Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

I still don't get it. Is this an example of British understated humor? (not trying to be difficult here. Does anyone one see what I'm missing?)

It says county, not country. Obviously I don't believe that the behaviour of one prosecutor and police force in one county is applicable to a country of 300 million people. There are clear parallels between the Faria case and Knox/Sollecito. Good lecture though, cheers.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a possible misunderstanding

I still don't get it. Is this an example of British understated humor? (not trying to be difficult here. Does anyone one see what I'm missing?)

Could you be misreading "county" as "country?" I am not a mind-reader, and I don't even play one on TV, but that is my best guess.
EDT
ninja'd

 

[carbonjam72]

It says county, not country. Obviously I don't believe that the behaviour of one prosecutor and police force in one county is applicable to a country of 300 million people. There are clear parallels between the Faria case and Knox/Sollecito. Good lecture though, cheers.

Yes, the enigma has been resolved. That's my goof, I see it now. My apologies for going off.

Of course, OTOH, do you think there might ever be more than one prosecutor in a single county jurisdiction? Perugia for example, had 3 IIUC. Just saying, not splaining...

 

[lonepinealex]

Yes, the enigma has been resolved. That's my goof, I see it now. My apologies for going off.

Of course, OTOH, do you think there might ever be more than one prosecutor in a single county jurisdiction? Perugia for example, had 3 IIUC. Just saying, not splaining...

I don't understand what you're saying. You asked for more info about the Faria case, specifically his background. I supplied the info, as I've been following that case.

People from Lincoln county who have commented on the case and are supporting Russ have remarked on the notorious corruption in their police force, and the dodgy behaviour of the particular prosecutor of this case (not least that she was having an affair with the lead investigator!). I wasn't passing comment on anything else at all (except the similarities between the two cases).

 

[carbonjam72]

Could you be misreading "county" as "country?" I am not a mind-reader, and I don't even play one on TV, but that is my best guess.
EDT
ninja'd

Yes, thanks for piling on. And don't feel cheated, not many have mind radar.

But a genuine purported mind reader & psychic medium did play a vital role in the formulation of the prosecutor Mignini's theory in this, and his Narducci trail line of cases. And she did play one on Italian TV, anyway.

But I'm afraid if I use the "C" word, the "M" word who mustn't be named will have a conniption.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't understand what you're saying. You asked for more info about the Faria case, specifically his background. I supplied the info, as I've been following that case.

People from Lincoln county who have commented on the case and are supporting Russ have remarked on the notorious corruption in their police force, and the dodgy behaviour of the particular prosecutor of this case (not least that she was having an affair with the lead investigator!). I wasn't passing comment on anything else at all (except the similarities between the two cases).

Ok, you're sketching in much more specific info now. I get it. "Ta-dum"! (no hip swivel).

 

[Numbers]

The review of the article seems to suggest its critical of most people who have criticized the trials of Amanda and Raffaele. And I agree with Diocletus's take on Prof's Head peculiar blindness. (It does raise the question of what Prof Head makes of the complaints he doesn't think are wrong?).

The professor strikes me as one more professional person, using the case for their own purposes, to make some otherwise mind-numbingly dull point that they find relevant in their own research, and thus elevate their research by latching onto a case that has gained traction in the press.

Other point though, was what information the professor had access to? Might his ignorance be a reflection of his having access to news in Italian media? Is that possible? Probably need to see his original article, but the professor strikes me as being strangely blind, in a field where he ought to have some insight.

IMO, part of the problem with Professor Head's comments (as conveyed by the article) is that he is basing them on comparative law, not the actual evidence and its reliability, and not on the actual practice in the courtroom. If one only looked at Italian law and constitution as written (de jure), it would seem relatively fair. The actual practice, as we see in this case, is different.

In the US, we have seen many examples of corrupt police who suborn perjury or manufacture evidence including false confessions, and prosecutors who hide exculpatory evidence or otherwise commit misconduct. The judges in the US are not tied to prosecutors in a functional remnant of the inquisitorial system as the judges in Italy seem to be.

 

[carbonjam72]

IMO, part of the problem with Professor Head's comments (as conveyed by the article) is that he is basing them on comparative law, not the actual evidence and its reliability, and not on the actual practice in the courtroom. If one only looked at Italian law and constitution as written (de jure), it would seem relatively fair. The actual practice, as we see in this case, is different.

In the US, we have seen many examples of corrupt police who suborn perjury or manufacture evidence including false confessions, and prosecutors who hide exculpatory evidence or otherwise commit misconduct. The judges in the US are not tied to prosecutors in a functional remnant of the inquisitorial system as the judges in Italy seem to be.

Completely agree. Reminds me of an article by, not sure of the exact name - Cheriff Bassoumi?, an expert on extradition law, saying any possible extradition request is unlikely to be granted by the US courts on the merits, given the acquittal on appeal, and that the extradition treaty language bars a re-trial on the same acts, facts, or charges (something like that). While the analysis was welcome, it just seemed to breeze over the rampant corruption on display in the case.

I got Dr Gill's book on kindle a few days ago, looking forward to seeing the chapter on the Kercher case. I think Dr Gill's devoting a whole chapter in a book titled - "Misleading DNA in miscarriages of justice", actually does and will have an effect on the Italian judiciary. They now have their hands on literally a "text book case" that's been flagged as a miscarriage of justice. Very hard to understand how they can be indifferent to that kind of exposure, with the ECHR looking over their shoulder. They can still make this go away. If they finalize the conviction, then things get messy and drawn out. Its not like people will just forget about it at this point.

Hey Italian judges: time to let go.

 

[Samson]

I think it is an easy case once a person takes the time to find the information, but there is a lot of conflicting commentary out there, so it takes some time and effort to validate the information. Most won't ever read Hendry's work, and if they do, it will take them some time to confirm that what he says is valid, and not just one opinion using cherry picked pictures. And people don't want to believe that two totally innocent people were railroaded because some cops and the PM didn't like the way they looked and acted, then twisted and misinterpreted any and all case facts to make them look guilty, and got the courts to buy it. It sounds unbelievable as I type it, even though I know that's what happened.

That is interesting to see it that way, but I read Massei, and thought it was beyond ridiculous, but wondered how to explain that true break in, then Hellmann, who was fine, then Hendry, and I wasted no more time on believing Massei. Luca Cheli wrapped it up by describing the serial absurdity of Massei in an infallible way. I come from an engineering and modal logic background, but I don't believe anything but common sense is required to get the case safely across the line for the defence.

ETA I batted away on disqus before accidentally discovered JREF which saved my sanity, thank you everyone!

 

[Dougm]

That is interesting to see it that way, but I read Massei, and thought it was beyond ridiculous, but wondered how to explain that true break in, then Hellmann, who was fine, then Hendry, and I wasted no more time on believing Massei. Luca Cheli wrapped it up by describing the serial absurdity of Massei in an infallible way. I come from an engineering and modal logic background, but I don't believe anything but common sense is required to get the case safely across the line for the defence.

To clarify, I first got interested shortly after Massei was released/translated. Amanda and Raff were in jail, and awaiting the start of the Hellmann trial. I read various articles, websites, etc., trying to understand the case against them. I was told (by guilters) to read Massei, and once I did, I was convinced there was no case against them. Further study convinced me they are completely innocent.

What I am pointing out is that the average person, reading an occasional article, watching an interview on the Today show, watching an occasional Nancy Grace type program, doesn't do what people here have done. They don't look at all the pictures, read the judge's reports, etc. Once you do that, most people get it. But I see a lot of writing by supposedly educated people saying things like, "Knox supporters don't understand the process in Italy". If that is their opinion, I know they haven't really looked into the case closely enough, because, as said here earlier, this is not about comparing justice systems, it is about wrongful convictions. That concept transcends cultures and geographic boundries.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, thanks for piling on. And don't feel cheated, not many have mind radar.

But a genuine purported mind reader & psychic medium did play a vital role in the formulation of the prosecutor Mignini's theory in this, and his Narducci trail line of cases. And she did play one on Italian TV, anyway.

But I'm afraid if I use the "C" word, the "M" word who mustn't be named will have a conniption.

But this is false. You have evidence of the contrary (besides the loads of testimonies and evidence that makes the Narducci case).
Carlizzi's theory was basically different from Mignini's. Carlizzi had an aesthetic criterion. She theorized the Monster of Florence was Spezi, while Narducci had nothing to do with the Florence murders and he was a victim.
Mignini found evidence that Narducci was the "Monster of Florence", and wasn't interested in Spezi; he arrested him later on only because it was Spezi himself who became interested in the case and started to commit crimes to side-track the investigation (among which his plotting with Zaccaria to plant false evidence against Vinci).

 

[Machiavelli]

To clarify, I first got interested shortly after Massei was released/translated. Amanda and Raff were in jail, and awaiting the start of the Hellmann trial. I read various articles, websites, etc., trying to understand the case against them. I was told (by guilters) to read Massei, and once I did, I was convinced there was no case against them. Further study convinced me they are completely innocent.

What I am pointing out is that the average person, reading an occasional article, watching an interview on the Today show, watching an occasional Nancy Grace type program, doesn't do what people here have done. They don't look at all the pictures, read the judge's reports, etc. Once you do that, most people get it. But I see a lot of writing by supposedly educated people saying things like, "Knox supporters don't understand the process in Italy". If that is their opinion, I know they haven't really looked into the case closely enough, because, as said here earlier, this is not about comparing justice systems, it is about wrongful convictions. That concept transcends cultures and geographic boundries.

I would have said the same about the innocentisti. Based on the idiocies they say, I would think they can't read the actual trial papers (maybe they never read them because they don't no the language) or they cannot understand them as legal docs.

 

[Samson]

I would have said the same about the innocentisti. Based on the idiocies they say, I would think they can't read the actual trial papers (maybe they never read them because they don't no the language) or they cannot understand them as legal docs.

Trial documents have nothing to do with inviolable laws of physics and the more fuzzy laws of biology, that prove innocence and non involvement beyond any doubt.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would have said the same about the innocentisti. Based on the idiocies they say, I would think they can't read the actual trial papers (maybe they never read them because they don't no the language) or they cannot understand them as legal docs.

Ok. When Judge Nencini says that both bits of Amanda's DNA were found on the knife handle, is that an idiocy? And given that the knife was thoroughly cleaned, is not the presence of Amanda's DNA proof of her handling it AFTER the murder, not during?

 

[carbonjam72]

But this is false. You have evidence of the contrary (besides the loads of testimonies and evidence that makes the Narducci case).
Carlizzi's theory was basically different from Mignini's. Carlizzi had an aesthetic criterion. She theorized the Monster of Florence was Spezi, while Narducci had nothing to do with the Florence murders and he was a victim.
Mignini found evidence that Narducci was the "Monster of Florence", and wasn't interested in Spezi; he arrested him later on only because it was Spezi himself who became interested in the case and started to commit crimes to side-track the investigation (among which his plotting with Zaccaria to plant false evidence against Vinci).

Did not Mignini say he thought it was interesting that Spezi knew both Mario Vanni and the pharmacist Francesco Calamandrei, who Mignini also accused of being the 'monster of florence'? (do I need to look that up, I'm sure I've seen it?).

And did not Mignini argue at Spezi's hearing the day he was released, in April of 2006, that Spezi was too dangerous to let go free, because he had managed to organize an international PR campaign all in his favor - and managed to do this from his prison cell?

Specifically, what evidence did Mignini believe Spezi was trying to plant, to incriminate Antonio Vinci? There must have been something specific, no? Because how could 'nothing specific' be seen as incriminating to Vinci, or to anyone else? How could Spezi "sidetrack" an investigation if its not done in some specific way?

And by the way, Spezi has never been convicted of side-tracking an investigation, has he? Isn't that among the charges that were set aside at some point?

In what way did Carlizzi's theory differ from Mignini's? Aren't they both theorizing that a 'satanic masonic sect' is responsible for the Monster of Florence crimes?

And wasn't Carlizzi convicted for defamation 10 years earlier for accusing another writer of being the 'monster of florence''?

Wasn't the self-proclaimed psychic medium Carlizzi repeatedly interviewed on Italian TV as an expert of some kind on satanic sects?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I would have said the same about the innocentisti. Based on the idiocies they say, I would think they can't read the actual trial papers (maybe they never read them because they don't no the language) or they cannot understand them as legal docs.

-

I love you man, and I like that you use the word Innocentisti for the probably innocent crowd. That shows class, but "idiocies"? Really Mach?

How about the idiocy that no evidence of Rudy in the break-in room helps prove he didn't break-in, but no evidence of Amanda in the murder room DOESN'T help prove she didn't kill Meredith?

Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me,

d

-

 

[Diocletus]

I would have said the same about the innocentisti. Based on the idiocies they say, I would think they can't read the actual trial papers (maybe they never read them because they don't no the language) or they cannot understand them as legal docs.

Blah, blah, blah. Nice try, but we already figured out the case using our power of thought. It's quite a powerful tool--maybe Italian judges could try it out some day.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's a summary of Raffaele on Porta a Porta

He doesn't know what Amanda did that night but he doesn't think she's guilty; "I got alarmed, I told her to call Meredith, I told her to call the other roomates, I called the carabinieri..."; "They pressured and threatened me too"; "They took my shoes off (I wish he'd stop saying that)"; Vespa is telling him that two Courts have condemned him and they can't be crazy...; Now the people from Giovinazzo, all saying the nice boy that he is; Vespa: yes nice boy, but they don't say that that night he smoked joint...; Raffaele: I've got some clients; Vespa: so on the 25 you may be condemned; Raffaele: yes but I haven't done anything; Vespa cruel: As a father I tell you good luck, as a citizen I just wish the Cassation makes justice, whatever the decision is. End

He basically continued the distancing strategy, saying continually that he can't be responsible for the things they attribute to Amanda. It seemed to work for a while, they were both basically agreeing with the concept. Then Vespa started attacking him too, first with the fact that he got two convictions, then with the thing that he smoked. So, once again the strategy didn't work. The interview was working ok, they were doing what agreed, distancing him from Amanda and putting doubts on her. Then Vespa said the bitch that she was in accusing the cops. Raff said that they abused him too. And I think that's what changed everything, and Vespa turned against him too...

You can't raise a doubt on the police, you can't smoke a joint. You do something like that and goodbye, they pretend to see a proof of guilt."

 

[platonov]

“I would have noticed something.”

Here's a summary of Raffaele on Porta a Porta

He doesn't know what Amanda did that night but he doesn't think she's guilty; "I got alarmed, I told her to call Meredith, I told her to call the other roomates, I called the carabinieri..."; "They pressured and threatened me too"; "They took my shoes off (I wish he'd stop saying that)"; Vespa is telling him that two Courts have condemned him and they can't be crazy...; Now the people from Giovinazzo, all saying the nice boy that he is; Vespa: yes nice boy, but they don't say that that night he smoked joint...; Raffaele: I've got some clients; Vespa: so on the 25 you may be condemned; Raffaele: yes but I haven't done anything; Vespa cruel: As a father I tell you good luck, as a citizen I just wish the Cassation makes justice, whatever the decision is. End

He basically continued the distancing strategy, saying continually that he can't be responsible for the things they attribute to Amanda. It seemed to work for a while, they were both basically agreeing with the concept. Then Vespa started attacking him too, first with the fact that he got two convictions, then with the thing that he smoked. So, once again the strategy didn't work. The interview was working ok, they were doing what agreed, distancing him from Amanda and putting doubts on her. Then Vespa said the bitch that she was in accusing the cops. Raff said that they abused him too. And I think that's what changed everything, and Vespa turned against him too...

You can't raise a doubt on the police, you can't smoke a joint. You do something like that and goodbye, they pretend to see a proof of guilt."

What?
The greatest MoJ of all time but
“He doesn't know what Amanda did that night but he doesn't think she's guilty; "
& She claims him as an alibi!

Perhaps he was wearing the wrong shoes or something. Or is it all the presenters fault?
Is Vespa now part of the conspiracy

Did he really say
“I don’t think Amanda killed Meredith," because, he adds, “I would have noticed something.”

 

[Diocletus]

Here's a summary of Raffaele on Porta a Porta

He doesn't know what Amanda did that night but he doesn't think she's guilty; "I got alarmed, I told her to call Meredith, I told her to call the other roomates, I called the carabinieri..."; "They pressured and threatened me too"; "They took my shoes off (I wish he'd stop saying that)"; Vespa is telling him that two Courts have condemned him and they can't be crazy...; Now the people from Giovinazzo, all saying the nice boy that he is; Vespa: yes nice boy, but they don't say that that night he smoked joint...; Raffaele: I've got some clients; Vespa: so on the 25 you may be condemned; Raffaele: yes but I haven't done anything; Vespa cruel: As a father I tell you good luck, as a citizen I just wish the Cassation makes justice, whatever the decision is. End

He basically continued the distancing strategy, saying continually that he can't be responsible for the things they attribute to Amanda. It seemed to work for a while, they were both basically agreeing with the concept. Then Vespa started attacking him too, first with the fact that he got two convictions, then with the thing that he smoked. So, once again the strategy didn't work. The interview was working ok, they were doing what agreed, distancing him from Amanda and putting doubts on her. Then Vespa said the bitch that she was in accusing the cops. Raff said that they abused him too. And I think that's what changed everything, and Vespa turned against him too...

You can't raise a doubt on the police, you can't smoke a joint. You do something like that and goodbye, they pretend to see a proof of guilt."

Right, because no one in Italy--particularly Perugia--smokes dope, and the Italian cops are infallibly skilled and ethical.

The entire country seems at times to have been sprayed with some kind of weird hypocracy/obtusity mist.