Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Annella
Thanks SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much for providing this.
How did you find it????????????

It does not show up on any Google searches of "Amanda Knox"

In a post on IIP, european neighbor pointed out the article about the MR.

The Umbria24 article dated 9 April 2016 is (original Italian text) at:

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-amanda- ... 95482.html

 

[Planigale]

We can tell it's not menstrual, because Stefanoni said it wasn't.

The Rome Scientific Police, the Forensic team, have a better handle on the facts than you.

They found plenty of DNA and luminol evidence that places the kids at the scene. Each party was mandated to witness them doing all of their tests.

So you fancy yourself as a Barry Scheck-style defense attorney casting doubt from your armchair, hoping to get the near-certain killers off "on a technicality". In this perverse upside down world, it's the police on trial, the prosecutor the criminal and the killers the saints, because they were clever enough to delay discovery of the body - and hence finding key evidence - for as long as possible, and to contaminate the scene in so doing.

So again you resort to ad hominem comments you are in danger of falling foul of the mods. Stop making comments about me. If you have evidence about the finger bruises then reference it. You will not because you cannot. This is just something you (or someone else) made up. Note I do not cause Steffanoni of making this up. The problem is you have a track record of presenting falsities as facts. I warned you the consequence is that people will disbelieve what you say if you constantly present untruths.

Yes they found evidence of Knox being in the placed she lived!

Witnessing the tests does not mean they have to accept the methodology or results. They are there to witness the test being done. They do not have the right to correct Steffanoni if she does the test wrong. The reality is with modern scientific methods and electronic records this witnessing is a waste of time and for defendants a huge cost in that they need get an expert to sit there watching a machine go bleep. It is poor for the investigation if tests need to be deferred until defence experts are present. The prosecution effectively need to decide who is a suspect before they can carry out forensic testing.

 

[Numbers]

In a post on IIP, european neighbor pointed out the article about the MR.

The Umbria24 article dated 9 April 2016 is (original Italian text) at:

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-amanda- ... 95482.html

Here is the Google translation to English of a key paragraph of the article.

It appears that this is a news report on the MR just published by the first-instance trial court that acquitted Amanda of the charge of calunnia against the police. Here is a Google translation of one paragraph:

Rights denied writes the judge Giampaolo Boninsegna in the written judgment: "In a professional environment like that probably has not realized that the only required careful approach towards Knox, indeed, imposed, should be to inform the suspect of its rights of defense, declared inviolable, not surprisingly, by our Constitution. This is for the obvious reason that the school and it was the subject that was to be placed in a position to defend their personal freedom against the authoritative power of the state ". Again: "The personal dignity and the fundamental rights of a person in the presence of authority that proceeds against him should be protected precisely in order to prevent abuses of authority itself, perhaps with oblique and surreptitious manner. And 'this fact the purpose and spirit of the applicable procedural rules, right from the start of the investigation. Unfriendly treatment, loving and maternal, therefore, were due or allowed, but only respect for instrumental rights of defense. It was required only compliance with the rules that govern the investigation, but those limits were exceeded resulting in contamination of the procedures that led to their disability. "

The MR as reported appears to offer strong support to Amanda's case against Italy before the ECHR. "Rights denied" is critical.

 

[Agatha]

A handful of posts have been removed from this thread for various breaches of rule 0, rule 11 and rule 12. Will all participants in the thread remember to remain civil and polite, to stay on-topic and to address the arguers rather than attack the arguer. For the avoidance of doubt, further breaches following this modbox will attract harsher mod action, which may include further moves to AAH, yellow cards and suspensions.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Planigale]

It's common knowledge police found bottles of bleach and buckets of used latex gloves and rags. It is also well-known about the finger marks found on Mez' lower face.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

These are the latex gloves left by the police when searching Sollecito's and casually thrown in his bin? The latex gloves that Mignini never presented in evidence.

The rags (not presented in evidence), that contained no evidence of blood no DNA of the victim? So what is the relevance, that Sollecito was a bit OCD?

So Sollecito had a full and nearly full bottles of bleach - pretty much evidence that not much bleach had been used. But perhaps used to bleach Sollecito's shoes another allegation you have made that you have never provided any evidence to back up. Another thing never presented in court. The finger marks may be well known that is certainly no evidence of veracity. Lots of people believe in ghosts you try arguing that means ghosts are real. Lots of people believe in the twin towers being blown up by the US government, does not make it true.

 

[analemma]

In a post on IIP, european neighbor pointed out the article about the MR.

The Umbria24 article dated 9 April 2016 is (original Italian text) at:

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-amanda- ... 95482.html

"IIP"?
Sorry

 

[analemma]

There is a link off of the slander article where raffaele says it cost 1.3 million euros to defend against prosecution.
I do not know if anyone posted this

 

[NotEvenWrong]

If the police walked into a scene of a murder and there was a broken window and clothes thrown around the break-in room with glass on top it is certainly an indication the glass was broken after the clothes were thrown on the floor and would make them think the burglary was staged. Add to that the 911 call in which Raf said nothing was taken which he couldn't know (and yes turned out to be wrong) would make it seem even more suspicious.

The burglary at the lawyers' office was similar but according to early PGP comments the kids probably read about it in the paper

I doubt F left the floor covered with clothes and she didn't say that at first and change her story as she did with the shutters.

Not saying there wasn't reason to be "suspicious". But you need to corroborate your suspicions with other evidence. Like when the forensic evidences comes back and lights up "Rudy Guede" but nothing of Amanda and Raf, it's probably time to rethink your suspicions. Or double down, if you are crazy, the Italian police, or Vixen.

As for whether F left the floor covered in clothes, I have no idea. I think her testimony was that there was glass on top of clothes. She didn't say whether or not she had laundry on the floor. It was the prosecution that made the leap that they must have been put away so it implies a staged break in. Did Filomena explicitly say "My clothes were 100% put away before I last left my room"? People leave small amounts of clothes/laundry on the floor all the time. It's not like it is unusual.

Plus, see here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

Particularly #6 and the photos. It's not like the room was completely covered in clothes. There were a small number of items of clothing here and there. Looks like a messy college student's room to me. Why would Rudy lay socks out on the bed? Better yet, why would Raf and Amanda if they were trying to stage a break in?

Granted, the Italian law enforcement do not seem to be prone to making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and running with it. But perhaps this is the rare exception for them?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Burglars know what they are after. They aim to be in and out of a property as fast as possible. Professional means, effective, efficient and fast.

No. Professional means you do it for a living. Some people suck at their jobs. Rudy took a dump while burgling. He sucked at his job. He also had no idea what he was looking for because he had never been there before.

Therefore, a true burglar will systematically pull out all the drawers looking for hidden assets, they will look in the back of wardrobes, the top of wardrobes and in suitcases.

Ah yes. The "no true burglar" fallacy.

Seriously though. You have no idea what you are talking about. Rudy was quite clearly not a very clean or efficient burglar. He just got caught two weeks before. And at least one other report of him pulling a knife during a burglary. Oh and the nursery. Yeah that Rudy. Professional burglar. They should make an Ocean's 14 movie where Rudy breaks into a casino and gets caught because they find him taking a dump in the middle of the heist.

 

[Bill Williams]

Turns out it was a HUGE mistake for the PLE to charge Knox with calunnia over the interrogation slap. Now that the motivations report is out, there's a building "judicial truth" about the true nature of that interrogation!!!

Hoots! How many have the PLE/Mignini lost in a row since March 25, 2015? Censured by his peers (Mignini), didn't bring an Italian-translation of Sollecito's so-called offending words into the Italian court, the defamation against Knox's parents nowhere to be seen - convictions annulled.....

But the PGP get to celebrate some things. Rudy Guede gets a free pass on RAI3(complete with violin music), and there's now a concerted effort to exonerate him. That must make Mignini happy. All for Meredith.

But the acquittal on the calunnia for the claimed interrogation-slap. Hoots! I've been one who has doubted Numbers on his optimism that the ECHR will right the wrongs remaining.... but an acquittal (and the words of the motivations report!!!) will go along way to vindicating Numbers.

 

[Stacyhs]

We can tell it's not menstrual, because Stefanoni said it wasn't.The Rome Scientific Police, the Forensic team, have a better handle on the facts than you.

They found plenty of DNA and luminol evidence that places the kids at the scene.

Each party was mandated to witness them doing all of their tests.

So you fancy yourself as a Barry Scheck-style defense attorney casting doubt from your armchair, hoping to get the near-certain killers off "on a technicality". In this perverse upside down world, it's the police on trial, the prosecutor the criminal and the killers the saints, because they were clever enough to delay discovery of the body - and hence finding key evidence - for as long as possible, and to contaminate the scene in so doing.

I just did a word search for "mestruale" in Stefanoni's original Italian testimony transcript. No results.

IF she testified it wasn't menstrual blood in the bidet, please provide the quote and link to this testimony.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, yesterday I asked you to quote and cite where Raff's defense expert said "the radials on the print were too indistinguishable" in regard to the alleged size 37 female shoeprint on the pillowcase.

You have not done so. Why is that?

 

[Planigale]

Vixen, yesterday I asked you to quote and cite where Raff's defense expert said "the radials on the print were too indistinguishable" in regard to the alleged size 37 female shoeprint on the pillowcase.

You have not done so. Why is that?

So three claims of Vixen's that need verifying.
1) That one or more forensic pathologists claimed the finger print bruises on the victim's face were those of a female.
2) That Steffanoni tested the blood stain in the bidet and excluded the blood as having been the result of a period. (Ideally I would like to know the test methodology)
3) The defence expert opinion re the alleged size 37 shoe print?

I am sure that the number of people tweeting and posting on this case will assist Vixen if (s)he cannot mange it.

 

[LondonJohn]

So three claims of Vixen's that need verifying.
1) That one or more forensic pathologists claimed the finger print bruises on the victim's face were those of a female.
2) That Steffanoni tested the blood stain in the bidet and excluded the blood as having been the result of a period. (Ideally I would like to know the test methodology)
3) The defence expert opinion re the alleged size 37 shoe print?

I am sure that the number of people tweeting and posting on this case will assist Vixen if (s)he cannot mange it.

There's also the alleged cite in an academic paper "proving" that 530.2 is equivalent to "not proven" rather than "not guilty" - but that's a rather semantic point in relation to the ones above. Still, I'd like to see the cite

 

[Annella]

There's also the alleged cite in an academic paper "proving" that 530.2 is equivalent to "not proven" rather than "not guilty" - but that's a rather semantic point in relation to the ones above. Still, I'd like to see the cite

Hell is likely to freeze over waiting for replies to you and Planigale. Mind you, past year we have seen Vixen pluck from thin air, fabricate and fantasise so I guess one of those will feature in any reply. But I WILL keep a fleecy jumper/sweater nearby. Just in case.

 

[Numbers]

There's also the alleged cite in an academic paper "proving" that 530.2 is equivalent to "not proven" rather than "not guilty" - but that's a rather semantic point in relation to the ones above. Still, I'd like to see the cite

There is in reality no difference in legal consequences for a "not proven" compared to "not guilty" verdict in Scotland. There apparently has been a difference in perception, which may be of concern to Scottish legislators and/or legal experts. There is, according to the following BBC article, a discussion in the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee to eliminate the "not proven" verdict.

See: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35527022

 

[Planigale]

Hell is likely to freeze over waiting for replies to you and Planigale. Mind you, past year we have seen Vixen pluck from thin air, fabricate and fantasise so I guess one of those will feature in any reply. But I WILL keep a fleecy jumper/sweater nearby. Just in case.

So are in Hell on a visit or are you a resident? Certainly exciting for ISF to have someone who can directly report from the supernatural zones!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Vixen, yesterday I asked you to quote and cite where Raff's defense expert said "the radials on the print were too indistinguishable" in regard to the alleged size 37 female shoeprint on the pillowcase.

You have not done so. Why is that?

It is because Vixen's sources are the tabloids circa 2007-2008, TJMK, PMF, and the twitter accounts associated with the core posters there.

You see, most people's brain functions in such a way that if their sources are continually wrong about things, then the reliability and trustworthiness of the source diminishes. So the mind realizes that the quality of material from those sources is extremely low, incorrect, and should not be repeated as fact.

However, there is a tiny subset of the population whose brain does not work this way. They are often known as "9/11 Truthers", "moon landing denialists", "holocaust denialists", "big foot hunters", etc. The list goes on. What happens with these kinds of people is when evidence proving their sources wrong (even from world leading experts) this new source of information will become part of the conspiracy. You will notice that as new information becomes available or new experts come out, there is always an unlimited amount of funds/resources available for these new experts to be "paid off". Usually they will allude to some secret meeting or hand shake as proof. The part of the brain that functions to evaluate evidence and update beliefs is either broken or entirely missing. Their mind just doesn't work like that.

Usually these people will be hesitant to supply sources for their "facts", because they are the same sources that have been proven incorrect and unreliable hundreds of times previously. Providing the same source again makes them look crazy, and they don't want to look crazy, even if in their mind they are the only ones who know the "truth".

 

[Bill Williams]

Hell is likely to freeze over waiting for replies to you and Planigale. Mind you, past year we have seen Vixen pluck from thin air, fabricate and fantasise so I guess one of those will feature in any reply. But I WILL keep a fleecy jumper/sweater nearby. Just in case.

So are in Hell on a visit or are you a resident? Certainly exciting for ISF to have someone who can directly report from the supernatural zones!

This past year has been quite the "meta-Vixen" experience. Vixen has virtually retried the case using tired, old and now long-since discredited "evidence" - a case which thankfully ended in the annulling of convictions more than 12 months ago.

This past year of Vixen's posts have not just been a review of evidence against the pair.... it's been a review of the claim of evidence against the pair, mostly assertions without proof. Just like resulted (incredibly) in two lower court convictions, both convictions without proof, really. (Convictions based on judicial truths generated elsewhere!)

But here's the deal. When cites HAVE been given this past year, we're given pointers to information that either says no such thing or actually disproves the assertion Vixen had been making. (Cf. the pictures of the bars on the windows below Filomena's window, all to prove that the bars were not there!)

This is the meta-Vixen experience and a year-long primer on why this case had always been riddled with errors and incompetent investigation. Recently, the Italian justice-system HAS been holding the original PLE/Mignini to account - cf. Knox's acquittal for calunnia for claiming a slap at interrogation and Mignini's censure from his own peers.

 

[Bill Williams]

There's also the alleged cite in an academic paper "proving" that 530.2 is equivalent to "not proven" rather than "not guilty" - but that's a rather semantic point in relation to the ones above. Still, I'd like to see the cite

There is in reality no difference in legal consequences for a "not proven" compared to "not guilty" verdict in Scotland. There apparently has been a difference in perception, which may be of concern to Scottish legislators and/or legal experts. There is, according to the following BBC article, a discussion in the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee to eliminate the "not proven" verdict.

See: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35527022

This is the guilters' last stand.

The claim (first) that Paragraph 2 of the section is similar to Scotland's "not proven", and (second) that legally speaking the Italian courts decided that Knox and Sollecito were "almost but not quite guilty".

The Achilles Heel of this reasoning?

Even if this were a Scottish case - which it isn't - even in Scotland there is no difference in legal consequence between not guilty and not proven, not to mention the claim that this means the accused are completely innocent; as they entered the courtroom deemed.

People mistakenly think that the courts are motivated by perception. Indeed there are perhaps many levels of "signalling" going on here between judges. Books will be written about that, and this thread will make it to 35 continuations no doubt because of "perception" and the eye of the beholder.

But these things remain - Italy is not Scotland, Paragraph 2 in Italy covers everything from completely-bald-face-innocent to getting-off-by-a-whisker-of-reasonable-doubt.

Two ways of telling where any one case lies on that spectrum is to:

1) read the motivations report
2) watch subsequent legal actions​

On both those counts, it does not look good for the original PLE/Mignini types.