Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

That's what we do? Oh, I see. Dershowitz probably got suckered into believing the hype around him and that the sun shone out of his nether parts so brightly that he could toss off an opinion without bothering to look at the facts.

What do I know.... I used to press my nose up against the window at the local law school where they taught one to make an argument without letting them choose sides first.

True, Dershowitz has no client in all this. Then again, they've just cleared Tom Brady of all wrong-doing and I happen to know that his lawyer contrarily believes that Brady is a dirty-rotten ball deflator, but it was still up to the NFL to prove its case against his client!

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings,
While I enjoyed the political discussion for a moment,
let's keep it centered on the case, right?

Why don'tcha deeply discuss how Italian politics mighta played a part
in the convictions or the release of Amanda Knox and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollectio[/SIZE]?

Ya all know I like to add in a few OT thoughts or personal observations
when I post in The ISF Amanda Knox thread,
BUT I'd never write a whole post on politics,
err surf, sharks, bangin' chicks, gettin' a buzzz or eating out + about
here in Los Angeles.
Just sayin', ok?


Below I've linked a story about something that intrigues me a bit,
if I have the time I'd like to read these 2 posts completely,
for they cover some of Miss Knox's daytime conversations with PM Mignini
inside The Massei Court.

I doubt that Miss Knox
was served tea and croissants during this ah, discussion, right?
At least Miss Knox had a lawyer present this time!



Why don't you guys have a read and a bitta discussion about this battle
between Mig'i' + that volpe
- is that translated as fox, or bitch(?)
Knox?

The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence:
What It Is All About
Parts 1 + 2

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Doesn't Miss Knox's new trial start in a few days?
Any bets on how it will go down?
RW

 

[acbytesla]

Greetings,
While I enjoyed the political discussion for a moment,
let's keep it centered on the case, right?

Why don'tcha deeply discuss how Italian politics mighta played a part
in the convictions or the release of Amanda Knox and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollectio[/SIZE]?

Ya all know I like to add in a few OT thoughts or personal observations
when I post in The ISF Amanda Knox thread,
BUT I'd never write a whole post on politics,
err surf, sharks, bangin' chicks, gettin' a buzzz or eating out + about
here in Los Angeles.
Just sayin', ok?


Below I've linked a story about something that intrigues me a bit,
if I have the time I'd like to read these 2 posts completely,
for they cover Miss Knox's battle with PM Mignini in The Massei Court.

I doubt that Miss Knox
was served tea and croissants during this ah, discussion, right?

Why don't you guys have a read and a bitta discussion about this battle
between Mig'i' + that volpe
- is that translated as fox, or bitch(?)
Knox?

The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence:
What It Is All About
Parts 1 + 2

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Doesn't Miss Knox's new trial start in a few days?
Any bets on how it will go down?
RW

Sorry for the sidetrack RW. I too wondee how this will all go down. But Im done betting on the lunacy which is Italian jurisprudence.

 

[carbonjam72]

That's what we do? Oh, I see. Dershowitz probably got suckered into believing the hype around him and that the sun shone out of his nether parts so brightly that he could toss off an opinion without bothering to look at the facts.

Dershowitz is not a good exemplar of a good lawyer, or a good and ethical person.

The only thing he needs to know is will he be on TV, and which side is the most outrageous for him to argue. That's why his book is called, "chutzpah", and why he hounded dr Norman finklestein for exposing him as a plagiarist.

Dershowitz, as with other lawyers I have seen of his ilk, the more they are paid, the less they "know".

 

[Desert Fox]

Dershowitz is not a good exemplar of a good lawyer, or a good and ethical person.

The only thing he needs to know is will he be on TV, and which side is the most outrageous for him to argue. That's why his book is called, "chutzpah", and why he hounded dr Norman finklestein for exposing him as a plagiarist.

Dershowitz, as with other lawyers I have seen of his ilk, the more they are paid, the less they "know".

I have said before that I think if Amanda gave him money, he would argue for her innocence.

 

[davefoc]

Dershowitz is not a good exemplar of a good lawyer, or a good and ethical person.

The only thing he needs to know is will he be on TV, and which side is the most outrageous for him to argue. That's why his book is called, "chutzpah", and why he hounded dr Norman finklestein for exposing him as a plagiarist.

Dershowitz, as with other lawyers I have seen of his ilk, the more they are paid, the less they "know".

I have said before that I think if Amanda gave him money, he would argue for her innocence.

I have a particularly low opinion of Dershowitz. I think he pretends to be an objective commentator on an issue while actually acting as an advocate for a particular side. I have a visceral disgust for the guy that exceeds reason. Fortunately I'm not a public person where my emotional view of the guy might reduce my credibility. I think Finklestein had something similar going on and it didn't stand him in good stead. Dershowitz is a disgusting plagiarist, but Finklestein became fixated on this and pushed on too far with his anti-Dershowitz diatribes and in the end that hurt Finklestein more than Dershowitz.

I don't quite agree with the comparison of Dershowitz to other lawyers. I think other lawyers operate in two modes advocate and normal thinking person with introspection. It is clear when they are in advocate mode and their comments can be filtered based on the one sided view that they are presenting. I think for Dershowitz there is only advocate mode even when he attempts to portray himself as an objective arbiter of the facts.

 

[davefoc]

Totally off topic: But I voted for Obama both times. PROUDLY. And so did the rest of the country. FYI: I certainly wouldn't vote for that loudmouth Trump. You just know if he became president the first thing he would try to do is rename the country after himself. How does Trump America sound Ken?

I decided to delete my post based on the suggestion from a private email to avoid off topic posts. I will leave the only relevant part: I am pretty sure that Obama knows that AK?RS are innocent.

 

[Matthew Best]

Doesn't the Skeptics forum have a political section where we can discuss Hillary's chronic halitosis without being off-topic?

Yes, it does, so please take your right-wing and homophobic bloviating over there where it belongs.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
There was no credible evidence of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room or in contact with Meredith or her clothes, no sign of a clean-up, and it is impossible in any practical way to selectively eliminate DNA or even fingerprints at a crime scene. Nor was there any transfer of blood to Amanda or Raffaele or to their clothing. The simple explanation for this state of evidence is that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were present in the room during the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed, there is no evidence to contradict their assertion that they were together at Raffaele's apartment at the relevant time.
.
.
.

Mignini, Stefanoni, Matteini, Massei, Chieffi, Nencini, Maresca, et al, should be forced to wear a permanently attached headphone playing a reading of the above paragraph 24/7 . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

.
.
.
There was no credible evidence of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room or in contact with Meredith or her clothes, no sign of a clean-up, and it is impossible in any practical way to selectively eliminate DNA or even fingerprints at a crime scene. Nor was there any transfer of blood to Amanda or Raffaele or to their clothing. The simple explanation for this state of evidence is that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were present in the room during the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed, there is no evidence to contradict their assertion that they were together at Raffaele's apartment at the relevant time.
.
.
.

Mignini, Stefanoni, Matteini, Massei, Chieffi, Nencini, Maresca, et al, should be forced to wear a permanently attached headphone playing a reading of the above paragraph 24/7 . . .

Indeed.

One erstwhile guilter poster thinks it is a counter to all this to simply assert that Raffaele can be proven to be in that room. Why?

Because on Sample 165B, from Sample 165 (the bra clasp) there are 17 peeks on the DNA analysis corresponding to his DNA, when, "it only takes 13 in most cases to convict."

That endless loop played in their ears should also contain the words "confirmation bias," as well as "suspect centred". Why?

Because it's amazing who you can convict of something if you apply those two concepts.

Take a peek at this picture and consider why 17 significant peeks in a DNA analysis might not mean anything.....

 

[anglolawyer]

'peaks' not 'peeks'.

There is no evidence of any testable material on the bra clasp other than Stefanoni's word because she negligently or deliberately destroyed it. So, for the umpteenth time, let's stop talking about the damn thing as though the sample was proved. Outside Italy, it would never have got through the doors of the court.

 

[Bill Williams]

'peaks' not 'peeks'.

There is no evidence of any testable material on the bra clasp other than Stefanoni's word because she negligently or deliberately destroyed it. So, for the umpteenth time, let's stop talking about the damn thing as though the sample was proved. Outside Italy, it would never have got through the doors of the court.

I stand corrected on both counts..... still, if Stefanoni suddenly coughs up the raw data files....

ETA - next thing you'll be on about is the abundance of testable material (or lack of same, including its longevity) found in that non-existent groove on the knife. Geez, one would think you were accusing the PLE of something....

ETA2 - while you're on it, can you correct that erstwhile poster who claims the 17/13 thing?

 

[anglolawyer]

I stand corrected on both counts..... still, if Stefanoni suddenly coughs up the raw data files….

Let's talk about it when it happens.

ETA - next thing you'll be on about is the abundance of testable material (or lack of same, including its longevity) found in that non-existent groove on the knife. Geez, one would think you were accusing the PLE of something....

I'll save that for the 25th continuation of this thread.

ETA2 - while you're on it, can you correct that erstwhile poster who claims the 17/13 thing?

I take it this is Vixen talking baloney about things she doesn't begin to understand, like most guilters. No doubt she will point me at some newspaper article in 'THE TIMES' (OMG not the block capitals! ) as if it meant something.

 

[acbytesla]

Boy, the news media is yawning about the upcoming Amanda Knox trial. They must know that this is meaningless. AK is quickly becoming last year's news. I keep expecting someone, somewhere to write a piece about it, but nothing.

 

[carbonjam72]

Boy, the news media is yawning about the upcoming Amanda Knox trial. They must know that this is meaningless. AK is quickly becoming last year's news. I keep expecting someone, somewhere to write a piece about it, but nothing.

Wasn't there a continuation of the process for Amanda & or Raf today, or is that next week?

 

[acbytesla]

Wasn't there a continuation of the process for Amanda & or Raf today, or is that next week?

I thought it was starting next week. But honestly, I haven't seen much written about it so I could be off by a mile

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's talk about it when it happens.


I'll save that for the 25th continuation of this thread.

So why not help get it to the 25th continuation? We can't do that unless everyone participates in the silliness.

I take it this is Vixen talking baloney about things she doesn't begin to understand, like most guilters. No doubt she will point me at some newspaper article in 'THE TIMES' (OMG not the block capitals! ) as if it meant something.

Wasn't Vixen, although it wouldn't be surprising if she parroted it. Memory serves to say it's on the fake-wiki, Ergon's and Edward McCall's effort to keep this case alive when there's simply no evidence.

Please recall, this sub-thread started with Numbers' summary and someone else saying that key Italian law enforcers should have that forever looped into their ears. I wanted the guilter's claim about the peAks being 17, with only 13 needed for conviction - with the comment, "Raffaele is going down"!

So here we are, you and me, trying our best to at least get to the 19th continuation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wasn't there a continuation of the process for Amanda & or Raf today, or is that next week?

I thought it was starting next week. But honestly, I haven't seen much written about it so I could be off by a mile

I believe on Sept 7, there's a scheduled beginning to the second calunnia charge against Amanda Knox. The one where she claimed she was hit at interrogation - 12 people participated in the charge and only 8 remain.

Last time it saw a courtroom, it was adjourned because none of the "complainants" (if that's what they're called) bothered to show up. Next Monday might be the same..... who the heck knows.

I wonder if Amanda's lawyers will be allowed to cross examine any of them.

 

[acbytesla]

I believe on Sept 7, there's a scheduled beginning to the second calunnia charge against Amanda Knox. The one where she claimed she was hit at interrogation - 12 people participated in the charge and only 8 remain.

Last time it saw a courtroom, it was adjourned because none of the "complainants" (if that's what they're called) bothered to show up. Next Monday might be the same..... who the heck knows.

I wonder if Amanda's lawyers will be allowed to cross examine any of them.

Thanks Bill. I wonder if we can expect something to show up in the media?

 

[Numbers]

I believe on Sept 7, there's a scheduled beginning to the second calunnia charge against Amanda Knox. The one where she claimed she was hit at interrogation - 12 people participated in the charge and only 8 remain.

Last time it saw a courtroom, it was adjourned because none of the "complainants" (if that's what they're called) bothered to show up. Next Monday might be the same..... who the heck knows.

I wonder if Amanda's lawyers will be allowed to cross examine any of them.

IIUC, there is a criminal charge of continuous aggravated calunnia against the police lodged by the State and a tag-along civil action from the police.

The charge results from Amanda stating in court testimony that she had been hit by the police during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation. It has "aggravating circumstances" in that it is alleged that she made the statement to cover-up her calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. It is "continuous" (or continuing?) because she has repeated this statement in each of her appeals.

It is significant, from the ECHR viewpoint, that the Italian courts and other authorities (the prosecutors) have never acted to effectively investigate the basis of her claims. What initial investigation that may have been conducted was done by Mignini and/or Comodi, who were not independent investigators (also required by ECHR). So the significance of this case of calunnia against the police is how it fits into how the ECHR will judge Amanda's case alleging a violation of the Convention by Italy in her conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. The ECHR may well consider the calunnia against the police case evidence of retaliation and intimidation by the Italian authorities.