Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

It was not my quote, it was a direct quote from the TIMES 12.11.2007.

The TIMES, at that date, was printing only lies dreamed up by the Italian cops, which were proven to be lies by court testimony.
Appalling
The troll may as well site TJMK.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder

Here is an example of what I mean.

Now is there a list for the original blade test?

 

[acbytesla]

I have never seen the .org forum owned by Peggy Ganong, although it's possible I might have viewed a one-click link.

Your level of debate is appalling.

There you go again. Thinking this is a debating exercise. Being clever is not the same as thinking.

 

[anglolawyer]

Now is there a list for the original blade test?

Garofano gives the dramatis personae but it's just a book and we know what you think about books.

ETA I looked it up, just for you (what would you do without me, eh?) and this is the list of those present according to DD when Stef uncorked the knife profile (there is no suggestion they saw any earlier phases of the work that produced that profile):

Ghirga, Torre, Gino, Pascali, Patumi, Maresca, Torricelli

 

[acbytesla]

When you say, "rock", do you mean "pebble"?

I have seen the photo of the lawyers' window and what you call, "second floor", is on what we in England call the Ground Floor, with a basement below, so one hardly needs to be Spider Man to get in.

And no one needed to be Spiderman to get in through Filomena's bedroom either.

 

[Kauffer]

Take a look here (pages 3-5).

Yep.

"Cittadinanza - Ivoriano"

 

[Bill Williams]

...Let's do a logical deduction from the facts, backed up by CCTV, telephone records, and testimony of the friend who walked part way with Mez.

Amanda home at cottage circa 8:45- 8:50.
Mez arrives home circa 9:07.

Amanda home before Mez.

Mez murdered, Amanda not.

How does that affect the hypothesis:

Rudy was a lone perpetrator who broke in through the window to burgle, and killed Mez who interrupted him.

Case closed. You win. If you can prove Amanda was there between 8.45 and 9.00 p.m. on the 1st that is. Go for it and when you succeed I promise to change my mind and campaign for a new investigation of this horrific crime.

Add me to this list. If Amanda was at the cottage at that time, all innocenters have wasted their time.

Trouble is, there is no evidence. Vixen's claim about the CCTV video is complete bunk. It, amongst "all the other factoid evidence", is the main reason for the full exonerations in March of this year.

The only other indication of AK's presence at the cottage during that period is DNA evidence, which Judge Massei reminded the world, "cannot be date/time-stamped." Except in a stunning act of judicial brain-freeze, he said that in agreeing with the reason not to test the putative semen stain but forgot it when talking about Amanda's DNA mixed in with Merediths blood - in the bathroom they shared.

In suspect-centred, wrongful prosecution like this one, this is key. Apply one set of criteria to one class of people (non-suspects) and the opposite to another (the suspects).

 

[Grinder]

Garofano gives the dramatis personae but it's just a book and we know what you think about books.

ETA I looked it up, just for you (what would you do without me, eh?) and this is the list of those present according to DD when Stef uncorked the knife profile (there is no suggestion they saw any earlier phases of the work that produced that profile):

Ghirga, Torre, Gino, Pascali, Patumi, Maresca, Torricelli

So how can I ever repay you? Perhaps a yacht or two.

Does uncorked mean they were watching when she cranked the machine when it kept reporting "too low"?

While I have my doubts about reporting and in particular Barbie it seems even she could understand and report accurately that the defense experts couldn't make it to Rome for the tests.

Perhaps the in depth debate about this preceded your presence but I'm sure it was a big issue back in 2009.

If the experts were present and they saw her manipulate it raises the question why they didn't have the PR Supertanker pound the issue then and there (December 2007).

 

[Kauffer]

Add me to this list. If Amanda was at the cottage at that time, all innocenters have wasted their time.

Trouble is, there is no evidence. Vixen's claim about the CCTV video is complete bunk. It, amongst "all the other factoid evidence", is the main reason for the full exonerations in March of this year.

The only other indication of AK's presence at the cottage during that period is DNA evidence, which Judge Massei reminded the world, "cannot be date/time-stamped." Except in a stunning act of judicial brain-freeze, he said that in agreeing with the reason not to test the putative semen stain but forgot it when talking about Amanda's DNA mixed in with Merediths blood - in the bathroom they shared.

In suspect-centred, wrongful prosecution like this one, this is key. Apply one set of criteria to one class of people (non-suspects) and the opposite to another (the suspects).

I do think we might be a little more careful with this idea. It seems to me that it is not proven that there was any in situ mixed sample in the bathroom. There is evidence to suggest that the mixing was caused by the sampling not the depositing of them. Would you agree?

 

[anglolawyer]

So how can I ever repay you? Perhaps a yacht or two.

I will accept 111 Dalmatians.

Does uncorked mean they were watching when she cranked the machine when it kept reporting "too low"?

While I have my doubts about reporting and in particular Barbie it seems even she could understand and report accurately that the defense experts couldn't make it to Rome for the tests.

Perhaps the in depth debate about this preceded your presence but I'm sure it was a big issue back in 2009.

If the experts were present and they saw her manipulate it raises the question why they didn't have the PR Supertanker pound the issue then and there (December 2007).

A synopsis. On 9 Nov she:

• gives them a lecture about DNA
• takes knife out of bag and puts under microscope
• exclaims she has found scratches, resulting from rubbing with bleach
• conducts DNA extraction and amplification (no quantification apparently …)
• continues her speech (to a room full of experts)

The book says 'the evening of 12 November was show time'. She:

'unveiled the graph …' to 'gasps of shock'

The defence experts asked for a re-run but, too bad, she had consumed everything already.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Potenza Paradox

Numbers you misunderstand what I'm saying.

The only question is what you have no information about. Was a defense expert present when the knife was tested producing the Meredith DNA on the blade?

That is it. Over and out.

Grinder,

I have no reason to doubt that Dr. Potenza was present when he said he was. However, your question is unanswerable, for the reasons that Numbers gave.

 

[Dougm]

Sure they are, but quite often they are closer to the truth than years later when history has been revised.


...and before the PR guys and self-styled "advocates" move in.

They SHOULD be closer to the truth, but in this case, they are not, and were not. They are full of mistakes, innuendo, and falsehoods given to reporters by law enforcement and others with a pro-guilt agenda. Reporters who did not do any research, because they assumed the police knew what they were doing, and were more interested in making a deadline and getting a scoop than accuracy. After all, Amanda and Raffaele were in jail, they would never be able to do anything about it anyway.

Oh wait ...

 

[Numbers]

I will accept 111 Dalmatians.


A synopsis. On 9 Nov she:

• gives them a lecture about DNA
• takes knife out of bag and puts under microscope
• exclaims she has found scratches, resulting from rubbing with bleach
• she DNA extraction and amplification (no quantification apparently …)
• continued her speech (to a room full of experts)

The book says 'the evening of 12 November was show time'. She:

'unveiled the graph …' to 'gasps of shock'

The defence experts asked for a re-run but, too bad, she had consumed everything already.

From http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/:

Massei Trial

In what would be a Brady violation in the US, Stefanoni testified before the defense had discovery of her testing procedures and lab data. On May 23, 2009 Stefanoni now said couldn’t remember how much DNA was on the knife (see testimony below). On July 18, 2009 Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to turn over all of the lab work documentation with the prosecution objecting. On July 30, 2009 the prosecution produced the Stato Avanzamento Lavori (SAL) and Quantification Report giving the defense 7 weeks to prepare a response before the trial resumed.

On September 14, the lawyers and Sollecito defense consultant, Professor Tagliabracci, showed the Polizia Scientifica RTIGF Report was either falsified and/or marked incorrectly and large amounts of data was still missing including lab work relating to Rudy Guede. The documents were 300 pages of not numbered photocopies and revealed Sample B was approximately 5 picograms and it failed to register for quantification in the Qubit Fluorometer (‘too low’). [6] [7] On October 9, the defense filed a request for independent experts under the provisions of Article 507 of the Criminal Procedure Code which the court denied. [8] The trial concluded with a guilty verdict without Stefanoni having to answer a single question about what her lab work really showed.

The American Bar Association Standards on DNA Evidence: “the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses”.

ETA: The ECHR would consider the denial of this information to the defense a violation of Convention Article 6b as a denial of "adequate...facilities required for the preparation of ... [the] defense".

ETA2: ECHR in its case-law has used language very similar to that of the ABA. The denial of facilities by the court or prosecution to the defense, which impedes the ability of the defense to prove the defendant innocent, or to impeach prosecution witnesses, including experts, or call into question any prosecution evidence or theory, renders a trial unfair under Convention Article 6.

 

[Vixen]

Source: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=

From the European Convention on Human Rights (by the Italian Constitution and Italy's founding membership of the Council of Europe by solemn treaty, the supreme human rights law of Italy)

ARTICLE 6
Right to a fair trial
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of
any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fairand public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be
pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded
from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order
or national security in a democratic society, where the interests
of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so
require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the
court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the
interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he
understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
{Highlighting added.}

The highlighted clauses were some of the provisions that the intermediate courts - and the Chieffi CSC panel - did not respect in the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case.

From the Italian Constitution
(Source: www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/..):

Art. 10
The Italian legal system conforms to the generally recognised principles of international law.The legal status of foreigners is regulated by law in conformity with
international provisions and treaties.
A foreigner who, in his home country, is denied the actual exercise of the
democratic freedoms guaranteed by the Italian constitution shall be entitled to
the right of asylum under the conditions established by law.
A foreigner may not be extradited for a political offence.

Art. 27
Criminal responsibility is personal.
A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited (1).

Art. 111
Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position. The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence. The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence. The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted.In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings. The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not
occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or
owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit
conduct.
All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.
Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are
always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal
freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be
waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State
and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

{Highlighting added.}

It is noteworthy that even after a final decision of the CSC (Marasca panel) in this case that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, there are anonymous internet posters who through falsehoods and distorted logic claim that Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

The highlighted sections above emphasize some of the provisions of the Italian Constitution that were violated in the intermediate trials and Chieffi CSC panel judgement of the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case.

Being found Guilty in a court of law, whether rightly or wrongly, is NOT the definition an "unfair trial". The trial was very public, with hundreds of journalists.

I haven't seen a single report of an unfair trial, apart from by the defense, who are paid to say whatever it takes.

It really is a shame that in the USA, only carefully censored reports have been published.

 

[Bill Williams]

Being found Guilty in a court of law, whether rightly or wrongly, is NOT the definition an "unfair trial". The trial was very public, with hundreds of journalists.

I haven't seen a single report of an unfair trial, apart from by the defense, who are paid to say whatever it takes.

It really is a shame that in the USA, only carefully censored reports have been published.

With respect, Vixen, this kind of post is why it is hard to take your opinions seriously.

Can you cite one instnce of a censored report in the USA? I thought not.

 

[Vixen]

What are you trying to do with the Times articles then? Are you offering them as factual proof or are you offering them for some other reason? These early press reports reflect multiple errors proved by reference to real evidence.

You stated that the Polish witness saw Amanda leaving at 8:40. This is demonstrably untrue. It is also not true that telephone pings place Amanda in the vicinity of the cottage at 8:45. I don't think these claims were in the reports anyway unless you can show me. I think these are your inventions.

Please acknowledge the error about the "Polish" witness.

What we are now seeing from you with these invented facts is an explanation for the reason why pro guilters run away from timelines. They do not fit with a pro guilt interpretation of the crime.

Your approach is novel. You just make stuff up. (Well, maybe not that novel).

Janovic (_?) was not Polish, she was Serbian or Croatian.

The time she arrived at Raf's can only be an estimate, because who looks at their watch for the exact time and remembers it, especially a couple of days later?

 

[Vixen]

With respect, Vixen, this kind of post is why it is hard to take your opinions seriously.

Can you cite one instnce of a censored report in the USA? I thought not.

There's ROLLING STONE for a start. written exclusively from Amanda's PR company's POV.

Tell me, why did Amanda hire a PR company?

 

[Vixen]

They SHOULD be closer to the truth, but in this case, they are not, and were not. They are full of mistakes, innuendo, and falsehoods given to reporters by law enforcement and others with a pro-guilt agenda. Reporters who did not do any research, because they assumed the police knew what they were doing, and were more interested in making a deadline and getting a scoop than accuracy. After all, Amanda and Raffaele were in jail, they would never be able to do anything about it anyway.

Oh wait ...

No, you are not talking about a tabloid newspaper here. Sure BBC or the TIMES get it wrong, but not often, as the journos are trained to check their sources thoroughly, and it's run past the lawyers.

The British press has no particular affiliation to Italy. In fact, Berlusconi was portrayed as a bit of a clown.

They had no motive to write deliberately untrue articles.

In the USA it is a fact articles had to be vetted by Amanda's PR company, Gogerty Marriott, now defunct, before consent to interviews were given.

It is no surprise Americans are "convinced" there is "no evidence", as they have been censored from reading about the solid forensic evidence.

Claiming Dr Stefanoni is corrupt and set out to criminally, as a cop, to fake DNA evidence is scurrilous, yet posters here, whom I assume are intelligent and enquiring, swallow this character assassination of the Italian police without question.

When confronted with the facts, cognitive dissonance sets in, and we see a whole load of rationalisation going on to justify patently untenable beliefs.

 

[analemma]

There's ROLLING STONE for a start. written exclusively from Amanda's PR company's POV.

Tell me, why did Amanda hire a PR company?

If we are going to tolerate this troll, why don't we just fight tehm on Comment sections, where it might do some good.

 

[Numbers]

Being found Guilty in a court of law, whether rightly or wrongly, is NOT the definition an "unfair trial". ..../QUOTE]

Your statement quoted above is correct. Note that in my post, in which I quoted from some relevant sections of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Italian Constitution, there was no indication that being found guilty of a crime by a fair trial was an indication of an unfair trial. However, being found "guilty" wrongly suggests that there may have been procedural or other wrongs or errors in a trial, including for example, official misconduct, which render the trial unfair.

In fact, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been found innocent of the rape/murder of Meredith Kercher in a final judgment of the Italian judicial system, specifically by the Marasca panel of the CSC.

During the course of their unreasonably long pre-trial detention and trial stages, Knox and Sollecito were subjected to numerous violations of their rights, including but not limited to those I highlighted in the Convention and the Italian Constitution. These violations are clear to anyone who examines the case and reads the trial transcripts and motivation reports objectively.

I did not reproduce the remainder of your post, since what you wrote there was complete nonsense. The comment about censorship of reports in the US media was particularly laughable.