Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

The final outcome of the trial doesn't make the other actions framing unless there was intent as in a plan to make an innocent person become convicted.

As Lone Pine said it makes it sound like there was a grand conspiracy to take a couple of innocent kids and make them look guilty knowing or at thinking they were innocent.

Yes, there is likely to have been a "conspiracy" (two or more persons agreeing to commit one or more illegal acts, and taking at least one action to carry out such act), and there was certainly team work.

 

[Vixen]

Battistelli was wrong. For what reason he would lie to the court is unknown. Even the first convicting Judge did not believe him, Judge Massei said that the postal police arrived AFTER Raffaele's calls to the Carabinieri, namely, "just before 1 pm."

You have been corrected on this multiple times, yet you still post these inaccuracies. Why?

For my money, you are slow-flooding this thread.

Whatever the real time was, 12:35 or 13:00. fact is, Filomena confirms the pair knew of the "break in" as of 12:34. You cannot obfuscate the fact it was a full thirteen minutes before Raf bothered to call the police.

Please stop attacking me on a personal level. It is extremely boring and it does not have your imagined effect.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh gosh. The "Amanda didn't speak Italian" explanation no. umpty-9.

Vixen - unfortunately your own failure to deal with issues in this case is a good template for how the whole thing went off the rails, led to a 7 1/2 year wrongful prosecution - that the ISC eventually said (in 2015), "They did not do the crime."

You actually seem disintersted in their alleged involvement in the crime - all you wish to do (so it seems) is bash Amanda Knox.

Good for you!

 

[Bill Williams]

Battistelli was wrong. For what reason he would lie to the court is unknown. Even the first convicting Judge did not believe him, Judge Massei said that the postal police arrived AFTER Raffaele's calls to the Carabinieri, namely, "just before 1 pm."

You have been corrected on this multiple times, yet you still post these inaccuracies. Why?

For my money, you are slow-flooding this thread.

Whatever the real time was, 12:35 or 13:00. fact is, Filomena confirms the pair knew of the "break in" as of 12:34. You cannot obfuscate the fact it was a full thirteen minutes before Raf bothered to call the police.

Please stop attacking me on a personal level. It is extremely boring and it does not have your imagined effect.

Attack?

You are reminded that you've been corrected, yet you continue. That is a description of your posts, not an attack.

You are slow-flooding this thread with inaccuracies: that is a description of your posts, not an attack. The only effect I am attempted is for you to acknowledge your errors. Obviously, I agree, it is not having that effect!

Once again, the other two people who did not call the Carabinieri, who actually DID have jurisdiction here, were the Postal Police themselves.

Can you explain why the Postal Police did not report in, or call 112 themselves, when they saw the very same thing that AK and RS saw?

 

[Grinder]

Here's a "magazine" with pro Kercher articles that some may find interesting.

http://snn.bz/?s=amanda+knox

ETA = the next to last two sentences of the most recent article is interesting as it is basically what Hellmann's court said the first day.

But for the Kerchers, there are questions but no answers. Only one thing is certain: their beloved daughter/ sister died in the most brutal of circumstances. Leave them alone to heal.

 

[Vixen]

Attack?

You are reminded that you've been corrected, yet you continue. That is a description of your posts, not an attack.

You are slow-flooding this thread with inaccuracies: that is a description of your posts, not an attack. The only effect I am attempted is for you to acknowledge your errors. Obviously, I agree, it is not having that effect!

Once again, the other two people who did not call the Carabinieri, who actually DID have jurisdiction here, were the Postal Police themselves.

Can you explain why the Postal Police did not report in, or call 112 themselves, when they saw the very same thing that AK and RS saw?

Er, the Postal Police didn't turn up with the front door swinging open (so claims Amanda) they didn't see the blood spattered bathroom, it wasn't until Stefanoni turned up that Amanda directed her to the faeces in the toilet, which were so suspicious, Amanda immediately...did nothing, they were assured by Amanda and Raf there was nothing untoward about Mez' door being shut.

For what reason would Battisteli & co immediately batter down Mez' door.

Once again, blame is deflected onto the police.

 

[Bill Williams]

Er, the Postal Police didn't turn up with the front door swinging open (so claims Amanda) they didn't see the blood spattered bathroom, it wasn't until Stefanoni turned up that Amanda directed her to the faeces in the toilet, which were so suspicious, Amanda immediately...did nothing, they were assured by Amanda and Raf there was nothing untoward about Mez' door being shut.

For what reason would Battisteli & co immediately batter down Mez' door.

Once again, blame is deflected onto the police.

You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.

The Postal Police saw EVERYTHING Amanda (and Raffaele) saw. They saw the "blood splattered" bathroom, that was not "blood splattered".

It was Raffaele who directed Napoleoni to the pooh in the toilet, not Amanda directing Stefanoni to the toilet. For heaven's sake, you know nothing of the case.

No one is deflecting blame to the police. The point is as always - the police and Amanda and Raffaele had what amounts to the same reaction to the condition of the cottage. None of the condition of it (outside of Meredith's room) spoke of murder.

Please stop commenting on stuff you know nothing of. For heaven's sake - you now have Amanda pointing out the pooh to Stefanoni!!!! Please stop reading the guilt sites or the fake Wiki.

 

[Vixen]

Were all of these 24 books, SELF-PUBLISHED?

Just asking, it makes a difference. Gabrella Carlizzi self professed psychic medium who provided much of Mignini's satanic sect theories) also had many self-published books.

Also btw, "the selection, coordination and arrangement" of public domain material is also considered copyrightable.

Its hard to justify a malicious selfish act of mercenary greed by this bottom feeding duo of pseudo authors palming off other's work as their own, but feel free to enjoy the fruits of their work, or their assimilation of the works of others as the case may be.

As for reading a copy of it, now that Amazon pulled the plug, I'm not sure its available anywhere. I've hear the author is giving it away, but who wants to go there?

I wouldn't be too fast to think Amazon caved to some imagined public pressure, or perhaps the Knox PR super-tanker, as that idiotic meme goes. Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia had a look at this case and had to conclude there was a cult of wack-jobs haunting his web sites as well.

There's a reason smart, professional, accomplished people, and literally every responsible expert who has looked at this case will tell you its been a gross miscarriage of justice. The guiters and Knox haters are uniformly broken, sick, stupid people. Scratch the surface, you'll see what I mean.

Its a shame these two authors hadn't spent more time trying to do an honest days work and illuminate a miscarriage of justice, rather than trying to make a nickel off of other people's tragedies. Character is fate.

Nothing wrong with being self-published per se. The future is digital. I know two self-publishers - one a former traditionally published prize winner and one ambitious to write - who've brought out their books on Kindle (actually, I know three). OK, so they are rarely higher than #100K, but that's not bad, considering the 1·5m+ currently available works.

I myself am published by an old school publishers. Was #1 at peak and #2 for yonks and still in and out of Amazon's top 100 even today.

I don't believe Nick and Lisa set out to run down anybody. They came to their own conclusions.

Chelsea Hoffmann OTOH is dreadful IMV.

 

[Grinder]

From the mag - Guede decided to commit a burglary that night, and targeted a house where he was known to the tenants. He chose an awkward and conspicuous point of entry, and the noisiest possible method. He wore no mask or balaclava to avoid recognition.

How would we know that?

ETA - Coming soon: an analysis of the acquittal, Rudy Guede’s life story, an examination of the Italian Judiciary and more….

I can't wait

 

[Vixen]

You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.

The Postal Police saw EVERYTHING Amanda (and Raffaele) saw. They saw the "blood splattered" bathroom, that was not "blood splattered".

It was Raffaele who directed Napoleoni to the pooh in the toilet, not Amanda directing Stefanoni to the toilet. For heaven's sake, you know nothing of the case.

No one is deflecting blame to the police. The point is as always - the police and Amanda and Raffaele had what amounts to the same reaction to the condition of the cottage. None of the condition of it (outside of Meredith's room) spoke of murder.

Please stop commenting on stuff you know nothing of. For heaven's sake - you now have Amanda pointing out the pooh to Stefanoni!!!! Please stop reading the guilt sites or the fake Wiki.

That came from Amanda, actually, who claimed when she offered to show Napoleoni (soz, not Stefanoni) the faeces in the toilet, Napoleoni coldly infomed her she would be questioned.

 

[Vixen]

From the mag - Guede decided to commit a burglary that night, and targeted a house where he was known to the tenants. He chose an awkward and conspicuous point of entry, and the noisiest possible method. He wore no mask or balaclava to avoid recognition.

How would we know that?

ETA - Coming soon: an analysis of the acquittal, Rudy Guede’s life story, an examination of the Italian Judiciary and more….

I can't wait

What magazine is this, Grinder? I couldn't find it on your link.

 

[Numbers]

Court use of the terms "frame-up" and "framed"

The final outcome of the trial doesn't make the other actions framing unless there was intent as in a plan to make an innocent person become convicted.

As Lone Pine said it makes it sound like there was a grand conspiracy to take a couple of innocent kids and make them look guilty knowing or at thinking they were innocent.

Yes, there is likely to have been a "conspiracy" (two or more persons agreeing to commit one or more illegal acts, and taking at least one action to carry out such act), and there was certainly team work.

I have searched the site law.justia.com for US Federal and State appeal court opinions where the term "police frame-up" was used. I read through at least six such cases.

In all the cases, the appellant was seeking relief (such as habeas corpus or a new trial) on one or more grounds. One ground was that appellant had been framed - that is, subjected to a frame-up, by police.

(The appellants were, of course, persons who had been convicted and were appealing the conviction.)

In all the cases, the judges used the terms "framed", "frame-up", or "framing" by police to describe the claimed defense lodged by the appellant. In all but one of the six cases, the judges concluded in their opinion that the appellant had not been framed because the weight of the evidence demonstrated the appellant's guilt, and there was no credible evidence of police misconduct. In one case, the judges' opinion was that there was evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct in the lower court record and granted relief.

There was no indication in the opinions that any of the terms "framed", "frame-up", or "framing" was somehow forbidden to be used by the appellant or by the judges, although the appellant had been judged guilty in a lower court. In each case the appellant was claiming to be innocent (that was point to each of these particular appeals).

I also searched the justia site for the phrase "noble cause corruption" but found no matches for that phrase among the court opinions.

 

[Grinder]

What magazine is this, Grinder? I couldn't find it on your link.

http://snn.bz/

SyndicatedNews.net

But can't tell us about the lack of disguise?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

and now for something a little different

On June 22, the players' lawyers filed their motion asking Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith, who presided over the case, to hold Nifong in contempt. The players also wanted Nifong to pay for the 60 to 100 hours it took to prove that he misrepresented the DNA evidence. Nifong was charged with having violated at least a dozen laws, rules and court orders designed to protect defendants' rights by playing "a game of hide and seek" with evidence that could have cleared the players. The players' motion also alleged that Nifong's misconduct "shocks the conscience and defies any notion of accident or negligence". Earlier that same month, Judge Smith had filed papers stating that he retained control over the case although the charges had been dismissed, and had the power to impose his own sanctions against Nifong.[82]

The question was IIRC if there were example of criminal charges in the US for defamation by prosecutors in court..

Grinder,

The passage you quoted is a little ambitious, and a link would have been helpful. The charges being dismissed might refer to the charges against the players or to something else.

You had previously written, "Can you give an example of a prosecution for character assassination? In US courts people generally can be prosecuted for perjury but such things as defamation are exempt. Anglo please chyme in." What I had in mind was something a little different, namely public statements made by the prosecutor against the three defendants. Although Nifong only served a day in jail (for contempt of court), he still faced disciplinary measures for other actions.

From Fox News: "Along with accusing Nifong of withholding the DNA evidence and making misleading and inflammatory comments about the three athletes, the North Carolina State Bar said he lied to both the court and bar investigators. The committee found Nifong broke the state's rules of professional conduct more than two dozen times." link

R. Michael Cassidy wrote, "Former District Attorney Mike Nifong made several statements to the media during the Duke lacrosse case that were overzealous and clearly contrary to a prosecutor’s dual responsibilities to seek justice and to preserve a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Notable among Nifong’s more outlandish public comments were his characterization of the rape as “totally abhorrent” and “reprehensible,” his analogizing the case to a “cross burning,” his expression of personal confidence and satisfaction that a rape had in fact occurred, and his criticism of the targets for “refus[ing] to speak to investigators” upon “advice [of] counsel.”1 After a hearing, the North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Commission ruled that these comments violated North Carolina State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct (N.C. Rules) 3.6(a) (“substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding”) and 3.8(f) (“substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused”).2 The Commission ordered Nifong disbarred.3"

Italy could do worse than to adopt the ABA standards that DA Nifong flouted.

 

[Grinder]

There was no indication in the opinions that any of the terms "framed", "frame-up", or "framing" was somehow forbidden to be used by the appellant or by the judges, although the appellant had been judged guilty in a lower court. In each case the appellant was claiming to be innocent (that was point to each of these particular appeals). I also searched the justia site for the phrase "noble cause corruption" but found no matches for that phrase among the court opinions.

They had to in order for the term framed to be correctly. In order for the appellant to claim "noble cause corruption" he would have admit guilt.

Where in the world do you get the idea that I or anyone has said the word is forbidden to be used by anyone?

Do you understand that when you argue against a statement never made you are making a STRAW MAN argument?

If you insist on doing the above argument about anyone not being allowed to use them please quote where someone preferably me made the claim

 

[Numbers]

I have searched the site law.justia.com for US Federal and State appeal court opinions where the term "police frame-up" was used. I read through at least six such cases.

In all the cases, the appellant was seeking relief (such as habeas corpus or a new trial) on one or more grounds. One ground was that appellant had been framed - that is, subjected to a frame-up, by police.

(The appellants were, of course, persons who had been convicted and were appealing the conviction.)

In all the cases, the judges used the terms "framed", "frame-up", or "framing" by police to describe the claimed defense lodged by the appellant. In all but one of the six cases, the judges concluded in their opinion that the appellant had not been framed because the weight of the evidence demonstrated the appellant's guilt, and there was no credible evidence of police misconduct. In one case, the judges' opinion was that there was evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct in the lower court record and granted relief.

There was no indication in the opinions that any of the terms "framed", "frame-up", or "framing" was somehow forbidden to be used by the appellant or by the judges, although the appellant had been judged guilty in a lower court. In each case the appellant was claiming to be innocent (that was point to each of these particular appeals).

I also searched the justia site for the phrase "noble cause corruption" but found no matches for that phrase among the court opinions.

After checking my notes, I must correct part of my statement above.

The courts granted relief in two cases, not one.

In one, a line up was allegedly conducted improperly, with the police alleged to have coached or instructed the witnesses which person in the line up to identify. The appeal judges found that there was indeed evidence of that in the testimony of the witnesses.

In the other, there was evidence that a small amount of cocaine was present in powered laundry soap in a container seized from a couple. The amount of cocaine was so small as to be not distributable. There was uncertainty about the legality of procedures used by police in the seizure and testing of the powder in the container. The couple had alleged prior to the first instance trial that they were being framed. The prosecutor improperly introduced testimony that the young man had been previously arrested for a drug offense, but that charges had been dismissed on a technicality.

 

[Bill Williams]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response

Speaking of whom: someone just unearthed one of Mach's proofs tha Raffaele's book was libellous - in point, that Italy's judiciary was party-ridden and prone to political interference. Machiavelli was sure Raffaele had committed defamation or calunnia, or whatever charge Italians throw at you to keep you in court for decades.

Well, surprise surprise - our intrepid reporter pairs this with what Yummi/Machiavelli has been posting since March 27, 2015. Guess what his new theory is? That's right, a party-ridden judiciary prone to political interference.

Yessirree, Bob, it's time to break out the popcorn!

 

[carbonjam72]

The Enigma has been solved.

Anyways on to some new info.

Deposition of Alessando Capasso: He made a statement together with Stefanai Tommasi. He states that he is was responsible for the prank call. He had a €100 bonus for his cell phone credit and so he would make prank calls. On 31-Oct-2007 he was in a Pizzeria named Ghiottone with his friends to celebrate Halloween and they called various numbers including 075/451595 from his mobile (which was shown to the Police) at 21:48. He remembers saying "be careful because you've got a bomb in your toilet".

The odd thing is the date in the deposition for the prank call is Oct 31 even though Lana says she received it on Nov 1 and the cops turned up. Deposition states he showed his phones call log to the cops when he made his statement. So there's a discrepancy.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2007-11-03-Witness-deposition-Capasso.pdf

Thanks to Teddy IIP for helping read all of these.

Thanks for this info, this is a fascinating detail of the case. Amazingly random, yet weirdly complementary.

The cottage in which Rudy Guede attacked Meredith has a long weird history of strange happenings. I'm not suggesting putting credence into superstitious tales. But there is a remarkable though-line of strange occurrences at this cottage by previous owners, including a random slashing, and an event where the previous owner-residents swore the place is haunted. In a way, I' can see the appeal of dark superstition in Perugia.

Mignini had his reasons for falling victim to his own superstitious beliefs. Makes for a decent B horror movie maybe, but not so good for a secular justice system though, IUAM.

 

[carbonjam72]

Stephonyed?

 

[Dan O.]

Hey Dano, thats a significant point I hadn't heard before. I only reviewed Amanda's account from her book, and don't recall mention of gloves. That would lessen chance of contamination by handling, I would think, hence militate against the strongest interpretation of the incident I have favored. So, good point.

By any chance do you know where in testimony that was discussed?

There is only a few references to gloves so it is quite easy to find. But there are no page numbers to reference.

GB: Were you wearing that suit that we saw that the police was wearing? With
the shoe covers, the gloves?

AK: No, no, I was still wearing my own clothes. They gave me those -- things
that you put on your shoes.

GB: The shoe covers. And gloves?

AK: They gave me gloves when I went upstairs to look through the knives.

GB: Yes, but excuse me. The day you went downstairs with the police and entered
into the apartment downstairs, you went in together with the police and you
didn't have gloves?

AK: No, I didn't have gloves.
​