Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

I'm not seeing the problem - the wikipedia article is accurate isn't it?

At one time the Google search said
"Amanda Marie Knox (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman wrongly convicted of the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Italy."

NOW one time the Google search said

"Amanda Marie Knox (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman who spent almost four years in an Italian prison accused of the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher"

Which statement is more accurate?
Do you consider the second statement accurate and complete?

This is on theGoogfle search summary, which I am sure is the design of the guilterr that changed it.
Sure, sure, buried deep in the article details is a short mention of "cleared", but you have to search for it.

 

[lonepinealex]

At one time the Google search said
"Amanda Marie Knox (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman wrongly convicted of the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Italy."

NOW one time the Google search said

"Amanda Marie Knox (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman who spent almost four years in an Italian prison accused of the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher"

Which statement is more accurate?
Do you consider the second statement accurate and complete?

This is on theGoogfle search summary, which I am sure is the design of the guilterr that changed it.
Sure, sure, buried deep in the article details is a short mention of "cleared", but you have to search for it.

But you quoted from the wiki article, not the google search. Both statements seem to be more or less tecnically accurate, although for now there's still the thorny issue of most of the prison sentence being for a crime for which Knox has been convicted.

 

[Grinder]

As a practical matter what does this mean?

Was Guede really convicted even though his conviction wasn't confirmed by the ISC? Perhaps Guede's decision to go the fast track route put his case in a different category that didn't need to be confirmed by the ISC?

If a convicted individual doesn't file an appeal is his conviction confirmed by default?

Is it possible here that the claim that AK/RS weren't really convicted is dependent on a strained interpretation of Italian law? Whatever happened to them as a result of court decisions they went to prison. I'd say just by the definition of convicted that they had been convicted.

ETA: Why did MichaelB post a picture of an Audi gas pedal?

Rudi was convicted by the ISC.

https://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/

Raf had an Audi.

 

[Grinder]

I just don't buy it. Even a small time fence is operating just like any other business person. Trying to buy low and sell high. It takes savvy, experience and negotiating skills. It also takes kmowledge. Something that takes hard work. The used personal computer business sucks. I have said before and I'll say it again for the hundredth time, The value of everything just goes down in value and fast.

We all know that computers lose their value. We also know that laptops back in 2007 as well as phones were targets for theft. They are mostly stolen for sale and the batteries to make meth. Why do you think you know about stolen tech selling in Italy? I'm not sure but I'd say it is like it is here and people knowing little about stuff sell it - that is both above and below the law.

Ask your cop buddy if laptops were stolen from cafes and phones now. I'm connected to LE here and I'm warned about phones in particular.

Is there not work divisions for you or do all salesmen do everything including acquiring the merch?

My mistake on the loner comment. , that was what I wrote, but not what I meant or was thinking.

 

[Bill Williams]

But you quoted from the wiki article, not the google search. Both statements seem to be more or less tecnically accurate, although for now there's still the thorny issue of most of the prison sentence being for a crime for which Knox has been convicted.

Why is that a thorny issue? It's rather straight-forward. She was convicted. Many will say unjustly, me included, but that is not a thorny issue.

It is because of Italy's membership in the ECHR that it is not final, not really. Also, there must be a mechanism in Italy to reverse wrongful convictions; like what happened with Debra Milke in Arizona.

 

[carbonjam72]

But you quoted from the wiki article, not the google search. Both statements seem to be more or less tecnically accurate, although for now there's still the thorny issue of most of the prison sentence being for a crime for which Knox has been convicted.

Until the ECHR gets a chance to weigh in on the calunnia conviction, at which point many here think that will in time be vacated by Italy as well.

I think the term "provisionally convicted" would be a better term to describe that state of affairs.

Also, 'provisionally convicted' at a first level trial, provisionally acquitted on appeal. They then had their provisional acquittal overturned by cassation, and again had the original provisional conviction re-instated on appeal at the Nencini court, before being finally acquitted by cassation on May 27, 2015.

Or, they could just show a big plopping plate of spaghetti in tomato sauce, with the caption phrase, 'Italian trial procedure spaghetti with eventual acquittal sauce".

 

[Bill Williams]

Is that a fair or useful question? Most people participating in this thread, (presumably all), think OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, but he was acquitted. I think the people that think he was guilty accept the fact that he was acquitted, but they still think he was guilty.

The discussion here is mostly about whether AK/RS were innocent or guilty regardless of the ISC decision. The decision provides significant support for the idea that they were innocent of the crimes they were charged with but I would have thought they were innocent regardless of the ISC decision.

I was reacting to the "appeal to authority".... used by the poster to buttress her own analysis of the evidence. The constant reference to, "The court of the 1st instance found....." is misleading.

The Court of the 1st Instance in this case is annulled.

 

[lonepinealex]

Why is that a thorny issue? It's rather straight-forward. She was convicted. Many will say unjustly, me included, but that is not a thorny issue.

It is because of Italy's membership in the ECHR that it is not final, not really. Also, there must be a mechanism in Italy to reverse wrongful convictions; like what happened with Debra Milke in Arizona.

I agree with you that it's straightforward, I rather meant that it's thorny to write on the wiki that she was wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of Meredith Kercher, when that's only partly the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with you that it's straightforward, I rather meant that it's thorny to write on the wiki that she was wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of Meredith Kercher, when that's only partly the case.

True.

 

[Kauffer]

I just googled his name with Amanda Knox and found a couple of articles he authored or was quoted in. To be fair, I don't think anyone was predicting an outright acquittal. But in one article he listed all the possible rulings of the ISC and acquittal was not in the list.

I can't find this, Dan. In fact I could only find a brief quotation cited by Colleen Barry, which was reproduced in a number of publications.

Do you have the link? Thanks.

 

[Vixen]

What do you make of that she wanted it tested by the Florence court?

The term, "Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", springs to mind.

 

[Vixen]

P'raps she votes UKIP and thinks every scrounging foreign is living the life of Reilly at taxpayers' expense, all over the damned EU.

No, I am pro-Europe, apart from the bail-outs.

As a holder of the world's most powerful passport, I am however, quite miffed that 4.427bn Asians, 953.3m Americas folk and 800m Africans are free to schlepp around Schengen zone Europe*, whilst us subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II are obliged to show our passports at the UK border. It sticks in my craw.

*According to Kauffer.

 

[lonepinealex]

No, I am pro-Europe, apart from the bail-outs.

As a holder of the world's most powerful passport, I am however, quite miffed that 4.427bn Asians, 953.3m Americas folk and 800m Africans are free to schlepp around Schengen zone Europe*, whilst us subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II are obliged to show our passports at the UK border. It sticks in my craw.

*According to Kauffer.

Wut. You know that you are as well right? You have exactly the same right as all those others you mention to schlepp all over the Schengen area unmolested by border control.

And I am a citizen, not a subject.

 

[Vixen]

I am envisioning more of a jeweler's hammer, which I have seen in burglar's kits as I've studied the topic. But, regardless, to use any hammer whatsoever for either the attorney's office or the Kercher/Knox cottage would have been completely impractical, as it would have required Guede to have leapt up and hung by the windowsill with one hand while chipping into the glass with the other. In both cases, a rock was a much more practical solution, both for the purposes of the noise test, the physics of breaking the old & thick glass at the cottage, and to minimize the gymnastics involved to gain entry.

Really? Ah, that explains the boulder and why Rudy didn't just knock on the door.

 

[Vixen]

They did make the request to Massei, the day before the verdict (not after as indicated by one poster). Raffaelle's concerns about Steffi fudging results are very understandable. Still the request was made, objected to by the prosecution and the civil parties and denied by the courts.

This should have been done at the preliminary hearings. You cannot show contempt of the court by springing it at the eleventh hour when you realise the trial hasn't gone your way.

 

[acbytesla]

We all know that computers lose their value. We also know that laptops back in 2007 as well as phones were targets for theft. They are mostly stolen for sale and the batteries to make meth. Why do you think you know about stolen tech selling in Italy? I'm not sure but I'd say it is like it is here and people knowing little about stuff sell it - that is both above and below the law.

Ask your cop buddy if laptops were stolen from cafes and phones now. I'm connected to LE here and I'm warned about phones in particular.

Is there not work divisions for you or do all salesmen do everything including acquiring the merch?

You think selling tech is really that much different in Italy than the US? I seriously doubt it. I've dealt with brokers in France, the UK, China, Brazil, Qatar and many other countries. There may be minor differences in every market, but the essential requirements for success is the same. Know what you are buying, pay as little as possible and quickly sell it before your profit margin disappears. You have to be in CONTACT with other buyers and sellers all the time.

I have NO doubt that phones, and laptops are stolen all over the world. Anything current has value. Still, the problem with laptops or any computer is the same. I can place 2 laptops that look pretty much identical in front of you, but they can be worth dramatically different. One could have a fast expensive CPU, the other a much slower and cheaper version. One could have a 50 GB drive the other 1 TB. One could have 512MB RAM, the other 16GB.

Rudy is a loser. He's been working at low pay service jobs like landscaping and restaurants. He cannot be reliably contacted. Sure, he knows how to go into a new Internet cafe and use Skype, so what? So does my elderly Aunt. What he probably doesn't know how to do is how to get top dollar for electronics.

I don't understand why it's isn't obvious to you that Rudy CAN'T be a fence.
Every single clue that makes you think he's a fence is what tells me that he's the burglar. The fences are buying his stolen equipment, because they have the avenues to sell it. It collected in his apartment until he sold it to a fence. Does anyone know if they have Pawn Brokers in Italy?

 

[Vixen]

The evidence was solid, they were exonerated because of Hillary's upcoming campaign.

They were acquitted - not exonerated - because of Hellmann's mischievousness.

 

[js202]

Really? Ah, that explains the boulder and why Rudy didn't just knock on the door.

You really need to get your usages and definitions straight, since they are consistently off-base, and, as in this case, all too frequently preposterous. The rock that Guede tossed through Filomena's window weighed approximately 9 pounds. According to your apparently estranged friend Google, the standard weight of a sandstone boulder is from 150 to 175 pounds. Granite and limestone boulders, of the kind typically seen to drop on Wile E. Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons, weigh more.

 

[Vixen]

It's only a black and white but here's a screenshot of inside Guede's apartment.

Can't see any IT equipment?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What should have happened with respect to the stain

They did make the request to Massei, the day before the verdict (not after as indicated by one poster). Raffaelle's concerns about Steffi fudging results are very understandable. Still the request was made, objected to by the prosecution and the civil parties and denied by the courts.

RoseMontague,

Concerns about Stefanoni misremembering, etc. are well-founded. However, as several of us have said, the stain should have been tested in the first days of November, and if there were a DNA profile associated with the stain, that person should have been a suspect (probably the main suspect) until and unless cleared in some way. For example, if the stain were deposited by Meredith's boyfriend, then he should be a suspect until he produced strong alibi evidence (which of course he had).

PG commenters latch on to the putative lack of ability to date this stain and to the actions of Raffaele's team, but this is all tangential nonsense. No DNA sample can be dated by means of the DNA alone, but this logic applied to any DNA sample. I cannot think of a presumptive chemical test that provides time information either, but these limitations apply to all cases of sexual assault. Do these same PG commenters believe that one should never test a putative semen stain in a sexual assault case? BTW a damp stain might have been amenable to study, as Dr. Vinci's report mentioned (this was discussed here roughly a week ago).