How do you know?
Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter acbytesla
- Start date
- Status
How do you know?
RoseMontague
Published Author
The same day they tested his DNA and realized it didn't match the DNA found in and on Meredith. Yet they did not disclose this to the judge or Patrick's lawyer. Good faith?
zotz
Thinker
The treatment of Patrick is one of the most interesting sub-plots to this story.
The police arrest him based supposedly on Amanda's "confession". Amanda completely withdraws her accusation the day after her arrest. The evidence against Patrick is crumbling. The police have got a real problem. They can't find anything to hold Lumumba for. The coming forward of the Swiss professor to confirm his alibi clinches the matter and they are forced to release him. The police arrest Guede and keep the "sex game gone wrong" theory that the tabloids love so much. Lumumba is angry at both the police and Amanda and files civil suits against both. He tells about his abuse at the hands of the police to the Daily Mail. The police retaliate by refusing permission for him to reopen his bar. Lumumba is forced to drop the charges against the police and he agrees to join the prosecution and the smear campaign against Amanda. The prosecution dodges a bullet and Mignini saves face. Lumumba is promised compensation from "rich" Amanda. A sad story but as an immigrant what were his choices? We have not been told about the pressure that he must have endured, especially from Mignini after that Daily Mail article. His lawyer must have been stringing him along all the way up to the final acquittal. Some day he will tell the real story of what happened to him.
Of course a case develops over time. But it doesn't develop backwards.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Vixen said:
Vixen is correct that a bloody mark was found on the small bathroom lightswitch. But that is not how this started. Vixen said:
None of this is true, with the possible exception that the bra-clasp was collected at the same time as the DNA on the sweatshirt cuffs. Absent any statement on the significance of this, the claim is puzzling. Rudy had handled the sweatshirt the night of the murder. Raffaele had not handled the bra-clasp (and neither did any of the other three male-contributors to the same sample, 165B).Vixen said:
Vixen also said:
On the face of it this is true, a paperback early on probably did say this. But what does that have to do with anything? Not even Mignini or Stefanoni said this, much less in court.Vixen said:
What points are Vixen trying to make? To catalogue all the factoids?
zotz
Thinker
"As the days passed police claimed to have further evidence against him (Patrick), including proof from his mobile phone that he was near Meredith's house around the time of her death, ..."
Daily Mail- 25 Nov, 2007
This same scientific proof that is still a major part of the so-called evidence that Amanda received the SMS text from Patrick when she was away from Raffaele's apartment was used to prove that Patrick was not at his pub when he texted her. This is an important piece of the mountain of evidence against Knox. And yet it took over seven years to refute this rubbish. It's like one of those fatbergs in the sewers of London.
Daily Mail- 25 Nov, 2007
This same scientific proof that is still a major part of the so-called evidence that Amanda received the SMS text from Patrick when she was away from Raffaele's apartment was used to prove that Patrick was not at his pub when he texted her. This is an important piece of the mountain of evidence against Knox. And yet it took over seven years to refute this rubbish. It's like one of those fatbergs in the sewers of London.
That was my point about the case evolving backwards. Vixen seems to think we are naive for thinking rumors from 2008 that were later debunked should not still be considered. Go figure.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
RWVBWL
Master Poster
To The Hilt...
Hi Vixen,
it's summertime,
do you folks get watermelon in your neck of the world?
If so, wanna do a test?
Purchase a watermelon, go grab a large kitchen knife, get pissed off and enraged and stab the watermelon 3 times in quick succession, in the same spot, allowing only half of the blade to enter the wound you made.
Who stabs a watermelon using only half of the blade?
Someone enraged enough to wanna kill a watermelon would stab a knife into the hilt.
Vixen,
have a look below at The Knife you claim is the murder weapon.
It's too big to match the wounds on Miss Kercher's neck.
Raffaele's Kitchen Knife isn't the murder weapon!
ETA:
Please be carefull handling knives, Vixen,
I'd hate for you to cut your hand like Rudy Guede did when he used a knife.
vixen said:
Hi Vixen,
it's summertime,
do you folks get watermelon in your neck of the world?
If so, wanna do a test?
Purchase a watermelon, go grab a large kitchen knife, get pissed off and enraged and stab the watermelon 3 times in quick succession, in the same spot, allowing only half of the blade to enter the wound you made.
Who stabs a watermelon using only half of the blade?
Someone enraged enough to wanna kill a watermelon would stab a knife into the hilt.
Vixen,
have a look below at The Knife you claim is the murder weapon.
It's too big to match the wounds on Miss Kercher's neck.
Raffaele's Kitchen Knife isn't the murder weapon!
ETA:
Please be carefull handling knives, Vixen,
I'd hate for you to cut your hand like Rudy Guede did when he used a knife.
Last edited:
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,536
You have proven me wrong on a few things Grinder. But on this, it is you that is off base. The court ruled and the logic rules, Rudy was there to steal, not to sleep. That he didn't get a chance to steal is more luck than anything.
Why do you think the Ms. Prato's computer's cables had been disconnected? It's clear that he was preparing to steal it until he heard people entering the nursery. There were no signs that he spent the night.
Rudy is a small time thief. Why wouldn't he go back to the place he made a big score?
Last edited:
The statements 1, 2, 3, 4 in the above quote (my numbering) are each false. Note that the poster has not provided any citations in support of any of these statements.
Here is the truth relating to each of these statements. The source of my information is: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014.
1. Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Article 620 is the Italian procedural law which governs the annulment of an appealed case without referral by the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC). There are ten sub-paragraphs, 1A through 1L, each describing a situation or status where the CSC may annul a case that has been appealed to it without referral. The tenth, 1L, is very broad; it states:
Thus, if the CSC panel reviewing an appeal believes that the judgment of the lower court should be annulled, it has the legal authority to do so. If it believes that referral after annulment is unnecessary, it need not refer the case. Finally, the CSC has the authority to determine the sentence - which means it may follow or invoke any of the CPP Articles 529 (Judgment of non-prosecution), 530 (Judgment of acquittal), 531 (Declaration of extinguishment of the offence), 533 (Conviction of the accused person), or any of the other articles of sentencing, such as those relating to civil actions.
2. This statement is obviously false. There is in fact no authority in Italy, with the possible exception of the Supreme Constitutional Court, which could by law judge the legality of a CSC decision. If a CSC decision were to allegedly violate the Convention rights of a person, for example by allegedly wrongfully convicting as a result of a violation of ECHR case-law, that person can lodge a claim against Italy with the ECHR. That is what Amanda Knox has done with respect to her final conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. According to judgment No. 113/2011 of the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court, a revision trial may be requested in order to comply with a final decision from the ECHR. Final judgments of the CSC may not be appealed, and a retrial after a final acquittal by the CSC (which is what the Marasca panel has issued for Knox and Sollecito) would be a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy.
3. The situation regarding the CSC invoking CPP Art. 530 was explained in (1). The CSC has the authority by CPP Art. 620 para. 1L to invoke this sentence. The findings of the lower courts have been annulled and are not at issue, although no doubt the CSC will make some mention of them in its Motivation Report.
4. The Marasca panel reviewed the judgment of the Nencini court in accordance with appeals, as provided for in CPP Article 606. While the Nencini court was obligated to follow the CSC interpretation of law, in accordance with CPP Article 627 para. 3. There was no obligation for the Nencini referral court to follow any interpretation of fact suggested by the Chieffi CSC panel. The CSC may not impose any interpretation of law that violates the explicit wording of the CPP, the Italian Constitution, or the intent of the Convention and ECHR case-law. Thus, the CSC is free understand the appeals in light of, for example: CPP Art. 606 para. 1e, the grounds of a judgment are lacking, contradictory, or manifestly illogical; and CPP Art. 606 para. 1b, failure to comply with or misapplication of criminal law or other legal rules which must be considered in the application of criminal law.
CPP Art. 606 para. 1e allows the CSC to evaluate the logic of how the evidence was evaluated by the lower court, among other things. CPP Art. 606 para. 1b allows the CSC to evaluate the conformance of the lower court procedures and legal reasoning to the CPP, the Italian Constitution, and the ECHR case-law.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,536
That no identifiable prints were found does not mean he lamp was wiped clean of all fingerprints. You should know as a Mensa member that your statement is a "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" type of fallacy.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,536
She's been singing for 3 months.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,536
Vixen, since you are so convinced. Let us make a wager. I'll bet you $10,000 U.S. Dollars to say one thousand British pounds that Amanda or Raffaele will NEVER be under any criminal charge again for Meredith's murder. Payable in one year. We'll put it in an escrow account.
But Giobbi did not say it matched.
Giobbi testimony;
"GB:
You went into the room of the crime, and what did you do on that occasion?
EG:
I went to see simply the issue of the wardrobe, of the doors. I remember because the body was positioned in a way, however in reality the spatters of blood were on another, shall we say, in order to check, they were not in front or near, they were put [sic], the head between the bed and the wardrobe and the spatters were in a diagonal towards the bottom, on the two [wardrobe] doors.
GB:
When you entered, were the doors still attached to the wardrobe? Because we know that they were later removed.
EG:
Yes.
GB:
So you enter [sic] that time, and see these spatters of blood on the still-attached [wardrobe] doors?
EG:
Yes. I said that I entered. I don’t recall properly when, but the doors were attached because I recall that I checked the spatters.
GB:
When you enter of course you remember the doors, and what activity did you carry out on that occasion?
EG:
I stooped down, still standing, to look for a moment in this way, for ten [or] fifteen seconds I’d say, and then I went out."
So he never looked at or for fingerprints in the room.
Your reference;
"OK, the source is as follows:
Quote:
By now, Perugia investigators were also aware of another finding from Edgardo Giobbi of Rome's Serious Crime Squad. Apparently Giobbi had determined that a fingerprint found on the inside of Meredith's door matched Raffaele's, despite the fact that he had not gone into her room prior to when he followed police inside on the day her body was discovered. Also troubling was the footprint in blood found inside her room - it matched the size 42 Nike trainers Raffaele owned.
"Rudy Guede wears size 45," Giobbi said.
However, Giovanni Arcudi, an expert for the defence who planned to argue for Raffaele's release in the coming days countered with: "That footprint does not possess clear and definite characteristics."
p 124 - 125 Gary C King The Murder of Meredith Kercher 2010 (John Blake)"
But Giobbi is not a fingerprint technician. He did not collect fingerprints. He is not competent to report on fingerprint matches. He did not look at anything except the wardrobe doors. We do have the testimony of the fingerprint experts and there were no fingerprints of Sollecito on the inside of the door.
We do know that Giobbi shoots his mouth off;
"EG:
I did so many interviews.
LG:
Do you know what you said? Two things: one that you arrived in the afternoon and that you immediately suspected them because of the kisses they gave [each other] outside the house. I heard it myself. So we will acquire that transmission. Instead, it turns out that you arrived in the late evening. Then you said that there came …"
So we know he is quite capable of claiming to the media that he was present and saw things, which he could not have seen because he was not present.
So we know Giobbi is unreliable in statements to the media. So even assuming King represented correctly Giobbi, we can have doubt about his veracity, because we have documented evidence of his lying to media.
We have the testimony of the fingerprint experts.
Do you accept that it is not true that Sollecito's fingerprints were on the inside of the bedroom door?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Indeed. Does Vixen seriously not realise that had Sollecito's fingerprint really been found on the inside of Kercher's bedroom door, this would - beyond a shadow of a doubt - have featured extremely prominently in the prosecution's case in court?
I really don't see much value in trying to debate against this sort of material. It doesn't advance the debate, has no intellectual value, and is a true waste of time.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Ahhh, bias and poor reasoning showing through: there's a rather fundamental and important difference between a) the police failing to lift any fingerprints off the lamp, and b) the lamp having been "wiped clean of all fingerprints".
I'd have thought that was patently obvious to any objective, disinterested commentator.......
ETA: I see ac made the very same point before me
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Once again: if this were true and reliable, it would beyond doubt have featured very prominently in the prosecution case in court.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Vixen already answered this.
Not all of the evidence made it to the court because the prosecution didn't bother. The prosecution had so much great material, namely manga comic books and Marilyn Manson music that they decided not to include the actual incontrovertible proof of guilt in the shape of knife-boy' bloody fingerprint.
I know it's confusing on the surface for the not Mensa-level folk here but, there you have it, not everybody gets to be in Mensa.
Last edited:
Ahhh, bias and poor reasoning showing through: there's a rather fundamental and important difference between a) the police failing to lift any fingerprints off the lamp, and b) the lamp having been "wiped clean of all fingerprints".
I'd have thought that was patently obvious to any objective, disinterested commentator.......
ETA: I see ac made the very same point before me
LJ, I'm sorry but you obviously do not understand Italian prosecution theory.
If there is no evidence to support your claim, then obviously the evidence has been cleaned away even though there is no evidence of cleaning.
So now we have "Apparently" to add to probable, compatible, possibly, if, but and maybe.
The huge mountain of evidence was overwhelming wasn't it?
- Status