Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NotEvenWrong]

One wonders how long Vixen will continue this malarkey?

Which is a more credible figure? Dr. Mignini or Dr. Gill? LOL!

Take Mignini in isolation for a second. - censured by his peers for violating the rights of an accused. Holy Moley just what does it take **in Italy** to get publicly censured!!!!

Who has ever censured Dr. Gill other than a vocal band of PGP malcontents? Has Gill ever been censured by his peers?

C'mon people, it's not even close. But I got suckered into responding...... which has been the cycle of this thread ever since Vixen arrived to flog some books.

Remember Vixen's early posts in April 2015 when she claimed still to be on the fence on all these issues?

Hoots!

Vixen is just asking questions Bill. She honestly is not sure who is more reliable: the entire field of forensic genetics or a Perugian proseuctor who thinks every crime is a satanic murder rite. It was on Halloween (or, uh.. the day after. But who's keeping track?) after all, so it's pretty close.

I wonder who is buying all these books Vixen is shilling for?

 

[Numbers]

Exactly. This is the very nub of the gist (and the thing which ignorant/biassed pro-guilt commentators are unable/unwilling to apprehend). Guede's SC ruling explicitly and specifically notes two critical factors: 1) Guede's conviction is in no way dependent upon the convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the same crime; and b) The basis of Guede's conviction effectively stands alone of the presence (or absence) of others.

Interestingly, the only way there could have been a clash in this particular case, given the order in which the defendants were tried, would have been if Guede had been convicted first of committing the murder on his own, and if Knox and Sollecito had then also been convicted of the same murder. Given that the SC in Guede's case knew that Knox and Sollecito were also charged and awaiting trial on the same case, it effectively had no choice but to leave every avenue open without being prejudicial.

And on the wider issue of the competence of the SC in this case, the more I think about it, the more I am open-mouthed at the weasel and cowardly ruling of the Chieffi SC panel. The other SC rulings in this case have been fair and just (possibly with the exception of the failure of the SC to insist on a separation of the Lumumba criminal slander trial from the murder trial). It genuinely seems to me that the Chieffi panel read the evidence and trial transcripts, decided that the whole case was a dreadful mess of inconsistencies and contradictions, and then - instead of taking the brave and correct option of throwing the whole rotten case out - decided to throw the ball back the the appeal level to "sort out". And then, of course, Nencini made an almighty balls-up of it, leaving it to a competent and brave SC panel to put its foot down properly.

On this point, I do not fully agree. While the Marasca CSC panel final judgment in the Knox - Sollecito case was correct, there are arguably issues with the others, including the Giordano CSC panel final judgment. And while the bottom-line of the the Marasca panel judgment was correct, the MR not only failed to detail all the judicial misconduct and errors in the case, it included wording - including at least one false statement - in an attempt to forestall a revision trial for Knox if the ECHR issues a final judgment that Italy violated her rights in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba.

 

[Vixen]

Then present that testimony. Somehow, I just don't have a hell of a lot of confidence in your "99% accurate" memory.

The merits court found as a fact that there was more than one knife used and explains it, thus:


Massei states,

On the basis of the indications and explanations given by the various pathologists,
and in consideration of the documentation brought to our attention by the same, this
Court makes the following observation:
169
the set of lesions caused in the submandibular zone labelled by the GIP experts with
the numbers IE-14, IE-15, IE-16, and IE-17 (see photo on page 11 of the GIP experts’
report) reveal a comprehensive injury pattern which is inhomogeneous, making it
difficult to hold that the same knife, used therefore by the same person, could have
produced an injury pattern that does not appear homogeneous and such as to make
it possible to accept that it was used by a single attacker.
With specific regard to the knife indicated as Exhibit 36, its incompatibility with the
right latero-cervical wound can be affirmed in relation to the comparison of the
dimensions of the said wound with same knife, according to what we have already
had the occasion to observe, recalling, on this point, the apparent agreement of the
consultants and experts, an agreement which appears convincing and which is
accepted in light of the unarguable, even geometric as one might say, reasoning
brought to sustain it.
The Court does not believe that this incompatibility is present with regard to the two
wounds in the left latero-cervical, one with a depth of about 8cm, and the other 1.4
cm. We will return later to the latter wound, which appears to have been caused by
the point of the knife which remained almost stuck [impuntatura]. p169

In addition, it is established - from bruises and from the lack of defence wounds - that Mez was forcibly restrained from behind. Further, there was little sign of affray - the chair was in its place, as was a tumbler of water and a pile of postcards home, perched on the edge of the desk. A single attacker would have had to move from behind to the front and to change knives, together with managing to maintain his grip without disturbing the furniture. The posited 'single attacker' had no motive or reason to avoid upsetting the furniture.

The defense pathologist theory, the reason the hyiod bone was broken proves the killer used maximum force, therefore he must have thrust the blade in to its hilt, thus it could not have been the 17.5 cm knife as the hyoid was only 8 cms in.

The argument regarding the broken hyoid bone, holding it to signify the large
amount of violence that was carried out, can be turned on its head to affirm that the
force used was not so very great, so that the impact with the hyoid bone did not
allow the blade to produce a wound as deep as the length of the blade itself.
p171

In other words, argues Massei, the hyoid actually did act as a resistant to the full length of the blade, notwithstanding it being quite a soft bone, nonetheless, it is still difficult to cut with a knife. In addition, it did have faint serration marks compatible with the knife edge.

In relation to the above, the thesis of the incompatibility of the most serious wound
and the knife Exhibit 36 is held to be unacceptable, though this knife is incompatible
with the 4cm-deep wound, as we have seen. Nor does this conclusion contrast with
the circumstances illustrated by Sollecito Defence consultant Professor Vinci in his
report relating to the ‚analyses of the haematic stained shapes discovered on the
mattress cover in Meredith Kercher’s room‛.p172

Massei, the fact-finding court heard the expert forensic testimony of half a dozen pathologists - the defense arguing against the knife found at Raff's and the prosecution for - and upheld that the kitchen knife WAS fully compatible with the wound. In addition, the bruising around the wound was not indicative of the marks of the hilt of a knife, but were compatible with fingernail shaped moons by a hand as could be seen from the digit-sized bruises over Mez' lower face. This is consistent with the theory, the aim of this injurous hand was to forcibly stop Mez from screaming.

 

[Vixen]

To set the record straight, here is the relevant Italian procedural law for the revision trial Rudy Guede is seeking; I believe I have posted some of this information before:

CPP Article 629 Convictions subject to revision

The revision of judgments of conviction or judgments issued under Article 444, paragraph 2 {application of punishment upon request of the accused and prosecutor}, or of final criminal decrees of conviction may be performed at any time and the cases established by law in favour of the convicted person, even if the sentence has already been enforced or is extinguished.

CPP Article 630 Cases of revision

1. Revision may be requested:

a) if the facts underlying the judgment or the criminal decree of conviction are incompatible with the facts established in another final criminal judgment issued by the ordinary judge or a special judge;
....

CPP Article 631 Limitations to revision

Under penalty of inadmissibility of the request, the arguments underlying the request for revision must be such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed under Articles 529, 530 or 531 {that is: Article 529, the prosecution should not have been initiated or continued; 530, the person should have been acquitted under one of the reasons provided by law and listed in the article*; 531, the offense is extinguished (conviction is time-barred by the statute of limitation).

*The criminal act did not occur, the person did not commit the act, the act was not an offense by law, the act was justified under law or the person exempted from punishment, or the person lacked mental capacity.

CPP Article 634 Declaration of inadmissibility

1. If the request is submitted for reasons other than those provided for in Articles 629 and 630 or it is submitted without complying with the provisions of Articles 631, 632, 633 and 641** or the request is proven to be manifestly groundless, the Court of Appeal shall issue an order declaring, also ex officio, its inadmissibility and may sentence the private person who submitted the request to the payment of a sum ranging from EUR 258 to EUR 2,065 to the Treasury of Fines.
....

** Article 631 states that the arguments in the request for revision must be such as to make a case for dismissal under grounds otherwise provided for dismissals, for example, acquittal. Article 632 provides that the request must be brought by the convicted person or that person's next of kin or guardian (or heir if the person is deceased), and/or by the General Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal in the relevant district. Article 633 provides instructions detailing the form and manner of delivery to the Court Clerk of the request. Article 641 provides that a request found inadmissible may only be resubmitted if it is based on different arguments than the one(s) previously found inadmissible.
____

Applying the above to Guede's case, it would appear he has every right to file a request for revision. However, if the Court of Appeal finds that there was no incompatibility between Guede's conviction and the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, his request would be ruled inadmissible and he may be required to pay a fine***; in no case would his prison sentence be altered due to submission of an inadmissible request.

***PGP may wish to consider a fund-raising effort for such eventuality.

The question the Court of Appeal must consider for Guede's case is: Are the facts underlying his final conviction incompatible with the facts established by the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito?

There are several issues relating to this question.

1) There is no assurance, based on the arbitrary court decisions rendered by Italian courts in the Knox - Sollecito case, that the Italian Court of Appeal hearing Guede's revision case would consider this matter objectively.

2) If one assumes an objective evaluation, then the question becomes, which facts are alleged to be incompatible between the two final court judgments, and are they indeed objectively incompatible?

One issue is whether or not Guede's final conviction establishes (even if unfairly or illegally according to Italian law or the European Convention of Human Rights) as a judicial "fact" that he acted together with Knox and Sollecito, or instead that he acted together with persons unnamed.

On the other hand, the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito establishes the judicial fact that they did not participate in the crime, but is (IIRC) silent as to whether or not Guede acted with others.

ETA: Source for the CPP information:
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa (C) 2014 Wolters Kluwer Italia

Thanks for that.

However, it won't be the PGP fundraising. Perverting the course of justice is surely the domain of the PIP, as evidenced by the fanatical rejoicing at the bent verdict by the thoroughly corrupt Hellmann.

If Rudy's conviction is annulled, it will be thanks to the PIP's determination that Mez and her family should be denied justice out of some strange jingoistic reason by virtue of one of the defendants being a US citizen.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here we go again. Vixen repeats these talking points as if they'd never been definitively put to rest by **the evidence**. So once again, as if these points have never before been rebutted........

The merits court found as a fact that there was more than one knife used and explains it, thus:

Yet for the Florence Court in 2013, new prosecutor Crini tried to argue the one-knife theory, saying that the bedsheet blood-stain-outline of a blade was a match for the kitchen knife - when it clearly was not.

The problem is that the bedsheet blood-stain-outline was of the real murder weapon, unfound (and unlooked for). The kitchen knife from Raffaele's had nothing to do with the crime for about 10 good reasons.

In addition, it is established - from bruises and from the lack of defence wounds - that Mez was forcibly restrained from behind. Further, there was little sign of affray - the chair was in its place, as was a tumbler of water and a pile of postcards home, perched on the edge of the desk. A single attacker would have had to move from behind to the front and to change knives, together with managing to maintain his grip without disturbing the furniture. The posited 'single attacker' had no motive or reason to avoid upsetting the furniture.

Yet even Vixen's favourite court of merit, the Massei court, found that multiple attackers had to be established on grounds other than what Vixen mentions.

On the face of it, even Massei agrees that 8 of the nine experts he heard on the matter did not rule out a single attacker. So why does Vixen want to keep this factoid in play 6 years after Massei's motivations report?

Massei, the fact-finding court heard the expert forensic testimony of half a dozen pathologists - the defense arguing against the knife found at Raff's and the prosecution for - and upheld that the kitchen knife WAS fully compatible with the wound. In addition, the bruising around the wound was not indicative of the marks of the hilt of a knife, but were compatible with fingernail shaped moons by a hand as could be seen from the digit-sized bruises over Mez' lower face. This is consistent with the theory, the aim of this injurous hand was to forcibly stop Mez from screaming.

Please read the 2015 Marasca/Bruno report which criticized the convicting courts for confusing "compatibility" with "identity". Under Italian law it is not good enough to convict on compatibility.

However, it is getting tedious for someone to simply bring up all this again as if it had not been definitively set aside years ago. Then again, you have a book to sell.

 

[Vixen]

Certainly not the one who proposed it was a Samhain pagan murder ritual orgy, right? You can't be saying a deranged prosecutor is more credible than the founding father of modern forensic genetics, just because he was the one appointed to the case... are you? You're saying "being there first" makes you more credible than anyone else, no matter how qualified? That can't be what you're saying, Vixen.

I am also pretty sure Gill wasn't paid by anyone. There are some people on the internet with incredibly low intelligence and incredibly high crazy that make things up to smear those who support Knox. I am willing to bet that's what is going on here. Do you have a citation Gill was paid by Raffaele lol?

Yep, Bongiorno used him. We can be sure she offered him her now-famous '€100K cut', as also offered to mafia conman Aviello, and to Albanian wino and drug dealer, Kokomani. Bongiorno does not discriminate.

If your argument of 'being there first' qualifies 'Father of all things Genetic' Gill, then it logically applies to Mignini, as first at the crime scene.

 

[Vixen]

One wonders how long Vixen will continue this malarkey?

Which is a more credible figure? Dr. Mignini or Dr. Gill? LOL!

Take Mignini in isolation for a second. - censured by his peers for violating the rights of an accused. Holy Moley just what does it take **in Italy** to get publicly censured!!!!

Who has ever censured Dr. Gill other than a vocal band of PGP malcontents? Has Gill ever been censured by his peers?

C'mon people, it's not even close. But I got suckered into responding...... which has been the cycle of this thread ever since Vixen arrived to flog some books.

Remember Vixen's early posts in April 2015 when she claimed still to be on the fence on all these issues?

Hoots!

Bill, for all your frantic pirouetting like a latterday Nijinski, you never managed to once convince me 'the kids were framed'. True, there have been one or two occasions, when I entertained the possibility, but there was nothing to sustain the passing illusion. And that's where you fall flat onto your face. Let me give you a helping hand up.

You have to remember you are not comparing like with like. Gill is an airy-fairy academic dreaming about the Imperial Royal Family of Russia and bleeding his heart out at the idea poor murderers are being brought to justice by bully boy Italian pigs and locked up.

Mignini is paid handsomely to clean up the town. He sees murdered bodies every day; suicides, car crashes,, domestic violence. His job is to act for the State to enforce the law. Not got a license, mister? Here's a ticket, see you in court.

Gill is, 'Why shouldn't people drive without a license? I'm going to use all my influence as the Father of Forensic DNA to help you get off.'

Get up, dust yourself down and start all over again.

 

[Bill Williams]

One wonders how long Vixen will continue this malarkey?

Which is a more credible figure? Dr. Mignini or Dr. Gill? LOL!

Take Mignini in isolation for a second. - censured by his peers for violating the rights of an accused. Holy Moley just what does it take **in Italy** to get publicly censured!!!!

Who has ever censured Dr. Gill other than a vocal band of PGP malcontents? Has Gill ever been censured by his peers?

C'mon people, it's not even close. But I got suckered into responding...... which has been the cycle of this thread ever since Vixen arrived to flog some books.

Remember Vixen's early posts in April 2015 when she claimed still to be on the fence on all these issues?

Hoots!

Bill, for all your frantic pirouetting like a latterday Nijinski, you never managed to once convince me 'the kids were framed'. True, there have been one or two occasions, when I entertained the possibility, but there was nothing to sustain the passing illusion. And that's where you fall flat onto your face. Let me give you a helping hand up.
You have to remember you are not comparing like with like. Gill is an airy-fairy academic dreaming about the Imperial Royal Family of Russia and bleeding his heart out at the idea poor murderers are being brought to justice by bully boy Italian pigs and locked up.

Mignini is paid handsomely to clean up the town. He sees murdered bodies every day; suicides, car crashes,, domestic violence. His job is to act for the State to enforce the law. Not got a license, mister? Here's a ticket, see you in court.

Gill is, 'Why shouldn't people drive without a license? I'm going to use all my influence as the Father of Forensic DNA to help you get off.'

Get up, dust yourself down and start all over again.

You put a lot of obvious effort into this.

What you have not done is addressed three issues:

1) I have never once claimed the pair were framed.

2) You ignore that Mignini was censured by his peers.

3) You continue to avoid naming one peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni.​

I had similar ridiculous rhetoric ready to go, but thought I'd start with the obvious stuff you're willfully ignoring.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Yep, Bongiorno used him. We can be sure she offered him her now-famous '€100K cut', as also offered to mafia conman Aviello, and to Albanian wino and drug dealer, Kokomani. Bongiorno does not discriminate.

If your argument of 'being there first' qualifies 'Father of all things Genetic' Gill, then it logically applies to Mignini, as first at the crime scene.

VIXEN!!
I asked for a citation. In my last post, I mentioned there was a small but determined (lots of time on their hands) group of low intelligence, high crazy people that make stuff up about Knox's supporters. You aren't one of them are you?? Where is your citation! Say it ain't so.

Also, I am pretty sure your argument was "being there first" makes Mignini infallible. My argument is that "being there first" doesn't matter. The scientific method matters. Not fantasy fan fiction. Can you at least try to keep an argument straight in your head? Honestly, it's like conversing with a circus monkey.

 

[LondonJohn]

The defense pathologist theory, the reason the hyiod bone was broken proves the killer used maximum force, therefore he must have thrust the blade in to its hilt, thus it could not have been the 17.5 cm knife as the hyoid was only 8 cms in.

Sorry - amidst the latest blizzard of bat guano, I simply couldn't resist highlighting this! Compare and contrast with Vixen's ignorant nonsense from the past 48 hours. You really couldn't make it up. Unless you're Vixen, of course - in which case "making it up" is your stock-in-trade

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for that.

However, it won't be the PGP fundraising. Perverting the course of justice is surely the domain of the PIP, as evidenced by the fanatical rejoicing at the bent verdict by the thoroughly corrupt Hellmann.

If Rudy's conviction is annulled, it will be thanks to the PIP's determination that Mez and her family should be denied justice out of some strange jingoistic reason by virtue of one of the defendants being a US citizen.

Ahhhhhh the old "Hellmann was corrupt" mantra rears its ugly head once again (Not to mention that it's exposing those making such accusations of criminal misconduct to potential civil and even criminal action against themselves.............)

Is the church of God Ergon and ballerina-botherer Quennell really as indoctrinating and mind-controlling as that of Rev Jim Jones? Perhaps we should send a Congress delegation to investigate........

 

[Methos]

Vixen, you seem to be "moving on" rather fast, or is it "retreating" from this part of the conversation regarding the reliability of the "dialogue" in the book "Darkness Descending":

Thank you, very nice written drama in that chapter.

The legal observers met near the police labs in Rome’s Tuscolana Road, not far from Cinecittà, the heart of Italy’s film industry, after the weekend. To keep the pressure on Stefanoni, each defence lawyer appointed a forensic scientist as their specialist consigliere. Amanda’s lawyer Luciano Ghirga had found Italy’s most famous independent expert outside the police, the flamboyant Carlo Torre. The TV-friendly face of Torre, his craggy authority softened by round glasses and long curly hair, was famous in Italy. To bolster the team further, Torre had hired his personal DNA specialist Sara Gino.
The Sollecitos’ lawyer, Luca Maori, the chubby bon viveur of Perugia’s law courts, had roped in equally eminent university professors Vincenzo Pascali and Valter Patumi; he would later hire a DNA expert, Adriano Tagliabracci. A young curly-haired lawyer in smart clothes stood alongside another middle-aged woman with short hair. He was Francesco Maresca, the Florentine lawyer the Kercher family had elected to represent them in the whole legal process.
His expert was Francesca Torricelli of Florence’s genetics institute. Although all the scientists had been invited, only Patumi and Torricelli were present.

The problem is, that it is completely fictional and even self-contradictory.
Long story short, it is quite clear from this document that the people who were there were:
- Lawyers Maori and Benigni for Sollecito + expert Prof. Potenza
- Lawyer Costa for Knox
- Lawyer Pacelli and expert Pascali for Lumumba

No sign of Maresca or Torricelli. It should be noted that only Prof. Potenza stayed until the end of that day...

This is exactly why I have problems with quotes from the books. The scenario above is made up, so why should I think that the authors didn't make up the dialogue as well?

It's interesting that you dismiss Dr. Gill because he didn't testify in court, but love to quote Garofano who also didn't testify in court.

...and the people who contributed to it...

"Darkness Descending" has a publication date of Jan 7th, 2010, "Angel Face" came out on April 6th, 2010, judge Massei's report was published on March, 4th 2010 so I don't think it had any influence on both of the books.

The "thank you's" at the end of "Darkness Descending"(which was also published in Italian) are quite telling...:

A number of people contributed to this book. One journalist in particular, Andrea Vogt. Her accurate reporting was an inspiration. Together with Barbie Nadeau, she provided advice, perspective and humour at times when the intricacies and troubles of the case seemed insurmountable. Barbie and Andrea are the living memory of this extraordinary case. Andrea Vogt writes for the Seattle PI and the Independent, Barbie for Newsweek and The Daily Beast.
Another journalist, Giuseppe Castellini, editor of the Umbrian Journal and his reporters, Antioco Fois and Francesca Bene, eagerly supplied local background and insight non-Perugians would never have had access to otherwise. Their ability to sniff out key pieces of information was remarkable and they willingly put their work at the disposal of the authors of this book.
Nick Pisa, for his prolific and accurate court reporting.
The authors also owe an enormous debt to three barristers: Francesco Maresca, representing the Kerchers, and Valter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile, representing Rudy Guede. They provided insight, material help of every kind and supported the book with documents and information. Their untiring search for the truth has been impressive.
The authors also wish to thank Dr Giuliano Mignini for his friendly and open discussions with the authors, within the bounds set by confidentiality laws. The authors have admired his calm and thoroughness, although do not necessarily agree with the whole case as brought to court.

What an I missing here?

"Darkness Descending" and "Angel Face" were the second generation of "cash in on the case books". Sarzanini's "Amanda e gli altri" and Castellini's "Meredith, Luci e ombre a Perugia" (the one with the DVD containing a 9MB, walkable 3D rendering of the cottage that was advertised as a "3D recreation of the crime") were the first generation, published in January 2009, before the trial had even started.
You might want to forgive even the third generation authors like Follain (who cashed in after the Hellmann verdict and then once again after Chieffi) for filling in the blanks with made ups because they didn't have the information, but with all the primary sources being available since after Nencini's show trial/trial show, there's no excuse for fourth generation authors like NvdL or Hodges to make things up. (just my 0.02 Euro )

You now move on to praise a new book with all that unfinished business left behind... :

[...]
If Novelli sends you into paroxysms of apoplexy, do download the latest analysis of the case by leading commentator, James Raper:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JB6XMDA#navbar

It's interesting that Mr Raper is mentioning "Darkness Descending" as one of the publications he found "useful" (whatever that means).
By know I've only read the preview on amazon, because I don't want to aid someone who's clearly trying to use his last chance to cash in on Meredith Kercher's murder (from PMF.net):

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:32 am Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -

I have now got round to self publishing a kindle book on Amazon. Justice on Trial: The Final Outcome - Evidence and Analysis in the Meredith Kercher Murder Case. 466 pages. Link to the page below. Royalties at 35% so I am not going to make a fortune! I am hoping somebody can afford it, will not find it too boring and will give it a 5 star review!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JB6XMDA

Wouldn't someone truly interested in "Truth and Justice for Meredith Kercher" someone claiming he's refereing to Meredith Kercher solely by her Christian name "as a mark of respect for a girl whose life was extinguished by a brutal murder." just declare that "every Pound earned from the book would go to the Meredith Kercher Fund"? (It looks like no one cares that that URL has been dead for months now, hmmm)

This new author definitely could use a skilled editor, since he isn't able to get the surname of a certain Lorena, who was present at "the interrogation" right. Is it Zugarina or Zugarino? (Court records and every other source available spell the name "Zugarini" so I guess that's minus one star for bad editing.)

The other problem seems to be that Mr Raper is just throwing in each and every long discarded myth and legend about Knox he could find instead of (as he said earlier) sticking to the court records...
The preview ends with "the interrogation" and the ever present question, who brought up Lumumba. Mr Raper goes with the "spontaneous conniption" as it's propagated on TJMK, I wonder if he had a look at the file library at themurderofmeredithkercher.com? There is this file

So it should be clear now, that the cops got Lumumba's name from her phone... (just my 0.02 Euros)

ETA: Give me just one reason why I should pay almost ten Dollars to read something I've already read on TJMK and as a second: Do you think I should spend money on this one: The Manipulative Memoir of Amanda Knox: A Critical Analysis? It looks like just a badly edited compilation of the blog posts starting with this one: "Pt. 1: Amanda Knox’s Manipulative Memoir Chpt 1 – 3"

 

[Welshman]

Thanks for that.

However, it won't be the PGP fundraising. Perverting the course of justice is surely the domain of the PIP, as evidenced by the fanatical rejoicing at the bent verdict by the thoroughly corrupt Hellmann.

If Rudy's conviction is annulled, it will be thanks to the PIP's determination that Mez and her family should be denied justice out of some strange jingoistic reason by virtue of one of the defendants being a US citizen.

Vixen attacks Hellman for supposedly being corrupt but Vixen and her fellow members of TJMK worship the corrupt scumbag Mignini and think the sun shines out of his backside.

 

[Vixen]

To set the record straight, here is the relevant Italian procedural law for the revision trial Rudy Guede is seeking; I believe I have posted some of this information before:

CPP Article 629 Convictions subject to revision

The revision of judgments of conviction or judgments issued under Article 444, paragraph 2 {application of punishment upon request of the accused and prosecutor}, or of final criminal decrees of conviction may be performed at any time and the cases established by law in favour of the convicted person, even if the sentence has already been enforced or is extinguished.

CPP Article 630 Cases of revision

1. Revision may be requested:

a) if the facts underlying the judgment or the criminal decree of conviction are incompatible with the facts established in another final criminal judgment issued by the ordinary judge or a special judge;
....

CPP Article 631 Limitations to revision

Under penalty of inadmissibility of the request, the arguments underlying the request for revision must be such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed under Articles 529, 530 or 531 {that is: Article 529, the prosecution should not have been initiated or continued; 530, the person should have been acquitted under one of the reasons provided by law and listed in the article*; 531, the offense is extinguished (conviction is time-barred by the statute of limitation).

*The criminal act did not occur, the person did not commit the act, the act was not an offense by law, the act was justified under law or the person exempted from punishment, or the person lacked mental capacity.

CPP Article 634 Declaration of inadmissibility

1. If the request is submitted for reasons other than those provided for in Articles 629 and 630 or it is submitted without complying with the provisions of Articles 631, 632, 633 and 641** or the request is proven to be manifestly groundless, the Court of Appeal shall issue an order declaring, also ex officio, its inadmissibility and may sentence the private person who submitted the request to the payment of a sum ranging from EUR 258 to EUR 2,065 to the Treasury of Fines.
....

** Article 631 states that the arguments in the request for revision must be such as to make a case for dismissal under grounds otherwise provided for dismissals, for example, acquittal. Article 632 provides that the request must be brought by the convicted person or that person's next of kin or guardian (or heir if the person is deceased), and/or by the General Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal in the relevant district. Article 633 provides instructions detailing the form and manner of delivery to the Court Clerk of the request. Article 641 provides that a request found inadmissible may only be resubmitted if it is based on different arguments than the one(s) previously found inadmissible.
____

Applying the above to Guede's case, it would appear he has every right to file a request for revision. However, if the Court of Appeal finds that there was no incompatibility between Guede's conviction and the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, his request would be ruled inadmissible and he may be required to pay a fine***; in no case would his prison sentence be altered due to submission of an inadmissible request.

***PGP may wish to consider a fund-raising effort for such eventuality.

The question the Court of Appeal must consider for Guede's case is: Are the facts underlying his final conviction incompatible with the facts established by the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito?
There are several issues relating to this question.

1) There is no assurance, based on the arbitrary court decisions rendered by Italian courts in the Knox - Sollecito case, that the Italian Court of Appeal hearing Guede's revision case would consider this matter objectively.

2) If one assumes an objective evaluation, then the question becomes, which facts are alleged to be incompatible between the two final court judgments, and are they indeed objectively incompatible?
One issue is whether or not Guede's final conviction establishes (even if unfairly or illegally according to Italian law or the European Convention of Human Rights) as a judicial "fact" that he acted together with Knox and Sollecito, or instead that he acted together with persons unnamed.

On the other hand, the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito establishes the judicial fact that they did not participate in the crime, but is (IIRC) silent as to whether or not Guede acted with others.

ETA: Source for the CPP information:
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa (C) 2014 Wolters Kluwer Italia

First of all, Marasca did not establish the judicial fact that they did not participate in the crime. The verdict filed was, 'Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

This 'insufficient evidence' is directly attributed to 'fatal investigation flaws'.

If the forensics were flawed for the kids, then it ipso facto follows it was flawed for Rudy, as one can now no longer place any reliability on it (cf. Hume, 'the slippery slope' syndrome).

Yes, by his own account Rudy was there. However, Marasca ruled as a fact Amanda was there, and Raff also, on the balance of probabilities.

Rudy was convicted of murder mainly on the grounds his DNA was found on the cuff of Mez' jumper. This DNA was collected by the same team, at the same time as the bra clasp. Marasca found as an implied fact the DNA could have been the result of tertiary transfer. This same condition applies to Rudy.

Rudy's footprints were highlighted by luminol, but then so were Amanda's and Raff (=the presumption is an interaction with the victim's blood).

Marasca upheld the fact the burglary was staged, that Amanda washed off Mez' blood and that she covered up for Rudy when she accused Patrick. [This has to be a clear example of the supreme court acting outside of its remit as this 'fact' was never found by the lower courts, and it did not remit it back to evaluate the imputed fact].

The Pietrocarlo & Grossi legal team did sum up the particulars for the application in a 20-page document. I presume this is available to the public? Is there any download of it available, anyone?

The big hurdle Rudy will have to clear is the edict:
641** or the request is proven to be manifestly groundless, . However, I would imagine Florence would need to list a preliminary hearing to establish whether there is 'Reasonable Prospect of Success'.

Bear in mind, like Amanda and Raff, Rudy has always claimed he was innocent and there by invitation.

The other thing is, he has served most of his sentence as far as parole is concerned so there is no deal breaker such as 'we can't let a murderer/rapist loose'. However, a deal breaker might be, 'No way will we allow Rudy a potential claim for €500K compo, as we did Raff and Amanda'.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you seem to be "moving on" rather fast, or is it "retreating" from this part of the conversation regarding the reliability of the "dialogue" in the book "Darkness Descending":

...and the people who contributed to it...




You now move on to praise a new book with all that unfinished business left behind... :

It's interesting that Mr Raper is mentioning "Darkness Descending" as one of the publications he found "useful" (whatever that means).
By know I've only read the preview on amazon, because I don't want to aid someone who's clearly trying to use his last chance to cash in on Meredith Kercher's murder (from PMF.net):

Wouldn't someone truly interested in "Truth and Justice for Meredith Kercher" someone claiming he's refereing to Meredith Kercher solely by her Christian name "as a mark of respect for a girl whose life was extinguished by a brutal murder." just declare that "every Pound earned from the book would go to the Meredith Kercher Fund"? (It looks like no one cares that that URL has been dead for months now, hmmm)

This new author definitely could use a skilled editor, since he isn't able to get the surname of a certain Lorena, who was present at "the interrogation" right. Is it Zugarina or Zugarino? (Court records and every other source available spell the name "Zugarini" so I guess that's minus one star for bad editing.)

The other problem seems to be that Mr Raper is just throwing in each and every long discarded myth and legend about Knox he could find instead of (as he said earlier) sticking to the court records...
The preview ends with "the interrogation" and the ever present question, who brought up Lumumba. Mr Raper goes with the "spontaneous conniption" as it's propagated on TJMK, I wonder if he had a look at the file library at themurderofmeredithkercher.com? There is this file
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1247&pictureid=10882[/qimg]
So it should be clear now, that the cops got Lumumba's name from her phone... (just my 0.02 Euros)

ETA: Give me just one reason why I should pay almost ten Dollars to read something I've already read on TJMK and as a second: Do you think I should spend money on this one: The Manipulative Memoir of Amanda Knox: A Critical Analysis? It looks like just a badly edited compilation of the blog posts starting with this one: "Pt. 1: Amanda Knox’s Manipulative Memoir Chpt 1 – 3"

I agree with some of what you say. However, when you purchase anything, always remember, 'Emptor caveat!'

I notice you haven't levelled the same criticism at Waiting to be Heard US$18 (really?) a Son of Sam effort, together with 'Honor Bound'. Both have laid bare the breathtaking lies the pair were prepared to promulgate to get themselves 'off the hook', both published whilst the legal process was still ongoing. At the same time they smear every honest decent person who saw right through their lies. The flagrant arrogance of the psychopath.

What about all these people cashing in: Bruce Fischer, Ron Hendry, Doug Preston, Mark Waterbury, John Douglas, Nina Burleigh, Christopher Robinson...?

Can't see you criticising any of these, Methos?

O' What may man within him hide, though angel on the outward side!

~ William Shakespeare Measure for Measure Act 3, Scene 2

 

[Bill Williams]

First of all, Marasca did not establish the judicial fact that they did not participate in the crime. The verdict filed was, 'Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

This 'insufficient evidence' is directly attributed to 'fatal investigation flaws'.

If the forensics were flawed for the kids, then it ipso facto follows it was flawed for Rudy, as one can now no longer place any reliability on it (cf. Hume, 'the slippery slope' syndrome).

Yes, by his own account Rudy was there. However, Marasca ruled as a fact Amanda was there, and Raff also, on the balance of probabilities.

This is your dishonesty right here. It is either dishonesty or a complete inability to read the Marasca-Bruno report; and an inability to fit your factoids into the larger context.

Consider this, Vixen. No one - repeat NO ONE - disputes that Amanda and Raffaele were at the scene of the crime. Let that sink in for a second before I continue.

No one disputes that Amanda and Raffaele were at the scene of the crime. Everyone is agreed that this is true, Marasc/Bruno included.

The issue is when. They were there from 10:30 am Nov 2 onward when it was an unknown crimescene. Please read this part of the M/B report I have never seen you comment on when you spread the factoid that M/B believe that AK/RS got away with murder because of a flawed investigation only.

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt.​

Then M/B go into their synoptic recreation, which even when all the facts are taken together, including those from both sides which claim contradictory things.......

..... it shows the case for what it is - a complete sham for those who claim that AK/RS had something to do with this.

I now expect you to "sashay-up" your language in response. You will do anything - say anything - other than deal with the plain text meaning of the M/B report.

You continue to spread the lie that M/B got them off on what amounts to a technicality. Fortunately the rest of us can read the report for what it was....

.... as Judge Boninsegna later accepted as a judicial fact, an exoneration of the pair.

 

[LondonJohn]

If one is going to lapse into Latin (presumably in an attempt to appear erudite), it's always an extremely good idea to actually get it right.

It's "caveat emptor", not "emptor caveat"

The amusement just doesn't stop coming - keep it up!

 

[bagels]

If the forensics were flawed for the kids, then it ipso facto follows it was flawed for Rudy, as one can now no longer place any reliability on it

Don't forget these same police and forensic technicians worked on other cases, presumably using the same skills and techniques as on this one, and so if they weren't good enough for this case, why should they be good enough for any case? Therefore, all of those cases are flawed and should be overturned.

Of course, this is absurd! obviously, not everybody ever investigated is innocent. So that must mean the logic is bad. Which must mean the police aren't flawed at investigating, which must mean everyone they have ever investigated as being guilty, must be guilty, with no exceptions.

Ergo, if the police say someone is guilty, they are guilty.

I think I just reverse engineered the PGP mindset

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for that.

However, it won't be the PGP fundraising. Perverting the course of justice is surely the domain of the PIP, as evidenced by the fanatical rejoicing at the bent verdict by the thoroughly corrupt Hellmann.

If Rudy's conviction is annulled, it will be thanks to the PIP's determination that Mez and her family should be denied justice out of some strange jingoistic reason by virtue of one of the defendants being a US citizen.

Your bizarre statements are hilarious.

1. The review of Guede's request for a revision trial, if the reviewing court follows the requirements of Italian procedural law (and this cannot be certain for Italian courts), will rule the request inadmissible. Thus, unless there is some departure from law and logic by the reviewing Italian court, there will be no revision trial. The inadmissibility decision will leave Guede with the potential responsibility of paying a fine ranging from EUR 258 to EUR 2,065 to the Treasury of Fines (CPP Article 634.1). In the case of inadmissibility, CPP Article 634.2 gives the the person who submitted the request the right to appeal to the CSC; if the CSC agrees with the appeal, the CSC refers the case for a new review of admissibility in a different Court of Appeal.

To be judged admissible, according to Italian procedural law, Guede's request would need to have objectively convincing arguments that (assuming the news reports of his legal strategy are correct) there is an incompatibility between his final conviction and the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, and that there is credible evidence that he is innocent (or otherwise not to be held accountable for the murder/rape of Kercher) (CPP Article 631). This would seem to be a tough or impossible challenge - read the Giordano CSC panel MR* for a summary of the evidence against Guede.

However, because Italian courts apparently do not always function objectively and reasonably, or in accordance with Italian procedural law, there is no certainty what the judicial response to his request will be.

*http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

2. Since many of those who have come to realize that Amanda Knox was innocent and was wrongfully convicted by the Massei and Nencini courts are not from the US, but are from other countries - including the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Germany, South Africa, and Italy (and I apologize that I certainly have missed some countries in the list because I simply didn't recognize from the posts I have seen the nationality of a poster), the argument that "US jingoism" was a factor is absurd.

On the other hand, I believe that the comments of some PGP posters very clearly indicates anti-American sentiment on their part influences their belief in guilt.

 

[Vixen]

If one is going to lapse into Latin (presumably in an attempt to appear erudite), it's always an extremely good idea to actually get it right.

It's "caveat emptor", not "emptor caveat"

The amusement just doesn't stop coming - keep it up!

As Latin is an inflected language, you can use virtually any word order.


Whoops there goes a billion kilowatt dam!