Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
You left out a word. Selective.

As in 'selective reading.'

Once again, for the umpteenth time, please read the appeals document that this is an amendment to.

In fact, read his book.

The pro guilt lobby makes sport of lifting things out of context.

The chief context here is the judicial fact that the courts concede that each is the others' alibi, and that the way to destroy it as an alibi is to charge both with the **same** crime.

You pull well trod judicial territory out of context to sell an agenda that no one else shares - that Raffaele is throwing Amanda under a bus.

For the umpteenth time, read the whole appeal, complete with addendum.
Click to expand...


No Bill :)
I don’t need to read his appeal doc – you helpfully provided the latest section where he throws AK under the bus. Perhaps the HILITE doesn’t work – I’ll try bold instead.

The Court of Florence did not analyze Sollecito’s position separately from Knox’s.
Particularly it appears that the Court denied the need for such an analisys because Sollecito had not dissociated himself from Knox.

In truth in all the recorded statements by Sollecito, he claims he does not remember the details of that evening because he had smoked marijuana. He does not remember exactly if Knox went out of his flat or not. On the other hand Sollecito is not accusing Knox: he cannot believe that she may have participated to such a heinous crime.

But this should not have prevented the Court of Florence from examining the possibility of an acquittal of Sollecito independently from Knox’s position.

Moreover the appealed ruling itself admits than in her 1.45 statement Knox places herself at Piazza Grimana not together with Sollecito, but with Lumumba.

For what concerns witness Curatolo and his sighting of the two defendants together at Piazza Grimana that evening, his unreliability has already been exposed previously, together with the paradoxical fact that accepting his testimony as true would mean giving the two defendants an alibi.
Click to expand...


Don’t you find it a little interesting that she places more value on an ‘alibi’ [of the Macavity variety at that and thus less than worthless] provided by a homeless heroin addict [as she and the groupies liked to emphasise] than one provided by Britney.

What’s up with that? It’s like she doesn’t place much value on the word of a sex killer.
Now if you recall she put a baby killer on the stand in the Hellmann appeal. But she draws the line at Knox.
 
Professor Peter Gill has been on the Italian Porta a Porta show tonight with host Bruno Vespa, to discuss DNA issues to do with the Murder of Meredith Kercher case.

I do not know what Dr. Gill said, but here is a link to his book about the DNA handling in the police labs.

http://www.amazon.com/Misleading-DNA-Evidence-Reasons-Miscarriages/dp/0124172148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404081354&sr=8-1&keywords=peter+gill+dna

Chapter 5 is devoted to the prosecution’s errors in the Amanda Knox/Raffaele case. His criticism of an absurd inference about a knife from Sollecito’s flat is complemented by an explanation of how the prosecution could have tested its hypothesis. He does the same thing with respect to the paradox of the presence of a tiny amount of the victim’s DNA that might have been on the knife with the complete absence of blood. My only criticism of this book is that it is too short.​
Click to expand...
 
platonov said:
No Bill :)
I don’t need to read his appeal doc – you helpfully provided the latest section where he throws AK under the bus. Perhaps the HILITE doesn’t work – I’ll try bold instead.
Click to expand...

Have it your way. You have just demonstrated your confirmation bias, right here, right now.

You only wish to read what you wish to read.

Good on you!
 
Bill Williams said:
Have it your way. You have just demonstrated your confirmation bias, right here, right now.

You only wish to read what you wish to read.

Good on you!
Click to expand...

ETA - it is revealing that you call the stuff that would put the **amendment** into context, "nonsense".

SO there we have it - it is nonsense if it doesn't agree with you, but it becomes something to put into bold, or highlighted, if it agrees with you.

Read the appeals document. I guess that should be a suggestion for those who do not regard it as nonsense, but otherwise as a "court document".
 
Bill Williams said:
Professor Peter Gill has been on the Italian Porta a Porta show tonight with host Bruno Vespa, to discuss DNA issues to do with the Murder of Meredith Kercher case.

I do not know what Dr. Gill said, but here is a link to his book about the DNA handling in the police labs.
Click to expand...

Diocletus said:
Really? Well, I'll be darned.
Click to expand...

Ok.... here's the latest. Peter Gill was advertised as on Porta a Porta. The priests who were talking about Papal Tweets went overtime.

Apparently Peter Gill was not on Porta a Porta. My bad.
 
My double bad.

Peter Gill in the studio right now, Vittorio Feltri, Francesco Solllecito and 3 more are on remote.
 
Words - how do they work pt 584

Bill Williams said:
ETA - it is revealing that you call the stuff that would put the **amendment** into context, "nonsense".

SO there we have it - it is nonsense if it doesn't agree with you, but it becomes something to put into bold, or highlighted, if it agrees with you.

Read the appeals document. I guess that should be a suggestion for those who do not regard it as nonsense, but otherwise as a "court document".
Click to expand...


Where did I use the word ‘nonsense’ in my last post Bill.

Can you quote the section – or are you reading my mind again ;)
 
Actually, forget that - for the moment.
What are Gill and co saying.

Take your time.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
Where did I use the word ‘nonsense’ in my last post Bill.

Can you quote the section – or are you reading my mind again ;)
Click to expand...


'Nonsense'? Where and/or when would platonov post any 'nonsense'? This is all very confusing . . .
 
Bill Williams said:
Professor Peter Gill has been on the Italian Porta a Porta show tonight with host Bruno Vespa, to discuss DNA issues to do with the Murder of Meredith Kercher case.

I do not know what Dr. Gill said, but here is a link to his book about the DNA handling in the police labs.

http://www.amazon.com/Misleading-DNA-Evidence-Reasons-Miscarriages/dp/0124172148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404081354&sr=8-1&keywords=peter+gill+dna

​
Click to expand...

So that's tonight, right?

Would be interesting to see an english translation. Its no surprise the position Dr Gill will take. And Vespa will try out the prosecution's arguments, pitching softballs to Gill, to just crush, one after another.

It's truly hard to imagine with this much favorable press in favor of Raf, that cassation will go with what is widely believed to be a bogus verdict of guilt.

Mach has said the only options for cassation are confirmation or retrial.

Does anyone know if there are other options, such as annulling convictions, and dismissing charges because there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction? Or even re-instating Hellman's acquittals?

Setting aside the convictions is of course crucial, but its so unfair to subject obviously innocent people to endless trials with devastating legal bills.

Amanda has, IIUC, a good chance of recovering legal fees from Italy by virtue of her calunnia case at ECHR. Could Raf also make a claim for legal fees at ECHR if he is acquitted? His rights were violated, even if he is acquitted. He spent 4 years in prison and a fortune in legal fees, seems only fair they both be made whole.
 
Apparently, Porta a Porta is trashing the DNA evidence. They are right now showing the climbing demonstration up to Filomena's window that the BBC secured.

If it were up to Porta a Porta, Raffaele would very definitely be acquitted outright on March 25.
 
They just showed the video of the man climbing up to Filomena's window!

ETA: on Porta a Porta, obviously. Actually it's still playing on a loop in the background.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Apparently, Porta a Porta is trashing the DNA evidence. They are right now showing the climbing demonstration up to Filomena's window that the BBC secured.

If it were up to Porta a Porta, Raffaele would very definitely be acquitted outright on March 25.
Click to expand...

Got there before me. :D
 
carbonjam72 said:
So that's tonight, right?

Would be interesting to see an english translation. Its no surprise the position Dr Gill will take. And Vespa will try out the prosecution's arguments, pitching softballs to Gill, to just crush, one after another.

It's truly hard to imagine with this much favorable press in favor of Raf, that cassation will go with what is widely believed to be a bogus verdict of guilt.

Mach has said the only options for cassation are confirmation or retrial.

Does anyone know if there are other options, such as annulling convictions, and dismissing charges because there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction? Or even re-instating Hellman's acquittals?

Setting aside the convictions is of course crucial, but its so unfair to subject obviously innocent people to endless trials with devastating legal bills.

Amanda has, IIUC, a good chance of recovering legal fees from Italy by virtue of her calunnia case at ECHR. Could Raf also make a claim for legal fees at ECHR if he is acquitted? His rights were violated, even if he is acquitted. He spent 4 years in prison and a fortune in legal fees, seems only fair they both be made whole.
Click to expand...

It looks like Cassazione can quash or convict and leave it at that regardless of what was ruled from below. It is only when further fact-finding is called for does Cassazione send it back down. From Wikipedia:

The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation is the highest court within the hierarchy of the Italian jurisdiction. Appeal to the Court of Cassation generally come from the appellate court (second instance courts) but defendants or prosecutors may also appeal directly from trial courts (first instance courts). The Supreme Court can reject or confirm a sentence from a lower court, in case of rejection it can send back the proceedings to the lower court in order for the trial and sentencing to be amended or it can annul the previous sentence altogether. A sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Cassation is final and definitive and cannot be further appealed : while the Supreme Court cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence it can correct a lower court's interpretation or application of the law connected to a specific case.​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Now Peter Gill doing his thing, simultaneous translation into Italian.

He's saying that burden of proof has been reversed here, which is unusual; normally it's for the prosecution to prove that there was no contamination.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
:)
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.
Click to expand...

Right here, platonov.

Seems you only read the parts you agree with, though.
 
katy_did said:
Now Peter Gill doing his thing, simultaneous translation into Italian.

He's saying that burden of proof has been reversed here, which is unusual; normally it's for the prosecution to prove that there was no contamination.
Click to expand...

And they are pointing out that Cassazione, in March 2013, declared that it was up to the defence to prove the route of contamination. This is being pointed out as a reversal of the burden of proof.

I guess Porta a Porta is an arm, now, of the vaunted Seattle PR machine. Oh wait, Daivd Marriott is going out of business.

Maybe it's the Masons behind Porta a Porta!
 
katy_did said:
Now Peter Gill doing his thing, simultaneous translation into Italian.

He's saying that burden of proof has been reversed here, which is unusual; normally it's for the prosecution to prove that there was no contamination.
Click to expand...
I can't find it. Do you have a link?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom