Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

A random conversation (where all are talking) cannot be regarding as official, surely?

Police reporting what they were told is acceptable and in this case the cop had notes.

Here are some of the exemptions:

Statement against interest
Present sense impressions and Excited utterances
Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition[when defined as?]
Medical diagnosis or treatment
Recorded recollection
Records of regularly conducted activity


If the Vaseline comment went against interest then it would be allowed and if not it doesn't really matter.

 

[Bill Williams]

More utter ineptitude by the state.

Other than Marasca and Hellmann (and the their bench), the rest of them have the combined intellect of a garden gnome....except of course Mignini who has less.

Congratulations Mike1711. You've just managed to piss off garden gnomes.

 

[Bill Williams]

It would also mean that Galileo would still be guilty and the world would be the centre of the universe.

Speaking of.....

Galileo also gave a false confession!

Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings in September 1632. He finally arrived in February 1633 and was brought before inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani to be charged. Throughout his trial Galileo steadfastly maintained that since 1616 he had faithfully kept his promise not to hold any of the condemned opinions, and initially he denied even defending them. However, he was eventually persuaded to admit that, contrary to his true intention, a reader of his Dialogue could well have obtained the impression that it was intended to be a defence of Copernicanism. In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.

The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on 22 June. It was in three essential parts:

• Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[74]
• He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

According to popular legend, after recanting his theory that the Earth moved around the Sun, Galileo allegedly muttered the rebellious phrase And yet it moves. A 1640s painting by the Spanish painter Bartolomé Esteban Murillo or an artist of his school, in which the words were hidden until restoration work in 1911, depicts an imprisoned Galileo apparently gazing at the words "E pur si muove" written on the wall of his dungeon.

 

[Ken Dine]

Agreed. Manuela Comodi was in charge of the prosecution's DNA case, and her misconduct does not get nearly enough attention. I think that she's more of a liar and bad actor than Mignini.

To me, the worst actors in this whole thing are Comodi, Stefanoni and Napoleoni. Mignini is more like a cartoon, but those three Weird Sisters are truly dishonest and evil.

I can't disagree with that!

 

[Machiavelli]

Yeah, thanks, that's a big help.

You forgot the part where he testified, "...everyone was talking with another, in the sense, we were five persons where there were speeches cross, in quotes, that maybe ... everyone still said nothing."

No, no. I didn't forget anything. He's adamant: Sollecito said that, and Zaroli remembers about that clearly, he has absolutely no doubt about that. This is Zaroli's testimony.

 

[Vixen]

Could be. In her requested interview with PM Mignini, Amanda told him Mez "was covered in vaseline". Given Amanda's fixation with vaseline and anal sex, we have to wonder what she was revealing about the murder here.

Oh, okay. The version I read must have been a misattribution.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

What comes next in the trial of Amanda from the police? Is there a next scheduled court date, and at what stage is the trial at? Does the defense get to present any evidence, or call any witnesses? Are the judges ready to rule? How long before there is a verdict?

And, what's become of the Sollecito/Gumbel trial? I thought that was supposed to be going on at about roughly the same time? Do you know when the next sscheduled trial dates are, or where they are in the trial process? Has Mignini testified yet in that one, and has the defense cross examined him? Do you know when the defense will be allowed to cross examine Mignini?

And what penalties are available in these cases? Are they all civil matters? And will the statute of limitations render any judgements moot? Thanks in advance.

There is no "trial from the police", the trial is by Florence prosecution office, for a crime against the state. Some officers are offended parties, as such they have a right to take part.
The statute of limitations doesn't make judgments moot. It won't make the judgement moot: it will make drop the prison penalty part. But the civil part will stand as well as the fact finding and judicial truth. (the penalty effect anyway will be dropped only on appeal, if Knox appeals, not on this first instance).
Parties arguments will be on Jan 14 2016 and I think the verdict will bevthat week.
The Sollecito/Gumbel trial is a defamation trial, thus a different charge, that itself doesn't have a prison penalty attached. It goes on on schedule.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh, okay. The version I read must have been a misattribution.

Wow.... thanks for this admission. Wow. Can mutual understanding be far behind?

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, okay. The version I read must have been a misattribution.

It's possible tha Knox reported that too in her 2007 interrogation, but I don't remember this.

 

[Vixen]

^

Wow.... thanks for this admission. Wow. Can mutual understanding be far behind?

I have no problem putting my hand up to an error. You never can, as dissemblers have to keep up a pretence of coming from a sincere position.

The lies just get bigger and bigger. The old accuser of Garden of Eden fame would be proud.

In your world, we make believe Amanda and Mez were best friends and any critic of your darling, is a slutshamer.

Do you you think best friend Mandy could have done more for her buddy, given she was there when she was butchered?

 

[Vixen]

It's possible tha Knox reported that too in her 2007 interrogation, but I don't remember this.

I seem to recall a piece wherein Mignini himself is quoted as saying this. I'll see if I can remember the source.

 

[Bill Williams]

^

I have no problem putting my hand up to an error. You never can, as dissemblers have to keep up a pretence of coming from a sincere position.

The lies just get bigger and bigger. The old accuser of Garden of Eden fame would be proud.

In your world, we make believe Amanda and Mez were best friends and any criticism of your darling, is a slutshamer.

Do you you think best friend Mandy could have done more for her buddy, given she was there when she was butchered?

Ok, it did not take long for the old Vixen to return!

 

[Machiavelli]

(..).

At absolute worst, Marasca/Bruno are trying their best to be in harmony with former ISC rulings and judicial facts. However, the Italian press and commentators are almost universal knowing what's going on here. For pete's sake, the union representing the Perugian police are now passing the blame to out-of-control prosecutors. No one that I've read, save Machiavelli here on this service, is even interested in those tidbits Marasca is throwing towards former courts.

They all "get" what's going on here, in that horribly fascinating, dieterological Italian court system. Machiavelli stands alone, and is quite entitled to all of that!

When Hellmann acquitted, he said in his motivations report that it was not up to his court to settle the "multiple attacker issue", only to ascertain if AK and RS were them. IIRC when the Supreme Court in 2013 annulled the acquittals, they said something akin to Hellmann using flawed logic. Anyway, you can read it for yourself, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

Trust me, you're nowhere near the weird stuff yet!

You write nonsense. And you know that. Yet you try hard to rationalize your denial.
Bruno/Marasca obviously did not "throw tidbits" in direction "of other courts". They violated art. 628 going against the points of law established by Chieffi's court, which they cannot overturn anyway.
Those fact findings ate from courts of merits they have annulled and they had no duty to highlight that they agreed if they didn't intend to confirm. If they confirmed fact findings, they confirmed fact findings. Period. They eve emphasized the reasons they say they find convincing.
Legally those facts are valid as for judicial truth, including civil litigation.
Hellmann did not just acquit, he convicted of calunnia, Bruno/Marasca pointed out the calunnia conviction will remain solid and emphasized the elements even though they were not asked to express themselves on calunnia.
Those are not tidbits. They are judicial facts explained over pages.

The mainstream press, I am told, actually talked very little. Articles were very small and didn't have debates following. And the press doesn't "get" meanings the way you think. The press avoids meanings (besides the fact that they don't actually read court documents). The Italian press avoids issues for reasons completely different from your fantasy, actually for reasons nearly the opposite of that. Even journalists that I know are reluctant to speak about cassazione, and they share exactly my opinions about Knox. Mainstream media stay away from the rid of attacking Cassazione because of political and economical reasons (not talking about lawsuits), just like Catholics do not criticize the Pope in loud voice, there is no press freedom of mainstream media, it's not because they "get" things of your imagination.
This doesn't mean that talk doesn't exist or that SC report is an unimportant detail. Actually things will emerge, I'm rather certain mainstream media will resist, that won't take initiative, but will reluctantly talk about those facts too.

The SC report is a fact. As for what I observe, you decide to react to such fact with rationalization and downplaying and denial of its true content about Amanda Knox.

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe that the defense expert found a semen stain that had been stepped in and squished into, by Rudy's shoe print, which also left shoe prints made in Meredith's wet blood, thereby dating the sperm to the time of the murder.

The second point of dating by moisture was, IIRC, also brought up by defense experts, but that analysis was not available by the time the defense was allowed to examine the evidence, IIUC.

Don't forget it's only a theory about it being semen. It may be Vaseline ( see Vaseline reference above).

 

[Machiavelli]

Was Nencini formally annulled, or did Cassation basically just say "Nencini is a dumbass and got everything wrong" without adding that he is annulled?

Cassazione has no means and no task to say whether a judge gets it right or wrong.
In fact Bruno/Marasca said more than once that they agreed with findings of the lower court.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am actively teaching my 2 year old son that these sorts of after-the-fact excuse-making and disclaimers are no way to get on in the world. Whether he happens to be in the US, or Italy. Fortunately, at least he is getting the message.

The message is that you are attempting specious and silly arguments.

PS: so you suppose (you hope) your child won't grow up behaving like Amanda Knox.

 

[acbytesla]

^

I have no problem putting my hand up to an error. You never can, as dissemblers have to keep up a pretence of coming from a sincere position.

The lies just get bigger and bigger. The old accuser of Garden of Eden fame would be proud.
In your world, we make believe Amanda and Mez were best friends and any criticism of your darling, is a slutshamer.

Do you you think best friend Mandy could have done more for her buddy, given she was there when she was butchered?

1. They were friends. Enemies don't sign off texts with kisses.
2. She WASN'T there.

3. And yes you do slut shame.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The mainstream press, I am told, actually talked very little. Articles were very small and didn't have debates following. And the press doesn't "get" meanings the way you think. The press avoids meanings (besides the fact that they don't actually read court documents). The Italian press avoids issues for reasons completely different from your fantasy, actually for reasons nearly the opposite of that. Even journalists that I know are reluctant to speak about cassazione, and they share exactly my opinions about Knox. Mainstream media stay away from the rid of attacking Cassazione because of political and economical reasons (not talking about lawsuits), just like Catholics do not criticize the Pope in loud voice, there is no press freedom of mainstream media, it's not because they "get" things of your imagination.

Which are...? In the big political picture, I mean.

This doesn't mean that talk doesn't exist or that SC report is an unimportant detail. Actually things will emerge, I'm rather certain mainstream media will resist, that won't take initiative, but will reluctantly talk about those facts too.

The SC report is a fact. As for what I observe, you decide to react to such fact with rationalization and downplaying and denial of its true content about Amanda Knox.

You said Amanda Knox is a nobody. So what is the true content of the report about the "real" issues?

 

[acbytesla]

The message is that you are attempting specious and silly arguments.

You should know specious. After all that would describe a summary of your posts.

 

[Desert Fox]

1. They were friends. Enemies don't sign off texts with kisses.
2. She WASN'T there.

3. And yes you do slut shame.

What is said when I have seen feminists slut shaming Amanda. . . . .