Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

A clerical oversight by a dedicated professional in your world view is akin to mayhem, rape and murder? That's very proportionate, I'm sure.

Hahahah WHAT?!!

Firstly, who said anything about proportionality? That's a classic straw man. Are you not aware that someone might get sentenced to, say, three years in prison for perverting the course of justice, and another person might get sentenced to, say, 16 years in prison for murder? There's proper proportionality (and nobody's trying to equate murder with perversion of justice), yet both people will be spending some time in prison. Get it now?

Secondly, you clearly haven't noticed that this was not in relation to (what you choose to misleadingly term) "a clerical oversight by a dedicated professional". This was in relation to not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and her various lies and obfuscations, which - if there's to be any justice - will result in charges related to obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice. Both of which are pretty serious criminal acts.

Thirdly, as you have been told, Mignini's act was not a "clerical oversight by a dedicated professional" (shades of Baghdad Bob here, methinks). Rather, his act in denying Sollecito access to a lawyer (using a totally improper application of a rule that should only ever be used in extraordinary circumstances where there's a real chance that the person seeing a lawyer could result in things like intimidation of witnesses or destruction of evidence), and then his lying to the arraignment court about whether or not he'd written a proper motivations report to justify the denial (he hadn't), and then his lying to the CSM disciplinary panel about whether he'd ever given the verbal order to the police to deny Sollecito access (he had), is not a "clerical oversight" but a systematic abuse of power and attempt to deceive and obstruct the investigation into it; and it's not the work of a "dedicated professional" but the work of a man who has - it would appear from the CSM findings - repeatedly abused his power and then lied to try to cover it up.

 

[LondonJohn]

So Drs Stefanoni and Mignini should be locked up, yet murderers should roam free? Incredible.

1) Who is suggesting that "murderers should roam free"?

2) Which "murderers" might you be referring to here? (hint: neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in the murder of Kercher, and both Knox and Sollecito have been acquitted - and are presumed innocent - by the Italian court system, albeit after an outrageous series of mess-ups on the way, and an outrageously long time for justice to finally be applied).

 

[LondonJohn]

So we have a break in, clearly visible on approach to the cottage. Amanda approached 10:30-ish and had a good mosey around after noticing the front door swinging wide open. The police don't believe she had a shower then. Why's that, do you think?

So we have a classic break in. So why didn't Amanda CALL THE POLICE once? Come on, answer the question.

Here's something for you to perhaps think about for a moment:

Suppose that whoever had broken and entered via Romanelli's window (Guede) had pulled the exterior shutters closed behind him after he had got into the cottage? After all, that would be a perfectly logical - and even LIKELY - thing for that person to do, since he wouldn't want anyone walking around outside to be able to see a broken window: that might alert them to something being amiss.

So, I hope you're now imagining the exterior shutters to Romanelli's window being pulled together (though of course they wedged themselves together owing to wood warping: there would still be no way to see through them, but they did not fit well enough to enable them to be latched or locked).

Now, imagine someone - let's say Knox - walking towards the cottage in daylight the next day. Imagine what that person (Knox) would see as she approached the cottage down the drive way. Can you perhaps realise that what that person (Knox) would see would be Romanelli's window area obscured by the closed exterior shutters? Can you perhaps see that from the perspective of the person approaching the cottage (Knox), Romanelli's window area would in fact appear to be entirely normal - since the broken window pane would be obscured to the outside by the exterior shutter?

Now try again.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's no doubt the two ACE bleach bottles were new. As his cleaner testified, she was ordered by Raff not to use bleach. Yet the place reeked of the stuff when the cops paid a visit.

Why did Raff soak the bottom of his Nike daps in bleach?

Oh dear. That fabled "research" is coming up rather woefully short once again.

1) What's the evidence that there's "no doubt" that the two ACE bleach bottles were new?

2) What did the police allege the apartment "reeked" of when they went to search it? (hint for you: it wasn't bleach)

3) What's the evidence that Sollecito soaked the bottom of his Nike daps(?) in bleach?

I look forward to seeing your carefully-researched sources for each and every one of these claims. Thanks in advance.

 

[LondonJohn]

So the cctv clock was slow by 4 minutes. So what stopped your heroes calling the police an hour earlier?

I know there is no arguing with a zealot, but I'll try.

1) You do know that using ludicrous (and pejorative) hyperbole such as "heroes" rather damages your credibility and any claim to objectivity, don't you? (Well, actually, I suppose you're not aware of that at all).

2) Why should Knox and Sollecito have called the police "an hour earlier"? I suggest you're guilty of employing poor ex post facto reasoning here.

3) Do you realise the irony of your last sentence? (Clearly not).

 

[Matthew Best]

I know there is no arguing with a zealot,

I think this counts as a subliminal message to everyone else on this thread.

 

[analemma]

The closest the defence can come to timing Raff's phone call is within a minute or so of the postal police arriving, who objectively timed their arrival as 12:34. Even if the clock was 15" slow, that was still 12:49.

We know Amanda rang Filomena circa 12:10 and Raff had been round to see the cottage with Amanda as when Filomena rang circa 12:34 she was told of the break-in. Raff said her door was "wide open" when he arrived. Amanda had been there earlier at circa 10:30-ish and claimed to have had a shower amongst all this mayhem, she claims she did not notice, apart from a huge glob of blood, which became progressively smaller and smaller throughout the trial until it was described as a "speck", and whoever had left the front door open "to empty the trash" didn't pass her going back in. The big question is, even if Raff did call police a few nanoseconds before they arrived, how does that explain the gross negligence in not calling them earlier? I would suggest, the pair knew perfectly well that poor Mez lay dead behind the locked door.

The police call sequence is a PGP LIE: The PGP knows it is a lie and will not admit it, although you seem to in this case: Do you???? Really???
As to the rubbish in the second rambling paragraph:
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,
After the first sentence your response is nonsense and factoids.
This has been the PGP -Tabloid frenzy version of this case from the start: Confusion by the kids in a strangle situation gets twisted through your veil of factoids, innuendo, and outright PGP lies into "gross negligence" , and then into a "suggestion" that the pair knew Mez lay murdered behind the door.
PGP logic:
Fact: A & R were confused and concerned so they called the police.
Conclusion: They obviously are murderers.

 

[analemma]

Hahahah WHAT?!!

Firstly, who said anything about proportionality? That's a classic straw man. Are you not aware that someone might get sentenced to, say, three years in prison for perverting the course of justice, and another person might get sentenced to, say, 16 years in prison for murder? There's proper proportionality (and nobody's trying to equate murder with perversion of justice), yet both people will be spending some time in prison. Get it now?

Secondly, you clearly haven't noticed that this was not in relation to (what you choose to misleadingly term) "a clerical oversight by a dedicated professional". This was in relation to not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and her various lies and obfuscations, which - if there's to be any justice - will result in charges related to obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice. Both of which are pretty serious criminal acts.

Thirdly, as you have been told, Mignini's act was not a "clerical oversight by a dedicated professional" (shades of Baghdad Bob here, methinks). Rather, his act in denying Sollecito access to a lawyer (using a totally improper application of a rule that should only ever be used in extraordinary circumstances where there's a real chance that the person seeing a lawyer could result in things like intimidation of witnesses or destruction of evidence), and then his lying to the arraignment court about whether or not he'd written a proper motivations report to justify the denial (he hadn't), and then his lying to the CSM disciplinary panel about whether he'd ever given the verbal order to the police to deny Sollecito access (he had), is not a "clerical oversight" but a systematic abuse of power and attempt to deceive and obstruct the investigation into it; and it's not the work of a "dedicated professional" but the work of a man who has - it would appear from the CSM findings - repeatedly abused his power and then lied to try to cover it up.

LJ
To sum it up; Mignini abused his authority to "punish the witch" and "cover Mignini butt"?

 

[Grinder]

This is not news. We've known for a long time that at least some of the data was recovered from 2 of the machines.

Not some it says "While the contents of two of the three disks have been recovered" the contents, not some and this comes from AKC.com and is the defense consultant.

Also, I sure wasn't aware of this in March of 2008 and I'm sure you weren't. I'm sure we can find PIP going on well past that date about the lost data.

 

[js202]

3) Do you realise the irony of your last sentence? (Clearly not).

An, er, contributor who breathlessly makes fourteen unanswered posts in a row has the temerity to refer to others as possessed of zealotry? Interesting, in a clinically troubling fashion.

 

[Grinder]

An, er, contributor who breathlessly makes fourteen unanswered posts in a row has the temerity to refer to others as possessed of zealotry? Interesting, in a clinically troubling fashion.

It truly is very strange. For example, why would someone argue that Rudi should have used a tiny hammer on the window when it is obvious that throwing the rock would not only break the glass but move the inner shutters open. Then when the burglar reached the sill he could just go in as the window would have moved with the inner shutter.

There is definitely something very strange about the line of argument taken.

 

[bagels]

So we have a break in, clearly visible on approach to the cottage. Amanda approached 10:30-ish and had a good mosey around after noticing the front door swinging wide open. The police don't believe she had a shower then. Why's that, do you think?

So we have a classic break in. So why didn't Amanda CALL THE POLICE once? Come on, answer the question.

A police officer testified that she had showered that morning:

Judge Massei: Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?
Chiacchiera: Yes.

She didn't discover the break-in until she looked into Filomena's room with Raffaele. Amanda couldn't call the police because she didn't speak Italian very well and speaking an unfamiliar language over the phone is extremely difficult at best.

 

[acbytesla]

More rapid fire bs from Vixen. That's about a dozen posts where she says things that have no probative value or suggests things that are not true. It really is too bad that one cannot be suspended for making bald face lies. The lie is that Raffaele dipped his shoes in bleach. Where is the proof of this? Is it in the case file? Did Stefanoni test the soles of Raffaele's shoes for bleach? No. What kind of person argues a murder case constantly lying about the facts?

Raffaele called the police before they arrived. That is a fact. Even the Postal Police didn't think much was amiss. Vixen's argument is essentially that Amanda and Raffaele should have known simply by a door being open, a broken window and poop in the toilet that there was a burglary..

And that they needed to be in some kind of hurry to report it. Really? What's the hurry? It's not an emergency situation, so I don't think there is any hurry. It is that Meredith isn't responding that is causing alarm.

Their delay reflects more that natural desire not to end up being embarrassed about probably blowing a situation out of proportion.

 

[Bill Williams]

More rapid fire bs from Vixen. That's about a dozen posts where she says things that have no probative value or suggests things that are not true. It really is too bad that one cannot be suspended for making bald face lies. The lie is that Raffaele dipped his shoes in bleach. Where is the proof of this? Is it in the case file? Did Stefanoni test the soles of Raffaele's shoes for bleach? No. What kind of person argues a murder case constantly lying about the facts?

Raffaele called the police before they arrived. That is a fact. Even the Postal Police didn't think much was amiss. Vixen's argument is essentially that Amanda and Raffaele should have known simply by a door being open, a broken window and poop in the toilet that there was a burglary..

And that they needed to be in some kind of hurry to report it. Really? What's the hurry? It's not an emergency situation, so I don't think there is any hurry. It is that Meredith isn't responding that is causing alarm.

Their delay reflects more that natural desire not to end up being embarrassed about probably blowing a situation out of proportion.

One would be forgiven for thinking the mods here would be trying to protect the "skeptics" brand, a brand that once made this forum (as a whole) attractive. So in a sense, it's not so much consistent lying and invention of factoids which is the issue.......

...... it is that it does not serve the evidence-based inquiry which is the life-blood of skeptical inquiry.

If any true skeptic complains that these Continuations keep.... ah, er, continuing; the thing to complain about is allowing such consistent B.S. to be consistently posted unabated. For pete's sake, excuse me for going on about it.... the poster in question posted a photo which refuted the point they were making!

Now they are claiming a factoid that Raffaele bleached the bottom of his shoes - with no, none, support for that claim anyway - except for the ability to claim it - unfettered by any oversight.

Add to this that the poster raises the spectre of the phantom bleach-receipts, as well as the long-since settled issue of in which order Raffaele called the cops, vis a vis the arrival of the postal police. That one was settled in 2010 upon the publication of the Massei report. 5 1/2 years ago it was settled. Four trials ago it was settled. Then they raised the issue of "the lamp". Snore!

One rule in the M.A. should be about keeping to evidence-based inquiry.

 

[Grinder]

More rapid fire bs from Vixen. That's about a dozen posts where she says things that have no probative value or suggests things that are not true. It really is too bad that one cannot be suspended for making bald face lies. The lie is that Raffaele dipped his shoes in bleach. Where is the proof of this? Is it in the case file? Did Stefanoni test the soles of Raffaele's shoes for bleach? No. What kind of person argues a murder case constantly lying about the facts?

Raffaele called the police before they arrived. That is a fact. Even the Postal Police didn't think much was amiss. Vixen's argument is essentially that Amanda and Raffaele should have known simply by a door being open, a broken window and poop in the toilet that there was a burglary..
And that they needed to be in some kind of hurry to report it. Really? What's the hurry? It's not an emergency situation, so I don't think there is any hurry. It is that Meredith isn't responding that is causing alarm.

Their delay reflects more that natural desire not to end up being embarrassed about probably blowing a situation out of proportion.

Tesla are you actually saying that almost everyone in the world wouldn't think there had been a burglary when returning home and finding the door wide open, a broken window in room that had been tossed and the bathroom left in unusual condition?

Btw, have you determined when it was made known that two of the three drives were recovered? Also, it seems that the expert says the BIOS was damaged and not the drives but that the Toshiba BIOS was proprietary and they couldn't repair that.

CD reports in her book that both Meredith's and Amanda's hard drives were destroyed. The book was published in 2010.

From Nina's book published 2012:

They pulled out the hard drives and hooked them up to a device that makes copies of hard drives . Incredibly, they accidentally hooked up the hard drives to the wrong side of the device, the side that delivers electrical voltage, rather than the side designed to record data. Smoke may or may not have erupted but in short order, three hard drives were fried ...​

So what do think old man? Also, is that an accurate description of cloning of hard drives?

 

[JREF2010]

Tesla are you actually saying that almost everyone in the world wouldn't think there had been a burglary when returning home and finding the door wide open, a broken window in room that had been tossed and the bathroom left in unusual condition?

Btw, have you determined when it was made known that two of the three drives were recovered? Also, it seems that the expert says the BIOS was damaged and not the drives but that the Toshiba BIOS was proprietary and they couldn't repair that.

CD reports in her book that both Meredith's and Amanda's hard drives were destroyed. The book was published in 2010.

From Nina's book published 2012:

They pulled out the hard drives and hooked them up to a device that makes copies of hard drives . Incredibly, they accidentally hooked up the hard drives to the wrong side of the device, the side that delivers electrical voltage, rather than the side designed to record data. Smoke may or may not have erupted but in short order, three hard drives were fried ...​

So what do think old man? Also, is that an accurate description of cloning of hard drives?

I never understood why Matteini refused it being repaired too.

As Raffaele mentioned in his book, it was only important if the police or courts performed the tests because they were the defense and anything they provided was debated away. (biased).

So it was really all on the poor handling of the courts and investigation to not resolve things like the hard drive's. And they werent talking about a Traffic Ticket case, so Im still skeptical why Migninni and the courts in Perugia didnt have the hard drives taken care of immediately.

All the judges even Hellman seemed to disregard the hard drives, but allowed the prosecution to use absence of computer activity as a Guilter award.

 

[Diocletus]

Hello? The punishment was a censure. That was the punishment.

Oh, so he only lost face. No biggie, I guess (except in Italy).

Not much of an effort now for the ECtHR to follow suit and hold that Mignini and his henchman violated Knox's human rights. I mean, the talking point used to be that the ECtHR wouldn't want to embarrass Italy by making such a finding, but shoot, Italy itself just said the same thing. All the ECtHR has to say now is "we agree with what those Italian guys said". Easy peasy.

 

[Mr Fied]

Not some it says "While the contents of two of the three disks have been recovered" the contents, not some and this comes from AKC.com and is the defense consultant.

Also, I sure wasn't aware of this in March of 2008 and I'm sure you weren't. I'm sure we can find PIP going on well past that date about the lost data.

I'm sticking my neck out here, but I'm willing to guess that whatever they found, it wasn't incriminating.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla are you actually saying that almost everyone in the world wouldn't think there had been a burglary when returning home and finding the door wide open, a broken window in room that had been tossed and the bathroom left in unusual condition?

Btw, have you determined when it was made known that two of the three drives were recovered? Also, it seems that the expert says the BIOS was damaged and not the drives but that the Toshiba BIOS was proprietary and they couldn't repair that.

CD reports in her book that both Meredith's and Amanda's hard drives were destroyed. The book was published in 2010.

From Nina's book published 2012:

They pulled out the hard drives and hooked them up to a device that makes copies of hard drives . Incredibly, they accidentally hooked up the hard drives to the wrong side of the device, the side that delivers electrical voltage, rather than the side designed to record data. Smoke may or may not have erupted but in short order, three hard drives were fried ...​

So what do think old man? Also, is that an accurate description of cloning of hard drives?

First off, yes. A break in, maybe, but not a burglary. ..you know, like at the nursery.
As for the drives I did not look. I just remember discussing it on several occasions.

I also don't see anything wrong with CD's book. The drives were damage. The recovery of the data from the drives came later. Yes, it's close. The smoke sounds like an exaggeration though.

 

[Grinder]

I never understood why Matteini refused it being repaired too.

As Raffaele mentioned in his book, it was only important if the police or courts performed the tests because they were the defense and anything they provided was debated away. (biased).

So it was really all on the poor handling of the courts and investigation to not resolve things like the hard drive's. And they werent talking about a Traffic Ticket case, so Im still skeptical why Migninni and the courts in Perugia didnt have the hard drives taken care of immediately.

All the judges even Hellman seemed to disregard the hard drives, but allowed the prosecution to use absence of computer activity as a Guilter award.

The defense experts report on the akc.com site indicates that all but Amanda's were fixed by March 2008. Raf's was recovered and that is the only one being used that night. AK's was of value because there were movies on it of Meredith with Amanda having fun only days before which would have been a powerful visual to undo the meme that they didn't get along.

I also don't get why they refused the request to send it to Toshiba or the testing of the stain. Why the PGP aren't equally upset is baffling.