Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
Morons like Rudy?
Click to expand...

The defense team went, together with the judges, to the cottage, during the trial, specifically to demonstrate how easy it was to shin up the wall. The six-foot tall superfit defence lawyer, Berretti, was utterly determined, as you can imagine, to get his clients off. He managed to reach the ledge of Filomena's window, but could not pull himself up. The defense was left dangling by their finger tips!

Rudy being a few inches shorter could not have even reached the ledge even standing on tiptoe.

The PIP have had to go to the lengths of finding a professional mountain climber to show it's possible...and he had the benefit of newly installed bars to haul himself up.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The defense team went, together with the judges, to the cottage, during the trial, specifically to demonstrate how easy it was to shin up the wall. The six-foot tall superfit defence lawyer, Berretti, was utterly determined, as you can imagine, to get his clients off. He managed to reach the ledge of Filomena's window, but could not pull himself up. The defense was left dangling by their finger tips!

Rudy being a few inches shorter could not have even reached the ledge even standing on tiptoe.

The PIP have had to go to the lengths of finding a professional mountain climber to show it's possible...and he had the benefit of newly installed bars to haul himself up.
Click to expand...

Not quite. What the defense lawyer forced Massei to eventually write was not the difficulty of the climb, but another issue.... wjich was answered by the neutral, Channel 5 demonstration.

That other issue? Massei had to concede that the climb in was eminantly doable - just not likely that Rudy would go up **3 times**.

What Massei did not answer was: why not?

What the Channel 5 guy demonstrated - as well as the lawyer - was that the climb itself was a no brainer. He was even asked to climb and not make use of the bars, which he did. He said the bars made it harder, but it was still eminantly doable.

The prosecution and PGP claims about the climb are simply bizarre. The most bizarre was that there was no investigation of the doability of the climb until the vist of which you speak. They just assumed it was difficult.

The lawyer you mention forced Massei to dismiss the breakin on grounds other than its difficulty.
 
Vixen said:
Nowhere in their report do Bruno and Maresca say the kids did not do it.
Click to expand...


Dreadful misunderstanding of what criminal justice systems actually do - and what falls inside and outside of their remit, and what they are not empowered to say.

The sole and exclusive job of criminal justice systems is to decide whether the defendant(s) on trial are guilty of committing the criminal offences with which they have been charged by the state. If the court believes there is sufficient proof of their guilt (proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required in Italy, and also in the US and England/Wales), then the court convicts. If the court believes there is insufficient evidence to convict (regardless of whether a) there's some evidence of guilt, but not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or b) zero evidence of guilt), then the court must acquit the defendant(s). And what's more, such an acquittal entirely preserves the presumption of innocence for the defendant(s).

So:

1) It is NOT the job of any criminal court to state that "the defendant(s) did not commit the crime".

2) Moreover, in pretty much every single case that gets as far as charges and trial, the defendants are unable to PROVE their innocence (a not at all uncommon occurrence - contrary to the ignorant stance of many pro-guilt commentators on this case). So consequently it is pretty much axiomatic that no court can proclaim a defendant's factual innocence of the crime.

3) That said, it must be remembered (note to most pro-guilt commentators) that an acquittal automatically amounts to a presumption of innocence, since the rules in operation in countries such as Italy, the US and E/W demand that if the state tries someone for a criminal offence, the defendant must be presumed innocent of that offence until and unless the courts become satisfied that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.


I would go back to an example I've used many times now (though the message does seem to be falling on stony ground so far as some are concerned....). Around a year ago now, someone was murdered (on the street) around 3/4 mile from where I live at about 3am. On the night in question, I was asleep alone in my flat, and my mobile phone was turned off. There is no CCTV at the entrance to my block of flats. So, all things considered, I could never PROVE my innocence of participation in the murder.

But imagine if - for some bizarre reason - the police had arrested me, and largely on the basis that I couldn't provide a provable alibi, they'd got me charged and sent to trial. Any sane court would obviously acquit me (there would be no credible, reliable evidence of my guilt, since in fact I had been asleep at home all night), but the acquitting court would never - and could never - state that I was factually innocent. The most that the acquitting court could do - and all that it is in fact required to do - is to state that there is insufficient evidence to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that therefore I must be acquitted and presumed innocent of the murder.

It would be helpful - and perhaps also indicative of a better understanding coupled with a demonstration of a will to debate in good faith - if so many pro-guilt commentators would grasp, understand, and demonstrate knowledge of, this concept during their engagement in this debate. Unfortunately, though, I fear we'll carry on getting more of the "well, no court ever said Knox and Sollecito didn't kill Meredith" nonsense......
 
Vixen said:
This is not a high school debating competition. Come out of the playground, "Bill", and put away your tools of sophistry, bluff and bluster and faux exasperation.

You know, I know, we know, he knows, she knows, you know the kids did it. No number of mealy-mouthed silver-tongued words can change it.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what you believe because there is no crime scenario that actually works in a coherent way. You have fuzzy images in your head of Amanda plunging a giant knife into Meredith. It's based on a tabloid photo of her giving the evil eye, and a picture of the knife sinisterly wrapped in an evidence bag. That's your entire view of this case. But the evidence shows Rudy Guede inside, outside, and all round Meredith's body. He's not even in your view of this case. He stands around in the background, like a painting, because his presence is awkwardly required.
 
Vixen said:
The defense team went, together with the judges, to the cottage, during the trial, specifically to demonstrate how easy it was to shin up the wall. The six-foot tall superfit defence lawyer, Berretti, was utterly determined, as you can imagine, to get his clients off. He managed to reach the ledge of Filomena's window, but could not pull himself up. The defense was left dangling by their finger tips!

Rudy being a few inches shorter could not have even reached the ledge even standing on tiptoe.

The PIP have had to go to the lengths of finding a professional mountain climber to show it's possible...and he had the benefit of newly installed bars to haul himself up.
Click to expand...
NONSENSE.
A complete falsehood.
Why speak untruths about something that is so easily verified?
He was not a PROFESSIONAL mountain climber, but he had climbing experience, just as the known burglar, Rudy Guede, had climbing experience.
The climber was selected because he was the same size as Poor Poor Rudy.
We all saw the video a hundred times and he did not use the bars to get to the window: He stood on the bars on the lower window and reached up to the LEDGE and then simply stood at the window ledge.
The ledge was at his mid chest level as he stood on the lower bars.
He was selected because he was the same size as Poor Poor Rudy.
We all saw that when Rudy stood on the lower bars he could easily open and shut the shudders or window.
The climber said that it would be eEASY for anyone to climb up to the window as he did.
Making up falsehoods about something that is so easy to check does not increase your credibility, not that there was any of that to begin with.
Is the PGT, including yourself, still sucking up to Rudy?
Poor, poor Rudy, your favorite, who takes pride in admitting that he has left women who are bleeding to death alone to bleed to death.
Why do you insist upon kissing up to Rudy?
 
Vixen said:
The defense team went, together with the judges, to the cottage, during the trial, specifically to demonstrate how easy it was to shin up the wall. The six-foot tall superfit defence lawyer, Berretti, was utterly determined, as you can imagine, to get his clients off. He managed to reach the ledge of Filomena's window, but could not pull himself up. The defense was left dangling by their finger tips!

Rudy being a few inches shorter could not have even reached the ledge even standing on tiptoe.

The PIP have had to go to the lengths of finding a professional mountain climber to show it's possible...and he had the benefit of newly installed bars to haul himself up.
Click to expand...
analemma said:
NONSENSE.
A complete falsehood.
Why speak untruths about something that is so easily verified?
He was not a PROFESSIONAL mountain climber, but he had climbing experience, just as the known burglar, Rudy Guede, had climbing experience.
The climber was selected because he was the same size as Poor Poor Rudy.
We all saw the video a hundred times and he did not use the bars to get to the window: He stood on the bars on the lower window and reached up to the LEDGE and then simply stood at the window ledge.
The ledge was at his mid chest level as he stood on the lower bars.
Click to expand...
While not technically a lie, it is false that the defense did not convince the court that the climb, per se, was doable.

I wish Vixen would read court documents, rather than repeat the untruths of TJMK and/or Nick van der Leek.

Massei's discussion of his own view of the improbability of the climb centres NOT on its difficulty, but on the (non-issue of the) shutters. He wrote:

Admitting that the climber decided to bet, in a sense, on the presence of both of these
"favourable" - in fact, indispensable - conditions, the climber would then have had to
climb up once, from underneath the window of Romanelli's room, in order to open
the shutters; then he would have had to get the large rock, and having selected the
point where he wanted to break the window, to throw it (it seems impossible to
accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock, and threw it
against the window at the risk of being hit by glass falling from the pane thus
shattered).

He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the
second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his
knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have
been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach
up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since
otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary
to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside.
This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice
underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and
taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two
favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing
by on the street or actually coming into the house.

It cannot be assumed - as the Defence Consultant did - that the shutters were left
completely open, since this contradicts the declarations of Romanelli, which appear
to be detailed and entirely likely, considering that she was actually leaving for the
holiday and had some things of value in her room; already she did not feel quite safe
because window-frames were in wood [38] without any grille. Also, the
circumstance of the shutters being wide open does not correspond to their position
when they were found and described by witnesses on November 2, and
photographed (cf. photo 11 already mentioned).​
Click to expand...
I note a mistake I've been making in characterizing Massei's bogus theory of the climb.... I've been saying that he found it improbable that Rudy would have scaled the wall three times. But look at this:

The double climb necessary to attain the height of three and a half
metres would have left some kind of trace or imprint on the wall, especially on the
points on the wall that the "climber" would have used to support his feet...​
Click to expand...
Lastly, the climber who did the deed effortlessly for Channel 5 did not rely on the wall at all. He climbed on the top bar of the lower window, then simply hoisted himself to the ledge in one motion.

The issue: this was completely untested and uninvestigated prior to the defence experiment for the 2009 trial. Once again, the defnce was put in a position of having to disprove an unproven prosecution hypothesis, reversing the burden of proof at trial.
 
Last edited:
Amanda Knox: I am resolved to clear the names of the wrongfully convicted
http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion...nox-resolved-clear-names-wrongfully-convicted

Throughout my own ordeal, I was sustained on hundreds of days and in countless ways by the resolve – and the hope, the kindness, the work – of others.

I know I’m not alone, even when I’m alone.
Over the past eight years, I must have written this line thousands of times. It was the way I closed every letter to my loved ones from prison. It meant to me that although none of my loved ones could hold my hand through imprisonment, they were with me in every other way possible. I repeated that line to myself throughout this Labor Day. For me, my experience was an experience shared with many people — family, friends and strangers — who believed in my innocence and who worked and advocated for it relentlessly. I was never alone. I will always be tremendously thankful for that.

I am SO proud to be one of the nameless supporters whose efforts, however small, have corrected this terrible injustice and brought about this joyful day
 
Last edited:
analemma said:
NONSENSE.
A complete falsehood.
Why speak untruths about something that is so easily verified?
He was not a PROFESSIONAL mountain climber, but he had climbing experience, just as the known burglar, Rudy Guede, had climbing experience.
The climber was selected because he was the same size as Poor Poor Rudy.
We all saw the video a hundred times and he did not use the bars to get to the window: He stood on the bars on the lower window and reached up to the LEDGE and then simply stood at the window ledge.
The ledge was at his mid chest level as he stood on the lower bars.
He was selected because he was the same size as Poor Poor Rudy.
We all saw that when Rudy stood on the lower bars he could easily open and shut the shudders or window.
The climber said that it would be eEASY for anyone to climb up to the window as he did.
Click to expand...

You need to review the video as you got most all of it wrong. The climbing enthusiast did not stand on the lower window's bars but rather the sill below the bars. He grabbed the top bar of the lower window and from a crouch pulled himself up and grabbed the sill of the upper window. He was only able to just grab the sill and the sill was above his head.

In a later part he is asked if an athletic person could do it and he yes easy. Then they ask about opening the shutters and he lowers himself to put his feet on the top bar and at that point his chest is at the sill level. It is not clear that with the shutters closed he would have been able to get to the shutter opening stance.

The video clearly demonstrates that the window was easily climbable and most importantly shows that the 3 1/2 meter number is highly deceptive. Rudi had no climbing history even if he did the lawyers' burglary as that was a very different set-up.
 
The ISC could have used 530 paragraph one if they wanted to make a strong statement for innocence. They made it clear that they were saying that the earlier courts should have availed themselves of 530 para 2.

Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the
judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article
530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really
convinced of the guilt of the defendant.

It is not, substantially, a new or “revolutionary” principle, but only the
formalisation, with an aspect of recognition, of a rule of judgment already present in
our country’s judicial experience and, moreover, already positivizzata [applied in
practice], having been formally introduced as a precondition for conviction, given
the pre-existing rule of Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure, which provides that the defendant must be acquitted when the evidence
is insufficient or contradictory (Section 1, n.30402 of 28/06/2006, Volpon, Rv.
234374).

In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the
referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously
observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2,
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

Pursuant to Article 620 letter A) Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; annuls the
ruling under appeal with respect to the crime under charge B) of the rubric because
the crime is extinct due to statute of limitations;
pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric
because the appellants did not commit the act

Here and there early rulings are tantamount to declaring innocence or at least no case is present. Here and there the judge at a preliminary hearing can throw the case out. Here after the prosecution presents their case the defendant can ask for summary judgment and if granted the judge is saying that even if everything presented is true their is not enough for conviction.
 
Bill Williams said:
Not quite. What the defense lawyer forced Massei to eventually write was not the difficulty of the climb, but another issue.... wjich was answered by the neutral, Channel 5 demonstration.

That other issue? Massei had to concede that the climb in was eminantly doable - just not likely that Rudy would go up **3 times**.

What Massei did not answer was: why not?

What the Channel 5 guy demonstrated - as well as the lawyer - was that the climb itself was a no brainer. He was even asked to climb and not make use of the bars, which he did. He said the bars made it harder, but it was still eminantly doable.

The prosecution and PGP claims about the climb are simply bizarre. The most bizarre was that there was no investigation of the doability of the climb until the vist of which you speak. They just assumed it was difficult.

The lawyer you mention forced Massei to dismiss the breakin on grounds other than its difficulty.
Click to expand...

That C5 programme was one of the shoddiest documentaries I have ever seen. It was clearly an FOA spin job. IIRC some guy sprinkled talcum powder on his hands and then used it to prove that by shaking someone else's hand, the talc could be transferred to a bra clasp.
 
LondonJohn said:
Dreadful misunderstanding of what criminal justice systems actually do - and what falls inside and outside of their remit, and what they are not empowered to say.

The sole and exclusive job of criminal justice systems is to decide whether the defendant(s) on trial are guilty of committing the criminal offences with which they have been charged by the state. If the court believes there is sufficient proof of their guilt (proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required in Italy, and also in the US and England/Wales), then the court convicts. If the court believes there is insufficient evidence to convict (regardless of whether a) there's some evidence of guilt, but not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or b) zero evidence of guilt), then the court must acquit the defendant(s). And what's more, such an acquittal entirely preserves the presumption of innocence for the defendant(s).

So:

1) It is NOT the job of any criminal court to state that "the defendant(s) did not commit the crime".
2) Moreover, in pretty much every single case that gets as far as charges and trial, the defendants are unable to PROVE their innocence (a not at all uncommon occurrence - contrary to the ignorant stance of many pro-guilt commentators on this case). So consequently it is pretty much axiomatic that no court can proclaim a defendant's factual innocence of the crime.

3) That said, it must be remembered (note to most pro-guilt commentators) that an acquittal automatically amounts to a presumption of innocence, since the rules in operation in countries such as Italy, the US and E/W demand that if the state tries someone for a criminal offence, the defendant must be presumed innocent of that offence until and unless the courts become satisfied that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.


I would go back to an example I've used many times now (though the message does seem to be falling on stony ground so far as some are concerned....). Around a year ago now, someone was murdered (on the street) around 3/4 mile from where I live at about 3am. On the night in question, I was asleep alone in my flat, and my mobile phone was turned off. There is no CCTV at the entrance to my block of flats. So, all things considered, I could never PROVE my innocence of participation in the murder.

But imagine if - for some bizarre reason - the police had arrested me, and largely on the basis that I couldn't provide a provable alibi, they'd got me charged and sent to trial. Any sane court would obviously acquit me (there would be no credible, reliable evidence of my guilt, since in fact I had been asleep at home all night), but the acquitting court would never - and could never - state that I was factually innocent. The most that the acquitting court could do - and all that it is in fact required to do - is to state that there is insufficient evidence to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that therefore I must be acquitted and presumed innocent of the murder.

It would be helpful - and perhaps also indicative of a better understanding coupled with a demonstration of a will to debate in good faith - if so many pro-guilt commentators would grasp, understand, and demonstrate knowledge of, this concept during their engagement in this debate. Unfortunately, though, I fear we'll carry on getting more of the "well, no court ever said Knox and Sollecito didn't kill Meredith" nonsense......
Click to expand...

Hellmann did.

This is the umpty-ninth time you have brought up that murder-near-my-home scenario, and for the umpty-ninth time, if you had been found hanging around the scene when the police arrived babbling about a burglary, then of course you would have been viewed with great interest by Inspector Knacker of the Yard.

Did they ever find the perp...? I am beginning to wonder if you are trying to tell us something...? You had some suspicious bruises about your person...? Well, spit it out, old chap...What were you doing that night? You can tell us ;)
 
bagels said:
You don't even know what you believe because there is no crime scenario that actually works in a coherent way. You have fuzzy images in your head of Amanda plunging a giant knife into Meredith. It's based on a tabloid photo of her giving the evil eye, and a picture of the knife sinisterly wrapped in an evidence bag. That's your entire view of this case. But the evidence shows Rudy Guede inside, outside, and all round Meredith's body. He's not even in your view of this case. He stands around in the background, like a painting, because his presence is awkwardly required.
Click to expand...


bagels, not even the most bent judges could exonerate the kids. All of them say the burglary was staged. Next question: by whom and for what purpose?

Think hard: cui bene from convincing the cops the job was not an inside one?
 
analemma said:
NONSENSE.
A complete falsehood.
Why speak untruths about something that is so easily verified?
He was not a PROFESSIONAL mountain climber, but he had climbing experience, just as the known burglar, Rudy Guede, had climbing experience.
The climber was selected because he was the same size as Poor Poor Rudy.
We all saw the video a hundred times and he did not use the bars to get to the window: He stood on the bars on the lower window and reached up to the LEDGE and then simply stood at the window ledge.
The ledge was at his mid chest level as he stood on the lower bars.
He was selected because he was the same size as Poor Poor Rudy.
We all saw that when Rudy stood on the lower bars he could easily open and shut the shudders or window.
The climber said that it would be eEASY for anyone to climb up to the window as he did.
Making up falsehoods about something that is so easy to check does not increase your credibility, not that there was any of that to begin with.
Is the PGT, including yourself, still sucking up to Rudy?
Poor, poor Rudy, your favorite, who takes pride in admitting that he has left women who are bleeding to death alone to bleed to death.
Why do you insist upon kissing up to Rudy?
Click to expand...

Analemma, how delightful. So charming.
 
Bill Williams said:
While not technically a lie, it is false that the defense did not convince the court that the climb, per se, was doable.

I wish Vixen would read court documents, rather than repeat the untruths of TJMK and/or Nick van der Leek.

Massei's discussion of his own view of the improbability of the climb centres NOT on its difficulty, but on the (non-issue of the) shutters. He wrote:

​
I note a mistake I've been making in characterizing Massei's bogus theory of the climb.... I've been saying that he found it improbable that Rudy would have scaled the wall three times. But look at this:

​
Lastly, the climber who did the deed effortlessly for Channel 5 did not rely on the wall at all. He climbed on the top bar of the lower window, then simply hoisted himself to the ledge in one motion.

The issue: this was completely untested and uninvestigated prior to the defence experiment for the 2009 trial. Once again, the defnce was put in a position of having to disprove an unproven prosecution hypothesis, reversing the burden of proof at trial.
Click to expand...


Anyone can practise hard and then eventually do it. The point is, would a professional burglar, as you claim Rudy was, really prefer a nine-foot climb in plain sight of busy traffic and a 4kg boulder in their back pocket, or would they simply kick down the glass fronted terrace door in the dark and which is out of sight?

Be sensible now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom