Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Deleted.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Bill Williams
- Start date
- Status
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Why again is the later an idiot but the former is an astute judge and former policeman?
The silliest thing is that PIP make fun of all the judges that convicted and PGP do the same for all judges that found them not guilty.
I asked when I first joined here for the suspension of the use of guilters, groupies and haters as I thought and think it merely lowers the level of conversation.
Not one of the MRs is clear and makes sense throughout.
So many inaccuracies....
A) twenty minutes each. Nonsense. Appeal Courts generally set down matters for a single day. Sometimes the hearing is adjourned to a future convenient time. There is no time allocation to the parties.
B) The date was Wednesday 25th March 2015. Set down for one day.
C) Court adjourned and hearing continued on Friday 27th March 2015 and the lower court guilt verdict was unceremoniously tossed out without referral. An emphatic verdict. Your time frame is nonsense.
D) I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.
E) it's not Roman and Dutch Law. It's Roman Dutch Law.
F) You speak as though fairness is derived from equality of time rather than the comprehensive understanding by the appeal judges of the case. It's not a football game.
Last edited:
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Yes there was and there are time limits here as well in front of both Appeals and the Supreme Court.
From the Guardian: In a rousing closing argument that lasted nearly two hours – they are supposed to be limited to 20 minutes in the court of cassation in Rome – Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito’s lawyer, said her client had always tried to cooperate with investigators and had not been in the room where the crime was committed.
I also remember that it was 20 minutes and Bongiorno was given extra time.
Rather than posit about what you believe that appeals courts or supreme court do in general why not research the specific we are discussing?
Vixen constantly boasts how much evidence there was against Amanda and Raffaele. If there was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a slam dunk case, can Vixen explain the tactics the prosecution had to resort to :-
* If the laws of a country say suspects should be provided with lawyers, interrogations need to be taped and suspects told their rights, the police should have no problem
doing these things if they have a strong case. If the police have built up
evidence and a strong case, the police should present the suspect with this
evidence and act the suspect to explain it.
• If the police have a weak case, they will
violate the rights of suspects in interrogations. If the police have a weak
case, they will have no evidence to present suspects during interrogations.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
rights of Amanda and Raffaele were violated. They were not officially told they
were suspects, their interrogations were not taped and they were denied access
to lawyers. Why did the police have to resort to underhand and illegal tactics
if they had a strong case? The police wrote out statements for Amanda and
Raffaele to sign. As the statements were prepared by the police, the statements
are false evidence. Why did the police have to resort to using false evidence
against Amanda and Raffaele if they had a mountain of solid evidence? If there
was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were Amanda and Raffaele
not presented with this evidence in the interrogations and asked to explain it?
No questions were asked about their behaviour in the three day period prior to
the interrogations and they were not presented with any forensic evidence. Why did the
police who according to the haters had a mountain of evidence not use this
evidence in the interrogations?
When the police interrogated Raffaele, the
evidence suggests Raffaele was not directly accused of killing Meredith but the
police were simply trying to get him to drop Amanda's alibi. The statement
prepared by the police made no mention of Raffaele directly taking part in
Meredith's murder. The two statements the police prepared for Amanda were very
short and made no mention of Amanda directly taking part in Meredith's killing
simply she met Lumumba and he killed Meredith. How is this explained if there
was a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?
* If the prosecution have a strong case and
solid evidence, they should never have to resort to lying about the evidence.
If the prosecution have a weak case and a lack
of evidence, they will resort to lying about non existent evidence or
distorting the evidence.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution lied on numerous occasions. The details of the lies can be found by
searching "Amanda Knox wordpress press prosecution lies"
"Injustice in Perugia lies and misinformation" and the website
Amandaknoxcase.com has details of the lies told by the prosecution.
The prosecution lied about evidence which did
not exist. The prosecution feed false stories to the media about the purchase
of bleach receipts and the washing machine running. Mignini lied in court
documents that attempts had been made in Raffaele's apartment to clean up
incriminating blood evidence when no such evidence existed. Mignini also lied
that the cottage had been cleaned with bleach. The prosecution claimed
footprints in Meredith's room matched Raffaele's shoes when the number of rings
in the footprints did not match Raffaele's shoes. It is hard to believe the
police could make this mistake which indicates the police deliberately lied about
the footprints.
There were instances when the prosecution
distorted the evidence. The prosecution argued Amanda showered in a bloody
bathroom when she returned to the cottage. To support this argument the
prosecution released a photograph of the bathroom being bloody but the bathroom
only looked this way after being sprayed with a chemical and it was not how the
bathroom looked to the naked eye. The prosecution did not say this when the
photograph was released. Prosecutor Comodi accused Amanda of calling her mother
before anything had happened. To support this argument Comodi lied about the
time call saying Amanda phoned her mother at 12.00 pm when phone records showed
Amanda called her mother at 12.47 pm. The prosecution claimed Raffaele called
the postal police after they arrived. To support this idea the police lied
about their time of arrival by 20 minutes which was proven on video. During the
Nencini trial prosecutor Crini claimed the knife matched the imprint on the bed
which was not true and the prosecution had not made this claim before.
The prosecution also lied by omitting facts.
Amanda said she read a German Harry Potter book at Raffaele's apartment. The
police claimed there was only one copy at the cottage. Police video showed
there was a German Harry Potter at Raffaele's apartment.
The haters constantly boast about how much
evidence there was against Amanda and Raffaele. If this was the case, why did
the prosecution on numerous occasions have to resort to lying about non
existent evidence, distorting facts and omitting facts. If the prosecution had
such a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to making new lies
up six years after Meredith's murder in the Nencini trial?
* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
should not have to resort to covering up things and are happy to have
everything out in the open.
If the prosecution have a weak case, they will
lie to cover things up because the evidence does not support their case.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: Stefanoni
said the footprints tested with luminol were not tested with TMB. The defense
found Stefanoni had tested the footprints with TMB which turned out be negative
and Stefanoni had lied. Stefanoni claimed contamination had not occurred in the
lab when it was found contamination had occurred in the lab. Stefanoni claimed
she had changed gloves when collecting evidence. It was shown on video
Stefanoni did not change gloves.
If the prosecution had a strong case why did
the prosecution have to lie to cover things up?
* If the prosecution have a strong case, the
evidence should be solid, reliable and credible. The prosecution should not
have to resort to using dubious evidence with no credibility if their case is a
slam dunk and they have a mountain of solid evidence.
If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of
solid and credible evidence, they may resort to using dubious evidence with no
credibility as they have nothing better they can use.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele was extremely dubious with no
credibility. The knife illustrates this :-
Not matching the wounds. The knife was too big
to have caused the wounds
It did not match a bloody outline on the bed
It had no blood
• When C + V tested the knife it was negative for
the human species which meant the knife did not contain Meredith's biological
material.
The circumstances surrounding the collection of
the knife are highly suspect. The knife was picked at random from Raffaele's
kitchen with no other knives taken from the kitchen or the cottage. How were
the police were able to tell this knife was the murder weapon without
collecting the other knives? When the knife was collected, the police officers
who took the knife had no information on the size of the knife wounds and the
knife was not measured prior to collection to compare the knife with wounds on
Meredith. A justification used for taking this knife was that it was unusually
clean. C + V found starch on the knife which demolished the argument the knife
was unusually clean.
• A factor which is often overlooked is that the
when Amanda was being interrogated, she was not accused of stabbing Meredith
and in the statements the police prepared for Amanda, no mention was made of
Amanda stabbing Meredith. Amanda never said she stabbed Meredith in the
statement she made after the interrogation. How is this explained if Amanda was
supposed to have stabbed Meredith?
The prosecution claimed two knives were used.
There were numerous problems with this claim. Why were the prosecution only
claiming this when it was shown the knife did not match the wounds and not
claiming this from the beginning? Why were the prosecution unable to show how
Meredith's wounds were compatible with the use of two knives? How could
Raffaele's knife be one of two knives when it was not compatible with any of
the stab wounds?
If the knife was used in Meredith's murder, why
did the prosecution oppose opening the knife and the defense teams of Amanda
and Raffaele had no objection to opening the knife?
• In an interview Mignini was asked how Amanda
could have carried out the murder without leaving forensic traces. He said
Amanda directed the murder from outside the room. How was Amanda was supposed
to have stabbed Meredith if directing the murder from the corridor?
How was a knife from Raffaele's apartment used
in the murder if the crime was not pre-meditated. Massei argued that Meredith's
murder was not pre-meditated. To explain how the knife was used, Massei argued
the knife was carried out by Amanda in her handbag. There were no cuts in
Amanda's handbag which carrying the knife would have caused. No one heard
Amanda mention she was carrying a knife and no witnesses saw this knife.
If the knife was used to stab Meredith, why did
the defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele want to see Stefanoni's files and
wanted independent experts to examine the knife?
The alleged DNA on the knife was extremely
dubious
• The length of the blade was 17cm and length of
the fatal wound was 8cm. The defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele argued the
knife was plunged several times to inflict the fatal wound and it is highly
unlikely that in a frenzy a 17 cm knife would go exactly 8 cm several times.
There were other instances where the
prosecution used evidence with no credibility. For instance, at the time of the
Nencini trial the prosecution released a CCTV of a woman who was not Amanda. If
you search "Groundreport Amanda Knox the vendetta continues" this provides
details. If the prosecution had a strong case and a mountain of solid evidence
against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using
evidence totally lacking in credibility? The knife clearly could not have been
used to kill Meredith. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the
prosecution have to resort to using evidence which could not have been used in
Meredith's murder? If the prosecution had so much solid evidence, why did the
prosecution feel it necessary to release a CCTV of someone who was not Amanda
six years after Meredith's murder?
* If the prosecution have a strong case and
solid evidence, they should not have to resort to smear tactics
If the prosecution have a lack of evidence, the
prosecution may resort to smear tactics and character assassination to
compensate for this.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution lied to Amanda by telling her she had HIV. wrote a list of sexual
partners which the prosecution leaked to the media. Before anyone says the test
was a false positive, no evidence has ever emerged an actual test was done. No
details have been given of time, date and location for Amanda's blood being
tested. No documents have emerged for blood tests on Amanda. Why would the the
prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had solid evidence?
* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
will want the evidence tested and investigated or have no objection if other
parties want the evidence tested.
A prosecution with a weak case will not want
the tested because they know the results will not support their case.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: There
were numerous occasions when the prosecution objected to the evidence being
tested :-
The prosecution opposed opening the knife
Only 5 samples were taken from Filomena's room
The area outside Filomena's room was not
investigated
The prosecution claimed the window in
Filomena's room was broken from the inside. The prosecution did not carry out
tests to support their theory
The bra clasp was allowed to deteriorate making
it useless for testing
If the prosecution had a strong case, why did
they not want the evidence tested or investigated?
* If the prosecution have a strong case and
solid evidence, they should not have to rely on using irrelevant things as
evidence.
If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of
evidence, they will often resort to using irrelevant things as evidence.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: During
the Hellman trial the prosecution showed a photo of Meredith's body. This photo
did not provide any evidence and was utterly irrelevant in proving the guilt of
Amanda and Raffaele. Why did the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if
they had a strong case?
* If the prosecution have a strong case, they should
have no problems in answering questions and should be confident when
testifying.
If the prosecution have a weak case, they will
often be evasive and unable to answer questions.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: This is
Stefanoni's testimony where she says she can't remember how much DNA was on the
knife :-
DEFENSE Attorney Ghirga
QUESTION “ One last question precisely in
relation to how much emerged, the DNA extraction on the knife, you I believe,
had said that you dont remember how much DNA you extracted from the blade, from
the scratches.
ANSWER “ No.
QUESTION Is it possible to check the extraction log.
• ANSWER Â Yes, one can check.
QUESTION “ Is it a number that can be
acquired?
ANSWER Yes.
QUESTION “ One can obtain the extraction in the
extraction log as you say.
ANSWER Yes.
QUESTION “ But you do not remember, correct,
how much DNA you extracted
ANSWER One can obtain the true extraction
amount from that S.A.L., that one yes.
QUESTION “ But you do not remember now?
ANSWER No, here, no..
• QUESTION “ Can one acquire this data?
ANSWER Yes, the data of the extraction, yes.
QUESTION While you confirm then how much was
how much was the elution and the collection of DNA to do
ANSWER Yes, it was concentrated in the first
sweep, then it was quantified, and then after that it was re-concentrated to 10
microlitres.
QUESTION Now, being interested in the exact
quantity of DNA extracted from the scratches we can obtain it, lets say in the
court files, is that so?
ANSWER Yes.
DEFENSE “ Attorney Ghirga “ Thank you
If the prosecution had a strong case, why were
prosecution witnesses evasive in court and unable to answer questions?
* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
should not have to resort to using evidence which has been discredited as they
should have plenty of other evidence to use.
If the prosecution have a weak case, they may
have to continue using discredited evidence as they have no other evidence they
can use.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution claimed Raffaele called the postal police after they arrived. The
defense conclusively demonstrated Raffaele called the postal police before
their arrival. Despite this the prosecution were still claiming Raffaele called
the postal police after they arrived at the Hellman trial. If the prosecution
had so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why did they have to rely on
discredited evidence?
* If the
prosecution have solid evidence, they should not have to resort to making
claims with no evidence to back them.
If the prosecution have a weak case and lack of
evidence, they may have to resort to making unsupported claims.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: There
were instances when the prosecution made claims for which there was no
evidence. Massei made the claim Amanda carried Raffaele's knife in her handbag
which explains how the knife was used in a murder that was not pre-meditated.
No one saw Amanda with this knife. No heard Amanda mention this knife. Carrying
a large knife would have caused cuts in her bag. There were no cuts in her bag.
Mignini claimed Amanda had a hatred for Meredith. There was no evidence Amanda
had a hatred of Meredith. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the
prosecution have to resort to making claims with no evidence to support them?
* If the a country's legal system say judges
should write motivation reports explaining their decisions, these reports
should not have to resort to using falsehoods.
• If the prosecution have a weak case and a lack
of evidence, motivation reports may have to report to using falsehoods.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
Chieffi report written to annull Hellman's aquittal and the Nencini report were
riddled with falsehoods. These falsehoods can be found by searching
"Injustice Anywhere Chieffi report errors" and "Injustice
anywhere Nencini stupid mistakes". If the case against Amanda and Raffaele
was so strong, why did two motivation reports have to resort to using
falsehoods?
* If the prosecution have a strong case, their
arguments should be solid and believable. The prosecution should not have to
resort to using stupid arguments to argue their case.
If the prosecution have a weak case and the
evidence does not support their case, they may have to resort to ridiculous and
nonsensical arguments.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
arguments used by the prosecution were ridiculous. To explain why Amanda and
Raffaele left no forensic traces in Meredith's room, the prosecution argued
Amanda and Raffaele carried out a selective clean up. Amanda and Raffaele were
able to tell whose forensic traces belonged to who, cleaned up their own traces
whilst leaving Guede's which is impossible. During the Nencini trial,
prosecutor Crini argued Amanda killed Meredith because Guede did not flush the
toilet. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using utterly ridiculous
arguments if they had a strong case?
* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
should not have to resort to using evidence which undermines their case.
If the prosecution have a lack of evidence,
they may resort to using evidence which undermines their case.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution used the testimony of Curalto who said Amanda and Raffaele were in
a square at the time of the murder which provides Amanda and Raffaele with an
alibi. If the prosecution had so much solid evidence and a strong case against
Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the prosecution were so desperate they were
prepared to use evidence which undermined their case?
* A prosecution with a strong case, should
never have to resort to using false documents.
A prosecution with a weak may have to resort to
using false evidence because there are problems with their case.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
defense team of Raffaele found Steffanoni tried to introduce documents from
another case. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using false documents
if they had a strong case?
* A prosecution with a strong case and a
mountain of hard evidence, they should not have to resort to manufacturing
evidence.
A prosecution with a weak case and a lack of
evidence may resort to manufacturing evidence because they have no genuine
evidence they can use.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: The
prosecution alleged that Raffaele's DNA was on Meredith's bra clasp. The
circumstances surrounding the collection of the bra clasp are highly suspect.
The prosecution initially claimed footprints in Meredith's room matched
Raffaele's shoes. Raffaele's family proved this was not the case. It is highly
suspect the bra clasp conveniently turns up six weeks later when a piece of
evidence collapses. The conduct of the prosecution is highly suspicious. Why
did they only collect the clasp and no other items? Why did the prosecution
make such a big drama of the clasp on video? This makes the claim the DNA on
the bra clasp was planted credible. If the prosecution had a strong case and a
mountain of evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to manufacturing
evidence?
* If the prosecution have a strong case, they
should never have to suppress evidence and will have no problem handing
evidence over.
A prosecution with a weak case will withhold
evidence because the evidence does not support their case.
What happened with Amand and Raffaele: The
prosecution suppressed on a massive scale. Below is just a small example of the
evidence suppressed by the prosecution :-
The prosecution hid the results of early and
decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant,
securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox
(and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense;
The prosecution concealed the initial results
for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife
(Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the
results of suspicious do over tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from
the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were do overs
• The prosecution concealed that the kitchen
knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results
have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe
contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide;
The prosecution has withheld the results from a
massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory
profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs;
The prosecution has hidden all of the records
of the DNA amplification process the most likely place for laboratory
contamination to have occurred.
The website Amandaknoxcase.com gives full
details of the evidence suppressed by the prosecution. Why did the prosecution
have to engage in the massive suppression of evidence if they had a strong
case?
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 40,914
I'm not going to get into this in depth as it is off topic. But the Internet and the world is full of this nonense. People without a clue pontificating about subjects they know little about.How many people before 911 have seen a building demolished by 2 airliners being smashed into them? I hadn't. Yet I had seen many controlled demolitions. With no expertise a day only one type of frame of reference, morons who think their own hot air is valuable start running their mouths. A judge should no better,
So you're quoting newspapers as well.
There is no way that in a case involving people's lives that any sane court would not allow the defence to complete arguments. If they did this would be a basic Italian Constitutional Law contravention.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
We had a case here where the appeal court invited the defence to present their brief less briefly, and IIRC it went into a second day. Tragicly the appeal ended up being denied and both conviction and sentence were upheld.
Why would anyone want to handcuff an appeals court to a predetermined set-time? Oh yes, justixe never was high on some folks' list.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
It's not irrational prejudice to say that someone who believes in ludicrous conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence to support them is a nut-job. Just common sense.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Allow me to assist you then:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/truther
You're welcome.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You'd be wrong, as anything that is signficantly over the time limit can be read by the judges in their chambers, which happens all the time.
Avv Bongiorno was monstrously over the time limit, causing prejudice to the other appellants.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry? Did you not see the bit that reads: [USUALLY WITH MODIFIER] US informal.
Pleasure.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Would that apply to people who believe in a mass conspiracy including cops, investigators, roommates, the British friends, the pathologist, the prosecutor, the forensic guys, the eye witnesses, the press, Matteini, Micheli, Massei, Nencini, Chieffi and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
Would such a person be defined as a "nut job"?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You have evaded the point. I said all the other barristers were given twenty minutes and you leapt in and said this was false.
The GUARDIAN proves it is not.
Don't try to change the context.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Mike you have acknowledged you aren't knowledgeable about Italian law. You make pronouncements based on nothing and when confronted with a report from a newspaper you demean it without providing anything but your own lack of knowledge to challenge.
It is customary here for the courts of appeal and the Supreme Courts to limit time.
The Guardian proves nothing. Twenty minutes of argument by each party is so absurdly incorrect that it begs belief that a newspaper would print such nonsense.
Do you know that every newspaper carries a column dedicated to apologising for erroneous reporting.
It happens all the time.
As they say. The proof of the.....
....took longer than twenty minutes.
No court should limit time to the detriment of justice (filibustering aside). It is customary for cases to exceed expected time frames which is why adjournments are common.
The AK/RS Appeal was set down for one day. There is a lot of twenty minutes in one day.
Rebuttal?
It went on for two days which suggests whatever time frames were targeted were not met.
And that is common.
You are correct that I am not an expert in Italian Law, however common sense tells me that if a time frame of 20 minutes was expected it was a inadequate and the fact that the limit was exceeded says a lot about how set in stone this limit was.
It is common for judges to ask the attorneys how much time they require and it is common for that time to be exceeded.
If you need a definitive answer perhaps someone with more time on their hands than I have (npi) can point to the relevant Italian Legal Code which allows courts of appeal to put stop watches on appellants.
Last edited:
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
You know not of what you speak.
Here is a snip from Wiki on how the US Supreme Court operates:
Oral arguments[edit]
Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.
Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.
Obviously they may extend the time but your contention of how it works is wrong. Time limits are also customary at the appellate level.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
If you can point to someone who believes that I'd be interested to see.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
It's in the Oxford English Dictionary. You can now use it with impunity.
You're welcome.
- Status