Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[LondonJohn]

In the case of the supreme court's statistics, it does. It is a generic header.

You have made the classic error of thinking that annulment in Italian law has the same meaning in English law. In England and Wales 'annulment' in the legal sense would mean 'quashed'. In Italy, it means, 'Not Guilty'. Kimo sabi?

No. It. Does. Not.

Kemo sabe?

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's ignore this particular paranoid crap.

Marasca did not have the jursidiction to come to a verdict the forensic police were bent, nor that the press used undue pressure.

I think we need to ignore you. You're the one who keeps (wrongly) saying that Marasca found that AK was at the scene and lied to protect Rudy.

Which is it?

Please read Section 8 of the motivations report again. Marasca says Nencini had no business convicting the pair on the evidence in front of the Nencini court.

 

[Vixen]

Oh dear.

Quite apart from the woeful inability to address a single one of the arguments and points I made in that post (preferring instead to "reply" with a schoolyard series of pejorative accusations, not a single one of which was substantiated or supported in any way whatsoever), you've been told well over two dozen times now (probably) that there are fundamental and insurmountable problems with citing the biassed fake-wiki site as a reference on this case. Please refrain from trying to do so in the future, eh?

Er, hello? It is the statement Raff gave to the police about his wheareabouts on the night of the murder..

You falsely claimed he was talking about Halloween night. Then demanded I provide you with a cite. Now you are claiming you cannot look at a bonafide citation because the police are 'haters' and 'guilters', or some similar crazy excuse to that effect. Rather than admit you are wrong.

 

[Vixen]

This is absolutely textbook goalpost-shifting! I hear that the team setting up for the Sunday League football matches on Hackney Marshes is always on the lookout for skilled workers

Last time I was in that region I was driving round and round circling it, unable to find my way out.

 

[Vixen]

I think we need to ignore you. You're the one who keeps (wrongly) saying that Marasca found that AK was at the scene and lied to protect Rudy.

Which is it?

Please read Section 8 of the motivations report again. Marasca says Nencini had no business convicting the pair on the evidence in front of the Nencini court.

Chieffi who ranks higher than Nencini and preceded Marasca, said Hellman's decision to appoint Conti & Vecchiotti was not adequately justified. Its whole MR was torn to shreds, with Conti & Vecchiotti excoriated.

IOW it was res judicata by a previous supreme court (Chieffi) that Conti & Vecchiotti, together with Hellmann, were toast.

Marasca was defective and erred in reinstating Vecchiotti & Conti, and Hellmann's mad p!sspoor reasonings.

 

[LondonJohn]

Er, hello? It is the statement Raff gave to the police about his wheareabouts on the night of the murder..

You falsely claimed he was talking about Halloween night. Then demanded I provide you with a cite. Now you are claiming you cannot look at a bonafide citation because the police are 'haters' and 'guilters', or some similar crazy excuse to that effect. Rather than admit you are wrong.

Right. Where to start with this crap?

OK. Here we go. What I wrote (as one small part of that post, incidentally) was precisely this:

"You're aware, aren't you, that Sollecito is here accurately describing events from the evening before the murder, Halloween?" (though of course I used genuine Italian punctuation in my original post, rather than the more conventional UK/US punctuation.....)

I never actually asked for - far less "demanded" - a cite* (a lazy and erroneous claim from you there - quelle surprise!). And I never said that Sollecito didn't make that statement to the police, and I never claimed that Sollecito's signed police statement didn't ascribe these events to Halloween rather than the night of the murder. Get that so far?

Hopefully so. Now, what I said was that this statement of Sollecito's actually accurately describes the known (and provable) movements/activities of Sollecito (and Knox) from the evening before the murder. Still understanding?

Hopefully so. Now, the (unwritten) implication of what I actually wrote was this: if Sollecito's police statement is actually describing events that provably took place the night before the murder, then it's reasonable to suggest that Sollecito was mis-attributing - possibly with the *help* of the police (police who were, shall we say, keen to get a statement from Sollecito that Knox left his apartment on the night of the murder) - events from the night of Halloween to the night of the murder. Even though the statement says that this is Sollecito's recollection of events from the night of the murder.

I hope this makes things a little clearer for you.


* I note with great interest that you haven't provided any of the cites that I actually did ask for. Funny, that..........

 

[Stacyhs]

If you do not even know what Raff told the police, then I'll wager 100% you haven't the foggiest about anything in this case. It's all hype.

You wrote "Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court."

No, that is false. Raffaele did not testify in court. Period. "What Raff told the police" is not testifying in court.
As was earlier pointed out, "waking up" does not exclude having awoken, or even having risen for a short time earlier, and then going back to bed to sleep more.
Nowhere in either his statement to the police or in his interrogation statement does he say he did not get up for a brief time earlier. He was not asked if he had done either. At the time of his original statement to police on Nov. 2, why would it have been relevant to even mention getting up for a sort time around dawn? It had nothing to do with going to the cottage that morning. It would have been equally irrelevant on Nov 5 when he made his second statement as the computers had not been analyzed yet.

 

[Bill Williams]

Chieffi who ranks higher than Nencini and preceded Marasca, said Hellman's decision to appoint Conti & Vecchiotti was not adequately justified. Its whole MR was torn to shreds, with Conti & Vecchiotti excoriated.

Sigh. Chieffi said no such thing. The only thing Chieffi said on the subject of C&V was that Hellmann let C&V make the de facto decision about 36I, rather than making it himself.

It's been quite a day for your citation-less assertions. First it was about Andrea Vogt and you've sped through to uttering an untruth about Chieffi.

 

[LondonJohn]

Chieffi who ranks higher than Nencini and preceded Marasca, said Hellman's decision to appoint Conti & Vecchiotti was not adequately justified. Its whole MR was torn to shreds, with Conti & Vecchiotti excoriated.

IOW it was res judicata by a previous supreme court (Chieffi) that Conti & Vecchiotti, together with Hellmann, were toast.

Marasca was defective and erred in reinstating Vecchiotti & Conti, and Hellmann's mad p!sspoor reasonings.

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.

The Conti/Vecchiotti report (and their testimony before the Hellmann court) stood as evidence in this case from the very moment they were submitted to the (Hellmann) court.

All that the Chieffi panel did was throw out the verdict (and supporting MR) of Hellmann. All of the evidence from the Hellmann and Massei courts were available for argument, reasoning, deliberation and verdict from all subsequent courts.

Indeed, one of the many egregious failings of the Nencini court was precisely related to the way it rode roughshod over the evidence in front of it (in the form of the C&V report and testimony) in its "reasoning" on the DNA "evidence". Read the Marasca MR again. You might become better-informed as a result. Here's hoping.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sigh. Chieffi said no such thing. The only thing Chieffi said on the subject of C&V was that Hellmann let C&V make the de facto decision about 36I, rather than making it himself.

It's been quite a day for your citation-less assertions. First it was about Andrea Vogt and you've sped through to uttering an untruth about Chieffi.

It has indeed been quite a day in that respect. I'm off to wrestle some eels (for comparative relaxation) before turning in for the night

 

[Vixen]

You wrote "Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court."

No, that is false. Raffaele did not testify in court. Period. "What Raff told the police" is not testifying in court.
As was earlier pointed out, "waking up" does not exclude having awoken, or even having risen for a short time earlier, and then going back to bed to sleep more.
Nowhere in either his statement to the police or in his interrogation statement does he say he did not get up for a brief time earlier. He was not asked if he had done either. At the time of his original statement to police on Nov. 2, why would it have been relevant to even mention getting up for a sort time around dawn? It had nothing to do with going to the cottage that morning. It would have been equally irrelevant on Nov 5 when he made his second statement as the computers had not been analyzed yet.

It was testified by the police. It forms part of the court documents.

 

[Vixen]

It has indeed been quite a day in that respect. I'm off to wrestle some eels (for comparative relaxation) before turning in for the night

I think the eels might have trouble trying to plait you, Bill and Stacy.

 

[Numbers]

What I meant in the last paragraph was that an appeal court cannot "annul" a lower-court's acquittal (assuming, obviously, that the prosecution appealed the lower-court acquittal) by dismissing the appeal and confirming the acquittal. Vixen erroneously thought that the term "annulment" was effectively synonymous with "acquittal" - and that therefore if an appeal court confirmed a lower-court acquittal this was an "annulment".

(As I had already pointed out further up in that post, an appeal court can annul a conviction (and impose either a retrial or acquittal), or it can annul an acquittal (and impose either a retrial or conviction) - but it cannot "annul" an acquittal by confirming that acquittal, just as it cannot "annul" a conviction by confirming that conviction.)

Right, I agree on this. Of course "annulment" invalidates the appealed judgment, whether it's a conviction or an acquittal.

What some (not you) may be missing it that the CSC cannot annul without referral a verdict of acquittal; a CSC annulment of a verdict of acquittal must be referred to a lower (appeal) court. This is what happened when the Chieffi CSC panel annulled the Hellmann court verdict of acquittal.

For a verdict of guilty, the CSC can annul without referral, and issue a verdict of acquittal or other type of dismissal - for example, if the case has passed the statute of limitations.

Another point of importance is that for ECHR purposes, all the motivation reports, court transcripts and other police, prosecution, prison and court records, whether the verdicts have been annulled or not, remain open to review for violations of defense rights if a claim of a violation is filed with the ECHR by a former defendant, after a final domestic court judgment.

 

[Stacyhs]

It was testified by the police. It forms part of the court documents.

But that is not what you wrote. You wrote:

"Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court."

You are clearly saying Amanda and Raffaele testified in court. At least be a big girl and admit when you are wrong. Maybe it was just a "typo"?

 

[Bill Williams]

It was testified by the police. It forms part of the court documents.

But you already said it was Raffaele who testified about this in court. You did so in an attempt to call Raffaele a liar. "Who's the liar, the kids or the police?"

Who is the liar? Esp. when Raffaele never testified at any of the hearings.... I think you know the answer.

 

[Numbers]

BTW, "res judicata" means a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.

The only res judicata from the Chieffi CSC panel was Amanda Knox's conviction for "simple" calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. And even that is not truly final, because Knox will be entitled to a revision trial if (and when) the ECHR finds that her trial for calunnia was unfair on account of at least one of the several claims of violations of rights she has made against Italy.

(I use the qualifier "simple" to distinguish this charge from that of aggravated calunnia against Lumumba as lodged with the Nencini court.)

ETA: And just to be totally clear, the Chieffi CSC panel confirmed the conviction by the Hellmann court of Knox for "simple" calunnia; this CSC confirmation constituted the final conviction for that charge.

 

[abaddon]

So when certain persons are not frantically posting disinformation on this forum, they're playing at amateur spooks.

When will we see the dossier?

Any good compromising hotel scenes...?


I look forward to Buzzfeed revealing all.

Dafuq?

The poster in question was on another site and in reference to Apollo missions. Nothing at all to do with you, or this site, or your obsession. Arguably off topic, but that was simply about the mechanics of the wayback machine. It arose as a side issue but has nothing to do with the case at hand.

Your vitriolic and visceral makes me wonder what we might find in there were we to further explore the search syntax.

As for the "amateur spooks" jibe, I'm happy and content to leave that in your bailiwick. It is not my problem. It isn't the wayback machines problem. It's yours. Deal with it. The real world is not a pink cloud and you are not a special snowflake.

The exchange was a side issue about some interesting features of the wayback machine which I intend to explore when I get time and leisure to do so. It was not a side conversation about Knox or any aspect of the case at hand, merely a sidebar of technical minutiae on the nature of how a given website works.

Somehow, you purloined that into whatever the above quoted rant is all about. How? We will never know. And I am almost certain that you do not either.

My post was not directed at you, nor the Knox malarkey, nothing. It was simply directed at the technical aspects of the wayback machine. How you made the leap from that to your incoherent post is anyone's guess. I certainly cannot make head nor tail of it.

 

[abaddon]

I think the eels might have trouble trying to plait you, Bill and Stacy.

Buy a hovercraft.

 

[abaddon]

Someone help me here. Can anyone resolve this?

Funny enough, neither did I until relatively recently. I happened upon it by accident while researching a woo claimant on another site. I simply guessed that wildcards might work and tried it. I was surprised. It was an utterly random guess. I shovelled in an asterisk and kaboom. I was actually expecting a 404.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/*

as a search term will get all pages from that domain which have been archived. Oddly, this does not work from the wayback home page. Only on subsequent results pages. To be fair, that could be total bovine fecal matter, but it certainly appears that way. I could further investigate, but life is too short. If something wanders along sufficient to twist my noodle, I might invest some effort but unless and until, not so much.

Look at

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.internationalskeptics.com/*

Note trailing asterisk. This gets you every page on this site which has been archived. Some 130k or so.

I have not had time to explore it, but there clearly is some underlying syntactical logic on there. Likely, other obscure search criteria exist. What those might be is anyone's guess.

Another interesting thing about that is that there is some other interesting data in the result set. From-To gives you the dates of the logging to wayback. Captures tells you how many times the pages was committed to wayback. Duplicates and uniques tells you obviously how many of those were the very same thing and how many were altered from the original. Intriguing. There clearly is some search syntax, but how does it operate? I have no idea beyond the fact that it plainly exists.

The data is also sortable by column by simply clicking the column header. That is, however, the extent of my exploration. I have had neither the time nor inclination nor motivation to take it further. The only thing I can be certain of is that there is a bucket more functionality hidden in there.

So when certain persons are not frantically posting disinformation on this forum, they're playing at amateur spooks.

When will we see the dossier?

Any good compromising hotel scenes...?


I look forward to Buzzfeed revealing all.

It seems to be a total non-sequitur to me, but apparently, vixen seems to think that the detail of how the wayback machine actually works are intimately entangled with Amanda Knox because reasons. Or perhaps un-reasons. Why? I have no idea. Not a clue.

 

[Numbers]

Someone help me here. Can anyone resolve this?



It seems to be a total non-sequitur to me, but apparently, vixen seems to think that the detail of how the wayback machine actually works are intimately entangled with Amanda Knox because reasons. Or perhaps un-reasons. Why? I have no idea. Not a clue.

This is a wild guess on my part, but perhaps it has something to do with the discussions on the physics of the rock throw through the window by Guede (assuming, for the sake of argument, he was the thrower)?

I suspect that there lies the non-sequitur connection with spies and dossiers. It was in one of the conversion factors between torque and length.