Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Oh. My. Word. Just when you think the pro-guilt commentators couldn't get more ugly and disgusting....... one of them has just expressed satisfaction in the hope that "Andreas Lubitz eclipsed her (Knox's) big day".

Seriously people. Step away. Stop writing. Consider what you're saying. It's disgusting, nasty, vindictive and bitter. Take a look at yourselves for once. Please.

 

[Strozzi]

Maybe 'the dog' or 'the professor' knows more, and could be coaxed to reveal through hypnosis?

Ok, more seriously, didn't Rudy supposedly confess to his cell mates what he did, his knife description, etc? I think Rudy knows what he did, yeah he's messed up, but he knows.

Journalists and others will seek to interview Guede when he is released. Guede talking is a real danger to Mignini, police, and even his own attorney.

Here are some potential magazine articles and books that a journalist could write, after loosening Guede's tongue with booze or drugs.

1. "The Prosecutors Who Prosecuted Me: Who Knew What And When Did They Know It".
2. "I Was A Stoolie For The Peruga Cops: My Life Of Crime And The Police Who Protected Me".
3. "If The Shoe Fits, Blame The Other Guy".
4. "Germany On Two Euros A Day"
5. "Blood On The Sheets: The Guys Downstairs Who Kept Silent"
6. "My Friend Mignini"
7. "Crime Lab Techniques", by Dr. Patricia Stefanoni and Dr. Rude
8. "Forensic Evidence Collection On A Budget", by Dr. Patricia Stefanoni and Dr. Rude Guede

Books for children:

1. "Kindergarten Stories", by Rude Guede.
2. "Don't Forget To Flush", by Rude Guede.
3. "The Cat With The Infected Ear".

 

[Diocletus]

They have disappeared and it's rather cowardly. From one perspective, one would have thought that Rag, having spent so much time and effort to rouse the troops into vehement online action, tweeting and re-tweeting misinformation and abuse and, after so many of them responded to his call, he might have shown up to acknowledge their 'efforts' - to tell them he is grateful.

He was the worst of them.

Has that tool really not been seen since the verdicts? LOL.

 

[LondonJohn]

Has that tool really not been seen since the verdicts? LOL.

He properly IS a nasty little piece of work masquerading as a "noble warrior for justice", and I highly suspect that he has deep-seated issues that would benefit from professional intervention. And his football team aren't going to win the Premier League this season either

 

[carbonjam72]

Journalists and others will seek to interview Guede when he is released. Guede talking is a real danger to Mignini, police, and even his own attorney.

Here are some potential magazine articles and books that a journalist could write, after loosening Guede's tongue with booze or drugs.

1. "The Prosecutors Who Prosecuted Me: Who Knew What And When Did They Know It".
2. "I Was A Stoolie For The Peruga Cops: My Life Of Crime And The Police Who Protected Me".
3. "If The Shoe Fits, Blame The Other Guy".
4. "Germany On Two Euros A Day"
5. "Blood On The Sheets: The Guys Downstairs Who Kept Silent"
6. "My Friend Mignini"

Books for children:

1. "Kindergarten Stories", by Rude Guede.
2. "Don't Forget To Flush", by Rude Guede.
3. "The Cat With The Infected Ear".

Yes, lovely titles. Here's one in YA market:

Rudy Guede: What I did on my All Souls holiday vacation.

And for adults: How to get away with murder, sort of.

 

[Kauffer]

A couple of thoughts on how the ISC is going to walk this whole thing back in the motivations report:

1. The "Confession". This one is easy. The ISC already said, in a 2008 (or 2009?) opinion that the statements could not be used. Yet, by joinder of the civil matters, those statements were used. It's easy now for the ISC to say that by virtue of its prior opinion, the Lumumba case was misjoined and the statements never should have been used. Villians here: Massei, Kerchers, Lumumba.

2. The Rudy Guede case. This one is easy, too. Everyone knows that you can't use some other guy's trial to convict someone. ISC will say the the defendants should have had a fair opportunity to litigate all issues, thus "multiple attackers" and "staging" are not proved. The judges probably saw the wall-climbing video on youtube. Villians here: Chieffi, Nencini, Mignini, Kerchers.

3. DNA. This one is simple, too. Berti and Barni proved that for LCN you have to amplify multiple times, and Stefanoni never did that--ever. Given this failure of basic protocol, and the questionable circumstances around collection, the knife and clasp results are not usable, and we have a new test for scientific evidence in Italy. No other DNA results are meaningful. I think that Gill's appearance on TV was helpful. It's possible that the ISC wants to make a point about the dual issues of (i) defense has to prove contamination (even when the prosecution failed to authenticate the results), and (ii) refusal to hand over raw data. Villians here: Stefanoni, Commodi, Nencini.

4. Alibi: The alibi will be held to be feasible. The fact that it can't be proved with certainty is a function of Nencini's evasion of TOD and the cops' spoilation of the computers. Given the spoilation, defendants should have been given the benefit of the doubt on alibi, and the prosecution should have been made to come up with some concrete "anti-alibi" evidence. Villians: Massei, cops, Nencini, Kerchers.

5. Anti-Alibi witnesses: Curatalo was on drugs and Nencini never heard from him so had no standing to adjudge him credible. Quintavalle is besides the point, and full of it. Villians: Chieffi, Nencini.

6. The "Scream". Who cares? Irrelevant. Villians: Nencini.

7. Other stuff--112 Call, "behavior", "I was there", "she knew how Meredith died", etc. All rubbish. Villians: Mignini, Kerchers, Nencini.

Actually, I don't think that this Motivation report has to be that long or is very difficult to write. The Florence cabal of Castiglioni(?), Nencini and Chieffi are going to come out looking very bad. Why did they do it?

You're right, with one caveat - they are probably not as bright as you are and therefore may leave some large holes unfilled.

But if multiple attackers aren't proved, according to this report, Guede who was definitively convicted 'with others' would appear to have a convincing shot at a trial review based on a claim that his conviction is for his role in a crime that never happened the way his court said it did. Indeed, what about the possibility of a habeas petition, and immediate suspension of sentence?

 

[Diocletus]

He properly IS a nasty little piece of work masquerading as a "noble warrior for justice", and I highly suspect that he has deep-seated issues that would benefit from professional intervention. And his football team aren't going to win the Premier League this season either

How about that loser Mimi? Any childish drawings since the verdict?

 

[LondonJohn]

How about that loser Mimi? Any childish drawings since the verdict?

Childish, but yet often vitriolic and nasty at the same time. Quite a combo.....

 

[carbonjam72]

A couple of thoughts on how the ISC is going to walk this whole thing back in the motivations report:

1. The "Confession". This one is easy. The ISC already said, in a 2008 (or 2009?) opinion that the statements could not be used. Yet, by joinder of the civil matters, those statements were used. It's easy now for the ISC to say that by virtue of its prior opinion, the Lumumba case was misjoined and the statements never should have been used. Villians here: Massei, Kerchers, Lumumba.

2. The Rudy Guede case. This one is easy, too. Everyone knows that you can't use some other guy's trial to convict someone. ISC will say the the defendants should have had a fair opportunity to litigate all issues, thus "multiple attackers" and "staging" are not proved. The judges probably saw the wall-climbing video on youtube. Villians here: Chieffi, Nencini, Mignini, Kerchers.

3. DNA. This one is simple, too. Berti and Barni proved that for LCN you have to amplify multiple times, and Stefanoni never did that--ever. Given this failure of basic protocol, and the questionable circumstances around collection, the knife and clasp results are not usable, and we have a new test for scientific evidence in Italy. No other DNA results are meaningful. I think that Gill's appearance on TV was helpful. It's possible that the ISC wants to make a point about the dual issues of (i) defense has to prove contamination (even when the prosecution failed to authenticate the results), and (ii) refusal to hand over raw data. Villians here: Stefanoni, Commodi, Nencini.

4. Alibi: The alibi will be held to be feasible. The fact that it can't be proved with certainty is a function of Nencini's evasion of TOD and the cops' spoilation of the computers. Given the spoilation, defendants should have been given the benefit of the doubt on alibi, and the prosecution should have been made to come up with some concrete "anti-alibi" evidence. Villians: Massei, cops, Nencini, Kerchers.

5. Anti-Alibi witnesses: Curatalo was on drugs and Nencini never heard from him so had no standing to adjudge him credible. Quintavalle is besides the point, and full of it. Villians: Chieffi, Nencini.

6. The "Scream". Who cares? Irrelevant. Villians: Nencini.

7. Other stuff--112 Call, "behavior", "I was there", "she knew how Meredith died", etc. All rubbish. Villians: Mignini, Kerchers, Nencini.

Actually, I don't think that this Motivation report has to be that long or is very difficult to write. The Florence cabal of Castiglioni(?), Nencini and Chieffi are going to come out looking very bad. Why did they do it?

Great list DC.

How about the idea of 'compatibles' and the role of speculation (like 'a second knife') when the evidence doesn't support a prosecution's position?

Reigning in prosecutor and judges from their fanciful embellishments and claims, unsupported by or contradicted by evidence, would be a step in the right direction as well. (The prosecutor argued on Wednesday that Knox and Sollecito had engaged in a 'selective clean-up' of presumably DNA, fingerprints, footprints in wet blood, and all other traces - a scientifically impossible act. How is it possible that type of argument is allowed into a courtroom?)

 

[Diocletus]

You're right, with one caveat - they are probably not as bright as you are and therefore may leave some large holes unfilled.

But if multiple attackers aren't proved, according to this report, Guede who was definitively convicted 'with others' would appear to have a convincing shot at a trial review based on a claim that his conviction is for his role in a crime that never happened the way his court said it did. Indeed, what about the possibility of a habeas petition, and immediate suspension of sentence?

Well, maybe. But he did do it, it's just that he did it in a way that was different from what his lawyer and Mignini stipulated. I think he's in a pretty good spot right now, and might do well to leave things as they stand. But, if he somehow capitalizes on Mignini's deal with the devil, then we know who to blame and it's not the devil.

 

[Diocletus]

Great list DC.

How about the idea of 'compatibles' and the role of speculation (like 'a second knife') when the evidence doesn't support a prosecution's position?

Reigning in prosecutor and judges from their fanciful embellishments and claims, unsupported by or contradicted by evidence, would be a step in the right direction as well. (The prosecutor argued on Wednesday that Knox and Sollecito had engaged in a 'selective clean-up' of presumably DNA, fingerprints, footprints in wet blood, and all other traces - a scientifically impossible act. How is it possible that type of argument is allowed into a courtroom?)

Yes, a very good point. A word or two of warning about speculation, transparency and BARD might be well-placed.

 

[Diocletus]

He properly IS a nasty little piece of work masquerading as a "noble warrior for justice", and I highly suspect that he has deep-seated issues that would benefit from professional intervention. And his football team aren't going to win the Premier League this season either

Found him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY

 

[Kauffer]

This from "TheConte" at PMF

"I will, (translate the motivation report) even if I have to do it on my own and pay for a professional to review it.

N.

This isn't the end, it is only just beginning.

RIP Meredith."

This is good - We will want to read it. Nice of this nut to foot the bill don't you think?

 

[Kauffer]

Found him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY

Perfect - LOL

 

[Antony]

That's true - the last R4 bulletin moved it to top billing. It's been second behind the plane crash all morning. NHS is top of the online news though.

Obviously the appalling, and scary in its causes, air tragedy trumps the judicial exoneration of 2 individuals in terms of news, and the juxtaposition is unhelpful. But still, few people can have missed it as something of significance.

When the Kerchers make a statement it'll be boosted again for a while.

The Kerchers' part in the saga fills me with sadness. They are in a dark, confusing place - like a lost traveller who believes he recognises the landmarks around him, which turn out to belong to an unknown location.

They desperately need honest legal advice, which they won't get from Maresca. If not, I can imagine they might even say something defamatory against Amanda or Raff (plenty of anonymous posters online still doing that) and create a situation that could become ugly. No doubt Amanda and Raff's lawyers have long been prepared for this situation.

 

[lonepinealex]

Oh. My. Word. Just when you think the pro-guilt commentators couldn't get more ugly and disgusting....... one of them has just expressed satisfaction in the hope that "Andreas Lubitz eclipsed her (Knox's) big day".

Seriously people. Step away. Stop writing. Consider what you're saying. It's disgusting, nasty, vindictive and bitter. Take a look at yourselves for once. Please.

That is really sick. But in a way I agree, though for opposite reasons. I imagine the one thing Amanda wants more than anything is for the press to stop covering this case, and stop taking pictures of her, and asking awful questions at press conferences (did you catch the journo bellowing "who's the killer?" at the end of her statement today?).

 

[katy_did]

Is it really possible for Knox and Sollecito to get compensation for wrongful imprisonment? I didn't think that was possible anywhere. People are remanded in custody pending trial and subsequently acquitted all over the world, and I've never heard of anyone being compensated for that, no matter how pathetic the case against them.

They would have to apply for it, but I think that once they do it's more or less automatic. Anyone found not guilty of a crime in Italy is entitled to a certain amount for each year of unjust imprisonment. Page 15 of this document has more info: "Article 314 of the CPP provides for the possibility of compensation for the unjust period spent in pre-trial detention. In essence, a person acquitted by a conclusive decision is entitled to compensation when he/she is found not guilty [of] the offence".

 

[Antony]

He properly IS a nasty little piece of work masquerading as a "noble warrior for justice", and I highly suspect that he has deep-seated issues that would benefit from professional intervention. And his football team aren't going to win the Premier League this season either

This is a detail that's passed me by. Please tell me this isn't my team. (Not that they're going to win the PL in the near future, either.)

 

[katy_did]

He properly IS a nasty little piece of work masquerading as a "noble warrior for justice", and I highly suspect that he has deep-seated issues that would benefit from professional intervention. And his football team aren't going to win the Premier League this season either

Oy.

The main thing, as always, is that Man Utd aren't going to win it either.

 

[Rolfe]

What about the documents they've gathered and made available? Do we lose all that too?

I abhor what they do, and how they do it, but on some level, haven't they also provided info, alongside their dis-info?

Excellent point. Also the point about the sites being useful studies in psychology. I do hope they become internet backwaters though.