Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

The question of alibis is not, nor has it ever been, a substantive issue in these cases at trial. Your egregious failure to understand this simplest of points is demonstrated by you, almost daily.

The substantive issue at trial is that the prosecution contends, (and Massei and Nencini (but not Hellmann) accepted), that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito left his apartment and killed Ms Kercher with Guede, citing different evidence, the debate about which you carefully avoid, presumably because you cannot find an argument in support of any of it.

Nowhere in the trial record will you find any reference to any claim by the prosecution that Mr Sollecito refused to alibi Ms Knox. What you will find, on the contrary, is an acceptance by each trial court that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito provide alibis for each other.

Furthermore, you state that Mr Sollecito killed Ms Kercher - stabbed her to death, as part of a 3 on 1 attack. You have failed to produce any evidence at all in support of this contention, despite having been challenged to do so and the court doesn't even support you.

You have been incapable of looking at the interrogations of the 5th and 6th (from which most, if not all your comments originate) for what they are - illegal, lawyerless violations of the defendants' human rights, with illegally obtained, compelled statements, ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court, used illegally, by Nencini in defiance of his superior court, to convict Ms Knox, as follows:

“It appears suitable to also point out how the statements made by the girl to the Police and then to the Public Minister during the night of November 6, 2007, are of undeniable interest also in the context of the reconstructive evidentiary framework specifically pertaining to the murder.” (page 101)

and:

“And on the other hand, as it has already been said, it is Amanda Marie Knox herself who places herself, even if together with Lumumba and not with Sollecito, at Piazza Grimana on the night of November 1, 2007, after 21 pm.” (page 130)

and:

"One can hence assert not just that the statements given to the Police at 1.45 am and to the Public Minister at 5.45 am of November 6, 2007, by Amanda Marie Knox constitute a crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, but also that said calumny was fabricated with the specific aim of deflecting the suspicions of the Police from the defendants.” (page 142).

To quote from Luca Chelli's translation:

All of these statements make use of the content of statements whose use has been declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court already in April 2008, hence the Florence Court openly admits using against Knox documentary evidence the Supreme Court had ruled being totally inadmissible for use against its author (1.45 am statement) or against anybody (5.45 am statement).
Let's see, shall we, whether you have the integrity to consider and confront the wilful lawbreaking of Nencini and the wit and intelligence to wonder what, in the event these verdicts are confirmed, the ECHR will make of Nencini's illegality. This is on a par with the clearest evidence, I suspect the European Court will have seen in any case brought before them, at least for the last ten years, of a violation of Article 6.

Now, now – this ‘under bus throwing’ may be as upsetting as it is predictable but nevertheless that is no reason to breach the MA. Lets give the mods a break shall we.

BTW who is this Luca Chelli character – another Frank S or Waterbury type. What’s his claim to fame that you quote him as such an authority?

 

[platonov]

platonov

You are a long term poster, but unlike Machiavelli, you do not respond to exact queries.
I find it difficult to believe you are being other than amused by the ease with which you can elicit serious responses.
You are the enigmatic one, and accorded attention because you are one of a few lone guilt arguing survivors on this forum, but you are not scientifically robust.
If few people continue to argue a postion on ISF, it may be possible to prove their position is factually wrong. This may become a new paradigm, so you must imagine that the desertion of this forum by guilters in this long case means the defendants are factually innocent.
If they are declared legally guilty soon, don't expect the thread to die.

This on top of being an 'unpleasant, vindictive, misanthropic bully'
What does it actually mean – am I particularly susceptible to N rays or something?


ps I have a pretty good imagination but that is a stretch.

 

[Samson]

Now, now – this ‘under bus throwing’ may be as upsetting as it is predictable but nevertheless that is no reason to breach the MA. Lets give the mods a break shall we.

BTW who is this Luca Chelli character – another Frank S or Waterbury type. What’s his claim to fame that you quote him as such an authority?

Luca Cheli is an Italian man that saw what Charlie Wilkes and many others saw very quickly, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were uninvolved in the crime.

 

[platonov]

Luca Cheli is an Italian man that saw what Charlie Wilkes and many others saw very quickly, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were uninvolved in the crime.

An Italian man you say
I am impressed but that is not usually much of a compliment around these parts. Has he no redeeming qualities.

 

[Samson]

This on top of being an 'unpleasant, vindictive, misanthropic bully'
What does it actually mean – am I particularly susceptible to N rays or something?


ps I have a pretty good imagination but that is a stretch.

platanov, this could end badly, but it was never me that described you that way. It was another poster, and because I did not specifically exclude you, you took offence. In all honesty, I have poor recall of the sequence. Machiavelli concluded by resorting to grappo, as I do all the time.

 

[Mr Fied]

OK we are done, it appears.

If that is the case, why did you ask ?

I put forward what I thought was a simple request.

Do you have the evidence that Sollecito stabbed Meredith Kercher? Even if you don't want to show where this evidence is, do you have it, yes or no?

I don't want to spend days going round the houses with the cryptic messages about solutions.

So to put it simply, if you don't want to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, then I am no longer interested and yes, we are done.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the lack of a TOD is a symptom of a larger problem

The awkwardness of sentence construction is my fault. Apologies. What GB said was important is what followed, "You refuse to even address why what GB says is important," namely, that Nencini's refusal to pin down a TOD means that, in this case, her client cannot mount a proper defense.

It's because when one shows why one item tends to exonerate her client, the prosecution/judge can come back with, "That's because the TOD is late." Or when another item tends to exonerate her client, the prosecution/judge can come back with, "That's because the TOD is early."

This appeal point belongs to both Amanda as well as Raffaele.... esp. when it can be said, forensicly speaking, that Meredtih's TOD was probably before 9:30 pm and not this revolving door of purposeful confusion.

Bill Williams.

Good post. The second paragraph above goes to the heart of this case, and explains why the PI posters often ask the PG posters to provide a timeline/narrative. Instead what they and the prosecution have provided is a bunch of disjointed facts or pseudo-facts that sometimes contradict each other.

 

[Kauffer]

Now, now – this ‘under bus throwing’ may be as upsetting as it is predictable but nevertheless that is no reason to breach the MA. Lets give the mods a break shall we.

BTW who is this Luca Chelli character – another Frank S or Waterbury type. What’s his claim to fame that you quote him as such an authority?

Luca Chelli has summarised the content of Ms Knox's appeal.
And I see that, predictably, you have avoided the subject of the illegal interrogations together with the subject of one of the Article 6 violations in the Nencini trial.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Luca Chelli has summarised the content of Ms Knox's appeal.
And I see that, predictably, you have avoided the subject of the illegal interrogations together with the subject of one of the Article 6 violations in the Nencini trial.

Apologies if this has already been raised. However, has ECHR actually made a ruling of Article 6 violations or is this your opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

Now, now – this ‘under bus throwing’ may be as upsetting as it is predictable but nevertheless that is no reason to breach the MA. Lets give the mods a break shall we.

BTW who is this Luca Chelli character – another Frank S or Waterbury type. What’s his claim to fame that you quote him as such an authority?

Luca Chelli has summarised the content of Ms Knox's appeal.
And I see that, predictably, you have avoided the subject of the illegal interrogations together with the subject of one of the Article 6 violations in the Nencini trial.

I'm feeling in a contrary mood. I'll tell folk who Mr. Cheli is when someone else posts Patrizia Stefanoni's educational C.V. Otherwise, it feels too tempting to do what Machiavelli did when asked to produce the C.V., he said, look for it yourself.

The challenge to Stefnaoni's fake Ph.D. began with the criticism of her methodology and perhaps her honesty. So let's begin with Cheli's analysis of the March 13 Supreme Court ruling and the Jan 2014 conviction of AK and RS which he provided:

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/critical-commentary-on-the-ruling-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-knox-sollecito-trial/

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/summary-of-amanda-knox-appeal-to-italian-supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/

It might be good to first deal with issues. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Bill Williams]

The awkwardness of sentence construction is my fault. Apologies. What GB said was important is what followed, "You refuse to even address why what GB says is important," namely, that Nencini's refusal to pin down a TOD means that, in this case, her client cannot mount a proper defense.

It's because when one shows why one item tends to exonerate her client, the prosecution/judge can come back with, "That's because the TOD is late." Or when another item tends to exonerate her client, the prosecution/judge can come back with, "That's because the TOD is early."
This appeal point belongs to both Amanda as well as Raffaele.... esp. when it can be said, forensicly speaking, that Meredtih's TOD was probably before 9:30 pm and not this revolving door of purposeful confusion.

Bill Williams.

Good post. The second paragraph above goes to the heart of this case, and explains why the PI posters often ask the PG posters to provide a timeline/narrative. Instead what they and the prosecution have provided is a bunch of disjointed facts or pseudo-facts that sometimes contradict each other.

I wish I could take credit for it. Apparently Bongiorno figured this out without my help!

However, it is at the heart of a suspect-centred case, where the goal is to keep the "evidence" as flexible as possible in order to keep the suspects in play for as long as possible.

It all begins with Mignini telling the 118 Medical Staff who attended not to take the body temperature, lest they interfere with the crimescene generally. This is they very same staff who Napoleoni tells Massei's court went into do a preliminary examination of the poor victim, without forensic counter measures.

On the afternoon of November 2, 2007 personnel of the Perugia Police headquarters
went to said house. The 118 and Coroner Dr. Lalli also came; a few hours later, the
Forensics staff from Rome arrived.​

(Napoleoni) approached Meredith’s room with the chief assistant Buratti, who
remained at the door as Napoleoni took one step inside the room "while the 118
doctor uncovered the corpse" (page 228, hearing on February 27, 2009).​

Everyone who entered had gloves and shoe covers on except the 118 personnel who
certified the death. Soon afterwards, Dr. Chiacchiera and colleagues from the
Scientific Police arrived.​

Of course, the 118 personnel, being experts and even without forensic countermeasures, would be careful not to track DNA into and out of the room.

But while we are considering time-lines, something which the pro-guilt lobby cannot provide, look at the order in with medical experts arrive. Best to NOT establish time of death, because one never knows how much flexibility about this one will need when prosecuting this. Truth be damned.

 

[Bill Williams]

An Italian man you say
I am impressed but that is not usually much of a compliment around these parts. Has he no redeeming qualities.

Strawman.

In fact the opposite is happening "around these parts". Please read Raffaele's appeals document prepared by an Italian, and please see the Italian TV programs which are laughing at those who believe in guilt of AK and RS.

Nice try anyway.

 

[Kauffer]

Apologies if this has already been raised. However, has ECHR actually made a ruling of Article 6 violations or is this your opinion.

No it hasn't made a ruling; this case is not before the court. You think there might be some doubt about this if it were or if it eventually is? Really?

You do see that the Nencini court has used statements it was forbidden from using, don't you?

If the Court of Cassation remedies this, then we are on different ground.

 

[platonov]

Apologies if this has already been raised. However, has ECHR actually made a ruling of Article 6 violations or is this your opinion.

Well it’s not just the opinion of Kauffer and other posters here. Apparently an Italian Man! whose insight has been favourably compared to that of Charlie Wilkes has also weighed in on the matter.

In the face of such learned opinion it is inconceivable that the ECHR would issue a contrary ruling as to do so would cause a crisis of unexampled gravity in European jurisprudence.

So thats that it seems.

 

[Dougm]

No Bill this won’t do. I’m not going to waste my time reading RS’s appeal via google translate or his book. I read quite enough nonsense as it is.

So Dougm, have you located a translated version of RS's Nov 5th statement - One which shows that the Telegraph version is false and is yet another part of the huge conspiracy?

It's only been 8 years but still.

No, I'm not going to waste my time.

Every post you make is full of misinformation, little teases trying to pretend you have figured out some information that no one else knows, claiming people said something they never said, and other attempts to derail the discussion.

There was a time, as a child, when I spent mindless hours with a certain kind of toy doll, but I outgrew the Dam things. Realized it was a waste of time.

Have fun!!

 

[Strozzi]

No it hasn't made a ruling; this case is not before the court. You think there might be some doubt about this if it were or if it eventually is? Really?

You do see that the Nencini court has used statements it was forbidden from using, don't you? If the Court of Cassation remedies this, then we are on different ground.

Don't tip off Cassation to this. Don't inform them that Mignini slipped in and lower courts used statements that Cassation ruled earlier are inadmissible. I want to see if Cassation catches it through their own review and deliberations and if so, whether they look the other way in the hour or two they give to this case. I want this case to go to ECHR because so much has gone wrong with the Italian justice process that Italy's courts and legislators need the high profile rebuke that the ECHR will give them. That may be what it takes for Italy to clean the stable starting with the Perugia detective squad, Perugia prosecutor, scientific police, and prison management.

 

[Kauffer]

Don't tip off Cassation to this. Don't inform them that Mignini slipped in and lower courts used statements that Cassation ruled earlier are inadmissible. I want to see if Cassation catches it through their own review and deliberations and if so, whether they look the other way in the hour or two they give to this case. I want this case to go to ECHR because so much has gone wrong with the Italian justice process that Italy's courts and legislators need the high profile rebuke that the ECHR will give them. That may be what it takes for Italy to clean the stable starting with the Perugia detective squad, Perugia prosecutor, scientific police, and prison management.

If it were simply an academic matter I would wholeheartedly agree. But for it to go to the ECHR, the defendants are necessarily placed again in jeopardy. And Mr Sollecito may well go to prison - for a time. I think that is unconscionable.

 

[Bill Williams]

No Bill this won’t do. I’m not going to waste my time reading RS’s appeal via google translate or his book. I read quite enough nonsense as it is.

Perhaps I am still being too subtle but if so why did you snip most of the post. In any case feel free to have a go at the bolded part while we wait for cj72 or someone else to ferret out the alibi.

So - you are going to pick and choose which court documents to read based on.......

...... that it comes from one side of the discussion?

This is the definition of confirmation bias, and/or circular reasoning.

It is rarely expressed so succinctly and clearly, that it takes one by surprise before sinking in.

 

[platonov]

So Dougm, have you located a translated version of RS's Nov 5th statement - One which shows that the Telegraph version is false and is yet another part of the huge conspiracy?

It's only been 8 years but still.

No, I'm not going to waste my time.

Every post you make is full of misinformation, little teases trying to pretend you have figured out some information that no one else knows, claiming people said something they never said, and other attempts to derail the discussion.

There was a time, as a child, when I spent mindless hours with a certain kind of toy doll, but I outgrew the Dam things. Realized it was a waste of time.

Have fun!!

Well you made the ‘translation’ argument – nonsensical as it was. If you don’t wish to defend it you should withdraw it. That’s the sceptical approach, certainly the one I recommend.

Here we differ also – I try not to get upset with my playthings

 

[sept79]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK:
"Apologies if this has already been raised. However, has ECHR actually made a ruling of Article 6 violations or is this your opinion."


Well it’s not just the opinion of Kauffer and other posters here. Apparently an Italian Man! whose insight has been favourably compared to that of Charlie Wilkes has also weighed in on the matter.

In the face of such learned opinion it is inconceivable that the ECHR would issue a contrary ruling as to do so would cause a crisis of unexampled gravity in European jurisprudence.

So that's that it seems.

So you are not concerned that the Nencini court used statements ruled inadmissible by Cassation? Why does this not concern you?