Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

You have been provided with evidence that Steffanoni provided false testimony both verbal and written with regards to the testing of the knife. In particular with regards to the quantification of the DNA. It quantified as undetectable she lied about that, and the method of quantification. Testifying falsely about the evidence is pretty close to falsifying evidence.

Your grasp of the process of DNA testing is slender to none so I can not be bothered to explain why the question was never about a second amplification. But ask your self before testing how did she know there was not enough DNA for a repeat test? The normal process is to split your sample and do a run on one half and keep the other in case of accidents. BUT before she ran the test how did she know the result? The very odd way the knife blade sample was processed different from all the other samples and the way Steffanoni seemed able to predict the result is unusual. Perhaps she also studied higher level astrology?

..... and there, folks, you have your incompetent investigation, which Vixen says should not be a grounds for acquittal.

The whole case was plagued by these investigative "hunches" that miraculously led to "evidence". The lone knife, plucked by instinct from a drawer at considerable distance from the crime-scene ranks as one of the grandest investigative hunches since the Nazis blamed Marinus van der Lubbe for the Reichstag fire.

Think about it - of all the knives back at the cottage which were handy, of the knives Raffaele was known to routinely carry; Exhibit 36 was the lone one ever tested or investigated.

Or as Vixen might put it - the kitchen knife was not on trial, Amanda and Raffaele were. So just accept it - that knife was the murder weapon because cops don't lie about hunches.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah well, "emptor caveat", as they say

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah well, "emptor caveat", as they say

Latin "borrow-phrases" into English are not on trial here!!!!

 

[Methos]

Not so. There are many many factual misrepresentations in Waiting to Be Heard, so much so I found it virtually unreadable. A kind of Edgar Cayce meets Ron Hubbard, but without the enthralling sci-fi. It's like wading through treacle.

Really? Try to give a few examples and show me the relevant court records to make your point, and please don't come up with something like "What she wrote doesn't match with what was written by Nadeau or Follain or [add any other of the "true crime" writers here] or it doesn't match with some newspaper article. This case was tried in a court of law, so I think all that matters are the court document for things regarding the crime and the trial, and maybe perhaps some of the Italian reporting when it comes down to the "history" of this judicial mess...

As I wrote, there is only one major mistake in WtBH, when it comes to the court records, but I guess one can find many, if one takes the Daily Fail or anti-Knox blogs and books as a source...

Re Liz Houle's book; that's her individual style. I wouldn't have put 'banging a coke dealer' or plugged Andrew Hodges, but hey, it's not me that's the author. She is extrovert, I am a lot more conservative. OTOH I like Liz' pithy way of summing things up in one or two sentences, where others will write pages. She cuts right through the lies.

I don't think that making up things just to have something to write about, is a kind of "writing style", and the "pithy way of summing things up in one or two sentences" you like, is just another kind of "lying by omission".

You can't deny Waiting to be Heard is a manipulative attempt by Amanda to get out of her murder charge. To do this, she smears many decent upright honest people.

Of course I can, how on earth could writing and publishing this book could have gotten her "out of her murder charge"? Given that a certain prosecutor in Perugia hands out lawsuits against everyone who dares to criticise him like candy and what happened after the publication of "Honor Bound" (to my knowledge that trial and the one against a certain blogger are the only ones that are still ongoing...), Amanda Knox must have been aware that the book would only earn her another lawsuit. It's interesting that a suit against WtBH wasn't filed given the above, and even if one would see the re-publication in March 2015 as a new start for the statute of limitations, I think it's save to say that some people's dreams about a suit against the book finally causing more prison time for Knox and her financial ruin, are just that, dreams...

Could you give an example of how exactly Amanda Knox "smears many decent upright honest people"?
Calling a spade a spade isn't "smearing", and I still have to find one "decent upright honest" person involved in the investigation and persecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito...

It truly is a despicable book cashing in on her notoreity and crime against humanity.

Could you please explain the highlighted part? What are you trying to say here?

The funny thing is, that Liz Houle's book is just what you are labeling WtBH. Liz Houle is lying and making up things to manipulate public opinion against Knox, she is smearing each and everyone who dares to defend her (that is including her various blog posts like this one: Full Story: Peter, Paul, and Amanda Knox – Manipulating the Murder of Meredith Kercher), just to make money (instead of getting her off a murder charge, AFAIK Liz houle isn't axxused of murder so I think the monetary motive is her main one...)

 

[Methos]

Thanks for that. One thing I notice is that Liz Houle apparently does not know the difference between "infer" and "imply".

Somehow this doesn't surprise me.

I'm also not surprised given Ms Houles record of posts.
It's entertaining to watch her hysterical cries of "Lies, lies, lies..!!!" on the things she herself invented, the stupidity and hatred oozing from her writings, not so much...

 

[Bill Williams]

Could you give an example of how exactly Amanda Knox "smears many decent upright honest people"?
Calling a spade a spade isn't "smearing", and I still have to find one "decent upright honest" person involved in the investigation and persecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito...

Knox wrote that at one point in her prison-time she realized she was being prosecuted by a madman. If one believes Mignini is decent and upright, then that might be taken as a smear.

If one believes he's a conspiratoral-minded nutcase, calling him a "madman" is perhaps the most gentle of terms.

The funny thing is, that Liz Houle's book is just what you are labeling WtBH. Liz Houle is lying and making up things to manipulate public opinion against Knox, she is smearing each and everyone who dares to defend her (that is including her various blog posts like this one: Full Story: Peter, Paul, and Amanda Knox – Manipulating the Murder of Meredith Kercher), just to make money (instead of getting her off a murder charge, AFAIK Liz houle isn't axxused of murder so I think the monetary motive is her main one...)

The victim-warriors are perhaps the weirdest. MOO.

 

[Stacyhs]

I recall seeing the lie about Raffaele stabbing a girl at school in one of Vixen's posts. Vixen lies so much in her posts it is understandable that she may have problems remembering the lies she has said.

Nah. She has a 99% accurate memory.

 

[Stacyhs]

That didn't faze Marasca. It had no difficulty overriding rulings already upheld by Chiefi, and substituting its own.It was thoroughly bent, and now Florence Assizes might come back to bite it, should Rudy's petition be accepted.

Examples, please.

 

[Methos]

[...]
It was thoroughly bent, and now Florence Assizes might come back to bite it, should Rudy's petition be accepted.

It was bent? How and by whom? I love a good ct, is your's "good"? Guede's request for "revisione" has a snowball's chance in hell, especially if one goes with the "It was thoroughly bent" theory, I'm keeping the typo.

The reason Chiefi sent back down Hellmann is for the very reason the prosecution experts were completely ignored by it. Not just Novelli, but also Torrecheli (_sp? [LJ can look this up for me].

It's "Francesca Torricelli" just for the record, and her testimony was taken into account by judge Hellmann and Novelli was far from being ignored by judge Hellmann. Chieffi sent the case back down, because he simply accepted what Galati has written, without any knowledge of the actual facts, 36I and Aviello might have had merit being procedural points, for the rest, like restoring Curatolo's and Quintavalle's credibility, Chieffi overstepped his mandate and went into fact finding mode, something that isn't the job of the CSC... (It's interesting that PGP and PIP agree when it comes to this. )

Thus Nencini was tasked with looking at the prosecution's submissions, not just Conti & Vecchiotti. True, as pointed out by Marasca, this was not tantamount to 'you must uphold them'.

Judge Nencini was all but ordered to find them guilty to avoid the opening of Pandora's box, judge Hellmann kept close by upholding the calunnia conviction for Knox, and Nencini just followed the orders he was given. His remark about his court not being a Taliban court made clear that he was presiding a show trial and had no problems with it...

Let's face it, the only way out for the bought Marasca court was to gabble on about the 'press' and 'investigative amnesia', whatever they may be, as last time I looked, they were not 'points of law'.

Who "bought" Marasca? What about the other four?

We know the Marasca court was bent. It gave Bongiorno, Raff counsel, two and a half days to give submissions, when everybody else only had twenty minutes.

Where do you get those "two and a half days" from?
On March 25th, 2015 prosecution, civil parties and Knox' lawyers were heard, IIRC Sollecito's lawyers spoke for about two hours on March 27th, 2015, before the court started deliberations...

Bongiorno managed to hack on a report she paid Gill to provide - Gill was never cross-examined or saw the evidence first hand - and this is where Marasca gets its stuff from about Nencini being wrong not to rule the scene was contaminated.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that Bongiorno paid Gill?

 

[Methos]

Knox wrote that at one point in her prison-time she realized she was being prosecuted by a madman. If one believes Mignini is decent and upright, then that might be taken as a smear.

In the hour we had each week to discuss my case, my lawyers had never thought there was a reason for us to talk about Mignini’s outlandish history. Carlo and Luciano told me only when it became apparent that, for Mignini, winning his case against Raffaele and me was a Hail Mary to save his career and reputation.
“The whole story is insane!” I said. I couldn’t take it in. It struck me that I was being tried by a madman who valued his career more than my freedom or the truth about Meredith’s murder!

This one? The interesting thing is that a lawsuit against WtBH hasn't been filed by now, I wonder why?

The victim-warriors are perhaps the weirdest. MOO.

I'm with you on that.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm also not surprised given Ms Houles record of posts.
It's entertaining to watch her hysterical cries of "Lies, lies, lies..!!!" on the things she herself invented, the stupidity and hatred oozing from her writings, not so much...

One only has to glance at the strange, super-colloquial wording employed by Houle, coupled with the vindictive bitter tone, to realise beyond any question that a) this is not in any way a serious, credible piece of work, and b) this is not in any way even pretending to be an objective analysis.

It's a nasty piece of gutter journalism in the clickbait style, written by a dreadfully confused, conflicted and biassed author who also has no discernible talent for writing reportage. Possibly even worse than vdL's horrible little effort

 

[LondonJohn]

Just en passant*..... isn't it interesting how pro-guilt commentators have adopted the twin mantras that Hellmann's court and Marasca's court were corrupt and corrupted to reach their verdicts?

(All of which, it goes without saying, is devoid of even the merest hint of supporting evidence, let alone anything remotely resembling proof......)


* Or ohimennen, if one prefers

 

[Methos]

One only has to glance at the strange, super-colloquial wording employed by Houle, coupled with the vindictive bitter tone, to realise beyond any question that a) this is not in any way a serious, credible piece of work, and b) this is not in any way even pretending to be an objective analysis.

The funny thing is that the things you mentioned in the highlighted parts, were what drove me away from TJMK back in late 2011

It's a nasty piece of gutter journalism in the clickbait style, written by a dreadfully confused, conflicted and biassed author who also has no discernible talent for writing reportage. Possibly even worse than vdL's horrible little effort

Well, Liz Houle is just howling in whatever she writes about the Knox case. I'm curious how this childish post will be explained away by the usual suspect...?

I think vdL has made clear that he isn't interested in "the truth" with his comment to this review of his book called "Dark Matter", the interesting thing is that we are still waiting for book four, the one he had announced for "Spring 2016"

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, Liz Houle is just howling in whatever she writes about the Knox case. I'm curious how this childish post will be explained away by the usual suspect...?

Wow! Childish AND disturbed at the same time! Quite some piece of work there (in both senses of the term).

 

[LondonJohn]

And of course I remember that around the time Gordon Burn published "Somebody's Husband, Somebody's Son", his seminal account of the Yorkshire Ripper murders, he too published a hilarious series of articles photoshopping "funny" captions onto Peter Sutcliffe's beard and mocking him relentlessly. It's what all the credible crime writers are doing, dontchaknow?

 

[Annella]

Well, Liz Houle is just howling in whatever she writes about the Knox case. I'm curious how this childish post will be explained away by the usual suspect...?

I believe I can spot an English influence in the photoshopped pics at the weird Houle piece you link to.They have a certain quality about them, the same style pics I have seen at social media sites and created by a known ' clever silly'. Who knew this Mensa member was so talented? And she sure does spread herself about!

 

[LondonJohn]

I think vdL has made clear that he isn't interested in "the truth" with his comment to this review of his book called "Dark Matter", the interesting thing is that we are still waiting for book four, the one he had announced for "Spring 2016"

That comment of vdL's below the review is eerily reminiscent of the approach (and even the vocabulary) adopted by our very own Volpe Cattiva in these pages

 

[bagels]

Lol the PGP ebooks use their silly nicknames for the students in print? That's hilarious.

Wait which one is Knifeboy again? The one who was actually carrying a knife when arrested by police while committing a crime, Rudy Guede? Probably not, that isn't good enough for a nickname I guess. He's just Poor Rudy.

 

[Stacyhs]

I believe I can spot an English influence in the photoshopped pics at the weird Houle piece you link to.They have a certain quality about them, the same style pics I have seen at social media sites and created by a known ' clever silly'. Who knew this Mensa member was so talented? And she sure does spread herself about!

Looks like studying astrology isn't the only thing Houle and a certain someone have in common.

 

[LondonJohn]

Lol the PGP ebooks use their silly nicknames for the students in print? That's hilarious.

Wait which one is Knifeboy again? The one who was actually carrying a knife when arrested by police while committing a crime, Rudy Guede? Probably not, that isn't good enough for a nickname I guess. He's just Poor Rudy.

While the Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 revolutions have undoubtedly been paradigm-shifting events that have utterly redefined the rules of communication and dissemination of information for the better, there are still some unfortunate by-products. Interestingly, the Knox/Sollecito case has exposed two of the main downsides: the partisan fight for control of information portals (notably, of course, wikipedia), and the ability of literally anyone to e-publish something that looks and feels like a book, but without a single one of the editorial controls and publishing hurdles that tend to act as a good quality control on traditionally-published work.

Most savvy commentators are saying - entirely correctly in my view - that the next iteration ("Web 3.0" or even "Web 3.5" depending on your definition of terms) will involve the application of human and artificial intelligence to the web, such that some level of order and qualification will be brought to the gargantuan mass of content out there. And it can't come soon enough. At the moment, there's clearly a problem when end-users cannot accurately differentiate between genuine quality and genuine bilge unless/until they immerse themselves in the content itself. And the architects of Web 3.0/3.5 could do far worse than look at the online footprint of the Knox/Sollecito case & Kercher murder to get a great case study on how and why the "intelligent web" will be such a useful and much-needed improvement.