Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

What the hell are you talking about? Your posts epitomizes the whole problem with the guilter position. You are reading tea leaves and pretending that you understand the significance. They were under the impression nothing was stolen. You act as if you KNOW that they absolutely should have known one way or the other.

That somehow this unimportant error is incriminating. Which can ONLY be ascertained through speculation. It's illogical. Can't you see that?

It is reasonable that the police thought it suspicious that Raf responded on the 911 call that nothing was missing.

Btw - did I miss your link to Mara Madu Diaz's twitter account.

IIRC you asked if I was serious about her existence and then said she was alive and well and even had a twitter account.

Could you either provide this information or admit you were just making it up or explain what your post was for?

It seems you hate it when others make it up.

 

[Dougm]

Ah, but they did not quote CPP Art 606 para 1e, they quoted Art 530 para II.

OMG.

 

[Numbers]

Ah, but they did not quote CPP Art 606 para 1e, they quoted Art 530 para II.

The CPP Art. 606 para. 1e will no doubt be mentioned in the motivation report. The Chieffi panel used it frequently in their motivation report. Here is part of the Chieffi panel MR:

.... It has been recalled that this task was entrusted to the Supreme Court judge even before the reform of letter e) of C.P.P. Article 606 introduced by Law 46/2006, and that with this revision, the fault of misrepresentation of evidence was brought within the ambit of the fault of reasoning,....

Source: https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/1-preface-on-the-limits-of-this-courts-jurisdiction/

The was no need to include mention of it in the brief statement of the judgment by the Marasca panel, while CPP Art. 530, which lists the reasons to be used to justify an acquittal, was required.

If one wishes to discuss Italian law, one should at least read and try to understand the basics, such as the relevant articles in the Italian codes, and how they are used.

ETA: CPP Art. 606 is used to provide the legal justification for the judgment of the CSC on an appeal from a lower court. It is relevant in the motivation report, not the brief statement of judgment of acquittal or conviction.

 

[Numbers]

The "swirl" is not a chemical reaction. It would be due in some hypothetical cases to a circular scrubbing motion to applied sodium hypochlrite. To postulate that would be the case here, had there been cleaning, is pure conjecture.

Presumably the floor had been cleaned at some point in the previous six weeks, so it is remarkable the swirling pattern was not picked up by the luminol, which according to your hypothesis (and that's all it is) should have shown up.

Some just move a mop back and forth = no swirls.

Your misstatements in your posts are endless.

The "swirls" are used to describe the pattern left by the cleanup of blood, and follow the action (motion) of the cleaning object, whether circular, linear, or some other pattern.

The swirls in question are the residual hemoglobin which shows up under luminal chemiluminescence. No doubt there are similar patterns due to residual "dirt" when a surface is cleaned, but that "dirt" is not at issue here, unless it triggered luminol chemiluminescence. But in fact, no such cleanup chemiluminescence patterns were seen at the Kercher murder cottage site. There was no cleanup of blood.

 

[Kauffer]

Ah, but they did not quote CPP Art 606 para 1e, they quoted Art 530 para II.

Actually, the authority cited by the dispositivo is pursuant to Art 620, which is as follows:

CPP Article 620
1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the CSC shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral:
a) ....if the prosecution should not have been started or continued;
d) if the appealed decision is not allowed by law;
h) if there is a contradiction between the appealed judgment or order and a previous judgment or order concerning the same person and the same subject, delivered by the same or another criminal judge;
l) in any other case in which the CSC believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions.

Para 1a applies.


Numbers posted this article some time ago on IIP.

 

[acbytesla]

Not only that, but what purpose would saying "nothing was stolen" have for a guilty Amanda?

No purpose. It doesn't prove anything. Just like cartwheels and shopping for underwear or a kiss, or a swivel of the hips and "Ta da" The so called behavior evidence is absurd.

Would it mean anything really in regards of proving the case if Amanda actually said she would kill for a pizza? Or if Raff and her had sex when they returned home from the questura on November 2nd? Or if Amanda bought cotton or crotchless panties at the lingerie store? Or if Amanda had 20 sex partners or none?

These are not clues to the crime. They are fodder for the freaks. It's sensationalist nonsense.

When will they figure this out? I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is reasonable that the police thought it suspicious that Raf responded on the 911 call that nothing was missing.

The issue is: suspicious of what?

It is obviously fair-ball for investigators to hold a tidbit like this in the back of their mind as suspicious. To act on this (in one direction or another) is to further have that suspicion gel into some developing hypothesis of what the crime actually was.

On the face of it, Raffaele had the same reaction everyone had when they looked into the room. Postal Police Battistelli offered a variant on it when he said, apparently outloud (acc. to John Follain), "this is no burglary." "No burglary" to me means that even though the room is disturbed and a window is broken, nothing was missing.

The hall-mark of suspect-centric investigations is when a suspected person says something which is being said/observed by everyone, but saying it becomes "suspicious".

 

[Bill Williams]

It was Raf that said that and the speculation is he panicked.

The idea that she would have noticed a missing lamp is precious.

Speculation by whom? He merely said what everyone was saying. Did everyone, therefore, "panic"?

I know you, yourself, do not espouse this, but the question is worth asking.

 

[Grinder]

No purpose. It doesn't prove anything. Just like cartwheels and shopping for underwear or a kiss, or a swivel of the hips and "Ta da" The so called behavior evidence is absurd.

While the last five have little to no value in any way, stating something that couldn't be know always raises a flag. In more advanced societies the police keep details quiet a long as they can or until they have solved the crime. In this case everything was released which allowed Rudi to know what to say in some cases.

Would it mean anything really in regards of proving the case if Amanda actually said she would kill for a pizza? Or if Raff and her had sex when they returned home from the questura on November 2nd? Or if Amanda bought cotton or crotchless panties at the lingerie store? Or if Amanda had 20 sex partners or none?

These are not clues to the crime. They are fodder for the freaks. It's sensationalist nonsense.

When will they figure this out? I'm not holding my breath.

What is the fallacy of piling up things that all are clearly not evidence of anything to disprove a thing that may be of significance?

Is it proof of guilt? No. Does it raise reasonable suspicion? Yes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, I have. In which way can someone behave "unusually" in a shop? IIRC he did say he was surprised to find a student type up so early on a Bank Holiday waiting for the shop to open.

"Hi, my name is Amanda, and I am addicted to household cleaning. So much so, I queue up outside the grocery store before opening time to stock up with bleach."

"Welcome, Amanda. One day at a time, sweet Jesus".

No, I am talking about when she bought the underwear. The shop clerk said her behavior (which you described as euphoric) was not unusual.

 

[Grinder]

Speculation by whom? He merely said what everyone was saying. Did everyone, therefore, "panic"?

I know you, yourself, do not espouse this, but the question is worth asking.

The speculation is a more generalized one to why people make these kinds of mistakes. An arsonist that mentions the accelerant when it wasn't publicly known or a murderer reveals something about the crime not known.

He wasn't saying what anybody except maybe Amanda was saying. He called 911 and reported the break in and when asked said "nothing was stolen".

Try to put yourself in the position of the PLE on Nov. 2nd and the report of the call is produced. The PLE at that time is supposed to be looking for any clue. If I heard him say "nothing was stolen it" would perk my ears.

ETA - the fact that nothing was stolen from F or outside M's room made it more suspicious. I think you see them as "two innocents" and that everyone should have always have seen them that way.

 

[MDDVS]

While the last five have little to no value in any way, stating something that couldn't be know always raises a flag. In more advanced societies the police keep details quiet a long as they can or until they have solved the crime. In this case everything was released which allowed Rudi to know what to say in some cases.



What is the fallacy of piling up things that all are clearly not evidence of anything to disprove a thing that may be of significance?

Is it proof of guilt? No. Does it raise reasonable suspicion? Yes.

The problem is those things are not suspicious.

 

[Numbers]

Actually, the authority cited by the dispositivo is pursuant to Art 620, which is as follows:

CPP Article 620
1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the CSC shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral:
a) ....if the prosecution should not have been started or continued;
d) if the appealed decision is not allowed by law;
h) if there is a contradiction between the appealed judgment or order and a previous judgment or order concerning the same person and the same subject, delivered by the same or another criminal judge;
l) in any other case in which the CSC believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions.

Para 1a applies.


Numbers posted this article some time ago on IIP.

Here is the text of the dispositivo (brief summary of CSC judgement), as posted by MichaelB earlier on ISF:

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.

The authority for the CSC ruling in the brief summary of judgment consists of CPP Article 620, Annulment without referral.

The importance of the specific sub-paragraphs (all under paragraph 1); Annulment because:

A: The prosecution should not have been started or continued

This suggests that the CSC Marasca panel will acknowledge in their Motivation Report that the prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was wrongful.

L: In any other case in which the CSC believes the referral (to a lower court) is superfluous.

This suggests that the CSC Marasca panel will acknowledge in their MR that any referral to a lower court would be superfluous and the CSC considers that it should proceed to a final determination of sentence or other necessary decisions.

It is the use of CPP Article 620 1a that most strongly suggests that the CSC Marasca panel considers Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito totally factually innocent of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher. And, of course, the text says clearly that "the petitioners did not commit the act". We are all awaiting the Motivation Report to understand how much the judgment relies on an analysis of the procedural errors in this case compared to the total lack of reliable evidence against the defendants.

ETA: Kauffer, thanks for your help on this and all your valuable posts.

 

[Vixen]

Can't believe it's still going on here.

I see the general consensus amidst the pitchforks and torches folk is that a secret conspiracy of masons and Satanists bought off the most supreme court of Italy to let the witch loose.

it's only logical that at some precise point the masons were mopping the floor in a satanic way, leaving no swirls and no smears.

Many a true word said in jest." ~ Shakespeare

 

[Grinder]

On the face of it, Raffaele had the same reaction everyone had when they looked into the room. Postal Police Battistelli offered a variant on it when he said, apparently outloud (acc. to John Follain), "this is no burglary." "No burglary" to me means that even though the room is disturbed and a window is broken, nothing was missing.

The hall-mark of suspect-centric investigations is when a suspected person says something which is being said/observed by everyone, but saying it becomes "suspicious".

Ah yes the same writer that knew what the police were saying to each other during the interrogations.

Bill at what point does Follain fabricate say Battistelli made the comments?

He see the glass on the clothes and says this looks fake.

He then has F look around to see if anything was stolen. You have misrepresented what Follain wrote and that everyone was saying nothing stolen.

F says only her make-up is missing. What burglar steals only make-up.

Make-up = dope stash IMO

It would seem he made it after "The only thing he's taken is my make-up!' she (F) told Battistelli " if he ever said it.

Bill, bill, bill

 

[Numbers]

The speculation is a more generalized one to why people make these kinds of mistakes. An arsonist that mentions the accelerant when it wasn't publicly known or a murderer reveals something about the crime not known.

He wasn't saying what anybody except maybe Amanda was saying. He called 911 and reported the break in and when asked said "nothing was stolen".

Try to put yourself in the position of the PLE on Nov. 2nd and the report of the call is produced. The PLE at that time is supposed to be looking for any clue. If I heard him say "nothing was stolen it" would perk my ears.

ETA - the fact that nothing was stolen from F or outside M's room made it more suspicious. I think you see them as "two innocents" and that everyone should have always have seen them that way.

Grinder,
You may be aware that Hellmann in his court's MR found this to be not at all suspicious. He stated to the effect that, IIRC, no one should expect ordinary citizens to be so precise in their understanding of law and a crime scene.

I believe that the "suspicion" is retroactive justification.

 

[Grinder]

The problem is those things are not suspicious.

The list of stupid stuff like cartwheels are not suspicious but the "nothing is stolen" was. Lumping them together is a technique to diminish the legitimate one or ones.

Do you believe any behaviors can be suspicious?

 

[Vixen]

No, I am talking about when she bought the underwear. The shop clerk said her behavior (which you described as euphoric) was not unusual.

Di Rinaldi, the shopkeeper, for it is he, said, "Their behaviour struck me as very odd. They were laughing and joking as they were holding up the underwear and the girl kept saying she was going to wear it before they had sex. When I realised it was them, and the fact that the poor girl had only been found the day before, their behaviour struck me even more as unusual."

 

[js202]

Yes, I have. In which way can someone behave "unusually" in a shop? IIRC he did say he was surprised to find a student type up so early on a Bank Holiday waiting for the shop to open.

"Hi, my name is Amanda, and I am addicted to household cleaning. So much so, I queue up outside the grocery store before opening time to stock up with bleach."

"Welcome, Amanda. One day at a time, sweet Jesus".

This is so childish and stupid - with the alleged event itself only attested to by Quintavalle more than a year after the fact, and refuted by employees - that no one should bother responding to it, and I wish I could, myself, refrain. However:

1) The only mop on either Amanda's or Raffaele's premises was expertly gift-wrapped by Stefanoni and nonetheless came up bupkis in terms of blood or DNA evidence.

2) As others have much too painstakingly pointed out, luminol patterns would have revealed evidence of a clean-up with any mop, rag or cleaning implement, whatsoever. No such patterns were revealed.

3) Along with the trumped-up bleach receipts which were never actually produced, there would have been closed circuit video, both of Knox going to and/or leaving Q's shop, and of the pair absurdly taking the trip back to Sollecito's apartment with the two or three bottles of bleach - with the still-bloody kitchen knife presumably in Amanda's hip pocket - in order to conceal them underneath Sollecito's kitchen sink.

As with so many aspects of this case, a pro-guilt stance requires one to proffer complete credulity to the prosecution's case in order to observe this constellation and find it evidence of Knox and Sollecito's implication or guilt.

 

[RoseMontague]

Di Rinaldi, the shopkeeper, for it is he, said, "Their behaviour struck me as very odd. They were laughing and joking as they were holding up the underwear and the girl kept saying she was going to wear it before they had sex. When I realised it was them, and the fact that the poor girl had only been found the day before, their behaviour struck me even more as unusual."

Again, you are getting "facts" from tabloid news. Read his court testimony.