Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Not that this is true, but it just illustrates how woefully bad the case was that it was trashed without referral!!!

Once again, Vixen appears unable (or unwilling) to understand that the Supreme Court didn't need "new evidence" to overturn the lower courts' verdicts and throw the case out completely. Rather, the SC used its (legitimate) powers to rule that almost all of the critical evidence (notably pretty much all of the forensic evidence, and the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle) that was deemed credible and reliable by the lower courts was in fact fundamentally and massively flawed - to the extent that it should never have been deemed reliable, credible and probative by the lower courts. And without this "evidence", there simply was zero case for the prosecution.

Let's examine this example:

Prosecution witness: a seriously mentally ill shambling heroin addict and dealer who chose to live on a park bench, with a messiah complex and a relationship with the authorities which appears to have precedent in him grassing up criminals in exchange for lenient treatment for himself (and who had been comprehensively caught dealing drugs in a sting operation several years earlier, yet charges for this were inexplicably delayed/deferred for over seven years until after his testimony (I wonder why.....?)).

Prosecution witness testimony: that he saw the defendants hanging around for hours in and around the square in which he dosses down at night and spends much of his time. This, if deemed reliable and credible, would flatly contradict the claims of the defendants to have spent that entire evening/night alone together within the apartment of one of the defendants.

Other salient facts: this witness claims to have remembered that on the same night on which he says he saw the defendants in/around the square, he also saw hoards of young people wearing masks and costumes, and a number of buses picking up the young people to transport them to the out-of-town discos. Yet the night of the murder was a quiet, religious public holiday when most people (including a great many students) attended a family dinner, and every single one of the out-of-town discos was closed (and thus there were no disco buses running at all); while the night before the murder was Halloween - when the square was indeed full of partying students in Halloween costumes and masks, and fleets of disco buses were picking young people up in the square to transport them to the out-of-town discos, all of which were running major party events for Halloween.

Lower courts' assessment of this witness's testimony: they found the testimony to be credible and reliable. And therefore they found that the defendants must have been lying when they claimed to have been indoors all that evening and night. And that would have been a major element in assessing the overall guilt/non-guilt of the defendants.

Supreme Court's assessment of this witness's testimony: the SC correctly found that this witness's testimony was so fundamentally compromised by his claims of disco buses and young people partying in costumes (a situation which could only have occurred on the night before the murder, and simply could not have occurred on the night of the murder), coupled with the inherent unreliability of a person with such extreme mental health conditions, impaired by Class A drugs, and with unusual ties to the authorities compromising his objectivity, meant that his testimony absolutely could not - and should not - have been assessed as credible or reliable (and therefore his testimony was not probative and should be effectively ignored). The SC therefore overruled the lower courts' improper and unlawful assessment of this witness's testimony.

 

[Bill Williams]

Quite apart from the fact that there have never been, to the best of my knowledge, even rumours that dall Vedova is in league with the Mafia, never mind any actual evidence.

Perhaps Vixen's now-legendary research and memory skills have confused dalla Vedova with Sollecito's lead lawyer, Guilia Bongiorno, who has in the past worked for people who have had links to the Mafia (but again who is in no way considered, AFAIK, to be a "Mafia lawyer")

Given that Vixen still appears unable to understand what does and does not constitute an <fx> in a script or screenplay, I'd say it's fairly likely that she's wrong on the mafia connections too. Quelle surprise!

Things that make you go, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

When Stacyhs and me make a mistake about whether or not Nencini thought Rudy a world-class burglar, Vixen is there with a proper and solid cite from Nencini showing definitively that he was merely quoting from what the defence argued. It took her seconds to find it.

But can "conspiracy-up" a post when she has nothing else, by both wrongly claiming that dalla Vedova is both the source of "there is no precedence" meme she asserts, as well as that he has mafia ties.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, Vixen appears unable (or unwilling) to understand that the Supreme Court didn't need "new evidence" to overturn the lower courts' verdicts and throw the case out completely. Rather, the SC used its (legitimate) powers to rule that almost all of the critical evidence (notably pretty much all of the forensic evidence, and the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle) that was deemed credible and reliable by the lower courts was in fact fundamentally and massively flawed - to the extent that it should never have been deemed reliable, credible and probative by the lower courts. And without this "evidence", there simply was zero case for the prosecution.

Let's examine this example:

Prosecution witness: a seriously mentally ill shambling heroin addict and dealer who chose to live on a park bench, with a messiah complex and a relationship with the authorities which appears to have precedent in him grassing up criminals in exchange for lenient treatment for himself (and who had been comprehensively caught dealing drugs in a sting operation several years earlier, yet charges for this were inexplicably delayed/deferred for over seven years until after his testimony (I wonder why.....?)).

Prosecution witness testimony: that he saw the defendants hanging around for hours in and around the square in which he dosses down at night and spends much of his time. This, if deemed reliable and credible, would flatly contradict the claims of the defendants to have spent that entire evening/night alone together within the apartment of one of the defendants.

Other salient facts: this witness claims to have remembered that on the same night on which he says he saw the defendants in/around the square, he also saw hoards of young people wearing masks and costumes, and a number of buses picking up the young people to transport them to the out-of-town discos. Yet the night of the murder was a quiet, religious public holiday when most people (including a great many students) attended a family dinner, and every single one of the out-of-town discos was closed (and thus there were no disco buses running at all); while the night before the murder was Halloween - when the square was indeed full of partying students in Halloween costumes and masks, and fleets of disco buses were picking young people up in the square to transport them to the out-of-town discos, all of which were running major party events for Halloween.

Lower courts' assessment of this witness's testimony: they found the testimony to be credible and reliable. And therefore they found that the defendants must have been lying when they claimed to have been indoors all that evening and night. And that would have been a major element in assessing the overall guilt/non-guilt of the defendants.

Supreme Court's assessment of this witness's testimony: the SC correctly found that this witness's testimony was so fundamentally compromised by his claims of disco buses and young people partying in costumes (a situation which could only have occurred on the night before the murder, and simply could not have occurred on the night of the murder), coupled with the inherent unreliability of a person with such extreme mental health conditions, impaired by Class A drugs, and with unusual ties to the authorities compromising his objectivity, meant that his testimony absolutely could not - and should not - have been assessed as credible or reliable (and therefore his testimony was not probative and should be effectively ignored). The SC therefore overruled the lower courts' improper and unlawful assessment of this witness's testimony.

Straw man. I did not say "new evidence is needed".

You are wrong anyway. It is within the remit of a lower court to decide whether evidence is credible or not. This comes out through cross-examination and overall synthesis with all of the facts. A court of course can misjudge a witness, but if all of the evidence is looked at within the context of the whole case, it shouldn't be material.

All the appeal/supreme court judge does is assess whether the lower courts decisions were reasonable.

 

[Vixen]

Quite apart from the fact that there have never been, to the best of my knowledge, even rumours that dall Vedova is in league with the Mafia, never mind any actual evidence.

Perhaps Vixen's now-legendary research and memory skills have confused dalla Vedova with Sollecito's lead lawyer, Guilia Bongiorno, who has in the past worked for people who have had links to the Mafia (but again who is in no way considered, AFAIK, to be a "Mafia lawyer")

Given that Vixen still appears unable to understand what does and does not constitute an <fx> in a script or screenplay, I'd say it's fairly likely that she's wrong on the mafia connections too. Quelle surprise!

You haven't heard about the bridge contract? Do keep your ear closer to the ground.

 

[LondonJohn]

Straw man. I did not say "new evidence is needed".

You are wrong anyway. It is within the remit of a lower court to decide whether evidence is credible or not. This comes out through cross-examination and overall synthesis with all of the facts. A court of course can misjudge a witness, but if all of the evidence is looked at within the context of the whole case, it shouldn't be material.

All the appeal/supreme court judge does is assess whether the lower courts decisions were reasonable.

Erm yes, you DID effectively say that new evidence was needed. You wrote:

"...as well as acting outwith its (the SC's) remit, as there was no new evidence brought to light"

which is to say that in your (incorrect) view, the SC acted "outwith" (hahahahahahahaha! "outwith"! hahahahahaha!) its remit when it overturned the lower courts with "no new evidence" being "brought to light". The direct logical equivalent of this is to claim (incorrectly) that the SC could only overturn a lower court's verdict if new evidence was brought to light.

And you still seem strangely incapable of getting your head round that fact that while the lower courts are charged with assessing the credibility and reliability of evidence and testimony, there are actually laws and codes related to how that assessment should be made. The Massei and Nencini courts embarrassingly and unlawfully assessed pretty much all of the critical "evidence" and testimony in the Knox/Sollecito trials to be credible and reliable. The SC showed exactly how and why the lower courts erred grossly in these assessments, and showed how/why pretty much all of this critical "evidence" and testimony was fundamentally unreliable/incredible and worthless.

 

[LondonJohn]

You haven't heard about the bridge contract? Do keep your ear closer to the ground.

Tell me more about this "bridge contract". And from primary sources - not from the loons you pay so much attention to such as God Ergon or Quennell (or, for that matter, Mignini....).

And once you've told me more about this "bridge contract" (with objective primary sources, remember), you can go on to tell me exactly how and why this contract law (presumably) case might be of any relevance whatsoever to a criminal court trial process against Knox and Sollecito. Many thanks in advance

 

[Vixen]

Erm yes, you DID effectively say that new evidence was needed. You wrote:

"...as well as acting outwith its (the SC's) remit, as there was no new evidence brought to light"

which is to say that in your (incorrect) view, the SC acted "outwith" (hahahahahahahaha! "outwith"! hahahahahaha!) its remit when it overturned the lower courts with "no new evidence" being "brought to light". The direct logical equivalent of this is to claim (incorrectly) that the SC could only overturn a lower court's verdict if new evidence was brought to light.

And you still seem strangely incapable of getting your head round that fact that while the lower courts are charged with assessing the credibility and reliability of evidence and testimony, there are actually laws and codes related to how that assessment should be made. The Massei and Nencini courts embarrassingly and unlawfully assessed pretty much all of the critical "evidence" and testimony in the Knox/Sollecito trials to be credible and reliable. The SC showed exactly how and why the lower courts erred grossly in these assessments, and showed how/why pretty much all of this critical "evidence" and testimony was fundamentally unreliable/incredible and worthless.

The defence re-appealed the contamination issue (=second bite of the cherry) and in so doing they did not present any new evidence (the only remaining basis for such an appeal, having already appealed the issue). The new evidence, in addition to not having been reasonably known of, as of the time of the trial (so fails on this point, anyway), also has to be capable of having a reasonable prospect of success (in overturning the verdict) when remitted back. As none of these grounds were presented by the defence, the supreme court acted outside of its jurisdiction in making implied findings of contamination.

Is this clearer for you?

 

[Vixen]

Tell me more about this "bridge contract". And from primary sources - not from the loons you pay so much attention to such as God Ergon or Quennell (or, for that matter, Mignini....).

And once you've told me more about this "bridge contract" (with objective primary sources, remember), you can go on to tell me exactly how and why this contract law (presumably) case might be of any relevance whatsoever to a criminal court trial process against Knox and Sollecito. Many thanks in advance

I can't keep doing your research for you. It is not something that particularly interests me, apart from Dalla Vedova confirming the Marasca court set a near precedent (near, because you will always find blunders or corrupt judges in the past).

 

[bagels]

Imagine how much more interesting this upcoming documentary would be if it focused on something besides Amanda. Like the person who actually killed Meredith for starters. They could track down Diaz and have her ID her watch, confirm or disconfirm her house didn't partially burn down, find the original police report (if it exists). Interview Rudy's friends from before the murder, etc. They could also look at the police from the earliest stages of the investigation when they still thought Patrick was the killer, track down that bogus witness who the police said signed a statement that his bar was closed (if he even exists).

I don't need to sit through another 90 minutes of the intricacies of LCN DNA and see the footage of Amanda kissing Raffaele for the 9 billionth time.

I'm with the PGP on this one, shut 'er down.

 

[Bill Williams]

I can't keep doing your research for you. It is not something that particularly interests me, apart from Dalla Vedova confirming the Marasca court set a near precedent (near, because you will always find blunders or corrupt judges in the past).

Nencini and Massei were paid off by a secret group of public prosecutors.

I won't do your research for you, and like you will not provide a link proving this. But you'll agree it fits my biases so I have a right to assert it.

It's now up to you to refute it. After all those are the rules you play by.

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't keep doing your research for you. It is not something that particularly interests me, apart from Dalla Vedova confirming the Marasca court set a near precedent (near, because you will always find blunders or corrupt judges in the past).

When a person makes a claim, it is up to them to support it with evidence. It is not up to everyone else to go on a wild goose chase trying to find evidence of something that may, or may not, exist.

You are employing a common tactic used by people who cannot provide evidence and who know it. It's one easily identified.

A "nearly unprecedented" event is one that's rare, not non-existent nor based on "blunders or corrupt judges in the past". But nice try.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, I am once again requesting evidence that del Prato fired an employee for giving Guede access to the school, that Curt Knox paid G-M $2m, that Amanda hit a wall in a rage and had a "boiling rage" like Curt, that the ISC "does not have the power to acquit, without sending the issue back down to the second instance court" and that I said "Rudy was a serial burglar of great expertise and skill."

Not that I'm actually expecting any.

 

[Bill Williams]

When a person makes a claim, it is up to them to support it with evidence. It is not up to everyone else to go on a wild goose chase trying to find evidence of something that may, or may not, exist.

You are employing a common tactic used by people who cannot provide evidence and who know it. It's one easily identified.

A "nearly unprecedented" event is one that's rare, not non-existent nor based on "blunders or corrupt judges in the past". But nice try.

Don't discount the lady. I prefer it her way. Her way means I can factually claim that Nencini and Massei were paid off by a secret group of prosecutors.

If she doesn't think that is factual, she can go ahead and disprove it.

That's Vixen's world! I like it!

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't discount the lady. I prefer it her way. Her way means I can factually claim that Nencini and Massei were paid off by a secret group of prosecutors.

If she doesn't think that is factual, she can go ahead and disprove it.

That's Vixen's world! I like it!

You have a point, Bill. Vixen's world does have its advantages. It means never having to prove anything; the mere accusation is sufficient. Sort of the tabloids' take on things.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't keep doing your research for you. It is not something that particularly interests me, apart from Dalla Vedova confirming the Marasca court set a near precedent (near, because you will always find blunders or corrupt judges in the past).

You were the one who brought up the accusation (and the attendant character smear). You ought to know by now that it's therefore wholly incumbent upon you to supply supporting evidence.

If you can't or won't do so, we can write this one off as well.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nencini and Massei were paid off by a secret group of public prosecutors.

I won't do your research for you, and like you will not provide a link proving this. But you'll agree it fits my biases so I have a right to assert it.

It's now up to you to refute it. After all those are the rules you play by.

Exactly

Mignini is actually an evil robot controlled by the ghost of Mussolini, sent forth to create havoc in the Italian criminal justice system. If Vixen wants any evidence to support this claim, well... she's just going to have to go looking for it herself...

 

[LondonJohn]

Fairly on-the-money review of the new Netflix Knox documentary in Variety:

http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/amanda-know-review-toronto-festival-1201856313/

I think the reviewer is particularly astute in his view of the role and mission of the tabloid newspapers in this case (and Nick Pisa gets a fully-justified mauling as a preening hack who was driven by the need to create sensationalist, lurid copy so as to get paid (and hang the truth...)) and in his assessment of the hubris-filled, moralistic, egocentric Mignini. As he points out - almost certainly accurately - both Pisa and Mignini relished the chance to dole out their "wisdom" to the documentary, and what they actually succeeded in doing was revealing their deeply unpleasant underbellies because they couldn't prevent themselves from grandstanding with a film camera pointed at them. As the reviewer points out: "what the filmmakers do is let these two hang themselves with their own words".

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly

Mignini is actually an evil robot controlled by the ghost of Mussolini, sent forth to create havoc in the Italian criminal justice system. If Vixen wants any evidence to support this claim, well... she's just going to have to go looking for it herself...

It's a common mistake to refer to Mignini as an evil robot.

He's actually an evil android. There's a difference. Given the standard of proof Vixen champions here, it is up to you, LJ, to prove otherwise.

 

[Stacyhs]

Fairly on-the-money review of the new Netflix Knox documentary in Variety:

http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/amanda-know-review-toronto-festival-1201856313/

I think the reviewer is particularly astute in his view of the role and mission of the tabloid newspapers in this case (and Nick Pisa gets a fully-justified mauling as a preening hack who was driven by the need to create sensationalist, lurid copy so as to get paid (and hang the truth...)) and in his assessment of the hubris-filled, moralistic, egocentric Mignini. As he points out - almost certainly accurately - both Pisa and Mignini relished the chance to dole out their "wisdom" to the documentary, and what they actually succeeded in doing was revealing their deeply unpleasant underbellies because they couldn't prevent themselves from grandstanding with a film camera pointed at them. As the reviewer points out: "what the filmmakers do is let these two hang themselves with their own words".

All one needs to know about Nick Pisa is his entirely false Mail online story declaring Amanda had been found guilty in 2011 complete with made up comments from lawyers, made up reactions to events that never occurred, and made up events themselves. He is an unscrupulous, lying hack. In other words, he's a tabloid reporter.

 

[Methos]

All one needs to know about Nick Pisa is his entirely false Mail online story declaring Amanda had been found guilty in 2011 complete with made up comments from lawyers, made up reactions to events that never occurred, and made up events themselves. He is an unscrupulous, lying hack. In other words, he's a tabloid reporter.

This one?
http://www.anorak.co.uk/295473/news...e-to-be-first-with-news-shames-tabloids.html/

Just for the record:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOvJLmZB4B8