Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

This part is missing from a fast-track trial. The "staging" and the "multiple attackers" were never subject to cross examination.

The staging and multiple attackers was brought up and subjected to cross-examination at the kids' trial.

 

[Vixen]

For the most part the "expert" on the issue of the staging was Mignini himself. One of the Postal Police, prior to the horrid discovery, looked at Filomena's room and said, "This is no burglary", which indeed it wasn't. The crime was in the next room.

So how does one cross-examine Mignini? He's the "expert" pushing the idea.

What is of interest about the multiple attackers is that the Massei court only heard one of 9 experts who said it had to be more than one attacker. Massei settled that "judicial fact" on other grounds, mainly on the grounds that he'd convicted the pair!!

Lying by omission, BiWi. None of the experts ruled out multiple attackers (apart from one crank IIRC).

 

[Vixen]

Massei's theory of glass magically breaking entirely perpendicular to the direction the projectile is thrown from isn't even internally consistent, since there would be glass "blown sideways" in both directions, meaning glass would get caught in the outer shutter, and it would either fall through outside or onto to the outer sill to be pushed outside when the shutter was open, or it would get trapped inside the shutter to be discovered by the investigators. Since we know they examined every millimeter of the outside ground with a scanning electron microscope and no glass was found, and obviously no glass was found in the shutters, this didn't happen. We can only speculate as to why, but my guess would be the shutters were pulled wide open and a rock was thrown from outside, crashing through the glass, smashing into the inner shutter causing a large fresh dent, and embedding multiple glass shards into the inner shutter which gave way, and the glass followed this directional force straight into the room where it spread back towards the nightstand, consistent with the ballistic reconstruction, all known physics, and common sense.

I think the person who used the rock to smash the glass, and climbed up 3 1/2 meters on the metal bars under the window to get into the room, was the guy who left bloody footprints and a bloody handprint in the cottage that night. Another point in favor of this radical idea, is this particular individual just two weeks prior to this incident, was connected by strong criminal evidence to a break-in a few blocks away, where the intruder had similarly climbed metal bars up about 3-4 meters, and used a large rock to smash the window to get inside.

The same burglar tied by criminal evidence to two wall climbing rock bashing second story window break-ins within blocks and weeks of each other. Hmmm. As Frances McDormand so eloquently put it in the hit movie Fargo, it'd be quite a coincidence if they weren't...you know...connected!

Just my little analysis on this extremely straight forward and self evident case that didn't deserve much thought after Nov 20th 2007.

Ballistic missile expert bagels omits to mention the window had wooden lattice framing (several frames subsectioned into one big window frame).

There is zero evidence Rudy burgled the lawyers office, and in any case was a very different scenario. He had a stolen laptop that came from there, which is supsicious, but that is all.

 

[Vixen]

I love Margie's take on the bleedingly straight-forward!

I was one early on who got sucked into parsing Kermit's powerpoint on this, the powerpoint which "proved" that the break-in through Filomena's window was impossible.

What that was - and all PGP criticism of the break-in since - has been a bizarre rhetorical battle against the obvious. The sheer volume of rhetorical analysis/denial of what was a very simple and quick set of acts by Rudy to gain access to the cottage says it all.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971524324c05488e.jpg[/qimg]​

The Channel 5 demonstration sealed the deal - and that one has been met by the PGP with cries of forgery and crafty editting of what otherwise is a pedestrian climb when one sees it for oneself. (It also beggars belief that neither the prosecution nor any of the courts ordered a demonstration similar to what Channel 5 eventually did! But they ruled it a judicial fact anyway!)

Yet the one thing the PGP never address is the Massei report itself. The Massei report from 2010 said that the climb to the window was very doable. He just said he didn't think Rudy would have climbed up there three times (or was it twice?) because one of the tasks would have been to open the outer shutter to facilitate the rock-throw.

And as the Channel 5 demonstration more than adequately shows, by the time it took me to type this - Rudy would have been up and in and sitting on the toilet dealing with the kebob! Laying in wait for the victim's return home.

Counter to this is a judicial fact generated at a trial with no evidence posed - namely, at Rudy's fasttrack trial. That was a trial where both prosecution AND defence (Rudy's defence) had motive to claim the break-in was staged. And once so stipulated (in the absence of representation from Amanda and Raffaele) those two go into their trial with judicial facts already set in stone.

It's like going up to bat with the count already 0 balls - 2 strikes.

Let's count the number of times that PGP stress the "judicial" in the "judicial fact" nature of the way this fact was generated. Once it got to the 2015 Marasca ISC Panel - my view is that those judges could see the problem here. They resolved the problem by remaining bound by this judicial fact and releasing the kids on other grounds; namely, that the evidence in front of the Nencini court simply did not justify a conviction to begin with.

So send the kids home, tell them to get on with their lives and simply restate that the staged-break-in was a judicial fact which they, the court, was bound by, and let the Kerchers begin that painful closure process that had been denied them for 7 1/2 years.

Law courts and trials do not deal with 'what-if' scenarios. It won't care whether Rudy 'could' have been catapulted through the window by a ten tonne cannon or nipped up there quicker than a possum in a peartree.

Courts are only interested in provable facts.

 

[LondonJohn]

You have failed to differentiate between (a) postgrad research and (b) departments. So, whilst, say Uni of Nowhere has an overall top ranking, OTOH, it might be poor at post grad research (and this is what makes for a truly prestigious ranking) or it might have a department in some subject which is low in rank compared to another uni elsewhere lower in the over all ranking.

Generic league tables, as this one is, 'covering all missions' are misleading unless you understand the assumptions behind them. For example, I note Edinburgh is missing, but it is one of the finest medical unis in the UK, so if you want a top doctor or medical research assistant, you would see the Edinburgh candidate as having the edge on an Oxford one, ceteris paribus.

I didn't say UW wasn't prestigious. You must be thinking of someone else.

It was once a common perception in the UK that some US degrees were little better than 2 UK A-Levels. Creative writing degrees in the UK are generally one-year postgrad masters courses.

"ceteris paribus" (Or should that be "paribus ceteris"????)

(At least it's spelled correctly this time. Thanks for small mercies........ )

 

[LondonJohn]

Ballistic missile expert bagels omits to mention the window had wooden lattice framing (several frames subsectioned into one big window frame).

There is zero evidence Rudy burgled the lawyers office, and in any case was a very different scenario. He had a stolen laptop that came from there, which is supsicious, but that is all.

Romanelli's window did not have "wooden lattice framing". It was a normal double casement window with a single pane of glass on each side.

Do you just make things up out of thin air? Or is this another example of your exemplary commitment to research......? Because, ceteris paribus, it just looks like you're making up whatever you like

 

[LondonJohn]

Law courts and trials do not deal with 'what-if' scenarios. It won't care whether Rudy 'could' have been catapulted through the window by a ten tonne cannon or nipped up there quicker than a possum in a peartree.

Courts are only interested in provable facts.

Tell us all how it was a "provable fact" that the break-in had to have been staged, then.

This should be entertaining!

 

[Bill Williams]

Law courts and trials do not deal with 'what-if' scenarios. It won't care whether Rudy 'could' have been catapulted through the window by a ten tonne cannon or nipped up there quicker than a possum in a peartree.

Courts are only interested in provable facts.

This is simply not true. Courts also accept stipulated "facts". In an adversarial process (which Italy is half-way through transitioning to from The Inquisitorial system), if both prosecution and defence agree on an item of fact, the court does not attempt to either prove or disprove it.

In the Rudy fast-track trial, there was no evidence phase. There was no evidence presented and then made available to cross-examination. The staged-break-in theory was presented by Mignini and (in essence) stipulated to by Rudy's defence.......

........ why? Because it was to their advantage to have the court simply rubber-stamp the concept to create a judicial fact. This, then, bound subsequent courts like Marasca's in 2015. In referring to it Marasca is not expressing an opinion as to its factuality, he is conceding that he is either:

1) bound by it, or
2) can engage the more complicated process of challenging it, which would probably involve the United Sections of the Italian Supreme Court.​

Why would Marasca do #2 when he's freeing the kids anyway?

But, no, the courts are not solely interested in provable facts.

 

[Bill Williams]

Romanelli's window did not have "wooden lattice framing". It was a normal double casement window with a single pane of glass on each side.

Do you just make things up out of thin air? Or is this another example of your exemplary commitment to research......? Because, ceteris paribus, it just looks like you're making up whatever you like

Emptor caveat.

 

[LondonJohn]

Lying by omission, BiWi. None of the experts ruled out multiple attackers (apart from one crank IIRC).

Oh dear. Of course nobody can rule out multiple attackers. Have you not stopped to think about this for just one moment? (Obviously not.)

For example: in each of the Yorkshire Ripper murders, one could not rule out the possibility (with reference to the physical evidence) that there were multiple assailants. Where a victim was attacked with a hammer and a sharpened screwdriver for example (as most of the Ripper's victims were), the evidence would be potentially consistent with more than one person - one armed with a hammer and the other armed with a sharpened screwdriver - being involved in the attack.

The pertinent questions categorically do NOT include: "Is this consistent with multiple attackers?" They DO include: "Is this consistent with a single attacker" and "Is there any evidence that is SOLELY consistent with multiple attackers?"

The physical evidence in the Kercher murder was wholly consistent with a sole attacker (and don't believe the crap about the "fact" that Kercher must have been restrained by at least one person while being stabbed by another - it's a figment of inept minds with an ulterior motive). Yes, of course it was also consistent with multiple attackers - but there's zero evidence that solely points to multiple attackers, and all the evidence (and, critically, the lack of evidence) taken together leads to the obvious conclusion that this was Guede acting alone.

 

[LondonJohn]

Emptor caveat.

Ain't truth that the!

 

[Mr Fied]

Here is the wooden latticed window



And the window beneath with no bars.

 

[Vixen]

Emptor caveat.

Stop parading your ignorance. Word order was not important to the Romans, as their language is heavily inflected (Latin).

There is nothing gramatically wrong with saying emptor caveat, - not even in English : 'buyer, beware'/ 'beware, buyer' - nor even in paribus ceteris.

Doh!

 

[Bill Williams]

Stop parading your ignorance. Word order was not important to the Romans, as their language is heavily inflected (Latin).

There is nothing gramatically wrong with saying emptor caveat, - not even in English : 'buyer, beware'/ 'beware, buyer' - nor even in paribus ceteris.

Doh!

I was taking your side!!!! Wow, I can't catch a break here.

However, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman world, so all that is moot anyway.

 

[bagels]

Law courts and trials do not deal with 'what-if' scenarios. It won't care whether Rudy 'could' have been catapulted through the window by a ten tonne cannon or nipped up there quicker than a possum in a peartree.

Courts are only interested in provable facts.

Meanwhile in reality...

Massei: hmmm...what if glass exploded perpendicular to the force applied to it...and not ever in the direction of the force applied to it....and what if the window was held at just the right angle....and the stager squeezed themselves into just the right spot in that tight area to throw the rock...then maybe this crime scene could still explain why Amanda is guilty! Phew!

The pretzel one has to twist themselves into to avoid the obvious conclusion that Guede did it, so uncomfortable. I'm glad I'm not a PGP it's exhausting work.

The kitchen knife is far too large to fit the wounds and the imprint....but what if there were....two knives! And that forceful fatal wound was the giant kitchen knife just casually stabbed in there around the tip or whatever...

What if the reason Amanda didn't leave a single trace of evidence in the murder room....is because she was directing the attack from outside - Mignini

What if Guede said "Amanda wasn't there" in his secretly recorded Skype conversation with his pal because he was afraid Amanda was psychic and would sense his betrayal and retaliate against him....

What if the reason Quintavalle told police the girl in the photo they were asking about wasn't in his shop around the time of the murder or the days leading up to it...is because he had a healthy mistrust of the police which proves he's even more reliable...and what if the reason he forgot the police asked him this is because his memory is bad when it comes to remembering something like the police in his shop asking about a murder suspect, but really good when it comes to remembering a random girl a year later.

What if the reason the second level appeals court freed the students, and the Supreme Court finalized the acquittal, was actually because of a mafia conspiracy and not any weakness in the case....

 

[Bill Williams]

Lying by omission, BiWi. None of the experts ruled out multiple attackers (apart from one crank IIRC).

Oh dear. Of course nobody can rule out multiple attackers. Have you not stopped to think about this for just one moment? (Obviously not.)

For example: in each of the Yorkshire Ripper murders, one could not rule out the possibility (with reference to the physical evidence) that there were multiple assailants. Where a victim was attacked with a hammer and a sharpened screwdriver for example (as most of the Ripper's victims were), the evidence would be potentially consistent with more than one person - one armed with a hammer and the other armed with a sharpened screwdriver - being involved in the attack.

The pertinent questions categorically do NOT include: "Is this consistent with multiple attackers?" They DO include: "Is this consistent with a single attacker" and "Is there any evidence that is SOLELY consistent with multiple attackers?"

The physical evidence in the Kercher murder was wholly consistent with a sole attacker (and don't believe the crap about the "fact" that Kercher must have been restrained by at least one person while being stabbed by another - it's a figment of inept minds with an ulterior motive). Yes, of course it was also consistent with multiple attackers - but there's zero evidence that solely points to multiple attackers, and all the evidence (and, critically, the lack of evidence) taken together leads to the obvious conclusion that this was Guede acting alone.

Given that multiple attackers became a judicial truth that all subsequent courts had to stick-handle around.......

The issue is that multiple attackers was not arrived at through a process of the presentation of evidence in a normal adversarial setting. There was no "calling experts to the stand" and subjecting them to cross-examination, or presentation of exhibits which sides could challenge.

One of the main issues is that no expert, save for one of the nine, ruled out a single attacker.

These threads here and on other sites are filled with "proofs" that the single attacker theory (ie. Rudy did it alone) has been debunked. It hasn't.

The irony is - PGP rely heavily on judicial facts, even the ones settled upon outside of challenge. Yet one of the judicial facts of this case is that no one has ruled out a single attacker theory, not any of the courts through the testing/cross-examination of experts who present evidence.

People who doubt any of this should read Section 4.3 of the Marasca/Bruno report from Sept 2015.

Section 4.3 raises the legality of using something Guede's trial to use against AK and RS; the "this fact" that Marasca/Bruno refers to is "multiple attackers, and they continue in 4.3.1:

Well, the “fact” asserted in the sentence in question is, without question, the participation of Guede in the murder “along with other persons, unknown.” The reference to procedural rules signifies that the use of such assessment is subordinate to the double condition of amenability of this fact to the “objective of the evidence”, with reference to the present trial, and the existence of other elements of proof which confirm its reliability.​

The use of italics to frame the word "fact" in the quote is from the original.

But make no mistake - Marasca-Bruno are, in fact, reviewing the evidence which causes them to accept multiple attackers. But contrary to what PGP would have us believe, the more one presses multiple attackers, the less one can say that AK and/or RS were involved.

Wait for it. Marasca-Bruno turn all this on its head, saying that the more one argues FOR multiple attackers, then the LESS likely there was a motive for Knox and Sollecito to have been involved.

Except that the real importance, had it been adequately evaluated, would have resulted in relation to the quest for a motive. Thus the disproportional cruelty of the criminal action - could be considered as not being very compatible with any of the situations envisaged in the judgment, i.e. mere disagreements with Knox (which is even supported by evidence gathered from the victim’s mother), with sexual impulses of some of the participants and, perhaps, with the idea of a group sex game gone wrong. This however, was not reflected on the victim's body, beyond the digital violation by Guede, whose DNA was found in Kercher’s vagina. However it cannot be excluded that there was conscious acceptance of a preliminary physical approach that was initially consensual.​

You see, fresh from saying that he, Marasca, says the evidence points to multiple attackers, he gets to the point about why even this undercuts Nencini's conviction Had multiple attackers been "adequately evaluated" by the Nencini court, Nencini should have seen that this undercut any motive for AK or RS to have been involved!!!! (You may not agree with it, but that is, in fact, what Marasca says.)

Section 4.3.2 regards the usability of this "judicial fact" as generated at the Guede trial, as part of convicting Knox and/or Sollecito.

Marasca calls the use of judicial facts from Guede's trial at the Nencini trial against the kids, a "trick evasion". Not only is it illegal to do so (Marasca cites Article 238 bis Italian Code of Criminal Procedure):

such a mode of acquisition would result in a trick evasion of the guarantees laid down by Article 526 section 1-bis Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, whose tenor is that "the guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who by choice have always voluntarily avoided examination by the accused or his counsel". This would obviously, at the same time, be in violation of Article 111, section 4 Constitution, which gives the same conclusion to harmonise the trial system, according to Article 6 letter d), of the European Commission [sic; correctly; Convention] of Human Rights (Section F. n. 35729 of 01/08/2013, Agrama, Rv 256576).​

Marasca then references a ruling of The United Sections of the ISC recalling the principal of "non sustainability" which prohibits a prosecutor or a lower court by trying to skirt these issues through some means - legit or otherwise.

Marasca then cites the coup de grace on Rudy Guede's believability:

And even in this trial process, Guede - called to testify as a witness as a result of accusation of declarations of Mario Alessi (a man convicted of a horrendous murder of a child) - after having denied the accusation, confirmed the contents of a letter he sent to his lawyer, and then unexpectedly turned to a news broadcast, in which he accused today's applicants, and then refused cross-examination by their lawyers.​

So you see, this business of multiple attackers and using "judicial facts" generated at Rudy's trial to convict AK and RS is illegal, according to Marasca's panel.

I wish PGP would address those sorts of issues when trying to make use of Marasca/Bruno's comments as if they are really PGP-judges themselves.

No they are not.

 

[Vixen]

Given that multiple attackers became a judicial truth that all subsequent courts had to stick-handle around.......

The issue is that multiple attackers was not arrived at through a process of the presentation of evidence in a normal adversarial setting. There was no "calling experts to the stand" and subjecting them to cross-examination, or presentation of exhibits which sides could challenge.

One of the main issues is that no expert, save for one of the nine, ruled out a single attacker.

These threads here and on other sites are filled with "proofs" that the single attacker theory (ie. Rudy did it alone) has been debunked. It hasn't.

The irony is - PGP rely heavily on judicial facts, even the ones settled upon outside of challenge. Yet one of the judicial facts of this case is that no one has ruled out a single attacker theory, not any of the courts through the testing/cross-examination of experts who present evidence.

People who doubt any of this should read Section 4.3 of the Marasca/Bruno report from Sept 2015.

Section 4.3 raises the legality of using something Guede's trial to use against AK and RS; the "this fact" that Marasca/Bruno refers to is "multiple attackers, and they continue in 4.3.1:

​

The use of italics to frame the word "fact" in the quote is from the original.

But make no mistake - Marasca-Bruno are, in fact, reviewing the evidence which causes them to accept multiple attackers. But contrary to what PGP would have us believe, the more one presses multiple attackers, the less one can say that AK and/or RS were involved.

Wait for it. Marasca-Bruno turn all this on its head, saying that the more one argues FOR multiple attackers, then the LESS likely there was a motive for Knox and Sollecito to have been involved.

​

You see, fresh from saying that he, Marasca, says the evidence points to multiple attackers, he gets to the point about why even this undercuts Nencini's conviction Had multiple attackers been "adequately evaluated" by the Nencini court, Nencini should have seen that this undercut any motive for AK or RS to have been involved!!!! (You may not agree with it, but that is, in fact, what Marasca says.)

Section 4.3.2 regards the usability of this "judicial fact" as generated at the Guede trial, as part of convicting Knox and/or Sollecito.

Marasca calls the use of judicial facts from Guede's trial at the Nencini trial against the kids, a "trick evasion". Not only is it illegal to do so (Marasca cites Article 238 bis Italian Code of Criminal Procedure):

​

Marasca then references a ruling of The United Sections of the ISC recalling the principal of "non sustainability" which prohibits a prosecutor or a lower court by trying to skirt these issues through some means - legit or otherwise.

Marasca then cites the coup de grace on Rudy Guede's believability:

​

So you see, this business of multiple attackers and using "judicial facts" generated at Rudy's trial to convict AK and RS is illegal, according to Marasca's panel.

I wish PGP would address those sorts of issues when trying to make use of Marasca/Bruno's comments as if they are really PGP-judges themselves.

No they are not.

<snore>

The Nencini court concluded that Rudy Guede had accomplices and that Meredith Kercher was attacked by multiple attackers.[1] In the reasoning the court relied on the complete lack of defensive wounds as evidence that the victim had been restrained during the attack.[2] The court also found that the two neck wounds could not have been caused by the same individual unless unless one hypothesizes that during the attack the victim turned 180° degrees, thus permitting the blade to penetrate two sides of the neck antithetically.[3] The Nencini Court also accepted that the footprint made in the victim's blood on the bathmat did not belong to Rudy Guede and as such it was evidence of the presence of another person who was most likely male.[4] In addition three bloody shoe prints belong to a female shoe size 37 were discovered to the victim's room indicating the involvement of a third individual who was female.[5] http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Multiple_Attackers

Do read this page, and come back to us as to whether this is 'judicial' factoid.

 

[Vixen]

Here is the wooden latticed window

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6905357e55d6c70aff.jpg[/qimg]

And the window beneath with no bars.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6905357e55dd681485.jpg[/qimg]

OK, fair enough, but the boulder didn't go square through the middle of the two sides of the window, it was the left pane (as you face it from the inside) that bore the full brunt of the boulder.

In addition, Filomena's window did not have any bars for a burglar to grab.

 

[bagels]

<snore>



Do read this page, and come back to us as to whether this is 'judicial' factoid.

Nencini is gone, expunged, vacated, annulled, destroyed, terminated, erased, vanquished, no more.

 

[Bill Williams]

<snore>

The Nencini court concluded that Rudy Guede had accomplices and that Meredith Kercher was attacked by multiple attackers.[1] In the reasoning the court relied on the complete lack of defensive wounds as evidence that the victim had been restrained during the attack.[2] The court also found that the two neck wounds could not have been caused by the same individual unless unless one hypothesizes that during the attack the victim turned 180° degrees, thus permitting the blade to penetrate two sides of the neck antithetically.[3] The Nencini Court also accepted that the footprint made in the victim's blood on the bathmat did not belong to Rudy Guede and as such it was evidence of the presence of another person who was most likely male.[4] In addition three bloody shoe prints belong to a female shoe size 37 were discovered to the victim's room indicating the involvement of a third individual who was female.[5]

Do read this page, and come back to us as to whether this is 'judicial' factoid.

You really need to stop quoting from the fake-Wiki as to what they believe Nencini did or did not find. Why?

Because we all can read for ourselves what Nencini said in this motivations report.

The size of these prints, detected and then examined, lead us to believe that the person who left them can be identified as female, given that the size of the foot is a 37, based on the measurement system used in Europe. Even with respect to these prints, the Court is not concerned at this stage to discuss whether or not they are attributable to Amanda Knox.​

And just so that it forces you to get into the Nencini report, annulled by the Marasca ISC verdict more than a year later, I will leave you to guess what the NEXT mention of that shoe print is in the Nencini report is, and how Nencini theorizes that it connects Amanda Knox to the crime.

You will not like the answer - and once that answer is found (the next reference to the shoe print in the report) you will then be forced to agree with the Marasca-Bruno court.....

9.4.3. It can easily be observed that the conclusion that there was a lack of an evidentiary framework consistent and sufficient to support the prosecution’s hypothesis regarding the more serious case of murder certainly reverberates on the residual, secondary accusations, listed here, d) theft of cellular phones and e) simulation of a crime.

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.
In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt​

You'll have to find the next Nencini-reference in his report for yourself!!!! Hoots! But I thank you for one thing.

Proving that the fake-Wiki is uselessly confirmation biased in presenting even what convicting courts actually said. They have to "spin" that too!

Why? Because to quote directly from things like the Nencini report, exposes it for the shameless work that it is.