• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you seriously believe "Kevin Wade" aka "The Baron" who spent his time chatting up American students never had a mobile phone? He almost certainly had an anonymous disposable one, especially if he was supplying drugs.

Maybe he did. But, apparently, you don't know how phones work. When you use them to call or text they leave a record. Even a disposable phone. So if there was a call or text between Amanda and a disposable phone that would show up on her bill.

Doh!
 
Amanda's drug empire was so successful she became a capo di tutti capi, masterminding her operation from her jail cell in Capanne. All the prison guards ended up in her pocket. Now, while she lives an outwardly Bohemian life on her olive oil ranch in Washington, a blood-soaked battle is raging through the Italian courts between her devoted followers and the demented Mignini and his dwindling crew of brigands, ne-er do wells, judges on the payroll, ice cream vendors ... (Continued on page 94)

Vixen - the above is a segment of the plot of the book you advised me to write. Can you run your eye over it and give me some feedback?


Yeah, go for it. Shows vivid imagination. Only I recently read a crime noir called, _The Man Who Watched Women_ about a psycho serial killer who continued his crimes from his prison cell, so someone got there before you.

Please do remember to download my latest novel, released tomorrow.
 
Yeah, go for it. Shows vivid imagination. Only I recently read a crime noir called, _The Man Who Watched Women_ about a psycho serial killer who continued his crimes from his prison cell, so someone got there before you.

Please do remember to download my latest novel, released tomorrow.

Thanks.

What's your book about?
 
Their use of the term, "absolute lack of biological traces" condemns them as thoroughly corrupt and unscrupulous.

Well, all except there actually is an actual lack of biological traces.

165, the bra-clasp evidence. No longer exists. Stefanoni improperly stored the bra-clasp and it rusted beyond repair. Whatever 165 was was "seen" only by Stefanoni, and without the release of the raw data files, no one can *independently* say what it was she saw, other than to take her word for it.

35B, Meredith's so called biological material found in a non-existant groove in the knife. Not only can no one else even see the groove, other than Stefanoni, 35B was such a trace-sample that only one, destructive test could be done. Therefore the only person in the universe who "saw" that trace was, you guessed it, Stefanoni, and no one can *independently* say what it was she saw, other than to take her word for it.

So who are YOU going to believe? Five Supreme Court judges or a lab technician who doesn't even have a doctorate?

Remember what Section 1 of ISC said in 2013. Either you believe the process taken by the courts (Stefanoni's process) or this calls into question all DNA lab work in Italy since 1986.
 
Maybe he did. But, apparently, you don't know how phones work. When you use them to call or text they leave a record. Even a disposable phone. So if there was a call or text between Amanda and a disposable phone that would show up on her bill.

Doh!

There were a series of calls to a number police were unable to trace. Amanda even went to hang around the basketball court post-murder, presumably expecting to meet someone.
 
As this is setting case precedent, they should have consulted united chamber first.

What is the nature of the precedent? I thought this was a decision of the united chamber. Maybe Numbers or Methos know about that.

Who told you this (I am assuming, perhaps uncharitably, you didn't figure it out yourself)?
 
There were a series of calls to a number police were unable to trace. Amanda even went to hang around the basketball court post-murder, presumably expecting to meet someone.

Wrong again.Total fantasy. Every single call was identified. But go ahead. Which number was that?
 
What is the nature of the precedent? I thought this was a decision of the united chamber. Maybe Numbers or Methos know about that.

Who told you this (I am assuming, perhaps uncharitably, you didn't figure it out yourself)?

The use of article 530 para II. The only time it has ever been used by ISC was in politician Andreotti's case, with avvocato Bongiorno representing him. In that case, Andreotti had originally been found not guilty at the merits hearing, anyway.

Amanda and Raff were never found not guilty by a lower court.

The wording and timing of the Marasca Bruno report confirms everybody's worst fears as to the integrity of this bench on this occasion.

At least the ensuing outcry will help ensure it joins Hellmann's report in the annals of spiked reports. The pair will be sacked for their scurrilous comments about good upright honest police.
 
More Machiavelli tweets from calunnia trial.

Mignini spoke for 2 hours and confirmed that he arrived at 3am after the interrogation had ended. He asked no questions.

He framed the situation in law. Prosecutor just listened.
 
More Machiavelli tweets from calunnia trial.

Mignini spoke for 2 hours and confirmed that he arrived at 3am after the interrogation had ended. He asked no questions.

He framed the situation in law. Prosecutor just listened.


Does Italy not see that they look like fools?
 
More Machiavelli tweets from calunnia trial.

Mignini spoke for 2 hours and confirmed that he arrived at 3am after the interrogation had ended. He asked no questions.

He framed the situation in law. Prosecutor just listened.

3 am? That's not what Follain implies. He didn't mention REM sleep, did he?
 
More Machiavelli tweets from calunnia trial.

Mignini spoke for 2 hours and confirmed that he arrived at 3am after the interrogation had ended. He asked no questions.

He framed the situation in law. Prosecutor just listened.

Presumably Mignini reread his CNN interview in 2010 with Drew Griffin. In that one, too, he said he asked no questions - except he alsotold Knox that if she wished to continue to incriminate herself, he'd act, "as if only a notary".

Did Mignini tell the court today about his change of profession that night? (or can PM's act as notaries - legally, I mean?)
 
3 am? That's not what Follain implies. He didn't mention REM sleep, did he?

AFAIK Mignini arriving in the interrogation room at 3 am is within the realm of possibility.

What is at issue, though, is *when* Mignini arrived at the Questura. Guilter favourable sources are mixed on this. There is reason to believe he was in the control room watching Ficarra's interrogation of Knox and Chiacchiera's interrogation of Sollecito on closed-circuit.

And, oh yes, forgetting to flip the record switch "for budgetary reasons".

If one can get a transcript of this calunnia trial, one might be able to put together a reasonable timeline of who said what and when, in each of the interrogations.

If there is competent cross-examination, that is.
 
It's all falling into place now. Thanks.


Here are some more pieces of the puzzle.

A SeattlePI article interprets the decision as criticism of Nencini for failing to regard the Conti-Vecchiotti Report that gave expert opinion (commissioned by Hellmann) finding that Stefanoni’s DNA results were caused by contamination.

Despite what the ‘Guilters’ have been squealing here for years, the Conti-Vecchiotti Report has now been blessed by the Pope, and Stefanoni has finally received the criticism she so richly deserves:

The Cassation Court's written explanation is tantamount to a "great censure, a note of solemn censure of all the investigators," a Knox defense lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told The AP. He said he hadn't had time yet to telephone Knox in the United States.

The Cassation panel of five judges essentially concluded that while there were indications Guede could have had accomplices, nothing in the prosecutors' case proved that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder.

It also wrote that the lower court [NENCINI] ignored expert testimony that "clearly demonstrated possible contamination" of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.

On more than one of the 52 pages of explanation, the judges agreed with the defendants’ contentions that the convictions were a "violation of the principle of a reasonable doubt.”


Interesting that they say that "Guede could have had accomplices," just that Guede's accomplices (if any) weren't Amanda & Raffaele, which they likely included so as not to disrupt Guede's verdict which found Guede had accomplices.

The entire article:


Italy top court: Knox conviction was based on poor case

Frances D'emilio, Associated Press
September 7, 2015

ROME (AP) — Italy's top criminal court has scathingly faulted prosecutors for presenting a flawed and hastily constructed case against Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, saying Monday it threw out their convictions for the 2007 murder of her British roommate in part because there was no proof they were at the crime scene.

The Court of Cassation issued its formal written explanation, as required by Italian law, for its March ruling vindicating the pair once and for all in the murder of Meredith Kercher, in the apartment the two women shared while students in Perugia, Italy.

The court wrote there was an "absolute lack of biological traces" of Knox, an American, or co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito in the room or on the victim's body. Slamming the quality of the prosecution's case, the court cited "blameworthy omissions of investigative activity."

Media clamor also was a factor in what was ultimately a flawed case, the high court concluded.

"The international spotlight on the case in fact resulted in the investigation undergoing a sudden acceleration, that, in the frantic search for one or more guilty parties to consign to international public opinion, certainly didn't help the search for substantial truth," the judges wrote.

The high court in March declared that Knox, now 28, and Sollecito, now 31, didn't murder the 21-year-old Kercher, a stronger exoneration than merely finding there was insufficient evidence to convict.

Had the Cassation Court upheld the 2014 appeals court convictions of the pair, Knox would have faced 28½ years in an Italian prison, assuming she would have been extradited from the United States, while Sollecito had faced 25 years.

Knox and Sollecito had served nearly four years in Italian prison after a first, lower court conviction by a Perugia court.

They had always proclaimed their innocence. A man from Ivory Coast, Rudy Hermann Guede, was convicted in separate proceedings and is serving a 16-year sentence.

The Cassation Court's written explanation is tantamount to a "great censure, a note of solemn censure of all the investigators," a Knox defense lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told The AP. He said he hadn't had time yet to telephone Knox in the United States.

The Cassation panel of five judges essentially concluded that while there were indications Guede could have had accomplices, nothing in the prosecutors' case proved that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder.

It also wrote that the lower court ignored expert testimony that "clearly demonstrated possible contamination" of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.

On more than one of the 52 pages of explanation, the judges agreed with the defendants' contentions that the convictions were a "violation of the principle of a reasonable doubt."

Knox and her Sollecito were first convicted by a Perugia court in 2009, then acquitted after a first appeals court trial. They were convicted again in 2014, after a separate Cassation Court panel overturned those acquittals and ordered the Florence appeals.

While the flip-flop verdicts and appeals ran their course, Knox became a cause celebre in the United States, where many saw her as an innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice and sloppy investigative methods.
Monday's explanation effectively agreed with her supporters.

The Cassation panel wrote that Knox did deserve her conviction and three-year sentence for slandering a Congolese-born Perugia pub owner whom she initially indicated as the murder suspect. The man had been jailed until an alibi led to his release. Because Knox served prison time for the initial murder conviction, she didn't face prison when the slander conviction was upheld in March.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Italy-top-court-Knox-conviction-was-based-on-6489025.php
 
3 am? That's not what Follain implies. He didn't mention REM sleep, did he?


Hehehe. And it appears that (unsurprisingly) Mignini is sticking with his
fallacy of "not asking any questions" - taking care to overlook perhaps the only question he asked, which was along the lines of "Amanda, why don't you tell me again everything that you just told the police, so that I can see how I can help you?".

It's my firm contention that Mignini knew exactly what he was doing that night. He was very deliberately nudging Knox into making what he could subsequently claim was a "spontaneous declaration", since he knew full well that the statement Knox had given to the police was unusable against her at trial.
 
Here are some more pieces of the puzzle.

A SeattlePI article interprets the decision as criticism of Nencini for failing to regard the Conti-Vecchiotti Report that gave expert opinion (commissioned by Hellmann) finding that Stefanoni’s DNA results were caused by contamination.

Despite what the ‘Guilters’ have been squealing here for years, the Conti-Vecchiotti Report has now been blessed by the Pope, and Stefanoni has finally received the criticism she so richly deserves:




Interesting that they say that "Guede could have had accomplices," just that Guede's accomplices (if any) weren't Amanda & Raffaele, which they likely included so as not to disrupt Guede's verdict which found Guede had accomplices.

The entire article:


Italy top court: Knox conviction was based on poor case

Frances D'emilio, Associated Press
September 7, 2015

ROME (AP) — Italy's top criminal court has scathingly faulted prosecutors for presenting a flawed and hastily constructed case against Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, saying Monday it threw out their convictions for the 2007 murder of her British roommate in part because there was no proof they were at the crime scene.

The Court of Cassation issued its formal written explanation, as required by Italian law, for its March ruling vindicating the pair once and for all in the murder of Meredith Kercher, in the apartment the two women shared while students in Perugia, Italy.

The court wrote there was an "absolute lack of biological traces" of Knox, an American, or co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito in the room or on the victim's body. Slamming the quality of the prosecution's case, the court cited "blameworthy omissions of investigative activity."

Media clamor also was a factor in what was ultimately a flawed case, the high court concluded.

"The international spotlight on the case in fact resulted in the investigation undergoing a sudden acceleration, that, in the frantic search for one or more guilty parties to consign to international public opinion, certainly didn't help the search for substantial truth," the judges wrote.

The high court in March declared that Knox, now 28, and Sollecito, now 31, didn't murder the 21-year-old Kercher, a stronger exoneration than merely finding there was insufficient evidence to convict.

Had the Cassation Court upheld the 2014 appeals court convictions of the pair, Knox would have faced 28½ years in an Italian prison, assuming she would have been extradited from the United States, while Sollecito had faced 25 years.

Knox and Sollecito had served nearly four years in Italian prison after a first, lower court conviction by a Perugia court.

They had always proclaimed their innocence. A man from Ivory Coast, Rudy Hermann Guede, was convicted in separate proceedings and is serving a 16-year sentence.

The Cassation Court's written explanation is tantamount to a "great censure, a note of solemn censure of all the investigators," a Knox defense lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told The AP. He said he hadn't had time yet to telephone Knox in the United States.

The Cassation panel of five judges essentially concluded that while there were indications Guede could have had accomplices, nothing in the prosecutors' case proved that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder.

It also wrote that the lower court ignored expert testimony that "clearly demonstrated possible contamination" of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.

On more than one of the 52 pages of explanation, the judges agreed with the defendants' contentions that the convictions were a "violation of the principle of a reasonable doubt."

Knox and her Sollecito were first convicted by a Perugia court in 2009, then acquitted after a first appeals court trial. They were convicted again in 2014, after a separate Cassation Court panel overturned those acquittals and ordered the Florence appeals.

While the flip-flop verdicts and appeals ran their course, Knox became a cause celebre in the United States, where many saw her as an innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice and sloppy investigative methods.
Monday's explanation effectively agreed with her supporters.

The Cassation panel wrote that Knox did deserve her conviction and three-year sentence for slandering a Congolese-born Perugia pub owner whom she initially indicated as the murder suspect. The man had been jailed until an alibi led to his release. Because Knox served prison time for the initial murder conviction, she didn't face prison when the slander conviction was upheld in March.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Italy-top-court-Knox-conviction-was-based-on-6489025.php


Oh but you must know very well how the lunatics will position themselves in the light of this report. Perm one of three:

1) The Supreme Court has been nobbled by powerful external factions, and therefore its verdict and motivations are corrupt and wrong;

2) The Supreme Court has acted incompetently and outside its remit, and therefore its verdict and motivations are incompetent and wrong;

3) The Supreme Court has only ruled that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt (and in any case the SC made some incorrect conclusions in reaching this verdict). Therefore the verdict is still wholly compatible with a factually-guilty Knox and Sollecito.

Still - I'll rather enjoy watching the morons shout themselves to a standstill :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom