken seriously if you do that, your credibility is tagged by that.
Click to expand...

{Highlighting added to quote.}

There is that word compatible again, so beloved by the authoritarians, especially in this case.

The guilters need not take me "seriously" if they do not wish to.

Eventually, the Italian judicial system will be confronted by the ECHR and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, through the Italian government. This will take some time. But it has happened many times before; see, for example, Luca v Italy.
 
Numbers said:
The terms authorititarian and even fascist are not epithets when used appropriately - that is, not a name-calling, but as descriptive words that could be elaborated on using more detailed and specific terms.
Click to expand...

Then use "authoritharian" for the Renzi government. The scholars and officials of the Italian Judiciary are actually liberals and democratic by any standard, including the ECHR (to the development of which they contributed for a major part).
 
Machiavelli said:
They are not illuminating the balcony. They are illuminating the road.
Click to expand...

They aren't? However, thank you for admitting to the plural......

I think the issue is: if a potential burglar went on to the balcony, they would see the street lamps. Unless they went over to the road to see if the balcony was lit or not, they would not know how visible they were.

Below Filomena's window, they are in the complete dark. As the Channel 5 documentary shows, it is easy to accomplish all tasks needed to enter via her window above, while standing on the top bar of the grate over the lower window.

I don't know why you need to make this seem harder than it is..... no wait, yes I do!
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Then use "authoritharian" for the Renzi government. The scholars and officials of the Italian Judiciary are actually liberals and democratic by any standard, including the ECHR (to the development of which they contributed for a major part).
Click to expand...

A further contribution to the development of ECHR case law will no doubt be their fine work in convicting Amanda Knox of Calunnia.

The italian judiciary is the gift that keeps on giving in the ECHR.
 
Bill Williams said:
They aren't? However, thank you for admitting to the plural......

I think the issue is: if a potential burglar went on to the balcony, they would see the street lamps. Unless they went over to the road to see if the balcony was lit or not, they would not know how visible they were.

Below Filomena's window, they are in the complete dark. As the Channel 5 documentary shows, it is easy to accomplish all tasks needed to enter via her window above, while standing on the top bar of the grate over the lower window.

I don't know why you need to make this seem harder than it is..... no wait, yes I do!
Click to expand...

Contrarily from the balcony, Filomena's window is in fact illuminated by the street lamps, and even by the parking lot lamps.
 
Here's a blurb on an upcoming TV appearance for Dr Peter Gill in Italy, I believe tonight.

It would be interesting if any of our Italian viewers would share their thoughts on Dr Gill's interview, and the overall mood of the Italian people, if its possible to say, in advance of the March 2015 cassation hearing.

Here's the link to the blurb and a google translate to english -

http://www.caprinews.it/leggi1.asp?cod=5472

TV: tomorrow night on ReteCapri (No. 20 on the remote) for "crimes & Mysteries" at 22:30 the third and final part dedicated to murder Meredith Kercher. Will speak the world's leading expert DNA Peter Gill 28/01/2015 - continued successfully the new program Crimes & Mysteries, broadcast on ReteCapri (n. 20 on the remote) every Thursday at 22:30 after the movie of the evening. Stories of murder, justice and malagiustizia hosted by journalist Francesco Mura with the constant presence of Professor Francesco Bruno, the doyen of Italian criminologists who with his analysis illuminate even the thick darkness of the mysteries and crimes that they will try to tell.

Apart from Francis Walls and Francesco Bruno, will be numerous prominent personalities from the world of Italian Justice which in turn will take turns to comment on the events analyzed. From De Paolo Pasquali, criminologist and lecturer in Florence; Simonetta Costanzo, psychotherapist and criminologist, Angelo Esposito, criminologist of the Ministry of Justice, Judge Angelo Matteo Socci the Court of Terni; the lawyer Maurizio Cecconelli, the graphologist Alessia Cigliano and many others.
tomorrow will air the third and final part dedicated to Crime Meredith with assistance, in addition to Brown, the world's leading expert DNA Peter Gill. English professor at the University of Oslo that the drafting of Crimes & Mysteries went to interview in London. The replica on Friday after the film's second night at around 24.00, and Saturdays at 19.00.
for information www.retecapri.it - Press M. Mantegazza press@capri.tv
© copyrighted news
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Then use "authoritharian" for the Renzi government. The scholars and officials of the Italian Judiciary are actually liberals and democratic by any standard, including the ECHR (to the development of which they contributed for a major part).
Click to expand...

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Your statement is interesting and puzzling. I have highlighted your statement about the current Italian government. What relationship, if any, does that government have to the Kercher-Knox-Sollecito case at this point?

Why would any average American (such as myself) know enough about that government to characterize it in any way, except to point out that it is the current legitimate parliamentary government of Italy, selected according to democratic principles (as far as I know) and the will of the majority of Italian voters? I can state that I have read that the Renzi government claims to be seeking reforms, but I am fuzzy about the details.

Again, I question the relevance to the topic in this thread of your political statement about the current Italian government.

With regard to your second statement, indeed Italy was one of the founding signatories of the Council of Europe, the Convention, and the ECHR. Ironically, the original intent was that the ECHR would be a true court of appeal, but the Italian delegate suggested that would have the European States yielding too much sovereignty, and enough other delegates agreed, so that the direct powers of the ECHR are limited. Of course, the delegates reflected, as is proper, the desires of their respective governments.

Certainly the judges Italy has contributed to the ECHR have been honorable and well-respected, AFAIK. One of the current vice-presidents (there are two vps) of the ECHR is the judge from Italy, Guido Raimondi.

However, there are many judges in the complex Italian judicial system, and those of us outside Italy have seen the type of justice and reasoning some of those judges deliver, on the basis of this Kercher-Knox-Sollecito case. And frankly, I do not believe that those specific judges (such as Massei, Chieffi, Nencini) demonstrate the impartiality, judgment, and reasoning expected of judges in a democratic society. Others, including many who post here, came to this view before I was at all aware of this issue.

One may think of this whole case, and the known behavior of the Italian police, prosecutors, and judges as a kind of anti-travelog for Italy.
 
Numbers said:
{Highlighting added to quote.}

Your statement is interesting and puzzling. I have highlighted your statement about the current Italian government. What relationship, if any, does that government have to the Kercher-Knox-Sollecito case at this point?
Why would any average American (such as myself) know enough about that government to characterize it in any way, except to point out that it is the current legitimate parliamentary government of Italy, selected according to democratic principles (as far as I know) and the will of the majority of Italian voters? I can state that I have read that the Renzi government claims to be seeking reforms, but I am fuzzy about the details.

Again, I question the relevance to the topic in this thread of your political statement about the current Italian government.

With regard to your second statement, indeed Italy was one of the founding signatories of the Council of Europe, the Convention, and the ECHR. Ironically, the original intent was that the ECHR would be a true court of appeal, but the Italian delegate suggested that would have the European States yielding too much sovereignty, and enough other delegates agreed, so that the direct powers of the ECHR are limited. Of course, the delegates reflected, as is proper, the desires of their respective governments.

Certainly the judges Italy has contributed to the ECHR have been honorable and well-respected, AFAIK. One of the current vice-presidents (there are two vps) of the ECHR is the judge from Italy, Guido Raimondi.

However, there are many judges in the complex Italian judicial system, and those of us outside Italy have seen the type of justice and reasoning some of those judges deliver, on the basis of this Kercher-Knox-Sollecito case. And frankly, I do not believe that those specific judges (such as Massei, Chieffi, Nencini) demonstrate the impartiality, judgment, and reasoning expected of judges in a democratic society. Others, including many who post here, came to this view before I was at all aware of this issue.

One may think of this whole case, and the known behavior of the Italian police, prosecutors, and judges as a kind of anti-travelog for Italy.
Click to expand...

If Mach thinks they're awful, that can only be good news for Amanda, Raf, and justice for Meredith.
 
Here's a copy of the text of Professor Christopher Duggan's site, which may be of interest {emphasis added}:

http://www.reading.ac.uk/history/about/staff/c-j-h-duggan.aspx

Staff Profile:Professor Christopher Duggan

Name:
Professor Christopher Duggan
Job Title:
Professor
Responsibilities:

Teaching:

My teaching responsibilities include undergraduate modules in Italian history, politics, culture and language.


Areas of Interest:

Postgraduate supervision:

I have supervised doctorates on a broad range of topics relating to the political, social and cultural history of modern Italy. These have included topics on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as: education in nineteenth-century Venice; the administration of Libya in the fascist period; the institution of confino under fascism; fascism and the implementation of the racial laws; the cult of Mussolini and the city of Rome; images of Mussolini since 1945; the Jewish experience in France and Italy in the Second World War and its memorialisation; institutional debates and the transition to the post-war republic; attitudes to southern immigrants in Turin in the 1950s and 1960s; the political and ideological career of Mario Vinciguerra; youth movements and the parties of the left in Italy, 1943-60; fascist intellectuals and journals, 1930-43; the canonisation policies of Pope John Paul II; the Socialist Party and Europe in the 1940s and 1950s; Italian anti-fascists and the Spanish Civil War; the British forces in Italy in the First World War.
Research groups / Centres:

Director of the Centre for Modern Italian History
Publications:
I have written and researched extensively on many aspects of modern Italian history. My books include A History of Sicily, with M. I. Finley and D. Mack Smith (Chatto and Windus, 1986), Fascism and the Mafia (Yale University Press, 1989), A Concise History of Italy (Cambridge University Press, 1994), Francesco Crispi. From Nation to Nationalism (Oxford University Press, 2002) and The Force of Destiny. A History of Italy since 1796 (Allen Lane, 2007). All these books have been translated into Italian. My most recent book, Fascist Voices. An Intimate History of Mussolini's Italy (Bodley Head, 2012) was named Political History Book of the Year at the Political Book Awards in February 2013.

I was recently involved in a major three-year AHRC project examining the cult of Mussolini from 1919 to the present. For the exhibition relating to this project, see: http://www.mussolinicult.com/
 
Numbers said:
{Highlighting added to quote.}

Your statement is interesting and puzzling. I have highlighted your statement about the current Italian government. What relationship, if any, does that government have to the Kercher-Knox-Sollecito case at this point?
(..).
Click to expand...

It has relation with the Kercher case at all.
But if you want to call someone "authoritarian", you may note that a fact is the Renzi government intends to reduce the degree of democracy in the country, reduce possibility for citizens to chose members of parliament, reduce democratic representation, people's possibility to vote directly law through legislative referenda, take away the power from local institution, and reduce the powers of control organs. And by the way, the current government is non-elected.
Those kinds of reforms are authoritarian as for their institutional shape (although they do not apparently reduce civil liberties of individuals, they may do so by indirect means).

Justice is not an authoritarian value, by my standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom