Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

Well, it is not a personal attack to comment on the content of your posts.

Since joining 2 days ago, you've made 50 posts, most with the content of casting doubt on the Hellmann-Zanetti court; which suspiciously looks like what the Marasca-Bruno court is about to write!!.

First it was to suggest that Hellmann-Zanetti might have been unethical to find guilt on Knox's alleged calunnia, simply to throw the wolves a bone. (As witnessed by Hellmann's post-March 27, 2015, comments - that action, if true, did not work! But those comments show that Hellmann was well aware that he'd not be the most popular judge in PLE circles, so it sort'a bolsters the claim that he'd tried to throw them a bone.)

Then with post #4172, your post suggests that Hellmann was out of his depth as a criminal-judge. Frankly, that is a tired, worn-out guilter-meme from perhaps 4 years ago, as an ad hominem way for guilters to claim that Hellmann got it wrong.

If it interests you, in this post-exoneration world, you can scroll back onto former continuations, where Machiavelli thrashed out a theme where he accused the president of the Appeals Court of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, of being a criminal for appointing Hellmann in the first place. You see, in the guilter world (made redundant in March of this year) it was not just their allegations of Hellmann's factoid-incompetence, it was the behind the scenes, Masonic-led criminality!

However, all that is past history. Why bother commenting at all about Hellmann.....? Other than that he got it right, and was slapped down by a party-ridden judiciary in March 2013, where Chieffi was simply trying to bolster the "power of the PMs"?

Back when you started posting, you also got the forensics completely wrong. You claimed that perhaps AK and RS were wearing gloves as the reason why their forensics were not found on the outside-handle of Meredith's door. You simply did not respond when corrected - the correct answer is that the outside handle was never tested: because as the PLE said, they thought of that handle as not part of the crimescene!!!! (That reality didn't phase you, you simply moved on....)

You then changed tack, by suggesting that Postal Inspector Battistelli found Knox remarkably nonplussed by Meredith's locked door. The reality was that everyone except Filomena was equally nonplussed, even Battistelli. Once again, you simply drop things and move on as if you'd not been corrected.

I asked you at the time (about Battistelli vs. Knox's assessment of what the locked door meant), "I am curious as to why you are now trying to put them on opposite sides of this issue." You gave no answer.

You then made the remarkable statement about Hellmann - returning to critiquing him: "Excuse me, but it wasn't Hellmann's place to judge the merits of the case. This was already done by Massei. Hellman was supposed to deal with the legal points in the appeal."

Once again, when corrected (Hellmann's court was a fact-finding court acc. to Italian process) you did make mention of being corrected, but simply made no acknowledgement of the implications of being corrected, and moved on.

I mentioned to you that your speculations were unproductive. Your answer? You said that the Marasca-Bruno decision of March 27, 2015, was based on "insufficient evidence." It clearly was not. It was a decision based on Hellmann's 4-year-old reasoning, that AK and/or RS were not involved, and that the sub-charges were crimes which did not exist. Once again, you ignored that and moved on.

When Strozzi said that police in many countries typically DO deny suspects comfort breaks at interrogation, you took the police's side in your post where you asked rhetorically, "but did Amanda ASK if she could have a comfort break?" Of course she did. When corrected, you simply ignored that and moved on.

You also said that Hellmann's 2011 acquittals was based partly on his appointment of Conti & Vecchiotti, who in yours words were appointed for a "limited exercise". This earned a response from Sept79 which said, "Are you, Vixen, actually saying that Stefanoni's findings should still be the defining scientific evidence in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution?"

Once again, it is partially ignored ignored. You said, "I have no idea. However, you would hope a very high up scientific police officer was trustworthy, professional and credible." Leaving it at that jaw-dropping statement, you moved on.

You then shifted gears, at first seeming to concede that Anna Donnino's presence as translator/interpretor/mediator/diplomat was appalling. Yet it makes it seem like you are on a crusade to forever throw things back on the wrongfully prosecuted by saying, out of the blue, "I am curious as to why Raf never complained about police brutality." (Have you read his book? Have you followed the actions against him and Grumbal initiated by Mignini?)

Then you say: "No, I have never posted on any forum before, apart from Mensa. I have read all the books on the case."

Then there is post #4264 where one last time Hellmann takes a thrashing from you:

​

"Instead he substitutes his own reasoning"!??!???! You simply circle back to purposely misunderstand the appeals' court role!!! At that point we're right back at the beginning where you are tearing into Hellmann for completely illogical reasons, as if nothing had been presented at all.

This is not an ad hominem, character-based assessment of your posting history here. It is not a personal attack to comment on the content of your posts. There's an agenda here, that (frankly) is overwritten by the events of March 27, 2015.

Vixen, you seem to have some deep knowledge of certain aspects of this case for a guy who has never posted before. Have you ever written under the name "Yummi"?

 

[Antony]

I feel like I've stumbled into a medieval rural community and after some initial hospitality, I am suddenly surrounded by the villagers wielding pitchforks.

"Argh, you don't be argh-sking no questions around here!"

Er, thanks for your warm welcome, Antony.

I'm sure everyone here is pleased to see you to add some spice to the discussion; but I really don't think there is a reason to get defensive at a personal level. The post where you referred to "name-calling" was a response to the behaviour (note: not the individual) of other PG posters, not yourself; and what you called a "personal attack" was a response to someone pointing out the problems with your claim of being "bi-sceptical" of both the innocence and the guilt case.

And yes, I stand by my assessment that your posts here have followed a pattern we have seen before from PG posters. As for "argh-sking" questions, I think we expect you to answer a few - in particular, your specific criticism of Hellmann, referenced to his published, actual reasoning. Yes, the callunia conviction doesn't logically match the murder acquittal - but that's because the conviction was faulty, not the rest of the Hellmann verdict.

 

[Kauffer]

I feel like I've stumbled into a medieval rural community and after some initial hospitality, I am suddenly surrounded by the villagers wielding pitchforks.

"Argh, you don't be argh-sking no questions around here!"

Er, thanks for your warm welcome, Antony.

You get a warm welcome here if you:
1) Are new and don't know the case and come to learn
2) Know the case and express opinions supported by real evidence
3) Are someone who will acknowledge when they have made a factual error or false claim that another poster has taken the trouble to correct and then refrain from making the same error or claim again in subsequent posts.

Theorising is encouraged but be prepared to be challenged on how far the evidence supports such theories you advance.

What tends not to get a warm welcome is someone who consistently posts rather tired old non facts as facts, makes bold statements without citation of evidence or theorises without knowledge.

Most long term people here know the case very well indeed and a number of them have very comprehensive detailed knowledge of the evidence. There are real scientists here who have analysed the available forensic evidence and know about every false claim made about it over the years. You will not get anything past them that is unsupportable, whether it is your intention to do so or not.

You must also know that there is or was a well organised pro guilt advocacy group who attached themselves to this case who have consistently and deliberately repeated significant factual errors over the years all be it that some of these errors have also been included in court reports.

 

[Vixen]

According to Yummi/Mach and implied by Vixen (google "Amanda Knox" Vixen and get 189,000 hits and they are referring to her as a vixen) it was the defenses fault the stain wasn't tested. If the prosecution saw it and didn't test it that obviously raises a huge red flag. The reason given for not testing was that the bloody shoe print would be compromised. I have already put the above reason forward but no response. So I ask again why wouldn't a photo suffice of the shoe print? How could any visible stain on the pillow below the body not be tested. If it was from someone other than Rudi, Raf or Giacomo then we'd have the accomplice, no?

Why didn't the defense demand the semen stain be tested? It is up to the prosecution and the defense to present the evidence. All the judges do is sit on their backsides and review it. Why didn't Bongiorno put in a Disclosure Order? Are you saying she is a dullard? In Honor Bound Raf said the defense did not want to.

Seriously.

 

[Vixen]

You get a warm welcome here if you:
1) Are new and don't know the case and come to learn
2) Know the case and express opinions supported by real evidence
3) Are someone who will acknowledge when they have made a factual error or false claim that another poster has taken the trouble to correct and then refrain from making the same error or claim again in subsequent posts.

Theorising is encouraged but be prepared to be challenged on how far the evidence supports such theories you advance.

What tends not to get a warm welcome is someone who consistently posts rather tired old non facts as facts, makes bold statements without citation of evidence or theorises without knowledge.

Most long term people here know the case very well indeed and a number of them have very comprehensive detailed knowledge of the evidence. There are real scientists here who have analysed the available forensic evidence and know about every false claim made about it over the years. You will not get anything past them that is unsupportable, whether it is your intention to do so or not.

You must also know that there is or was a well organised pro guilt advocacy group who attached themselves to this case who have consistently and deliberately repeated significant factual errors over the years all be it that some of these errors have also been included in court reports.

Righto. Duly noted. You make it sound like there is a clash of ideology between two different religious sects.

Please credit me with a mind of my own. Then we will all get along nicely

For my part, please ensure your comments are sharp as I cannot suffer a fool.

 

[Grinder]

Why didn't the defense demand the semen stain be tested? It is up to the prosecution and the defense to present the evidence. All the judges do is sit on their backsides and review it. Why didn't Bongiorno put in a Disclosure Order? Are you saying she is a dullard? In Honor Bound Raf said the defense did not want to.

Seriously.

They requested it be tested after their expert "found" it but Massei refused their request. If you read up-thread others have explained this more than once.

But you once again fail to address why a stain on a pillow under the body wouldn't be tested by the investigating agency. The state has many more resources than the defense and they are supposed to be seeking the truth, aren't they?

And in Italy the separation between the police-prosecutors- judges isn't the same as in the US and UK. Why after this has been explained before do you make the pejorative dullard remark?

ETA - Why does this oversight by the PLE mean so much to you?

 

[Vixen]

I'm sure everyone here is pleased to see you to add some spice to the discussion; but I really don't think there is a reason to get defensive at a personal level. The post where you referred to "name-calling" was a response to the behaviour (note: not the individual) of other PG posters, not yourself; and what you called a "personal attack" was a response to someone pointing out the problems with your claim of being "bi-sceptical" of both the innocence and the guilt case.

And yes, I stand by my assessment that your posts here have followed a pattern we have seen before from PG posters. As for "argh-sking" questions, I think we expect you to answer a few - in particular, your specific criticism of Hellmann, referenced to his published, actual reasoning. Yes, the callunia conviction doesn't logically match the murder acquittal - but that's because the conviction was faulty, not the rest of the Hellmann verdict.

I have no idea what a PG poster is. Did you not see my earlier disclaimer?

No, I b'aint be one of them ooargh guilters and nor be I a troll.

Anyway, Antony, I hope you can now sleep easy in your bed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Righto. Duly noted. You make it sound like there is a clash of ideology between two different religious sects.

Please credit me with a mind of my own. Then we will all get along nicely

For my part, please ensure your comments are sharp as I cannot suffer a fool.

The only people who resemble a religious cult are those who do not self correct. You've said that the Hellmann court could not reconsider the facts of the case, and simply kept going when shown that was wrong.

In fact the only one I've seen say something like that is a former poster here - who had a similar approach as yours.

 

[Vixen]

They requested it be tested after their expert "found" it but Massei refused their request. If you read up-thread others have explained this more than once.

But you once again fail to address why a stain on a pillow under the body wouldn't be tested by the investigating agency. The state has many more resources than the defense and they are supposed to be seeking the truth, aren't they?

And in Italy the separation between the police-prosecutors- judges isn't the same as in the US and UK. Why after this has been explained before do you make the pejorative dullard remark?

ETA - Why does this oversight by the PLE mean so much to you?

Massei refused to allow it to be tested. However, all decisions by a judge at lower court can be appealed. Presumably, he had a sound legal right to make that decision.

I only know that if I were the defendant I would be demanding it be tested.

What was the reason given for refusing it to be tested? The prosecution are intent in building up their own case. Surely Raf could cite the Italian version of Brady v Maryland: it is unlawful for the prosecution to withhold evidence which would exculpate the defendant.

Are you saying that in Italy there is no such concept?

 

[Vixen]

The only people who resemble a religious cult are those who do not self correct. You've said that the Hellmann court could not reconsider the facts of the case, and simply kept going when shown that was wrong.

In fact the only one I've seen say something like that is a former poster here - who had a similar approach as yours.

I don't know any of the posters here, present or former.

Can Hellmann's annulled report be reinstated? I doubt it, so let's see what the new report will say.

I did hear that Italian legal boffins are saying that it is not in SC's remit to cite section 530 para 2 - insufficient evidence - as that is only within the jurisdiction of the lower courts.

Over to you. Explain if this is incorrect.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't know any of the posters here, present or former.

Can Hellmann's annulled report be reinstated? I doubt it, so let's see what the new report will say.

I did hear that Italian legal boffins are saying that it is not in SC's remit to cite section 530 para 2 - insufficient evidence - as that is only within the jurisdiction of the lower courts.

Over to you. Explain if this is incorrect.

Who knows. We'll find out. Massei's reason for not testing the semen stain remaining untested is in his report. It's a whopper.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you seem to have some deep knowledge of certain aspects of this case for a guy who has never posted before. Have you ever written under the name "Yummi"?

LOL. No. I have heard the name. No, I do not know him or her.

I have deep knowledge because my interest is in why people commit this type of crime. Having taken criminology and psychopathology as a couple of my psychology options I became interested in getting to the bottom of this crime.

It is possible to be independently minded without being a "guilter".

Anyway, why shouldn't someone be a "guilter", as clearly in any case, there will be two sides? Why would anyone care. It doesn't bother me if someone has a different opinion than me. Praise or criticism I treat with equanimity.

 

[Grinder]

Who knows. We'll find out. Massei's reason for not testing the semen stain remaining untested is in his report. It's a whopper.

At the hearing of December 4 the Defence for Sollecito concluded the rebuttals, submitting a memorandum evidencing that on the site of the inspection of May 25, 2009, on the pillowcase of the pillow found in the victim’s room some stains had
22
been found with the ‚crimescope‛ that could have been spermatic in nature and that these had not been the object of any genetic analysis. In relation to this contention, various questions were raised as to the necessity of testing relative to these stains.

As [the Court] has already pointed out, it does not recognize the necessity, as requested and defined by articles 523 and 507 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for [382] new evidence to be introduced.

In this regard, what has been previously observed on the subject is called to mind; with specific reference to the stains found on the pillowcase, particular mention of which was made by Sollecito’s defence *team+ during the trial and in the related illustrative memorandum, the following should be noted: even if a genetic investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation, as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e. establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts), might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity, [which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.

​

Lacking in absolute necessity... really? If it were from another friend of Rudi's say Koko would that have altered the verdict.

They tried in the first trial and kept trying at every level and yet it was never tested

 

[Grinder]

LOL. No. I have heard the name. No, I do not know him or her.

I have deep knowledge because my interest is in why people commit this type of crime. Having taken criminology and psychopathology as a couple of my psychology options I became interested in getting to the bottom of this crime.

It is possible to be independently minded without being a "guilter".

Anyway, why shouldn't someone be a "guilter", as clearly in any case, there will be two sides? Why would anyone care. It doesn't bother me if someone has a different opinion than me. Praise or criticism I treat with equanimity.

I don't use the term instead I requested years ago to use PG for pro guilt or PGP for pro guilt people.

 

[Kauffer]

Righto. Duly noted. You make it sound like there is a clash of ideology between two different religious sects.

Please credit me with a mind of my own. Then we will all get along nicely

For my part, please ensure your comments are sharp as I cannot suffer a fool.

But you see, that's the thing - you don't get any free credit. You'll be treated just like everyone else - according to the level of your commitment to follow the evidence. Then we will see what kind of mind you have.

And if it's a smart one, it will already have picked up on the general trend of the responses you have received so far.

 

[Kaosium]

Massei refused to allow it to be tested. However, all decisions by a judge at lower court can be appealed. Presumably, he had a sound legal right to make that decision.

I only know that if I were the defendant I would be demanding it be tested.

They did, several times. I know they did at the end of the Massei trial, then again in their appeal documents to both Hellmann and Nencini, however I'm unsure if they did in either of their appeals to Cassation. 'They' and 'their' designates Raffaele's defense team, I don't recall if Amanda's defense did off the top of my head.

What was the reason given for refusing it to be tested? The prosecution are intent in building up their own case.

Let's see if I remember this all correctly. When it was originally presented to the court by Prof Vinci the prosecution claimed they didn't want it tested because it might damage the partial shoeprint of Rudy's they were pretending was Amanda's because it was smaller. If you followed the link I gave you to Prof Vinci's presentation, you don't have to be able to read Italian to realize he's pointing out the 'smaller' shoeprint has the same treads as the others and is simply a partial print. Then they claimed that it could have gotten there at any time and wasn't necessarily related to the murder (this gets icky if you think on it too much). Maresca chimed in with something to the effect that it might embarrass the victim's family. I think Massei went with the later two in his motivations.

Surely Raf could cite the Italian version of Brady v Maryland: it is unlawful for the prosecution to withhold evidence which would exculpate the defendant.

Are you saying that in Italy there is no such concept?

Were it to have been tested and come up Rudy the prosecution would (likely) have claimed that additional evidence against Rudy would not exonerate Raffaele or Amanda. That's probably why Hellmann denied it as well.

 

[Grinder]

They did, several times. I know they did at the end of the Massei trial, then again in their appeal documents to both Hellmann and Nencini, however I'm unsure if they did in either of their appeals to Cassation. 'They' and 'their' designates Raffaele's defense team, I don't recall if Amanda's defense did off the top of my head.



Let's see if I remember this all correctly. When it was originally presented to the court by Prof Vinci the prosecution claimed they didn't want it tested because it might damage the partial shoeprint of Rudy's they were pretending was Amanda's because it was smaller. If you followed the link I gave you to Prof Vinci's presentation, you don't have to be able to read Italian to realize he's pointing out the 'smaller' shoeprint has the same treads as the others and is simply a partial print. Then they claimed that it could have gotten there at any time and wasn't necessarily related to the murder (this gets icky if you think on it too much). Maresca chimed in with something to the effect that it might embarrass the victim's family. I think Massei went with the later two in his motivations.



Were it to have been tested and come up Rudy the prosecution would (likely) have claimed that additional evidence against Rudy would not exonerate Raffaele or Amanda. That's probably why Hellmann denied it as well.

I posted Massei's reasoning above. Because it was late it needed to be necessary

 

[Kaosium]

I don't know any of the posters here, present or former.

Can Hellmann's annulled report be reinstated?

Essentially that's what they did by acquitting as opposed to remanding the case back for another trial. Think about it.

Incidentally, clear your mind of anything you read from PMF/TJMK and their false wiki. Much of it is nothing but dis/mis-information they propounded in hopes of affecting coverage of the case. Keep in mind that arguments/rebuttals unique to them, like the one regarding the semen stain (putting the onus on the defense), reveals where the ultimate source of your information comes from even if you don't realize it yourself.

No rational being looks at that sequence of events and thinks there's something fishy about the defense unless they got it from somewhere that fooled them into thinking it was a reasonable argument.

I doubt it, so let's see what the new report will say.

I'm quite interested in this as well.

I did hear that Italian legal boffins are saying that it is not in SC's remit to cite section 530 para 2 - insufficient evidence - as that is only within the jurisdiction of the lower courts.

Over to you. Explain if this is incorrect.

I don't know for sure, but it would seem that might be correct, how could Cassation be able to competently evaluate that anyway? It was Cheffi's hubris (or whatever) in thinking he could (effectively) rule on evidence that caused so much further embarrassment to his institution and distress to the innocents Mignini was persecuting.

However I don't think those sections and paragraphs mean much anymore, though the fact that some of the extraneous charges were dismissed as 'crimes that didn't occur' ought to give a hint as to their thoughts on the matter.

 

[Grinder]

I don't know for sure, but it would seem that might be correct, how could Cassation be able to competently evaluate that anyway? It was Cheffi's hubris (or whatever) in thinking he could (effectively) rule on evidence that caused so much further embarrassment to his institution and distress to the innocents Mignini was persecuting.

However I don't think those sections and paragraphs mean much anymore, though the fact that some of the extraneous charges were dismissed as 'crimes that didn't occur' ought to give a hint as to their thoughts on the matter.

Why should we care? The ISC section that heard this looked the crazy case and said let's end it now. Maybe they "should" have sent it back down to another appeal telling that court to find not guilty just as the previous one sent it down saying find guilt.

The Italian system found them not guilty and that's it for that. If people want to discuss the case that seems infinitely more interesting than details of the arcane Italian legal system

 

[Kaosium]

Why should we care? The ISC section that heard this looked the crazy case and said let's end it now. Maybe they "should" have sent it back down to another appeal telling that court to find not guilty just as the previous one sent it down saying find guilt.

The Italian system found them not guilty and that's it for that. If people want to discuss the case that seems infinitely more interesting than details of the arcane Italian legal system

Yes, I agree, though I do like that by acquitting rather than remanding they essentially admitted that Hellmann never should have been quashed in the first place. In my opinion amongst the major villains in this case was that Cassation court that quashed Hellmann

Incidentally, thanks for digging up that cite. I knew it was at the end of Massei somewhere but didn't find it in a cursory attempt. I didn't try harder because I was getting the impression links and cites weren't being read.