Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

from giovinazzoviva.it

http://www.giovinazzoviva.it/notizie/l-ultima-volta-in-questura-di-raffaele-sollecito/

Notice the lack of reporting that Raffaele had been at the cottage that night. Does giovinazzoviva.it believe Rudy Guede and a handful of English language guilters? Does giovinazzoviva.it believe the decision to acquit a year ago was definitive or simply a dropping of the charges?

Via Google translate:

"I fight to make it clear that the injustice that has happened to me can happen to anyone."

Well said, Raffaele. None of us are safe while the police and courts can get away with this kind of nonsense.

 

[LondonJohn]

It will do no good for Vixen to read this - Vixen will just keep on keeping on with the nonsense.

This is what Bruno/Marasca say about the status of Nencini's conviction. No matter, Vixen rarely reads prior to Section 9.4, or anything after Section ten of their report.

​

There's really no point in trying to counter an ARGUMENT that is illogical, zealous, deliberately misrepresentative, ignorant and plain wrong in so many ways. It's a bit like trying to counter any argument for religious dogma made by a True Believer - facts and evidence go out of the window in favour of a toxic mixture of fantasy, lies and fiction. Any attempt to present evidence-based reasoning will invariably and inevitably be met with more of the same illogical, ignorant, incorrect fantasy and invention. It's a fundamental component of any such "argument".

In this specific instance, the evidence is a clear as day that Marasca's SC panel annulled the verdicts of Nencini and (by direct extension) Massei - and this therefore by definition also means that Marasca's ruling effectively rendered the motivation reports of Nencini and Massei (reports which, remember, were nothing more than a written reason as to how and why these courts had reached their now-annulled verdicts) null in law - IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS CHIEFFI'S VERDICT RENDERED HELLMANN'S VERDICT AND REPORT NULL.

Regrettably, this plain and simple truth is inarguable in an environment in which it's possible to argue that black is white. So it's not really worth even bothering. The truth is clear, and the evidence is clear - that's actually all that really matters.

 

[acbytesla]

There's really no point in trying to counter an ARGUMENT that is illogical, zealous, deliberately misrepresentative, ignorant and plain wrong in so many ways. It's a bit like trying to counter any argument for religious dogma made by a True Believer - facts and evidence go out of the window in favour of a toxic mixture of fantasy, lies and fiction. Any attempt to present evidence-based reasoning will invariably and inevitably be met with more of the same illogical, ignorant, incorrect fantasy and invention. It's a fundamental component of any such "argument".

In this specific instance, the evidence is a clear as day that Marasca's SC panel annulled the verdicts of Nencini and (by direct extension) Massei - and this therefore by definition also means that Marasca's ruling effectively rendered the motivation reports of Nencini and Massei (reports which, remember, were nothing more than a written reason as to how and why these courts had reached their now-annulled verdicts) null in law - IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS CHIEFFI'S VERDICT RENDERED HELLMANN'S VERDICT AND REPORT NULL.

Regrettably, this plain and simple truth is inarguable in an environment in which it's possible to argue that black is white. So it's not really worth even bothering. The truth is clear, and the evidence is clear - that's actually all that really matters.

The arguments that a certain poster bombards this forum with are jokes. They are an avalanche of repeatedly proven fabrications, out of context legalese, logically absurd and scientifically moronic nonsense.

When I read them , I can't help but remember this interchange in one of my favorite movies. It just happens to be a British movie.

Wanda: [after Otto breaks in on Wanda and Archie in Archie's flat and hangs him out the window]
I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I'm setting up a guy who's incredibly important to us, who's going to tell me where the loot is and if they're going to come and arrest you. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?
Otto West: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

 

[query grind]

There's really no point in trying to counter an ARGUMENT that is illogical, zealous, deliberately misrepresentative, ignorant and plain wrong in so many ways. .

You would think, but that won't stop you doing it, obsessively.

 

[Antony]

No. Bruno-Marasca's court- unlike the bent Hellmann court - pointedly did NOT declare them innocent or exonerated, at all. It merely dropped the charges under a different rubric of "insufficient evidence".

There is no such distinction. The reality is that Marasca/Bruno agreed with Hellmann on all practical points.

The key point is that after Conti/Vecchiotti, the prosecution case was destroyed totally and "Not Guilty" was the only possible verdict from that time going forward. Hellmann acquitted legally but his verdict was struck out on spurious grounds.

Nencini illegally ignored the evidence, and Marasca's ISC slapped him down and reversed his verdict on the basis of facts established in Hellmann's court. Your claim that Nencini enjoys a status that Hellmann does not is outright falsehood.

In addition, it doesn't have the jurisdiction to overturn nor criticise Chieffi's court or written reasons.

Yes, and the rulings have to be interpreted in this context. It's not possible for you to claim that Marasca agreed with Chieffi about Hellmann's verdict, because that question was not on the table. Marasca was addressing Nencini's verdict on its own, and made the strongest ruling against him that was possible.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is the suggestion that Nencini actually came up with the report / ruling he did as a farce . . . . .Basically in such a manner that it could not be taken seriously.

 

[LondonJohn]

You would think, but that won't stop you doing it, obsessively.

Not sure I'd agree with "obsessively". But thank you for your valuable contribution nonetheless

 

[Grinder]

Anybody have the link to the testimony of the cops in their defamation trial against Amanda they lost recently. Only asking to spare me searching if someone has it handy. IIRC in it they denied Raf turned on Amanda before she "confessed" or they didn't tell her. Anyway I'd like to review it. Thanks

 

[Bill Williams]

Anybody have the link to the testimony of the cops in their defamation trial against Amanda they lost recently. Only asking to spare me searching if someone has it handy. IIRC in it they denied Raf turned on Amanda before she "confessed" or they didn't tell her. Anyway I'd like to review it. Thanks

Where did this report of the cops' testimony come from?

If even remotely true, prepared to be staggered once again for yet another version from the PLE of what happened that night.

Any word on whether or not those cops are preparing a document to go to the mandatory appeals' level trial?

 

[query grind]

Where did this report of the cops' testimony come from?

If even remotely true, prepared to be staggered once again for yet another version from the PLE of what happened that night.

Any word on whether or not those cops are preparing a document to go to the mandatory appeals' level trial?

Are you unable to let anything go by without pointless bloviating?

Grinder:
As far as it goes there is no testimony, there was a series of tweets from Mach. You can review them here
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php..._in_florence_court_today_by_some_falsely_acc/
The one you recall is this

9. Zugarini said, as for her knowledge, Knox was not told that Sollecito withdrew her alibi.

It only speaks to Zugarini's personal knowledge. Rita Ficarra gave her testimony this time in closed court. As I recall she was clear previously that Knox was told Sollecito had withdrawn his alibi (whether or not he had - after her release from prison Knox gave an interview that implied Sollecito told her that the police had lied on this point. However, this being Sollecito, he lacks the testicles to come out and say it openly. So he may be telling Knox privately one thing and telling everyone else something else).

However, you will need to check Ficarra's 2009 testimony to see if my recollection is correct.

 

[acbytesla]

Are you unable to let anything go by without pointless bloviating?

Grinder:
As far as it goes there is no testimony, there was a series of tweets from Mach. You can review them here
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php..._in_florence_court_today_by_some_falsely_acc/
The one you recall is this

It only speaks to Zugarini's personal knowledge. Rita Ficarra gave her testimony this time in closed court. As I recall she was clear previously that Knox was told Sollecito had withdrawn his alibi (whether or not he had - after her release from prison Knox gave an interview that implied Sollecito told her that the police had lied on this point. However, this being Sollecito, he lacks the testicles to come out and say it openly. So he may be telling Knox privately one thing and telling everyone else something else).

However, you will need to check Ficarra's 2009 testimony to see if my recollection is correct.

Or the cops could be lying. Talk about people without testicles.

 

[query grind]

Or the cops could be lying. Talk about people without testicles.

Well that's the point. Sollecito tells Knox privately that the cops were lying (if I understand her interview correctly).

But he is not man enough to come out and say it in public. It is known as hearsay evidence.

I would be more than willing to believe the cops lied about him withdrawing her alibi, but only Sollecito knows whether that is true or not and he has made no public comment.

Speaking of Italian gutlessness in general. Why do none of the Italian media interviews ask Sollecito to clarify what all those interviews he did leading up to 25 March 2015 regarding Knox whereabouts meant.
Does he only agree to give interviews provided those questions are not asked, or is it an Italian cultural assumption that men should try and throw former girlfriends under the bus if the occasion arises?

 

[acbytesla]

Well that's the point. Sollecito tells Knox privately that the cops were lying (if I understand her interview correctly).

But he is not man enough to come out and say it in public. It is known as hearsay evidence.

I would be more than willing to believe the cops lied about him withdrawing her alibi, but only Sollecito knows whether that is true or not and he has made no public comment.

Speaking of Italian gutlessness in general. Why do none of the Italian media interviews ask Sollecito to clarify what all those interviews he did leading up to 25 March 2015 regarding Knox whereabouts meant.
Does he only agree to give interviews provided those questions are not asked, or is it an Italian cultural assumption that men should try and throw former girlfriends under the bus if the occasion arises?

Well considering we are talking Italy with their callunia laws and Raffaele's recent unjust incarceration for 4 years, one can hardly blame him. Certainly puts a damper on free speech.

 

[query grind]

Well considering we are talking Italy with their callunia laws and Raffaele's recent unjust incarceration for 4 years, one can hardly blame him. Certainly puts a damper on free speech.

That feeble excuse being trotted out again?

All you have to do is not accuse anyone of lying.

Something like: "My recollection of that evening is I did not agree Knox had left the apartment until shortly before 03:30 am when I signed the statement after being shown the statement Knox had signed placing herself at the crime scene."

No one can be sued for giving their recollection.

 

[Mr Fied]

That feeble excuse being trotted out again?

All you have to do is not accuse anyone of lying.

Something like: "My recollection of that evening is I did not agree Knox had left the apartment until shortly before 03:30 am when I signed the statement after being shown the statement Knox had signed placing herself at the crime scene."

No one can be sued for giving their recollection.

What if someone recalls being struck by a police officer during interrogation?

 

[Grinder]

Here is Ficarro's testimony - shockingly vague about what officer told her what and even here she doesn't say he removed the alibi. Once again, no transcript just a memory. Too bad she didn't have a translator to help her remember

FICARRA: She was calm. She was calm because we had had a calm conversation. I said, Seeing as you
came, that no one called you here, and you’re giving me information, let’s write it down in the correct
way, because there could be details that are very important for us. She understood and she was calm.
She said, Yes, yes, OK. Let’s wait for the interpreter so that we avoid misunderstandings. And that’s what
we did. The problem was that at a certain point a colleague of the SCO, who was there where they were
hearing Raffaele Sollecito and then came substitute commissioner Monica Napoleoni who said that
Raffaele had said different things, that he practically took away Amanda’s alibi and so to ask Amanda, seeing as we were writing a deposition, we asked what she had done in particular that night, that is, to
focus on what she did that evening. What interested us was the hour more or less preceding…
…..........................
FICARRA: So they told me there were contradictions and that I should ask about those contradictions. In
the moment that she was heard I asked her to show us her phone to verify if in the memory there were
messages that referred to appointments that night and we were able to see, me and the other
colleagues present, looking through her cell phone that she gave us willingly that there were various
messages from the days prior to the 1st, also from the 31st there were messages with the victim and
they were supposed to meet somehow or that they had organized an appointment to see each other
later, but then there weren’t others.
…..........................
FICARRA: “Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata”. It was the only message from that night and we
asked who was this Patrick. This seemed to us an appointment, we’ll see each other later, sure, in
response to the other. We didn’t find messages received at that time, so we didn’t find the message that
she was responding to. We only found the one sent by her. In that moment we gave her the phone in
hand and we asked her who was this person, so she left later on or not? She gave the name Patrick
Lumumba and gave the deposition that then…

I didn't see where Ficarro told Amanda. This seems a creation of the PGP.

 

[Desert Fox]

Look what Amanda was tried for? She was tried for accusing the police of threatening her under police interrogation. In addition, she was convicted of accusing Patrick of being there in a "confession" which everybody with half a brain knows was something police driven.

I am sure all of that would be pretty chilling to free speech.

 

[Bill Williams]

Speaking of Italian gutlessness in general. Why do none of the Italian media interviews ask Sollecito to clarify what all those interviews he did leading up to 25 March 2015 regarding Knox whereabouts meant.
Does he only agree to give interviews provided those questions are not asked, or is it an Italian cultural assumption that men should try and throw former girlfriends under the bus if the occasion arises?

Well considering we are talking Italy with their callunia laws and Raffaele's recent unjust incarceration for 4 years, one can hardly blame him. Certainly puts a damper on free speech.

The non-conspiratorial answer to this question is that people who can read Italian actually read Sollecito's appeal document to the final ISC panel. No one was throwing anyone under any sort of public transport; Bongiorno had fashioned a compelling argument......

There's this body of evidence the prosecutors and lower judges claim convict Amanda. Perhaps we can argue that point until the cows come home.

The news conference and especially the appeals document were clear; except for those who want to keep asking unanswerable questions - if that's what you have to convict Amanda, what's that got to do with Raffaele?

Repeat that question. If that's what you have to convict Amanda, what's that got to do with Raffaele?

It's perhaps the one thing that the Marasca/Bruno panel had to spend the extra two days asking themselves. Anyone who is serious at looking at it this way realizes three things:

1) Absent "all the other evidence" which lower courts claimed convicted Amanda - precious little (if any) has anything to do with Raffaele.

2) Taking away that stuff from Raffaele means that he cannot be convicted.

3) If Raffaele cannot be convicted, then what's remaining to convict Amanda? A fight over pooh in the toilet (Crini) or a fight over rent money (Nencini) that no one else in all of creation ever knew about except Rudy Guede?​

In short, Raffaele threw no one under any bus. But you can bet that will be repeated with no evidence given. Well, there's negative evidence give above, which claims that silence on the matter means something other than that it's a non issue.

 

[acbytesla]

That feeble excuse being trotted out again?

All you have to do is not accuse anyone of lying.

Something like: "My recollection of that evening is I did not agree Knox had left the apartment until shortly before 03:30 am when I signed the statement after being shown the statement Knox had signed placing herself at the crime scene."

No one can be sued for giving their recollection.

Excuse me. But he has said precisely that. He just cannot account for any time which he was not awake.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here is Ficarro's testimony - shockingly vague about what officer told her what and even here she doesn't say he removed the alibi. Once again, no transcript just a memory. Too bad she didn't have a translator to help her remember

FICARRA: She was calm. She was calm because we had had a calm conversation. I said, Seeing as you
came, that no one called you here, and you’re giving me information, let’s write it down in the correct
way, because there could be details that are very important for us. She understood and she was calm.
She said, Yes, yes, OK. Let’s wait for the interpreter so that we avoid misunderstandings. And that’s what
we did. The problem was that at a certain point a colleague of the SCO, who was there where they were
hearing Raffaele Sollecito and then came substitute commissioner Monica Napoleoni who said that
Raffaele had said different things, that he practically took away Amanda’s alibi and so to ask Amanda, seeing as we were writing a deposition, we asked what she had done in particular that night, that is, to
focus on what she did that evening. What interested us was the hour more or less preceding…
…..........................
FICARRA: So they told me there were contradictions and that I should ask about those contradictions. In
the moment that she was heard I asked her to show us her phone to verify if in the memory there were
messages that referred to appointments that night and we were able to see, me and the other
colleagues present, looking through her cell phone that she gave us willingly that there were various
messages from the days prior to the 1st, also from the 31st there were messages with the victim and
they were supposed to meet somehow or that they had organized an appointment to see each other
later, but then there weren’t others.
…..........................
FICARRA: “Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata”. It was the only message from that night and we
asked who was this Patrick. This seemed to us an appointment, we’ll see each other later, sure, in
response to the other. We didn’t find messages received at that time, so we didn’t find the message that
she was responding to. We only found the one sent by her. In that moment we gave her the phone in
hand and we asked her who was this person, so she left later on or not? She gave the name Patrick
Lumumba and gave the deposition that then…

I didn't see where Ficarro told Amanda. This seems a creation of the PGP.

Wow. Where'd you get this?

Ficarra says Amanda was calm? Anna Donnino, the translator, said that when she arrived the interrogation was in shambles, so much so that Donnino decided to act as if a mediator rather than a translator. (And why wouldn't it be in shambles without a translator? Ficarra thought "See you later" meant that Amanda was conspiring with another to kill someone!!!)

Thanks for this Grinder.