Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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

You'd better tell McCall. He's going to be so disappointed in you.

,..but you have changed your position. Really you have. And it's so very funny.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

You can, and do, say whatever you want. No one argues with that.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

No, let's make clear that you do. I seriously doubt that Amanda would try and prove to everyone that she knows everything...which is exactly what you keep doing.

 

[Desert Fox]

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

That is the problem, you never change your position. No matter what evidence is presented, you will never change your position.

 

[js202]

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.

Good. So then you admit that this - along with discounting the statements of esteemed professionals like Douglas, Gill, Budowle, etc. - has been your bogus methodology for the last four or five years. In other words, because you do not like the actual facts you must confront in this case, and because you lack the expertise to dazzle with brilliance, your methodology is to baffle with BS.

 

[kwill]

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.

Fantastic.

 

[lonepinealex]

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.

Who said anything about it being random? I'm saying that Amanda may have "copied" Laura inasmuch as thinking, "that looks cool, I'll have that done", rather than "I must precisely emulate this woman because I am a lunatic".

And what the hell is this supposed to show anyway? I thought you were arguing that Amanda was obsessed with Meredith?

Women copying each other's fashion ideas is really not big news. Do you look around you in Italy and think, "my god, nearly all the women wear brown eyeshadow and red lipstick! They're all psychotic murderers-in-waiting!".

 

[Dan O.]

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.

This motivation report?:

COURT OF PERUGIA
OFFICE GIP
Dr. Paolo Micheli
Judgment, 28.10.2008 - 26.01.2009
*
*
REASONS FOR DECISION

On the morning of November 2, 2007, at different times, the owners of the dwelling located at 5 Via Sperandio - bis of Perugia found two mobile phones within the yard of the relevance of the property, ...​

I thought everybody had that. If not, Marriot has some 'splan'n to do.

 

[MDDVS]

Fantastic.

No, spectacular

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, wouldn't the 'multiple attackers' brought in from Guede's fast-track trial be a concern to the ECHR?

sept,

Here is part of a much longer post on IIP that deals with the introduction of information from the Guede fast-track trial and appeal into the AK-RS trials. AK and RS had no representation in the fast-track trial and appeal.

4 Violation of Article 6.2 – Right to Presumption of Innocence; Fourth Instance

4.1 The Facts: In Rudi Guede's appeal trial judgment, the Borsini-Bellardi motivation, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are stated to be guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Amanda Knox is stated to have allowed Guede into the flat and to have committed a cover-up of the presence of Sollecito and herself in the crime, including by the staging of a break-in.

4.2 The Law: The presumption of innocence will be violated if a judicial decision concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law. It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty. A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably fall foul of this presumption.

4.3 Cases: Minelli v. Switzerland 8660/79 § 37; Nerattini v. Greece 43529/07 § 23; Didu v. Romania 34814/04 § 41

Source for 4.2 & 4.3: Guide on Article 6: The right to a fair trial (criminal limb). A publication of the ECHR/CoE, (C) 2014. PDF Available at site:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/analysis&c=#n13693846752619364551309_pointer

 

[kwill]

Who said anything about it being random? I'm saying that Amanda may have "copied" Laura inasmuch as thinking, "that looks cool, I'll have that done", rather than "I must precisely emulate this woman because I am a lunatic".

And what the hell is this supposed to show anyway? I thought you were arguing that Amanda was obsessed with Meredith?

Women copying each other's fashion ideas is really not big news. Do you look around you in Italy and think, "my god, nearly all the women wear brown eyeshadow and red lipstick! They're all psychotic murderers-in-waiting!".

Just for fun, this is what Candace Dempsey said about the narcissistic ear-ring copying back in 2010:

Meredith also considered Amanda overly admiring of Laura, one of their Italian roommates. Not only did Amanda have too many ear piercings, according to Meredith, but she’d only gotten them because she wanted to imitate Laura, who had at least four in each ear.

“Meredith would tell us about things Amanda did that got on her nerves, but she didn’t necessarily think these things were bad. Just strange,” said Amy.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...de-murder-in-italy-the-major-new-amanda-book/

Ahhhh. So here's someone saying that Meredith herself is the source of the "exact copying." Also that Meredith thought Amanda was strange, and liked to talk about that with her friends. That loud American. So oblivious to what English women think is cool. Good gossip. I'm still giving Meredith the benefit of the doubt on this one. She may have said these things with a laugh, not even dreaming that they were anything but funny stories about her interesting housemates. Repeating them second hand, though? That's catty.

So, who has said that Amanda disliked Meredith? Anybody?

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, wouldn't the 'multiple attackers' brought in from Guede's fast-track trial be a concern to the ECHR?

sept,

If you're interested in law, here's another snippet from my IIP post. The source is the same Guide on Article 6 as I referenced in my previous post here.

5 Violation of Article 6.2 – Right to Presumption of Innocence; Fifth Instance

5.1 The Facts: DNA evidence allegedly implicating the defendants could more likely be explained as contamination. The reliability of the DNA test procedures used was not established by the prosecution, including the validity of tests and their freedom from contamination. The responsibility for establishing the presence and source of contamination, was however, by fiat of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, assigned to the defendants.

5.2 The Law: The presumption of innocence will be infringed where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence. In requiring the defendant to provide an explanation although they had not been able to establish a convincing prima facie case against [the defendant], the [domestic] courts shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. *

5.3 Telfner v. Austria 33501/96 § 15

* Words in [ ] are added for clarity.

 

[Bill Williams]

Unfortunately I don't have Nina Burleigh's book, I only have a quotation from another book so I can't look up the source myself.
I also don't have the police testimonies of Juve and Spyros so I can't quote them.
But I also had independent sources which told me about the event.

However, I also think that Sollecito's and Knox's book are sufficiently eloquent in their admissions and omissions.

Sollecito clearly said Amanda wanted to spend the night with Meredith, and says she was disliked and rejected. She wanted to party with Meredith and she found herself walking home alone. The sms exchange ending witn "call me" with no answer is eloquent, and it's a fact. Knox pulls a curtain saying "thankfully Halloween was over", how can you interpret this, no matter how much sobbing there was?
Robyn Butterworth expressed an opinion that she thought next day Meredith felt guilty for not having answered Amanda's invitation (it was only Robyn's opinion).
It's clear there was a rejection on the part of Meredith. It's clearly something petty as an event, but it's also clear that Amanda was suffering that night, and she was suffering because of Meredith - because of her own loneliness she felt when she was not there, and probably jealousy - not because of other factors like social life or other sillines.

Machiavelli - do you wish to revise your statement that you never said that Amanda walked home alone?

 

[Machiavelli]

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?"​

Ehm, the order is different.
And the words also have a slightly different meaning.

At 19:56 Knox sends an sms to Meredith saying "What are you doing this evening? Do you want to meet (with me)? Do you have a costume?"

Meredith says:
"yes I have one, but I am going to visit friends" (Knox's phone apparently records it at 19:04, but it was actually sent at 20:04)

At 20:06 Knox sends another sms saying:
"I'm at Le Chic for a bit, and then what are we going to do? will we see each other? Call me".

Amanda doesn't say "who knows", she says "what do we do then?" (her question is, when Knox has finished work at Lumumba's bar, what will they be doing together then?)
And she doesn't say "maybe we'll see each other", this is instead another question: "are we going to see each other?".

Knox is just anxious that she won't meet Meredith that night. She really wants to meet her to do something or go somewhere together.

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.

As I said, it's not like that. Amanda is worried that Meredith may be not going to meet her. And she ends her sms with the recomendation "call me".

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)

They are talking about what they may do on Halloween.

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

But Sollecito says Amanda really wanted to go out with Meredith, but she didn't answer.
And Amanda says she is not happy with Spyros, and writes at the ende "thankfully Halloween was over".

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.

Of course, but also the fact that Sollecito decided to remain home alone despite everyone was out partying, and doesn't even mention saying "goodbye" to her girlfriend who was going out alone, is also an indication.

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.

Of course she didn't need. But she did arrange a meeting with Sollecito, because otherwise she would have been alone, she felt lonely (as she was).

 

[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.

In the "fact department", what you said was clear. Please give this up. Move on.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - do you wish to revise your statement that you never said that Amanda walked home alone?

I never stated she walked home alone. This is the third time I repeat that is not what I was saying.

I said that she was alone, and that if it was not for Sollecito who picked her she would have walked home alone.

 

[Machiavelli]

In the "fact department", what you said was clear. Please give this up. Move on.

In the "fact department" you are building stupid straw men.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, wouldn't the 'multiple attackers' brought in from Guede's fast-track trial be a concern to the ECHR?

sept,

Here's a longer snippet from my post on IIP, dealing with what ECHR terms failure to provide facilities for defense and equality of arms, but in the US is termed discovery. Same reference source as before, but I did some HUDOC look-up on this one.

7 Violation of Article 6.3b – Right to Adequate Facilities for Defense; Second Instance; with Violation of Article 6.1 – Right to Equality of Arms

7.1 The Facts: In each of the trial phases, despite requests from the defense, a large number of items of evidence, including forensic evidence, in the possession of the police were never admitted into the court and not disclosed to the defense. These items include, but are not limited to:

7.1.1 Electronic data files from the DNA profiling (requested by Hellmann court, but not delivered to court or defense)

7.1.2 Full results of DNA negative and positve control samples

7.1.3 Full results of the rape kit DNA profiling, including any presence of sperm or any indication of anal rape

7.1.4 Full explanation of the methodology used to conduct the DNA sampling, quantification, and profiling

7.1.5 Full disclosure of all samples of DNA tested; there was a suppression of data revealed by anomalies in the number of samples

7.1.6 Full disclosure of the DNA results of the human blood stains in the downstairs flat

7.1.7 Testing of a putative semen stain to identify it and to conduct DNA profiling

7.2 The Law: The “facilities” which everyone charged with a criminal offence should enjoy include the opportunity to acquaint himself, for the purposes of preparing his defence, with the results of investigations carried out throughout the proceedings. Failure to disclose to the defence material evidence containing items that could enable the accused to exonerate himself or have his sentence reduced may constitute a refusal of the facilities necessary for the preparation of the defence, and therefore a violation of the right guaranteed in Article 6 § 3(b) of the Convention. The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons.

7.2.1 It is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and defence. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. In addition, Article 6 § 1 requires that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused.

7.2.2 Having regard to the fact that, in spite of repeated requests, essential pieces of evidence were not adequately adduced and discussed at the trial in the defendant’s presence, the proceedings ... taken as a whole, did not satisfy the requirements of a fair trial. *

7.2.3 It [was not reasonably] explained why the defendants' requests to have the [evidence] produced before the court were refused. While it is true that the right to disclosure of relevant evidence is not absolute, the Court must scrutinise the decision-making procedure to ensure that, as far as possible, the procedure complied with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings, equality of arms and incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interest of the accused.*

7.2.4 The defendant was neither informed of the reasons for non-disclosure nor of the nature of the undisclosed materials nor, indeed, of whether the [suppressed evidence] did include any undisclosed material evidence. The Court considers that the procedure followed by the judicial authorities in the present case failed to adequately counterbalance the difficulties caused to the defence by its restricted access to the [suppressed evidence]. The defence were not informed in an adequate manner of the [domestic court’s] position on why it had been strictly necessary to restrict their rights and they had no possibility of presenting their counterarguments to any such considerations. The Court observes that the [domestic court] initially did authorise the applicant’s access to the [suppressed evidence] – implying that it found no reasons to restrict such access and considered it to be of some importance for the defence – but failed to take adequate measures to ensure compliance by the investigating authorities with its orders. Nor was this issue of non-compliance subsequently addressed in the judgements of the domestic courts. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that the procedure employed to determine the issue of disclosure of evidence complied with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings and equality of arms or incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in this respect.*

7.2.5 Non-disclosure of evidence to the defence may breach equality of arms (as well as the right to an adversarial hearing).

7.3 Cases: Natunen v. Finland 21022/04 § 43; Georgios Papageorgiou v. Greece 59506/00 (as 6.3d) § 36-39; Laska & Lika v. Albania 12315/04 § 70; Leas v. Estonia 59577/08 § 76-89; Kuopila v. Finland 27752/95 § 38

* Original text paraphrased for clarity; words in [ ] added.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ehm, the order is different.
And the words also have a slightly different meaning.

At 19:56 Knox sends an sms to Meredith saying "What are you doing this evening? Do you want to meet (with me)? Do you have a costume?"

Meredith says:
"yes I have one, but I am going to visit friends" (Knox's phone apparently records it at 19:04, but it was actually sent at 20:04)

At 20:06 Knox sends another sms saying:
"I'm at Le Chic for a bit, and then what are we going to do? will we see each other? Call me".

Amanda doesn't say "who knows", she says "what do we do then?" (her question is, when Knox has finished work at Lumumba's bar, what will they be doing together then?)
And she doesn't say "maybe we'll see each other", this is instead another question: "are we going to see each other?".

Knox is just anxious that she won't meet Meredith that night. She really wants to meet her to do something or go somewhere together.



As I said, it's not like that. Amanda is worried that Meredith may be not going to meet her. And she ends her sms with the recomendation "call me".



They are talking about what they may do on Halloween.



But Sollecito says Amanda really wanted to go out with Meredith, but she didn't answer.
And Amanda says she is not happy with Spyros, and writes at the ende "thankfully Halloween was over".



Of course, but also the fact that Sollecito decided to remain home alone despite everyone was out partying, and doesn't even mention saying "goodbye" to her girlfriend who was going out alone, is also an indication.



Of course she didn't need. But she did arrange a meeting with Sollecito, because otherwise she would have been alone, she felt lonely (as she was).

This is a complete fantasist post, reminiscent of Mignini's closing in 2009, where he, too, over-psychologized Amanda Knox.....

...... an over-psychologization which Judge Massei ignored completely in his motivations report, adopting instead a new "theory of the crime", one that Mignini, the prosecutor, never made reference to.

That's the problem with the "judicial truths" generated by the Italian system (exception is Hellmann's court) - they can just make up things. If a judge (or the judge-panel) simply listens to the evidence (or lack of same) they acquit.

If they go off on flights of fancy, and start making stuff up (Nencini: Raff's DNA found on the knife (!), Amanda's shoeprint found in the murder room (!)), then they convict.

 

[acbytesla]

Just for fun, this is what Candace Dempsey said about the narcissistic ear-ring copying back in 2010:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...de-murder-in-italy-the-major-new-amanda-book/

Ahhhh. So here's someone saying that Meredith herself is the source of the "exact copying." Also that Meredith thought Amanda was strange, and liked to talk about that with her friends. That loud American. So oblivious to what English women think is cool. Good gossip. I'm still giving Meredith the benefit of the doubt on this one. She may have said these things with a laugh, not even dreaming that they were anything but funny stories about her interesting housemates. Repeating them second hand, though? That's catty.

So, who has said that Amanda disliked Meredith? Anybody?

Strange not bad. I'm sure that Amanda is unique I see people all the time with piercings through their noses, cheeks, tongues,, etc. Now I admit that I find this to be strange. But that's me. That doesn't make them narcissistic or bad. It just means that they march to a different beat than me. What kind of person doesn't see this?