Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

He's definitely the 'type'

I'm seeing a diaper, a bonnet and teething ring. And lots of crying.

 

[kwill]

But I am not that interested in opinions. I am interested about facts.

Good. Me too. The sobbing for two hours story that you have offered is not factual, or at least until you can be troubled to source it accurately, it's just rumor.

And I am not interested in "people who know Amanda Knox" (present tense). I am focused instead on the 20-year old Amanda Knox in Perugia.

Great. Me too. That list includes her Italian housemates and the young men who live downstairs, first and foremost, yes? They would have been the people who spent the most time with her and presumably came to understand her better than others. Is there testimony from them about Amanda's narcissistic personality disorder? About how much Meredith disliked her? About -- especially this -- how much Amanda resented Meredith?

Example: is it true that Amanda Knox copied exactly Laura Mezzetti's ear piercings? (it's just an example of factual report)

I love when you bring this up as evidence that Amanda was narcissistic, bitter and probably a murderer. Can you tell me why copying a fashion in hair, dress, jewelry, dance moves, shampoo brand, etc is narcissistic?

Do you know that this is how fashion happens? By people liking a certain look and copying it exactly?

Mind, boggled.

 

[Numbers]

It's you and your innocentisti friends who apparently still need to learn.
That a violation of article 6 changes the outcome is just false.

That it may trigger a chain of events that ends with a chainging of outcome, is true, but ony in theory, because there is almost no instance of such an event.
Most violations of article 6 - basically all of them until now in Italy - do not trigger a chani of events that changes the outcome of a trail.

The "chain of events" triggered by art. 6 violations by now has usually ended leaving the basic trial findings unaltered.

For exampe Numbers seems engaged within a misinterpretaion of the Dorigo case. That was an important case on a constitutional level, it involved a judicial modification of the procedure code. It is also important because of the application of a directive provisional measure of releasing Paolo Dorigo from prison. Then, it entitled Dorigo to a new trial, because the first was "unfair".

The procedure code was changed by the Constitutional Court in order to do that. Before that, it was possible to order a trial review only in some cases, among them if new evidence (or a change of evidentiary setting) was such to lead to think that the outcome of the trial would be acquittal.
But the ECHR maintained that the principle of restitutio ad integrum suggested that the defendant should be allowed to have a new trial under fair rules, this in any event, independently on the possibilities to obtain an acquittal.

However this didn't change the outcome. Dorigo served al his sentence, was entitled to his trial review based on ECHR indications, and at the end of his new trial he was found guilty again (convicted in Bologna on 27. Jan 2014).

That an ECHR violation leads to an acquittal is an illusion. It sometimes leads to a new trial, which by now always lead to another conviction, this time under more fair rules.

It is correct that under Italian CPP Article 630, as interpreted by the Italian Constitutional Court, an ECHR judgment of a violation of Convention Article 6 does not lead to an automatic acquittal, but to a revision trial (if requested by the ECHR applicant or by a prosecutor) which must be held in accordance with the provisions and case-law of Convention Article 6. Such revision trial may or may not lead to acquittal.

Whether a revision trial in Italy could lead to a conviction in a case where, for example, the alleged inculpatory evidence was entirely eliminated due to a violation of Convention Article 6 remains to be seen. However, such a conviction on no evidence would no doubt lead to another ECHR case.

 

[lonepinealex]

how can you copy exactly someone's ear piercings anyway? There are a limited number of ways an ear can be pierced, and often people see someone else's and think, "that's nice, I'll have that done". I did with my second set of piercings - didn't murder the friend I "copied" it off though.

Unless you're suggesting that Amanda measured the precise location and diameter of the piercings, to the nanometre.

 

[acbytesla]

As I showed, there is even an eloquent - and quite equivalent - account of that episode in their own books.

Sollecito's report that "She wanted to go out with Meredith that night, but didn't answer her sms".
Look, he even tells us that explicitly. But how could he even know about it, or put it in his story, if that "refusal" was unimportant?

That doesn't prove that she sobbed for two hours or that she walked home alone.What kind of bizarre and twisted logic goes from Amanda wished to go out with Meredith to she was hurt by it? And hurt so much that she would kill? You take a totally inconsequential detail and then make up a bizarre story. What the hell is wrong with this concept except everything?

 

[Machiavelli]

Just because you deny it doesn't make it untrue. I posted my cite, from the original convicting judge's own Motivations Report where he quotes Dr Gino without rebuttal from the prosecution.

This is a completely moot, almost idiotic argument. Draw your own exegesis from a motivations report - or better, from what is missing (!) from a motivations report - when we have the actual trial transcripts.
You'd better start to learn a bit of the real trial.

He was there in court with Stefanoni too, and vague generic statements that couldn't have been regarding the TMB negatives (“trials they did in their laboratories”) do not excuse her omitting the TMB negatives and then denying they did them in court.

What are you talking about? Do you really have judge Micheli's motivations reports? I doubt that. I think you are making big confusion even between motivations reports from different judges.
Moreover, it is absolutely false that she ever denied having done TMB tests on the lumnol prints in court.
This is another bit of making up stuff. Yes this is the real making up stuff.

She could not have determined that the luminol hits were 'false negatives' without a confirmatory test and those weren't done--or if they were those also were omitted and never discovered.

This is nothing but your opinion. She said they made trials and determined that most times luminol stains that are actually blood would yield false negatives on confirmatory tests.

And anyway, we all know that TMB tests are logically irrelevant, because TMB is less sensitive and less specific and because they react to the same array of false negatives, there are no substances known to be reactive to luminol but not to TMB, certainly no substance with such property is known as probable or plausible for bare footprints.

You're the one who posted the citation from the the trial transcript, as I recall your argument (then) was that he wasn't referring to the luminol hits but something someone was talking about many pages back. Why don't you post that citation again? It was pretty clear to me it was the luminol hits and Dr. Gino and Massei concurred.

You are making up stuff again. I explained it once, but that was obvious to those who read the transcript, but above all to those who were there and could see Maori using his laser pen.

Then it was a poor idea to omit the inconvenient TMB negatives and then lie about them in court.

You are the one lying here. You only make up stuff. Stefanoni was absolutely never caught lying.

Those documents were released July 30, 2009 for a trial which began around October of the previous year, that the prosecution was caught out on this does not excuse them trying to hide them and lying about them in court.

The prosecution never tried to hide them, and was never "caught". They said yes" when they were requested. That's what's in the records.
There's nothing but this in the trial papers.

This is not the only instance that Stefanoni lied, and you deny them all regardless of how apparent it is. She also lied about the amount and method of quantification for the knife blade where which she tried to give the impression it was a high template sample

Absolutely false that she ever tried to give an impression that it was a high template sample. She maintained the plain contrary of that.
And your wild allegation doesn't make sense on a sheer logical level neither, because 1. the Fluorimeter she actually used was actually a less sensitive method thant PCR, which implies a higher detection threshold and thus a higher template. and 2. prof. Potenza was there and he coudld assist the test.

as well as trying to hide the existence of other contributors to the bra clasp by pretending those peaks were 'stutter' and hiding the data that would reveal that.

Hiding what? She openly stated that the bra clasp was a mixture of multiple contributors.
And hiding what data? She provided herself the electropherograms in Oct. 2008, the defence could see all the peaks and their heights.
Those are disgusting and crazy allegation, manifestly unfounded to anyone has eyes to read the trial papers. I don't know why you are caught in this bubble of delusion frankly.

Just because you deny it doesn't make it untrue; just because she was caught doesn't mean that it's all right that she tried to hide the data and lie about it

.

Nobody was caught (except Vecchiotti). Stefanoni provided all this information herself in 2008.

 

[Dougm]

That doesn't prove that she sobbed for two hours or that she walked home alone.What kind of bizarre and twisted logic goes from Amanda wished to go out with Meredith to she was hurt by it? And hurt so much that she would kill? You take a totally inconsequential detail and then make up a bizarre story. What the hell is wrong with this concept except everything?

Anyone ever been out looking for friends, not be able to find them, and end up finding another friend? Then having a boyfriend/girlfriend who is busy doing something else, but who comes to meet up with us once they get done?

According to Mach, this indicates some personality disorder, which leads to rage, which leads to murder. Thank god he is wrong, or we'd have a worldwide murder epidemic!

 

[Machiavelli]

That doesn't prove that she sobbed for two hours or that she walked home alone.

I didn't say she walked home alone. That is maybe another straw man that Bill Williams understood. But I explain what I meant. She was alone. She had no friends to walk together home (except Internet Man Spyros, whom she implies she didn't appreciate as a company). Meredith left her alone, she would have walked home alone, unless Sollecito picked her up.

Whether she sobbed for two hours - as reported by a source - would be a remarkable event if true, but it is not the determinant element in order to understand her feelings.

 

[Machiavelli]

Anyone ever been out looking for friends, not be able to find them, and end up finding another friend? Then having a boyfriend/girlfriend who is busy doing something else, but who comes to meet up with us once they get done?

According to Mach, this indicates some personality disorder, which leads to rage, which leads to murder. Thank god he is wrong, or we'd have a worldwide murder epidemic!

No, let's not start building another straw men forest.

 

[Dougm]

I didn't say she walked home alone. That is maybe another straw man that Bill Williams understood. But I explain what I meant. She was alone. She had no friends to walk together home (except Internet Man Spyros, whom she implies she didn't appreciate as a company). Meredith left her alone, she would have walked home alone, unless Sollecito picked her up.

Whether she sobbed for two hours - as reported by a source - would be a remarkable event if true, but it is not the determinant element in order to understand her feelings.

Come on. This is pathetic. You just don't like her.

 

[Kauffer]

It's you and your innocentisti friends who apparently still need to learn.
That a violation of article 6 changes the outcome is just false.

That it may trigger a chain of events that ends with a chainging of outcome, is true, but ony in theory, because there is almost no instance of such an event.
Most violations of article 6 - basically all of them until now in Italy - do not trigger a chani of events that changes the outcome of a trail.

The "chain of events" triggered by art. 6 violations by now has usually ended leaving the basic trial findings unaltered.

For exampe Numbers seems engaged within a misinterpretaion of the Dorigo case. That was an important case on a constitutional level, it involved a judicial modification of the procedure code. It is also important because of the application of a directive provisional measure of releasing Paolo Dorigo from prison. Then, it entitled Dorigo to a new trial, because the first was "unfair".

The procedure code was changed by the Constitutional Court in order to do that. Before that, it was possible to order a trial review only in some cases, among them if new evidence (or a change of evidentiary setting) was such to lead to think that the outcome of the trial would be acquittal.
But the ECHR maintained that the principle of restitutio ad integrum suggested that the defendant should be allowed to have a new trial under fair rules, this in any event, independently on the possibilities to obtain an acquittal.

However this didn't change the outcome. Dorigo served al his sentence, was entitled to his trial review based on ECHR indications, and at the end of his new trial he was found guilty again (convicted in Bologna on 27. Jan 2014).

That an ECHR violation leads to an acquittal is an illusion. It sometimes leads to a new trial, which by now always lead to another conviction, this time under more fair rules.

Well, you have changed your position. Previously you were arguing that final confirmation of verdicts was res iudicata and that was that - the ECHR changed nothing.

Italy has been written up so often by the Committee of Ministers over the lack of a mechanism to provide restitutio in integrum in individual measures, that Article 630 of the CCP had to be modified by the constitutional court to facilitate retrials for ECHR cases. You appear to apprecitate this now, having previously insisted that the court did not have the power to do precisely what it has done. What you haven't yet appreciated is that 630 will be applied to ALL cases where the ECHR has ruled that an Article 6 violation has occurred.

Furthermore, Cassation has also ruled that execution of sentence is suspended for any such violation. So, no-one stays in prison after the ECHR has ruled.

If Cassation confirms tomorrow and the case does go to the ECHR, when it comes back for re-trial, the problem for Italy is that once all the fair trial violations have been written down in Strasbourg, and others, the prosecutor is going to be left standing in front of a judge in Peruga trying to convict Ms Knox with only Quintavalle's assertion that she didn't buy any bleach in his shop and probably two other 'witnesses': a dead junkie and a mentally ill incontinent. All the other 'evidence' will have been long gone by then.

Even in Italy, good luck with that.

The calunnia case is not much different. What Italy will be told to do, or what it might offer to do, is vacate the conviction. It can use 630, administratively. A new trial is called then immediately the case dismissed both for lack of evidence and expiry of the statute of limitations. There might be an even simpler mechanism.

Incidentally, you should let McCall in on your new found appreciation of the ECHR. He was saying today how he was sure it did not apply to national courts. We both know he's wrong now, don't we?

I guess you two, Jackie, Hugo, Popper and Rag are going to be having some difficult conversations about all this.

 

[js202]

No, let's not start building another straw men forest.

The gentleman is doing his best to reason through the lunatic scenario you have framed. He is being as friendly and charitable as he can be under the circumstances - for your armchair psychoanalysis, based on hearsay about a person whom you have never met, is an embarrassment for you, and makes no sense.

 

[acbytesla]

I didn't say she walked home alone. That is maybe another straw man that Bill Williams understood. But I explain what I meant. She was alone. She had no friends to walk together home (except Internet Man Spyros, whom she implies she didn't appreciate as a company). Meredith left her alone, she would have walked home alone, unless Sollecito picked her up.

Whether she sobbed for two hours - as reported by a source - would be a remarkable event if true, but it is not the determinant element in order to understand her feelings.

Again you failed to provide a cite. I have been debating you for years and the many many lies and exaggerations you have told is only dwarfed by your bizarre logic I keep trying to give you the opportunity to prove your lies, but you never do. You just dance around them until you are let off the hook.

 

[Machiavelli]

how can you copy exactly someone's ear piercings anyway? There are a limited number of ways an ear can be pierced, and often people see someone else's and think, "that's nice, I'll have that done". I did with my second set of piercings - didn't murder the friend I "copied" it off though.
(...)

There is a limited number. Yes. But what number? Depends on the number of rings.
So in order to calculate the odds of having the same combination ear piercings, first you would need to get right the number of rings.

In fact guessng the total number of rings is not that easy. Let's say that we decide to consider "probable" a number between 1 and 8, if the choice is random you have 1:8 probability to get the correct (equal) number or rings.

A person has two ears so, a number of combinations is possible using a variable number N of piercings between 1 and 8 in total.
The total number of combinations "n" is n = (8+1) + (7+1) + ... + (1 +1) = 44 . There seems to be about only 1:44 probability (2,27%) to get randomly the same combination of piercings of Laura Mezzetti, limited to the assumption that the number of total piercings is between 1 and 8.

 

[acbytesla]

Come on. This is pathetic. You just don't like her.

What 5 really sad is that he bases that dislike on the remarks of three 20 year old girls and a 60 year old lunatic. Me, I base my opinions of others on first hand knowledge.

I also believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Machiavelli]

The gentleman is doing his best to reason through the lunatic scenario you have framed. He is being as friendly and charitable as he can be under the circumstances - for your armchair psychoanalysis, based on hearsay about a person whom you have never met, is an embarrassment for you, and makes no sense.

Let's make clear that I can say Knox suffers from narcissistic personality disorder every other day without giving any particular explanation, as long as I am talking with people who state without any proof that Mignini is corrupt, that this or that guy violated the law, that the media did this or that, that doctors performed fake HIV tests, that Stefanoni lied or that she doesn't have a PhD.

 

[Dan O.]

As I showed, there is even an eloquent - and quite equivalent - account of that episode in their own books.

Sollecito's report that "She wanted to go out with Meredith that night, but didn't answer her sms".
Look, he even tells us that explicitly. But how could he even know about it, or put it in his story, if that "refusal" was unimportant?

20:06:51 Amanda texts Meredith — "I'm going to Le Chic for a bit, and afterwards who knows, maybe we'll see each other. Call me. What are you doing this evening? Do you want to meet? Do you have a costume?"​

Amanda is quite clearly asking Meredith what she wants. The evening has already began so it's not like Amanda is making plans to go out with Meredith. It's more like Amanda is worried that Meredith isn't having a good time. After texting Meredith, Amanda continues to hang out at Patrick's for another 3.5 hours before she calls Spiros just after 23:30.

As far as making plans for that evening, it looks like Spiros was originally part of that plan:

16:25:41 Amanda calls Spiros (3:18)
16:54:34 Spiros calls Amanda (0:30)
​

Eventually, Amanda meets up with Spiros and they go to what I believe was the Shamrock.

In the last phone contact between Amanda and Raffaele just after 1 AM that night, Raffaele is on his home landline. The indication is that they arranged a time and place to meet and the fountain in front of the church which is right across the plazza from the bar where she is at is a distinctive landmark.

Alternatively, Amanda is only a few blocks from her home. She could have just walked home or back to Raff's place as she had done many nights after work. She didn't need Raffaele to walk her home but he chose to take the walk into town to meet her.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Incidentally, you should let McCall in on your new found appreciation of the ECHR. He was saying today how he was sure it did not apply to national courts. We both know he's wrong now, don't we?

I guess you two, Jackie, Hugo, Popper and Rag are going to be having some difficult conversations about all this.

I never changed my position. And my appreciation of ECHR remains the same as before.

 

[Bill Williams]

I didn't say she walked home alone. That is maybe another straw man that Bill Williams understood. But I explain what I meant. She was alone. She had no friends to walk together home (except Internet Man Spyros, whom she implies she didn't appreciate as a company). Meredith left her alone, she would have walked home alone, unless Sollecito picked her up.

Whether she sobbed for two hours - as reported by a source - would be a remarkable event if true, but it is not the determinant element in order to understand her feelings.

This is a horrible post. Yes you did post, way back when, that she walked home alone.

Now you are trying to claim you meant she felt alone when she walked home. Or is it that she was psychically-isolated when she walked home?

I agree. Why don't you just say you don't like her. Why don't you just say you think she's a psycho, even though there's no evidence to suggest such.

Except for Mignini. Except for Mignini's closing which you graciously summarized. No one, not Massei not Crini was dumb enough to put Mignini's fantasies into print.

 

[acbytesla]

There is a limited number. Yes. But what number? Depends on the number of rings.
So in order to calculate the odds of having the same combination ear piercings, first you would need to get right the number of rings.

In fact guessng the total number of rings is not that easy. Let's say that we decide to consider "probable" a number between 1 and 8, if the choice is random you have 1:8 probability to get the correct (equal) number or rings.

A person has two ears so, a number of combinations is possible using a variable number N of piercings between 1 and 8 in total.
The total number of combinations "n" is n = (8+1) + (7+1) + ... + (1 +1) = 44 . There seems to be about only 1:44 probability (2,27%) to get randomly the same combination of piercings of Laura Mezzetti, limited to the assumption that the number of total piercings is between 1 and 8.

Really Mach? What the hell is wrong with this picture? A middle-aged man trying to demonstrate that he has a clue about ear piercings. Just stop please! All you are proving is that you have a serious problem not only with the truth but with reality.