Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Fine by me since everything the police leaked to the Italian & UK media turned out to be utter garbage.



Raffaele's sponge certainly got around since the other day I posted where Stefanoni had testified that Raffaele's sponge also had a hair consistent with Guede on it (i.e., she claimed to have found an African hair on Raffaele's sponge).

Stefanoni claimed some of Guede's hairs were found on Meredith's duvet and one on her purse (believable), and one African hair on Raffaele's sponge back in his apartment?

Obviously, early on they were building a case that Raffaele's sponge was used in a cleanup, but the prosecution apparently decided against going there since the sponge wasn't brought up at trial.

Stefanoni belongs in jail!

Hi Ken, I missed your post of Stef's testimony on the sponge from Raf's apartment. Did you leave a citation, or page number. Do you know the date of her testimony, at which proceeding? Thanks in advance -

Amazing all the false info floating around. How much was invented by police, and how much invented or exaggerated by journalists I wonder?

 

[Bill Williams]

Is this whole thing being cut and pasted from another source? It surely cannot have been written by the same vixen that was educated on her errors the the last time she was here. Did she learn nothing about negative substrate controls in the discussions of blood drops in the bath? The same applies to DNA traces in the hall.

Did she not read the explanation of the phone reception from the distant tower at Raffaele's appartment that I posted in response to her last attempt to post the Amanda not at Raf's place meme? I worked this out much earlier in these threads from examination of the physical arangement of the towers and streets and posted the results here with pictures. The same result was derived by Raffaele's phone expert in measuring actual signal strengths.

Every one of these guilter talking points has been dispelled with actual facts and yet here is vixen, rebooted just like Machiavelli used to do, reposting the same discredited talking points as if there had been no discussion.

When is the spamming going to end?

Each and every one of Vixen's factoids have long since been debunked (cf. women's shoe print, Knox's fingerprint). Years ago.

The kicker is that most of these never even made it to trial. Last time it was pointed out that these factoids never even made it to trial, it was stated that, "Well, not all evidence is sent to trial." Perhaps that explains why the two were exonerated.

 

[carbonjam72]

Is this whole thing being cut and pasted from another source? It surely cannot have been written by the same vixen that was educated on her errors the the last time she was here. Did she learn nothing about negative substrate controls in the discussions of blood drops in the bath? The same applies to DNA traces in the hall.

Did she not read the explanation of the phone reception from the distant tower at Raffaele's appartment that I posted in response to her last attempt to post the Amanda not at Raf's place meme? I worked this out much earlier in these threads from examination of the physical arangement of the towers and streets and posted the results here with pictures. The same result was derived by Raffaele's phone expert in measuring actual signal strengths.

Every one of these guilter talking points has been dispelled with actual facts and yet here is vixen, rebooted just like Machiavelli used to do, reposting the same discredited talking points as if there had been no discussion.

When is the spamming going to end?

Mach was way more fun, imo, no offense Vixen. Mach had Amanda and Raf sliding around on the bath mat, and "immediately running out of the room" to avoid stepping in wet blood, had all manor of masonic conspiracies going on, and could conjure the most far fetched fantasies on a dime on seemingly any subject that came up for discussion. It doesn't matter that most of it made no sense, it was the volume and certainty of the posts that I found so impressive. I thought there was a whole roomful of Machs.

MAch come back!

 

[Bill Williams]

This, in my view is what's wrong with copyright law as it stands today. If Amanda and her publishers don't complain, then nothing happens. There's no way to know whether its legal or not, short of bringing a copyright complaint and seeking court action, and only then, finding out if a judge will back up the writer/publisher.

At least PQ is publishing something truthful for a change, assuming he did. I can't bear to look.

It's in Harper Collin's court. If they do nothing, that in and of itself will say volumes!

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach was way more fun, imo, no offense Vixen. Mach had Amanda and Raf sliding around on the bath mat, and "immediately running out of the room" to avoid stepping in wet blood, had all manor of masonic conspiracies going on, and could conjure the most far fetched fantasies on a dime on seemingly any subject that came up for discussion. It doesn't matter that most of it made no sense, it was the volume and certainty of the posts that I found so impressive. I thought there was a whole roomful of Machs.

MAch come back!

Machiavelli always gave a good accounting of himself.

 

[js202]

Machiavelli always gave a good accounting of himself.

Even when no one else would.

 

[Kauffer]

It was definitely "For not having committed the fact" regarding the murder charge but also for charge E, the fake break-in which Hellmann ruled: "because the act did not take place"

So it seems to me Maresca is going to stay the break-in was staged, just not by AK & RS.

Hellmann also made a mistake. He ruled on charge B "for not having committed the act" regarding carrying the knife. When it should have been "because the act did not take place".

If it wasn't the murder weapon and they weren't involved then they weren't carrying around the kitchen knife.

Yes - do you or does somebody else have the translation of the dispositivo to hand? It was actually posted here in April. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cassazione-Dispositivo-30-March-2015.pdf

There was a discussion about which part I think of art 530 applied.

 

[Grinder]

RW - if I never acknowledged that Rudi misspells his own name, I am doing so now. Most all of the court records I've seen have it spelled correctly

 

[Bill Williams]

RW - if I never acknowledged that Rudi misspells his own name, I am doing so now. Most all of the court records I've seen have it spelled correctly

"Rudi" is an Italian transliteration of Rudy's name because Italian has no "y" in its alphabet - except for loan-words from other languages.

 

[Grinder]

Any word on the motivations?

The addendum to WTBH is well written. At least the first few pages I read. I doubt PQ analysis of copyright will hold up.

 

[Grinder]

"Rudi" is an Italian transliteration of Rudy's name because Italian has no "y" in its alphabet - except for loan-words from other languages.

In Preliminary Ruling: Matteini Report they spell Lumumba's first name DIYA. That's the one in Italian.

If you are contending Rudy came from the Ivory Coast wouldn't that be just as much a "loan-word" as Diya?

Rudy Guede Appeal Trial: Borsini-Belardi Report
GUEDE RUDI HERMANN, nato il 26.12.1986 ad Agou (Costa d'Avorio) ;

Hellmann spelled it Rudi,

The possession of stolen loot cases spelled it Rudy.

Clearly it can be spelled either way.

 

[Bill Williams]

In Preliminary Ruling: Matteini Report they spell Lumumba's first name DIYA. That's the one in Italian.

If you are contending Rudy came from the Ivory Coast wouldn't that be just as much a "loan-word" as Diya?

Rudy Guede Appeal Trial: Borsini-Belardi Report
GUEDE RUDI HERMANN, nato il 26.12.1986 ad Agou (Costa d'Avorio) ;

Hellmann spelled it Rudi,

The possession of stolen loot cases spelled it Rudy.

Clearly it can be spelled either way.

Clearly it IS spelled both ways. Sometimes as a loan word, sometimes not. In common usage it seems Italians are caving in to the use of other similar-alphabet usage. Perhaps there is a legal convention about it. Who knows.

At best it seems that transliteration vs. literal rendering is not applied evenly, even in legal documents.

Maybe that's why the kids were exonerated!!

 

[Antony]

I do think I've heard statements that were off in very minor detail from both, but in this statement from Clemente, I believe he is referring to the fact that only one knife from the drawer of knives in Raf's kitchen was tested, which appears to be true.

As Moore and Clemente, and other pros have commented, collecting evidence is like panning for gold. You collect widely in hopes of finding what's relevant.

Officer Finzi collected only the one knife from Raf's kitchen drawer, which he selected based on "intuition", and/or, "it was shiny". This criticism of Finzi and the police is certainly warranted, imo.

The larger points both were making remain valid. (i.e., Moore - no evidence of bleach clean-up at cottage, in fact, the footsteps in luminol PROVE there was NO bleach clean-up), and Clemente - evidence collection practices were so incompetent just on the knife from Raf's kitchen, its hard NOT to impute intentional fraud - in other words - yes, FRAMING!).

Not just once, but twice. The bra clasp "evidence" was the result of another conjuring trick.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's another one of these things that was misreported everywhere and then repeated endlessly by guilters:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...girl--arrive-to-incriminate-knox-1609172.html

Natalie Hayward, remarked: "I hope Meredith wasn't in too much pain." Ms Frost remembered Ms Knox replying: "What do you *********** think? She *********** bled to death."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/14/meredith-kercher-trial

Natalie Hayward, commented at the police station that she hoped Kercher had not suffered, Knox replied: "What do you think? She *********** bled to death."

Here's what was actually said: (p127)

WITNESS – Yes, I said to Amanda “I hope she didn’t die with a lot of agony”.
PM – And what did Amanda say?
WITNESS – She said “They slit her throat Nathalie, she will have died slowly in a lot of agony”.

 

[MichaelB]

Yes - do you or does somebody else have the translation of the dispositivo to hand? It was actually posted here in April. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cassazione-Dispositivo-30-March-2015.pdf

There was a discussion about which part I think of art 530 applied.

Here's the post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10580397#post10580397

Translation:

PURSUANT TO C.P.P. ARTICLE 620 LETTER A); ANNULS THE RULING UNDER APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIME UNDER CHARGE B) OF THE RUBRIC BECAUSE THE CRIME IS EXTINCT BY PRESCRIPTION; PURSUANT TO C.P.P. ARTICLES 620 LETTER L) AND 530, PARAGRAPH II; EXCLUDING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER C.P. ARTICLE 61 N.2 IN RELATION TO THE CRIME OF CALUMNY, ANNULS THE RULING UNDER APPEAL WITHOUT REMAND WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIMES UNDER CHARGES A), D), AND E) OF THE RUBRIC BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT; RECALCULATES THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER AMANDA MARIE KNOX FOR THE CRIME OF CALUMNY AS THREE YEARS OF CONFINEMENT.

 

[Dougm]

<snip, because the full text has been quoted several times by others>

I am here to kill ignorance!
But you knew all of this anyway.

*ETA Numerous witnesses, including police, testified Amanda was in a highly euphoric condition immediately after the murder. For example, in the questura, the lingerie shop, diary entries, etc.

If you are here to kill ignorance, your posts do exactly the opposite. Repeatedly posting old, false information from tabloid reports that have since been disproven is the opposite of killing, or even reducing ignorance. It is an attempt to go back in history, and create new ignorance where it has previously been stamped out.

I am sure people here would welcome debate, but posting bogus information about the case that has long ago been shown to be wrong is an ineffective debating tactic. For someone who purports to be as bright as you do, I assume you know that. So it appears the idea is not to debate, but instead to anger the regular participants here, potentially resulting in the thread being moderated, or even shut down.

If you really believe the evidence proves Knox and Sollecito guilty, why not use accurate information when debating? I am sure people here would welcome the opportunity to discuss based on the actual facts, but not made up stuff like a woman's shoe print, or Raffaele's fingerprint, found in Meredith's room (those are just two inventions). I asked you to show proof of the fingerprint, and you never provided it. The shoe print thing was proven false, in court, long ago.

You are certainly able to use whatever debating tactics you want, but I don't think it's working when you trot out inaccuracies over and over. It really just shows that you haven't researched the case very thoroughly, which is pretty quickly shown by the other posters here, most of whom have researched the case in detail.

Anyway, if you want to continue with your current tack, good luck with it. I just don't think it is doing what you think it is doing, but rather, the opposite. I suspect most here will get tired of explaining the actual facts of the case to you, and just ignore. But that is up to them.

 

[Kauffer]

Here's the post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10580397#post10580397

Translation:

Thanks Michael

 

[christianahannah]

Any word on the motivations?

The addendum to WTBH is well written. At least the first few pages I read. I doubt PQ analysis of copyright will hold up.

It is well written. I wonder if she wrote most of it herself without a co-writer (my guess is she did)? I also think the pieces she has written for WSH are pretty good, too.

I would think one couldn't copy whole pages of a book without the author's permission. And I don't think this afterword was on the main site but rather on something titled the holding tank (web address) whatever that is.

 

[Dougm]

Here's another one of these things that was misreported everywhere and then repeated endlessly by guilters:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...girl--arrive-to-incriminate-knox-1609172.html



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/14/meredith-kercher-trial



Here's what was actually said: (p127)

Personally, I am not sure it is valuable to refute every single negative about Amanda Knox.

IIRC, Amanda herself admitted she may have said something she later regretted (I believe in her book). She said she was emotionally freaked out, and exhausted. I suspect the actual words she used are somewhere between what was reported in the newspapers and what was later testified to in court. The point is, it doesn't matter what she said, it isn't evidence she committed any crime. The guilter talking points, that she said things that showed she knew facts about the murder only the killer would know, are clearly inaccurate.

 

[christianahannah]

Machiavelli always gave a good accounting of himself.

This I agree with. He had knowledge of court procedures and helped when researching various facts concerning the case. Whether one agreed with him or not what he wrote was interesting and almost surely would initiate debate amongst the participants here.