Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. This is on a par with ‘Utterly irrelevant’. Complete denial.

You are claiming that the RS statement hasn’t been published on the web & that the Telegraph translations from years ago are inaccurate. Given the furore here over media reports about AK having links and (possibly sex) with the drug dealer I am extremely surprised, given the serious nature of the issue, that this blatant misrepresentation by the Telegraph hasn’t received more coverage :eye-poppi
Do you believe that this statement actually exists anywhere?

Likewise you deny the existence of a post on these threads confirming that some of AK’s fans have access to the images of victim’s naked corpse.

And you claim not to understand my argument.

Very good.

You might want to catch up on your reading before posting. I've already changed some of what I said, based on new info that I was able to find. I still don't see a translated version of RS's statement to read, but there are a couple out there now in Italian.

And yes, if the Telegraph were the only available source, especially since it was a report of a report, I would hesitate to put a lot of weight into comparing it word for word with, well anything. Again, it is a reporter telling us what another reporter reported that an unknown police source told them.

If there is anything this case has taught me, it is how completely inaccurate the current state of journalism is in the world. The level of actual fact checking these days is appalling.
 
Is it still the same Machiavelli?



But, of course, such accomplishments are a pitiful bulwark against the sheer force of confirmation bias *demanding* Vecchiotti be a paid stooge. Oh, and a mere coroner. And Stefanoni - whose CV remains a mystery which ILE is apparently pleased to enforce - an accomplished, shining beacon of equity and science whose lab has never had an incident of contamination.

It really is time to begin ignoring the lunatic ramblings of persons who refuse to confront evidence and rational argumentation on their obvious face value.





Sadly, at this late stage, I think you're being generous. This is merely the umpteenth emanation of BS from his quarter, like so much skunk spray. It's more astonishing every day that thoughtful people here waste their time to even read his posts.


Why is everyone so angry with Mach.
What did he say to cause this eruption? Can we expect more arguments of this kind to appear as we approach Mar 25?
 
... no but

You might want to catch up on your reading before posting. I've already changed some of what I said, based on new info that I was able to find. I still don't see a translated version of RS's statement to read, but there are a couple out there now in Italian.

And yes, if the Telegraph were the only available source, especially since it was a report of a report, I would hesitate to put a lot of weight into comparing it word for word with, well anything. Again, it is a reporter telling us what another reporter reported that an unknown police source told them.

If there is anything this case has taught me, it is how completely inaccurate the current state of journalism is in the world. The level of actual fact checking these days is appalling.

Might I? Did I post something that was complete nonsense and have to withdraw it almost immediately. Mea culpa :)

Not just in the media apparently.
 
The interesting thing is that with the passages being translated into Italian, they will get released to a wider Italian audience that they would otherwise. It would be far smarter to just let it lie :boxedin:


On a related matter, it's really not difficult to understand what happened yesterday in the Sollecito/Gumbel lawsuit - though many pro-guilt commentators seem to be having trouble. Basically, in the previous hearing (on 22nd January), the lawyers for Sollecito and Gumbel had argued that the Italian translation being used by the prosecutors in evidence was inaccurate and biased. The judge agreed on that basis for an independent set of translations to be done. That was what was agreed in principle in that previous hearing on 22nd January.

So between 22nd January and yesterday (5th March), appropriate translators were sought and contacted, and having provisionally agreed to take on the work, they were invited to appear in court yesterday. What happened yesterday was that those translators were officially appointed by the court to do the translation work, so therefore the clock only started ticking on the translation effort yesterday (they could not begin any translation for the court until/unless they had been formally appointed to do so by the court, which is what happened yesterday).

So yesterday's hearing, coupled with the announcement of the next hearing (to determine in essence whether there's a case to answer) on 14th May, is not any sort of intentional delaying of the case. All that was ever going to happen yesterday was the official appointment of the translators, plus a setting of the next date (which was partially dependent upon when the translators would be able to finish and submit their work).
 
Last edited:
If I read this right:
QUESTION - I can show it to him . Do you know why I ask this President, it is a monumental occasion , but it is for understand a little ' ...
PROSECUTOR - DR.SSA COMFORTABLE - Excuse me, before converse , that this place is a communication of crime report is not signed by the witness , which is attached service record of the witness , Inspector Barbadori with regard to the video etc . , and to ten minutes ahead of the actual time that wearing the watch the parking lot, I can not understand what is the question . I would like to understand what is the use of show this communication of crime.
DEFENSE - AVV . Ghirga - It was a historical premise of a document of the Judicial Police to ask, you know if the Judicial Police broke the news to the press this act*?THE PRESIDENT - What kind of place?
DEFENSE - AVV . Ghirga - The results of the camera number 7 , you know?REPLY - I'm not totally aware of.
QUESTION - If the President will allow me, for the first time and I think I will if you will allow me a second time, I would like to attach two newspapers on November 12, which are The Corriere della Sera and La Stampa , Monday, Next ... 8 because , gentlemen of the Court, the the date of validation , is the day of the order ...PROSECUTOR - DR.SSA COMFORTABLE - Yes, but what is the question President*! There are too many assumptions , what is the question the witness Barbadori*!
DEFENSE - AVV . Ghirga - The question is if it was made a Communication ...
THE PRESIDENT - Do not interrupt , however, we come to the question.
DEFENSE - AVV . Ghirga - The question is if it was made a few communication to the press ...PROSECUTOR - DR.SSA COMFORTABLE - He answered!
DEFENSE - AVV . Ghirga - But there's the press!
PRESIDENT - I'm sorry , please , we have the heads.
DEFENSE - AVV . Ghirga - The results relating to the establishment the camera number 7.
ANSWER - I exclude it in a categorical manner .
APPLICATION - The rule , then I ask to be able to attach two original newspapers on Monday ...
PROSECUTOR - DR.SSA COMFORTABLE - No, of course, exclude for what belongs to him*!
REPLY - Of course for what concerns me.
PROSECUTOR - DR.SSA COMFORTABLE - can not vouch for Police whole of Italy*!
DEFENSE - AVV . Ghirga - No. ..
PRESIDENT - Lawyer Excuse , please , let us interruptions , we avoid the overlap of voices , there are the questions to the witness , and if we feel the answers are then of the productions will be asked to perform the productions and we will determine , but we try to go with order.
...​


It looks like Barbadori is being accused of releasing the photo and statement to the press claiming that Amanda was present at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.
 
Might I? Did I post something that was complete nonsense and have to withdraw it almost immediately. Mea culpa :)

Not just in the media apparently.

Yes.
But you would never withdraw anything. You are still trying to make a comparison to a newspaper article that you have no idea is correct or not.

Sorry, but my mistake was replying to the nonsense, which I had previously said I would stop doing. Mea Culpa ;).
 
On a related matter, it's really not difficult to understand what happened yesterday in the Sollecito/Gumbel lawsuit - though many pro-guilt commentators seem to be having trouble. Basically, in the previous hearing (on 22nd January), the lawyers for Sollecito and Gumbel had argued that the Italian translation being used by the prosecutors in evidence was inaccurate and biased. The judge agreed on that basis for an independent set of translations to be done. That was what was agreed in principle in that previous hearing on 22nd January.

So between 22nd January and yesterday (5th March), appropriate translators were sought and contacted, and having provisionally agreed to take on the work, they were invited to appear in court yesterday. What happened yesterday was that those translators were officially appointed by the court to do the translation work, so therefore the clock only started ticking on the translation effort yesterday (they could not begin any translation for the court until/unless they had been formally appointed to do so by the court, which is what happened yesterday).

So yesterday's hearing, coupled with the announcement of the next hearing (to determine in essence whether there's a case to answer) on 14th May, is not any sort of intentional delaying of the case. All that was ever going to happen yesterday was the official appointment of the translators, plus a setting of the next date (which was partially dependent upon when the translators would be able to finish and submit their work).

From an article I saw today, I thought the translation was due on April 10, and the argument would be heard on April 30. I didn't see any reference to May 14?

But this is good news I think, that an independent evaluation has been granted, as it means Mignini can't deal from a stacked deck with a fraudulent translation.

I predict the murder convictions will be annulled on March 25. And Mignini's defamation case will be dismissed, after allowing Mignini to twist in the wind whilst getting taken down a peg.

I asked Mach previously, but is Raf's lawyer Brazzoli, the same lawyer who was a defendant in the Florence 20 Narducci Trail case Mignini lost? Because that lawyer was the only defendant to insist on an outright acquittal, rather than allowing the charges to be dismissed by statute of limitations. So if it is the same guy, the proceedings could get fiesty (I hope).
 
On a related matter, it's really not difficult to understand what happened yesterday in the Sollecito/Gumbel lawsuit - though many pro-guilt commentators seem to be having trouble. Basically, in the previous hearing (on 22nd January), the lawyers for Sollecito and Gumbel had argued that the Italian translation being used by the prosecutors in evidence was inaccurate and biased. The judge agreed on that basis for an independent set of translations to be done. That was what was agreed in principle in that previous hearing on 22nd January.

So between 22nd January and yesterday (5th March), appropriate translators were sought and contacted, and having provisionally agreed to take on the work, they were invited to appear in court yesterday. What happened yesterday was that those translators were officially appointed by the court to do the translation work, so therefore the clock only started ticking on the translation effort yesterday (they could not begin any translation for the court until/unless they had been formally appointed to do so by the court, which is what happened yesterday).

So yesterday's hearing, coupled with the announcement of the next hearing (to determine in essence whether there's a case to answer) on 14th May, is not any sort of intentional delaying of the case. All that was ever going to happen yesterday was the official appointment of the translators, plus a setting of the next date (which was partially dependent upon when the translators would be able to finish and submit their work).

..... and when the court-appointed translators trash the translation Mignini brought with him to court last Jan 22nd......

...... expect Machiavelli to argue that these new translators are really coroners.
 
PS That bit about Vecchiotti being a coroner was hilarious :D

(Hint: a coroner is a government-appointed person with judicial powers who investigates and reports deaths on behalf of the state. As far as I know, there's not even any such position as "coroner" (or equivalent) in Italy. Perhaps "reporting pathologist" might be more appropriate. But even then, Vecchiotti's CV and published history makes it more than clear that her entire academic career has been in microbiology, genetics and forensic investigation. Not in adjudicating causes of death. And not in cutting open bodies.)

PS That bit about Vecchiotti being a coroner was hilarious :D

(Hint: a coroner is a government-appointed person with judicial powers who investigates and reports deaths on behalf of the state. As far as I know, there's not even any such position as "coroner" (or equivalent) in Italy. Perhaps "reporting pathologist" might be more appropriate. But even then, Vecchiotti's CV and published history makes it more than clear that her entire academic career has been in microbiology, genetics and forensic investigation. Not in adjudicating causes of death. And not in cutting open bodies.)

In fact the position "coroner" doesn't exist in Italy meant as a governmental post, but the specialty "Medicina Legale" exists, and means exactly the specialization (and therefore a certification) to the work funcions that are equivalent to a coroner.

This is why I say Vecchiotti is a coroner.

Medicina Legale is codified as "MED 43" (formerly "F 22 B").
It is not pathology; expertise as pathologists equates to scientific-diciplinary academy branches "MED 04" or "05" or "MED 08".
Microbiology instead refers to either fields "MED 07" or "BIO 19", while research in Genetics would refer to either fields "MED 03" or "BIO 18" or "BIO 11".

Vecchiotti has always only held the title of "researcher" in "MED 43", and that field alone.

Moreover, the assertion that Vecchiott's CV would show that throughout her whole history she focused on microbiology, genetics and forensic investigation, and not on cutting and opening bodies, is just false.

Her only training specifically focused on Forensics was a short course she attended in Budapest in 1986.

Between 1983 and 1991 she did her work entirely, and only, at the Struttura Semplice di Medicina Legale within the Dipartimento di Medicina Legale of La Sapienza.

In 1991 she got a promotion, yet even since 1991 and at lest until 2007, she always remained at the S.S. di Medicina Legale, where she was a Medical Doctor working as Medico Legale.

Then in 2007 she became associated professor, this only after having reached the age of 57 and having spent 21 years as a researcher in field "MED 43" (or "F/22B") Medicina Legale working at the autopsy facility known as "S.S. di Medicina Legale".

Her teaching subject was "Medicina Legale" but she tought to students of a post-degree specialization course in Orthopedic Techniques, in the small town of Latina (those who study to become Orthopedists, kind of students who are hardly interested in Forensics).
Orthopedists would be interested in physical anatomy, things about cutting and opening bodies, not in Forensics or DNA.

Carla Vecchiotti has an interest in Forensic Hematology and Haemogenetics, as well as in the general aspects of "Legal Medicine" that she frequently taught.
But that doesn't take away that for decades she has always worked at the S.S. di Medicina Legale, a place where they basically do one thing: autopsies. There they issue papers such as death certificates and authorization to transplantation (and this is what Vecchiotti was doing for about 25 years). To the present day Vecchiotti is still there, not as a physician in the Struttura Semplice but in the same institute always within the same Dipartimento di Medicina Legale.

So she is a coroner, I can say this meaning she is the equivalent of a coroner as for what her work and specialty is (the public position of coroner doesn't exist in Italy).

Institutes of Legal Medicine in Italy investigate bodies, they have developed within them their own DNA/serology/microbiology laboratories dealing with toxicology as well as genetics, because those disciplines are also techniques part of the set tool to perform their tasks by those professionals who investigate bodies, carry on autopsies or deal with other legal things. Think about how the 9/11 victims were identified through DNA for example, you can understand how genetics is nowadays ecessary part of scientific investigation carried on by "coroners" or any equivalent professional in charge to identify or investigate a body.

This is what Vecchiotti does: she investigates bodies. She always did so. Her training is focused on issues of Medicine, not Genetics or biology, nor on practice of biological laboratory work.
And she has always been working in a facility where they store and analyze corpses.
Think about that between 1991 and 2007 Vecchiotti was in charge of the Consulenza Generale Trapianti (counsel to authorize transplant). She was not working on DNA filaments and forensic analysis, but dealing with warm bodies elected for organ transplants.

Within the same facility where autopsies are performed, medical certificates are issued and bodies are checked for transplant, there is a laboratory for DNA analysis. Those laboratories are run by the departments themselves, are built within the facilities of Medicina Legale all over Italy, but they are also kind of self-made, to the present day they don't have certification of sorts, are meant to serve the sole purposes of the depertments they are part of and are ruled by those departments.

It is sure and obvious from her CV that Vecchiotti used to work with bodies and autopsies ad that was her job. She testified in fact on many cases as the equivalent of a coroner: together with Arbarello on the Cucchi case or on the Orlandi case in Rome (those are examples where Vecchiotti was called as an expert not specifically about DNA). It's clear her interest is oriented towards DNA and Haematology Forensics more than on bones and blood spats, but she did testify on bones and blood spats and it's obvious she always worked with bodies at the Medicina Legale facility, both through her work as counsel for transplants as well as during her activities with DNA and blood samples.
 
Last edited:
From an article I saw today, I thought the translation was due on April 10, and the argument would be heard on April 30. I didn't see any reference to May 14?

But this is good news I think, that an independent evaluation has been granted, as it means Mignini can't deal from a stacked deck with a fraudulent translation.

I predict the murder convictions will be annulled on March 25. And Mignini's defamation case will be dismissed, after allowing Mignini to twist in the wind whilst getting taken down a peg.

I asked Mach previously, but is Raf's lawyer Brazzoli, the same lawyer who was a defendant in the Florence 20 Narducci Trail case Mignini lost? Because that lawyer was the only defendant to insist on an outright acquittal, rather than allowing the charges to be dismissed by statute of limitations. So if it is the same guy, the proceedings could get fiesty (I hope).


I believe that yes, 10th April is the due date for the submission of the mew translations to the court, but that the next actual hearing (to determine whether there's a case to answer) has been put back a little to 14th May.

And yes, that's the same Brazzoli I believe. As you say, it could all get a little feisty :)
 
From an article I saw today, I thought the translation was due on April 10, and the argument would be heard on April 30. I didn't see any reference to May 14?

But this is good news I think, that an independent evaluation has been granted, as it means Mignini can't deal from a stacked deck with a fraudulent translation.
I predict the murder convictions will be annulled on March 25. And Mignini's defamation case will be dismissed, after allowing Mignini to twist in the wind whilst getting taken down a peg.

I asked Mach previously, but is Raf's lawyer Brazzoli, the same lawyer who was a defendant in the Florence 20 Narducci Trail case Mignini lost? Because that lawyer was the only defendant to insist on an outright acquittal, rather than allowing the charges to be dismissed by statute of limitations. So if it is the same guy, the proceedings could get fiesty (I hope).

You mean like the Telegraph translation?

I fell for that one - I feel like such a fool. If only I had read all the groupie arguments based on their translation of the RS statement that the Knox crew released. But I got sidetracked by the many arguments defending AK's honour and missed those.

Mea culpa :o
 
Last edited:
Mach, you have no idea what a coroner actually is. A coroner never touches dead bodies. A coroner sits in a coroner's court and issues rulings on cause of death, plus mechanism of death (e.g. accident, misadventure, natural causes, unlawful killing....).

A coroner is a judicial officer. Not a clinician.

Hope that makes things clearer....
 
..... and when the court-appointed translators trash the translation Mignini brought with him to court last Jan 22nd......

...... expect Machiavelli to argue that these new translators are really coroners.

By the way, does anybody know the exact pages in question?
Might want to see if the library has a copy which I can check out.
I can, after all, at least read En. . .Engosh :D
 
Mach, you have no idea what a coroner actually is. A coroner never touches dead bodies. A coroner sits in a coroner's court and issues rulings on cause of death, plus mechanism of death (e.g. accident, misadventure, natural causes, unlawful killing....).

A coroner is a judicial officer. Not a clinician.

Hope that makes things clearer....

In the US, coroners often work with bodies and in some cases (groan) are even elected.
In the US, the duties and responsibilities vary so widely as to be hard to define.

Edit: I don't know if you will be able to watch this but thought I would post it
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/
 
Last edited:
Just read the translation of Rudy G's interrogation with Mignini and police on March 26, 2008 here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/RG-Transcript.pdf

Although there is lots of interesting stuff in this document, was wondering if others here see this quote from page 85 the same way I do:

Here is Rudy, towards the end of his interrogation, telling the PM and cops something:

I wanted to say something if I may. Well I’m immersed in a situation
that I’d never have imagined to find myself in my life. It is something
that is bigger than me, certainly, this is something I say voluntarily, I
have blame because I could have called the ambulance, I could
have gone in the street and screamed and called somebody. I say
just one thing, if I were to do I don’t know how many years because I
didn’t save the life of a person I will do it without problem, however I
don’t see why I should even do one day of prison for the belief, or if
the world can believe, that I have killed a person. And it’s for this that
I, seeing as I’m immersed in a story that is too big for me, I’m willing
because having heard certain people who are also my age, who
are guys like me… well for me they have a soul, they have a brain
and they have responsibilities, I’m available for any kind of confrontation with these people. Because I think I also deserve clarifications on certain assertions.

This is at the end of an interrogation where Rudy gives great detail, much of which has changed from what he said in the Skype call he had with his friend Giacomo months earlier. An interrogation where his attorney repeatedly steps in to clarify and guide the discussion, pointing out places where Rudy needs to provide specific information.

What I see here in the highlighted portion is double speak for: "I'll say what you need me to say if you can make it so I am not accused of the actual murder. If you want Amanda and Raffaele so bad, I am your avenue to get them. But the cost will be that I am not solely blamed for the murder."

I think Rudy and his attorney did a fabulous job of playing the system.
 
Machiavelli,

Prove it.

Well I don't have the police transcript of his interview, but if you pick up a news paper from Nov 10 or 11, for example:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_11/delitto_perugia_testimone_svizzero.shtml

You find:

(...) il professore universitario che lo stesso Patrick aveva indicato come una delle persone con cui aveva trascorso la sera del delitto. La polizia lo ha rintracciato telefonicamente a Zurigo. E lui non si è sottratto: «Sono stato con lui dalle 20 alle 22 del primo novembre.

It says: the Swiss professor was indicated by Patrick Lumumba as one of the people who was there. The police detected him in Zurigo via phone, and he did not refuse to cooperate.

Darkness Descending (Russell, Johnson, Garofano) reports that on Nov. 10., a friend of prof. Mero, after looking at the news, advises him that "the police are looking for you", and Mero is slighlty scared about this, asks why. His friends reassures him explaining he heard the Perugia Police are looking for a Swiss professor.

This because the police made their quest for a "Swiss professor", without releasing their name, on Nov. 10. Only subsequently to that, the professor phoned from Zurigo and the police found him.
The police had questioned him on the phone already on Nov. 11, and his confirmation of Lumumba's alibi was made public. Mero was also asked to come immediately to testify in person.
 
Frank Sfarzo makes a good point. (Expect detractors to attack Sfarzo and not address the point.)

If Amanda Knox accused Lumumba at interrogation..... why did she not accuse Lumumba at her first appearance before Matteini?

Can the guilters answer that, instead of attacking the messenger?

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-acquitted-then-convicted-what-to-believe/

Sfarzo said:
WHY SHOULD KNOX HAVE ACCUSED LUMUMBA? INDEED SHE DIDN’T

They said, for instance, that Knox accused Lumumba. In private! Indeed, no one has ever heard Amanda Knox accuse Patrick Lumumba. When she was heard by the judge of the arrest, that was the moment to accuse Lumumba, if she really had just done it behind closed doors of the police station. But, in the open of the hearing, in the public of the hearing, in the verifiable time of the hearing, in the legal time of the hearing, she did not accuse Lumumba.​

There's more.....
 
In the US, coroners often work with bodies and in some cases (groan) are even elected.
In the US, the duties and responsibilities vary so widely as to be hard to define.


Ah well in the US, the term "coroner" appears to have been misappropriated as an equivalent to "medical examiner".

But I believe I am correct in saying that coroners in the US - "proper" coroners, that is - are judicial appointments. And the etymology of the word clearly signifies that the position is a crown appointment with governmental (judicial) responsibilities.
 
Well I don't have the police transcript of his interview, but if you pick up a news paper from Nov 10 or 11, for example:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_11/delitto_perugia_testimone_svizzero.shtml

You find:



It says: the Swiss professor was indicated by Patrick Lumumba as one of the people who was there. The police detected him in Zurigo via phone, and he did not refuse to cooperate.

Darkness Descending (Russell, Johnson, Garofano) reports that on Nov. 10., a friend of prof. Mero, after looking at the news, advises him that "the police are looking for you", and Mero is slighlty scared about this, asks why. His friends reassures him explaining he heard the Perugia Police are looking for a Swiss professor.

This because the police made their quest for a "Swiss professor", without releasing their name, on Nov. 10. Only subsequently to that, the professor phoned from Zurigo and the police found him.
The police had questioned him on the phone already on Nov. 11, and his confirmation of Lumumba's alibi was made public. Mero was also asked to come immediately to testify in person.


Not what the book says. Is the book wrong then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom