Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Hellmann went public with disgust after his annulment, I hope Nencini follows suit, but I somehow doubt it.
Does he have the courage of his convictions?

Unlike Hellmann, Nencini doesn't have the guts to defend his motivations report. He's a craven coward. So far he's left it to posters on obscure websites to sing his praises. They're probably singing his praises on PMF, nut it's now behind the Iron Curtain.

 

[Kaosium]

Kate Manley DAILY MIRROR: Raf told her they were at a party on the murder night.

False. That's not what it says to begin with (it was 'to party' not 'to a party') and it was Kate Mansey's error which ironically is proven because of the telephone tap they had on Raffaele's phone where soon after reading it he complains that she got it wrong.

Amanda said she was with Raf when thingy called, but phone reports show she was out.

It was a text, not a voice call and more than one tower serves Raffaele's as proven by the other phone records.

Said they had dinner before 8:42, after which the pipes burst, and then changed dinner time to eleven pm.

Huh? Where does this come from? I know the 11 PM comes from her note, she never said she had dinner before 8:42, she didn't remember the time that well that night because she had no reason to be keeping track of time.

Amanda said she was home with Raf all evening through to 10:00am next day.

Yes.

Raf himself called a press conference during the current appeal to say he couldn't account for Amanda's wherabouts between 8:45 and 1:00am.

That's not true the way you wrote it, citation please.

In her email home, Amanda claimed she was frantically worried about Mez to the extent of banging on her door and climbing on a window ledge to look in. Battistelli reported otherwise.

How the hell would he know, he wasn't there when that supposedly (you've the details wrong but nevermind) happened!

Amanda claimed to him, Mez' door was always "closed" implying there was nothing to worry about (when the cops appeared).

Nonsense, that's not even a good representation of a Machine/Harry Rag list-o-lies.

Get your lies (or badly distorted irrelevant nonsense) right next time!

 

[Kaosium]

IIRC I read it in Nencini.

That idiotic contention by the prosecution was dismissed in a parenthetical aside by Massei at the trial of the first instance. What happened was the police reversed the polarity of the time difference (~10-12 minutes) on the CCTV camera and made their case as if it was 10-12 minutes fast instead of 10-12 minutes slow like it actually was. The defense used the CCTV camera and the cell phone records (which are exact) to disprove that.

Nencini just took every prosecution contention that he thought helped his motivations at face value regardless of whether it had been disproven, dismissed or never even adduced (some of it was from Rudy Guede's trial!) in court against Amanda and Raffaele. Even the bunnies were embarrassed by it according to quotes from there which got posted here.


The ISC took one look at Nencini's report and whipped it out and watered it down!

 

[acbytesla]

What I don't get about Vixen's posts is her lack of consistency. First, she says that we should pay more attention to the trials of the first instance and here she goes ignoring Massei and Hellman. Instead she relies on Nencini. WHY VIXEN?

 

[davefoc]

What I don't get about Vixen's posts is her lack of consistency. First, she says that we should pay more attention to the trials of the first instance and here she goes ignoring Massei and Hellman. Instead she relies on Nencini. WHY VIXEN?

Vixen seems to be arguing for three things and I get a bit confused which argument Vixen is making in a particular post:
1. AK/RS are factually guilty
2. Regardless of whether AK/RS are guilty or not, the ISC made a technical mistake and the case should have been transferred back to a lower court for further adjudication
3. Some courts (apparently the ones that found for innocence) made mistakes when they were inadequately deferential to decisions by lower courts.

 

[js202]

Vixen seems to be arguing for three things and I get a bit confused which argument Vixen is making in a particular post:
1. AK/RS are factually guilty
2. Regardless of whether AK/RS are guilty or not, the ISC made a technical mistake and the case should have been transferred back to a lower court for further adjudication
3. Some courts (apparently the ones that found for innocence) made mistakes when they were inadequately deferential to decisions by lower courts.

Yes, and if I may add a #4:

When a sentence like - "That is a decision for the judges to make, and it should be respected." - gets pressed into service, it only pertains to *some* judges. Certainly not to that sloppy thinker Hellmann...

More citations, and thorough and consistent argumentation and explication, are necessary to make sense of the true nature of Vixen's position. Much less its soundness.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen seems to be arguing for three things and I get a bit confused which argument Vixen is making in a particular post:
1. AK/RS are factually guilty
2. Regardless of whether AK/RS are guilty or not, the ISC made a technical mistake and the case should have been transferred back to a lower court for further adjudication
3. Some courts (apparently the ones that found for innocence) made mistakes when they were inadequately deferential to decisions by lower courts.

Vixen is also arguing for the truthfulness long since debunked evidence.

That Raffaele called 1-1-2 AFTER the arrival of the Postal Police. Vixen seems to be following Nencini's factoid-reasoning, which was that Raffaele slipped away as Meredith was being discovered. That factoid doesn't even line-up with the known timing of the calls, all laid out in Massei's report.

As acbytesla said:

First, she says that we should pay more attention to the trials of the first instance and here she goes ignoring Massei and Hellman. Instead she relies on Nencini. WHY VIXEN?​

Yes, why is that?

Vixen is also arguing that Raffaele threw Amanda under a bus at his press conference. Vixen thinks that is factual, yet cannot provide any evidence - more to the point, Raffaele's own appeal document, the amendment AND the final exoneration on Mar 27, an exoneration for them both, disprove the claim.

Vixen also argues that AK and RS were, in fact, at the crimescene. Also that they always changed their stories. This ignores the fact that once they had lawyers, and once they understood what they were up against, their stories have not changed in 7 years.

Vixen also implies that Judge Massei convicted them partly on evidence of their psychopathology, although Massei did not need to mention that in his motivations report. Vixen claims that failing to mention it, doesn't necessarily mean Massei didn't think it!

So to cut to the chase, I wish Vixen would address LJ's post:

And Vixen, would you be able to post your general theory of what you think actually happened (or most likely happened, if you prefer) in Perugia on the night of 1st November 2007?

e.g:

- Do you think Knox and/or Sollecito participated in the attack and murder on Kercher? If so, why do you think that, and what evidence supports that belief?

- Do you think the break-in was staged or real? If staged, who do you think staged it? If real, who do you think committed it?

- What approximate time do you think Kercher was attacked and killed? Why that time?

- Do you think Knox went to Quintavalle's shop on the early morning after the murder? If you do think so, why?

- What do you think happened in the police interrogations of Knox and Sollecito on 5th/6th November?


This is categorically not a "list of demands". It would merely be interesting to see what sort of views/positions you hold on these sorts of things.​

Apologies in advance if I missed the reply.

 

[acbytesla]

Vixen seems to be arguing for three things and I get a bit confused which argument Vixen is making in a particular post:
1. AK/RS are factually guilty
2. Regardless of whether AK/RS are guilty or not, the ISC made a technical mistake and the case should have been transferred back to a lower court for further adjudication
3. Some courts (apparently the ones that found for innocence) made mistakes when they were inadequately deferential to decisions by lower courts.

Personally, I don't really care about protocol. I have always thought that getting it right was most important. Any case, not just this one.

As for Vixen's arguments, I'm confused. I'm not really sure what her arguments are, only that they seemed to be mostly long debunked guilter arguments. So that might mean she is new and hasn't really thought this thoroughly. Or she is a sock puppet for someone else. Mostly she reminds me of Coulsdon, who disappeared after the ISC's decision. She's from England, and she seems to have that respect for authority that Coulsdon had

 

[Strozzi]

Not me.

But let's hear your explanation of why the police would set up a drug-dealing sting, using a wired stooge to by heroin from Curatolo (giving them cast-iron evidence that Curatolo was dealing), then "forget" to bring charges for several whole years (within which the Kercher murder, followed by Curatolo's *interesting* witness testimony in two trials, took place), then actually bring those charges - and ultimately convict and imprison Curatolo - all those years later?

Go on - have a crack at explaining it

LJ, you basically gave her the answer to my question to her - which was do you Vixen know where Curatolo went after he belatedly had his memory influenced by a persistent local journalist. The answer is: Curatolo went to Capanne Prison.

In other words, once he became useful to the prosecution, the prosecution had him picked up on a 5 year old drug charge and imprisoned so they could control him and keep him away from neutral journalists or defense attorneys who would want to talk with Curatolo in plain air.

Imagine what Curatolo's value to Mignini would have been if he were allowed to continue to sit on his park bench and a reporter were to sit down beside him, share a bottle, and chat with a tape recorder running. I suggest a recording might have shown that eagle-eyed Curatolo talked gibberish about many things, revealing his general disorientation about events. He might have even repudiated having seen the defendants at any time. Mignini couldn't allow that to happen to his crack witness So, 5 years after engaging in a drug transaction heroin-addict Curatolo was picked up and put in the freezer. Never to speak again freely to a passing journalist. Or defense attorney.

 

[Strozzi]

Not me.

But let's hear your explanation of why the police would set up a drug-dealing sting, using a wired stooge to by heroin from Curatolo (giving them cast-iron evidence that Curatolo was dealing), then "forget" to bring charges for several whole years (within which the Kercher murder, followed by Curatolo's *interesting* witness testimony in two trials, took place), then actually bring those charges - and ultimately convict and imprison Curatolo - all those years later?

Go on - have a crack at explaining it

LJ, you basically gave her the answer to my question to her - which was do you Vixen know where Curatolo went after he belatedly had his memory influenced by a persistent local journalist. The answer is: Curatolo went to Capanne Prison.

In other words, once he became useful to the prosecution, the prosecution had him picked up on a 5 year old drug charge and imprisoned so they could control him and keep him away from neutral journalists or defense attorneys who would want to talk with Curatolo in freedom.

Imagine what Curatolo's value to Mignini would have been if he were allowed to continue to sit on his park bench and a reporter were to sit down beside him, share a cookie, and chat with a tape recorder running. I suggest a recording might have shown that eagle-eyed Curatolo talked gibberish about many things, revealing his general disorientation about events. He might have even repudiated having seen the defendants at any time. Mignini couldn't allow that to happen to his crack witness So, 5 years after engaging in a drug transaction heroin-addict Curatolo was picked up and put in the freezer. Never to speak again freely to a passing journalist. Or defense attorney.

 

[Strozzi]

Quoting CouldsonUK:

I am not framing anything and as I have posted before the Supreme Court will not be looking at evidence and the only logic and reason that they will be reviewing is in the context of the whether the prosecutions appeal has any legal merit and ensuring that Massei and Hellmann trials were tried in accordance with their criminal procedure codes. It is a fact that the first trial found them guilty whilst the second trial acquitted them, now I call that opposing verdicts you can call what you like. As I have said before I do not know whether the prosecutions appeal is a last desperate throw of the dice or has legal merit.
- End of CouldsonUK's quote.

The above is a post that CouldsdonUK wrote on Jan 22, 2013. See how she spells that arcane British word "whilst" that an American like me, who was expelled from a fine Cambridge, England kindergarten, never heard before.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers can do better, but I'm pretty sure this was mentioned in one of the ECHR cases provided. The highest, court to hear a witness gets the last word on the credibility of a witness, IIRC.

I believe the ECHR case-law principle you are referring to is that if an upper court overturns an acquittal and itself institutes a conviction, it must hear the evidence and testimony, if possible, of the significant witnesses including the defendants. Otherwise the conviction may be considered unfair (violation of Convention Article 6).

If the upper court were to annul the acquittal but remand the trial to a lower court which hears the evidence and testimony, that is not unfair. But if the lower remand court also does not hear the evidence and testimony but convicts, that may also be a violation of Convention Article 6.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Amanda said she was with Raf when thingy called, but phone reports show she was out.

Amanda said she was home with Raf all evening through to 10:00am next day.

In her email home, Amanda claimed she was frantically worried about Mez to the extent of banging on her door and climbing on a window ledge to look in. Battistelli reported otherwise. Amanda claimed to him, Mez' door was always "closed" implying there was nothing to worry about (when the cops appeared).

Your point was supposed to be that they kept changing their stories, remember? In none of these three cases are you alleging this.

etc.

ROFL.

 

[anglolawyer]

What have I read? The initial newspaper reports, then virtually all the books on the market, incl WTBH and HB.

Whether I believe Curatolo or Quintaville - or indded any witness - is irrelevant. That is a decision for the judges to make, and it should be respected.

Why? Allow me to point you, for example, to the Shrien Dewani trial, accused of conspiring to murder his new wife in South Africa. Now, on paper, his behaviour looked suspicious, he had clandestine meetings with the taxi driver, whom he gave SAR8K (?) "for a helicopter ride". He then claimed to be mentally ill for three years.

On paper it certainly looked grave for Dewani, especially with SA demanding extradition. Come the trial, we soon saw a very different picture, with the key witnesses showing such unreliable and false testimony at every step, the judge was forced to throw it out.

I don't care what they do in Mexico, but it is unsound to judge someone "on paper."

It is up to the expert witnesses to review the quality of the DNA evidence. Did not the defense cross examine Curatolo and Quintaville?

At the end of a trial, it is all down to what testimony, on balance, the judge/s prefer to accept.

No, he didn't.

Judges have the advantage of seeing witnesses testify but that is only an edge where their demeanour in the witness box is concerned. That may be very important, or even decisive, but when considering the coherence and consistency of oral evidence both internally and with other evidence and its inherent credibility we don't need to see and hear the testimony live. I can judge the value of Kokomani's evidence, for example, well enough without seeing him give it.

This discussion thread solved most of the problems in this case about 5 years before Italy (before I joined in, it so happens) without seeing or hearing anything live and that did not happen through the sort of excessive deference to authority you advocate.

Incidentally, the problems for the prosecution in the Dewani case were not only foreseeable but were actually foreseen right here on the relevant thread which you can find in the Trials and Errors sub-forum.

 

[anglolawyer]

The prosecution aren't going to bring it up. Their raison d'etre is to secure a conviction.
snip

Hmm, wrong again, at least in the jurisdiction you claim to hail from.

10.1 Prosecuting counsel should not attempt to obtain a conviction by all means at his command. He should not regard himself as appearing for a party. He should lay before the Court fairly and impartially the whole of the facts which comprise the case for the prosecution and should assist the Court on all matters of law applicable to the case.

Read more here

 

[anglolawyer]

Vixen

I must repeat Grinder's question. Could you please list the books you have read on the case, aside from WTBH and HB? I ask because you parroted the falsehood that they called the cops after the posties arrived. You could have got that from Nadeau (Loc 477) or Follain (Loc 984) but this error is addressed in Burleigh (Loc 4337) and Fisher (Loc 1792) and probably elsewhere too. I haven't checked Demspey or Waterbury or any further because it seems obvious to me that either you aren't very intelligent after all or you are lying about your knowledge of the literature. An intelligent reader would wish to get to the bottom of these divergent accounts, after all, rather than parroting erroneous falsehoods here.

So, once more, please list your reading and, assuming you have in fact read Burleigh and Fisher, explain why you rejected their accounts and what further enquiry you made to satisfy yourself they are wrong.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Bill Williams]

After trying to get along with the pitchfork carrying villagers here on the thread, Vixen has made a number of allegations. These allegations about the 7 1/2 year legal odyssey wrongfully visited upon K and RS have, in detail, warranted these responses from posters here.....

Hmm, wrong again, at least in the jurisdiction you claim to hail from.​

No, he didn't.​

Your point was supposed to be that they kept changing their stories, remember? In none of these three cases are you alleging this.​

First, she says that we should pay more attention to the trials of the first instance and here she goes ignoring Massei and Hellman. Instead she relies on Nencini. WHY VIXEN?​

That idiotic contention by the prosecution (advanced by Vixen) was dismissed in a parenthetical aside by Massei at the trial of the first instance. What happened was the police reversed the polarity of the time difference (~10-12 minutes) on the CCTV camera and made their case as if it was 10-12 minutes fast instead of 10-12 minutes slow like it actually was. The defense used the CCTV camera and the cell phone records (which are exact) to disprove that.​

False. That's not what it says to begin with​

That's not true the way you wrote it, citation please.​

How the hell would he know, he wasn't there when that supposedly (you've the details wrong but nevermind) happened!​

Nonsense, that's not even a good representation of a Machine/Harry Rag list-o-lies.

Get your lies (or badly distorted irrelevant nonsense) right next time!​

Vixen - these are all tired, talking points, completely irrelevant after the March 2015 exonerations. These points of your come from the guilter PR-lobby that thought that through sheer repetition they could elevate a factoid into a fact.​

Ah, er, wrong again, Vixen.​

Nencini has been annuled.

Why are you reading Nencini and accepting ANY evidence from it?​

No, they didn't keep changing their stories. Their stories were all compatible outside that night of the 5th/6th when the police changed them, which they then changed back once they got out of their clutches.​

You're on VERY shaky ground now, fact-wise.​

Wrong, nothing could be further from the truth.​

You have watched too many movies.​

What exactly do you mean by this? I suspect your language is (worryingly) imprecise here.​

I am not sure I understand your position any more.​

What does any of this have to do with the case?​

Hence Madam, may I ask where's my helping of Hellman gaffes?​

Reviewing the contributions here, Vixen makes assertions, never answers questions, and moves on to the next long-since discredited former-guilter-PR talking point.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's only a question of time before she mentions the lamp. I'll be ready.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's only a question of time before she mentions the lamp. I'll be ready.

The only lamp which should be interesting you at this hour is the one which is on beside you.... and it should be off!

 

[Numbers]

You will never make it into Mensa if you obsess so much about trifling details

Do you know what is said about Mensa in the 4 sigma society?

I can imagine. Aren't they supposed to regard themselves as 10,000 times brighter?

Does this have anything to do with the masons?

See this following site for: Claim to have founded 4 sigma society. Note criticisms of Mensa members.
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/4sigma/about.html

Source of exact quote below (including its "unique" spellings):
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=four+sigma+society&defid=406866

FOUR SIGMA SOCIETY

Society for persons posessing intelligence quotients at least four full standard deviations above the mean. This means they are smarter than 99.997% of the population, and have an IQ of 164. But they are still dumber than the Six Nines Society, where you have to be smarter than 99.9999%, or one out of a million, meaning in a world of six billion, there are six thousand of them, and about 1,500 in China.
You have to be a mensan just to figure out what the hell a four sigma society memeber is!