Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Matteini did a great job explaining how Patrick was involved complete with misinterpreted text messages, imaginative cell phone mumbo joumb, and a drunk witness claiming his bar was closed.

Massei was the one with the Masonic sacrificial rite theory and the large-bag large knife theory as well as the theory that Guede couldn't have removed Meredith's pants without help.

Not sure about these Rose, but I understand how easy it is to get carried away.

I think Massei rejected the Halloween rites and/or sex games, and reduced it to a "choice for evil" (because he's that big of an idiot).

And I think the pants removal is from a different case denying a Italian woman was raped because she had tight jeans which could not be removed without her consent, hence no rape.

(Please tell me you weren't being facetious and I missed the gag)

 

[RoseMontague]

Not sure about these Rose, but I understand how easy it is to get carried away.

I think Massei rejected the Halloween rites and/or sex games, and reduced it to a "choice for evil" (because he's that big of an idiot).

And I think the pants removal is from a different case denying a Italian woman was raped because she had tight jeans which could not be removed without her consent, hence no rape.

(Please tell me you weren't being facetious and I missed the gag)

The pants thing is in Massei as well as that other Italian case. You are correct, it was Mignini with the sacrificial rite thing, even Massei wasn't buying that one.

 

[Ken Dine]

They did have evidence (fabricated evidence). Dr. Stefanoni testified that she examined the knife and that it had several hundred pictograms of the victim's DNA on the blade. Her testimony of several hundred picograms is of course false (IIRC, the blade data show it measured a few picograms - a number so, so small that it effectively means zero from a scientific standpoint).

What occurred is that Prosecutor Mignini issued an order to detain the suspects for murder, subject to a magistrate hearing, and he needed prelinary "evidence" presented at the hearing to justify their continued detention. Dr. Stefanoni, a police lab official, fabricated the claim that there were several hundred pictograms of the victim's DNA on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Amanda's DNA was (legitimately) on the handle.

Mignini's actual Nov 6th order to hold Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick occurred long before Stefanoni's bogus knife testing. Mignini did eventually have to produce his evidence to a judge in order to keep them in jail pending trial, but as I recall, the most damning evidence presented to the judge was Mignini's claim that Raffaele's shoes left bloody prints in Meredith's bedroom, and Mignini may have used his since debunked claim that Amanda had also left bloody footprints there.

It's been awhile since I've read that early court hearing's transcript, but this is Mignini's nonsensical Nov 6th Order –– I've added numbers to make it easier to grok Mignini's early allegations (and there isn't much there):

Power of Attorney of the Republic
in the jurisdiction of the Court of Perugia

Declaration of Arrest issued by the Prosecutor
To the judge of the preliminary investigations of the Court of Perugia

The Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini sustains

Given the following procedural documents;

Seeing as there are serious clues of the crime of conspiracy in murder aggravated by sexual assault for which he proceeds against DIYA Lumumba, born in Kindu (Zaire) on 5 May 1969, KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele, in generalized terms, for the following reasons:

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for breach of rule 4. Do not copy & paste large extracts from material elsewhere; use a short snippet and provide a link.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-conten...on-Arrest-Warrant-Lumumba-Sollecito-Knox.docx

Throw out the claimed confessions (which weren't recorded), and Mignini's only evidence against Amanda was that she was sleeping with Raffaele, whom she had met only a few days earlier.

Coupled with Raffaele having a knife and shoes that could possibly be linked to the murder (but were later found to NOT be compatible with the murder), and the rest is all smoke and mirrors, which is why they went scrambling back to the cottage 46 days after the murder to (hopefully) collect more damning evidence against the pair.

It's amazing that Italy's messed up legal system would allow a whack-job like Mignini (along with compliant judges) to hold two innocent people in jail on such flimsy speculation.

I've already removed Italy from my list of countries to visit!

 

[Vixen]

Surely you jest. Mentioned in a book, yet not by the prosecution in court. Not in any other book, even not on the most pro-guilt websites. We don't even know which paperback. Next!



You don't need to persuade me. But surely the reason to come on a forum and post over 1000 times, taking a contrary position to almost every other poster present, is to put forth a point of view that might convince someone?

Also, I find it interesting that having a point of view, supported by factual information that you are unable to refute, adds up to me having "entrenched views that are blind to reason." What reason? That is exactly what I am talking about in the post you replied to.



You sure seem to think you know a lot about me, when I simply don't understand your arguments. I suspect I am not the only one. How is it a logical fallacy, based on, as you said, "bigotry", to be unable to discuss the meaning of facts another person has invented? Do you really think that makes sense?

It doesn't really matter, I just became more interested in your method of arguing than your arguments. I just don't see how you can ever succeed using that style.

The reason I am one out of dozens is the mere fact all you guys belong to a homogenous pro advocacy group, hence you all toe the "innocent" party line, regardless of the transparent illogicality of some of your claims.

Hume said,“Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions”.

It's great you're passionate. However, the quasi-I'm confused stance is merely irritating to the reader, as is the pseudo stance adopted by others of faux superiority predicated on little more than sarcasm, sophistry and purple prose.

If you sincerely are confused, I apologise. If you struggle to understand something, just ask.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't put words in my mouth. It was the fact finding trial which found the lamp a subject of intetest, being as it was, wiped clean of all fingerprints.

Again strange reasoning. You bring up the lamp, and it's put to you that the lamp is useless as evidence.

Your reply is that it is only a subject of interest. Why then bring it up?

It's now unclear to me what you're trying to argue here. So far it just looks like making cite-less posts, and when a cite is given it proves nothing.

 

[RoseMontague]

Note the use of the word "impossible", pmf translation

Furthermore, it is impossible to imagine in what way a single person could have removed the clothes that Meredith was wearing (shoes, pants and underwear)

 

[Planigale]

OK, the source is as follows:



p 124 - 125 Gary C King The Murder of Meredith Kercher 2010 (John Blake)

Is that an adequate citation?

The official police report presented to the court says three fingerprints of Sollecito were found. Two on the outside of MK bedroom door. One on the fridge door. None inside the bedroom. None in any bedroom.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Fingerprints

So this is untrue. King is saying something untrue. You are repeating an untruth. This is factually verifiable. This is as untrue as your previous claim (which you accept now was untrue) that Knox's bloody fingerprint was on the light switch in the bathroom.

 

[Vixen]

The cite is fine, the truth of the claim is false. But you know that. Why not argue the facts of the case instead of stuff people have just made up?

That was the fact as objectively perceived by high ranking Rome police chief Giobbi.

The later story of course is Papa Raff scoured all the shoe shops in Italy to see if they could find an alternate brand. As it was one of the most popular brand of trainer it is not such a coincidence Rudy had a shoebox of this alternative brand that could match the print*. Luckily, Papa Raff was able to get Massei to accept his version. Massei did bend over backwards for the kids.

It is important for anyone interested in the case to understand how history came about.

ETA * It doesn't explain away how a star defect on the heel matched Raff's trainer.

 

[Vixen]

It is strange to cite Nencini to make this point. In fact, both you and I HAVE seen as much of the evidence Nencini did. The only evidence in front of his court, really, were the three items decreed by the 2013 IC reversal of Hellmann's 2011 exonerations.

All three of those things went the defence's way. Other than those three things, Nencini did not see and hear the evidence - he joined the legions of people who just made stuff up, particularly about things they have not seen. Nencini had the option of putting stuff before his court - in fact, the defence made 19 motions to do exactly that. Nencini denied all by one of them.

In fact, Nencini had no evidence in front of him to convict - but he did anyway. Can you then wonder why the 2015 ISC completely exonerated the kids, without remand of issues to the Appeals' level again?

There are so many inaccuracies here, I don't know where to start.

 

[Bill Williams]

The reason I am one out of dozens is the mere fact all you guys belong to a homogenous pro advocacy group, hence you all toe the "innocent" party line, regardless of the transparent illogicality of some of your claims.

Hume said,“Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions”.

It's great you're passionate. However, the quasi-I'm confused stance is merely irritating to the reader, as is the pseudo stance adopted by others of faux superiority predicated on little more than sarcasm, sophistry and purple prose.

If you sincerely are confused, I apologise. If you struggle to understand something, just ask.

Sincerely, where do you get this stuff? "A homogenous (sic) pro advocacy group"!? Really!?

Toeing the "innocent" party line? Do you then include the courts in Italy which have found for innocence? What about the Italian television programs recently, all of which were mocking claims that Raffaele Sollecito was guilty, and by extension mocking claims that Amanda Knox was guilty?

I've never understood this attempt at ad hominem, as if people cannot make up their own minds. If they differ from you they must be on a PR-firm's payroll. This is the weakest of already weak responses to questions.

With no intent at all to irritate anyone, I am also confused why this kind of "argumentation" is trotted out. It is playing the man, not the issues as they arise.

Question - I asked above about one of the things Judge Nencini was investigated about, in his post-conviction comments in Feb 2014. He said that it would have gone better for Raffaele if Raffaele had chosen to testify.

The question: how could it possibly have "gone better" for Raffaele if he'd testified at Nencini's court?

 

[Kauffer]

Don't put words in my mouth. It was the fact finding trial which found the lamp a subject of interest, being as it was, wiped clean of all fingerprints.

I didn't. You maintained that the lamp in the room proved that Amanda put it there and that this was proof she was in the room. Don't make me put your post up.

 

[RoseMontague]

That was the fact as objectively perceived by high ranking Rome police chief Giobbi.

The later story of course is Papa Raff scoured all the shoe shops in Italy to see if they could find an alternate brand. As it was one of the most popular brand of trainer it is not such a coincidence Rudy had a shoebox of this alternative brand that could match the print*. Luckily, Papa Raff was able to get Massei to accept his version. Massei did bend over backwards for the kids.

It is important for anyone interested in the case to understand how history came about.

ETA * It doesn't explain away how a star defect on the heel matched Raff's trainer.

I think we were talking about a fingerprint of RS on the inside of the door. This is false.

If you want to talk the difference in the shoe models, Raffaele's have a distinctive pattern around the edges of his shoes. This pattern does not show on any of the prints, Rudy's does. Counting rings works as well but for me this is the more obvious difference.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is strange to cite Nencini to make this point. In fact, both you and I HAVE seen as much of the evidence Nencini did. The only evidence in front of his court, really, were the three items decreed by the 2013 IC reversal of Hellmann's 2011 exonerations.

All three of those things went the defence's way. Other than those three things, Nencini did not see and hear the evidence - he joined the legions of people who just made stuff up, particularly about things they have not seen. Nencini had the option of putting stuff before his court - in fact, the defence made 19 motions to do exactly that. Nencini denied all by one of them.

In fact, Nencini had no evidence in front of him to convict - but he did anyway. Can you then wonder why the 2015 ISC completely exonerated the kids, without remand of issues to the Appeals' level again?

There are so many inaccuracies here, I don't know where to start.

Start by citing two or three which immediately come to mind.

 

[Vixen]

Matteini did a great job explaining how Patrick was involved complete with misinterpreted text messages, imaginative cell phone mumbo joumb, and a drunk witness claiming his bar was closed.

Massei was the one with the Masonic sacrificial rite theory and the large-bag large knife theory as well as the theory that Guede couldn't have removed Meredith's pants without help.

All a judge has to demonstrate is that it is a fair enough view after seeing all the evidence.

Matteini was told all this stuff about Patrick by the prosecution, thanks to Amanda reporting he raped and murdered Mez, and she was a witness. Under those circumstances, it was a fair response to remand them and list the case for trial.

She wasn 't to know ATT Amanda framed Patrick.

 

[Vixen]

Start by citing two or three which immediately come to mind.

The kids haven't been exonerated.

Amanda had carried kitchen knives around with her in Germany. (By her own account.)

Nencini DID review the DNA evidence exhibit 36i.

It did not go V&C's way, for the defence; they claimed it was potato starch.

It was Amanda's DNA on the knife hilt.

There's five to be going on with.

 

[Vixen]

I didn't. You maintained that the lamp in the room proved that Amanda put it there and that this was proof she was in the room. Don't make me put your post up.

All we can safely do is infer that is the case.

 

[Vixen]

Sincerely, where do you get this stuff? "A homogenous (sic) pro advocacy group"!? Really!?

Toeing the "innocent" party line? Do you then include the courts in Italy which have found for innocence? What about the Italian television programs recently, all of which were mocking claims that Raffaele Sollecito was guilty, and by extension mocking claims that Amanda Knox was guilty?

I've never understood this attempt at ad hominem, as if people cannot make up their own minds. If they differ from you they must be on a PR-firm's payroll. This is the weakest of already weak responses to questions.

With no intent at all to irritate anyone, I am also confused why this kind of "argumentation" is trotted out. It is playing the man, not the issues as they arise.

Question - I asked above about one of the things Judge Nencini was investigated about, in his post-conviction comments in Feb 2014. He said that it would have gone better for Raffaele if Raffaele had chosen to testify.

The question: how could it possibly have "gone better" for Raffaele if he'd testified at Nencini's court?

AIUI He was referring to the fact Raff's spontaneous statements were uncrossexaminable. It's all very well Raff waxing lyrical about his fairytale love story. If he wants the court to take him seriously, as he pleaded, get on the witness stand.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Kauffer]

All we can safely do is infer that is the case.

How can it be safe? We were talking about your leaps of logic. Your argument with regard to the lamp providing the proofs you assert is deeply illogical. The presence of the lamp cannot speak to the proof of the identity of the person who placed it nor can it speak to the timing of its placement.

 

[Vixen]

I think we were talking about a fingerprint of RS on the inside of the door. This is false.

If you want to talk the difference in the shoe models, Raffaele's have a distinctive pattern around the edges of his shoes. This pattern does not show on any of the prints, Rudy's does. Counting rings works as well but for me this is the more obvious difference.

Nice piece of legerdemain.

 

[Kauffer]

The kids haven't been exonerated.

Amanda had carried kitchen knives around with her in Germany. (By her own account.)

Nencini DID review the DNA evidence exhibit 36i.

It did not go V&C's way, for the defence; they claimed it was potato starch.

It was Amanda's DNA on the knife hilt.

There's five to be going on with.

Duh! Not as weapons of self defence - in their box, as purchased.

Yes they are exonerated - found guilty, now acquitted. That's an exoneration.