Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[abaddon]

Please refer to the attached thumbnail, which clearly shows which phone mast - or 'cellullar base station' to use LoJo's americanism - relates to which region.


It is a fact that the one serving Sant'Atonio region (by the carpark serving via Pergola 7) is a super powerful mast.

I already know where the base stations are located. You still have no clue how the network operates.

 

[Vixen]

The CSC is allowed by CPP Article 606.1E to evaluate evidence that forms any part of the grounds of the appealed judgment, if the appeal claims that the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appeal decision or any document of the proceedings specified in the arguments of the appeal to the CSC.

The CSC is allowed by CPP Article 606.1D to evaluate whether decisive evidence was not gathered during the evidentiary hearing of the appealed trial, although it had been requested, if that is argued by the appeal.

The introduction of new evidence to the CSC is not allowed.



Sources: http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art606/casi_di_ricorso/

Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation. Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014
____
The Chieffi CSC panel and the Marasca CSC panel each used CPP Article 606.1E in their respective motivation reports to evaluate evidence.

It can examine a defect of reasoning by a judge in respect of the evidence. (cf. Judge Massepi [_sp?] re Oscar Pistorius wherein she erred in her assessment of whether or not Oscar believed it was a random person being shot at, leading to a defective non-culpable homicide verdict, reversed by a later supreme court who said the verdict was faulty logic on her part, not the evidence itself, which is what it is, and remains so.)

I am not sure why you keep throwing in non sequiturs such as this.

 

[Vixen]

Then I can conclude with confidence that you withdraw your (falsehood) allegations that Sollecito was bragging about getting away with murder, and that he was referencing Kercher in a statement about how to hide a body or cut it up. That's ok, isn't it Vixen? Good.

You don't recognise braggadoccio? How is that a problem for me?

 

[Vixen]

You're forgetting something very important though, which is that Massei is a complete idiot and forgot he also connected this tower to Raffaele's when he accidentally stopped letting the prosecution type his report:

Yes, that was a typo, granted.


Wrong, Massei is far from an 'idiot', he is extremely sharp.

 

[Machiavelli]

There continues to be some confusion about Italian law by one or more posters here. Neither the quotation reproduced below nor others I have included in posts are my "claims". They are the words of Professors of Italian Criminal Procedure at several Italian universities.

Perhaps that poster should read the complete references rather than make unsupported statements that contradict essays on Italian law by Italian professors of law. It would not be a good use of ISF posting space for me to provide the full text here of these long essays, some of which are available online.

Here is one of the quotes and its reference and online download sites.



Source: The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988), Giulio Illuminati; 4 Wash U Glob Stud L Rev 567 - 581 (2005), p 571

Giulio Illuminati, Professor of Criminal Procedure, Head of the Department of Law, University of Bologna

Downloadable sources:
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol4/iss3/5/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=827964

You made three specific claims about Italian law - two claims which happen to have nothing to do with the contents of the sources you quote.

You asserted criminal law prior to the 1988 reform had a principle of "presumption of guilt" and had no principle of "presumption of innocence";
you asserted that criminal law prior to the 1988 reform had no standard "beyond reasonable doubt";
you asserted that the BARD standard was established in jurisprudence doctrine only in the 2000s.

All three claims above are false. They are completely false.

They are made up by 'Numbers' - such assertions are not in the quoted sources, they have nothing to do with theme - those theories are entirely invented. w
On the other hand, I have quoted Supreme Court sentences and scholar literature which explicitly refute Numbers' false theories.

 

[Vixen]

I already know where the base stations are located. You still have no clue how the network operates.

Ad hominem logical fallacy is all you have, to explain Massei's findings, and by Amanda's own hand several times, including in her own 'Prison Diary'.

 

[Machiavelli]

When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
(...)

We may remember, before Sollecito was arrested for Meredith's murder, he already used to write about comparing himself to the Monster of Foligno.
His posts of the time were not ironical.

 

[bagels]

Yes, that was a typo, granted.


Wrong, Massei is far from an 'idiot', he is extremely sharp.

Rofl. A "typo." This typo carries on to his analysis of the day's events:

Amanda returned to the house on Corso Garibaldi [Raffaele's]; this was around 12.00 noon.

And it is confirmed again by none other than Nencini:

At 12:07:12 pm she was certainly at 130 Via Garibaldi, at Raffaele Sollecito’s dwelling, where she remained until 12:20:44 pm, when she received a telephone call from Filomena Romanelli.

This typo has traveled the span of space and time remarkably well. The Patrick SMS being outside the apartment is a prosecution meme that the bent judges indulged, but did not themselves bother to consistently analyze, because they would have found their own understanding of the cell tower evidence completely disproved it. You have no case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, that was a typo, granted.


Wrong, Massei is far from an 'idiot', he is extremely sharp.

This thread is still waiting for a rationale as to why these are called "typos". There seem to be a lot of them even by your own estimation.

Others might call them lies or judicial incompetence. Indeed the very reason why the ISC in 2015 absolved the pair. One really needs to read the **whole** M/B report to appreciate the devastating critique they levelled at the lower courts....

 

[Vixen]

We may remember, before Sollecito was arrested for Meredith's murder, he already used to write about comparing himself to the Monster of Foligno.
His posts of the time were not ironical.

And one has to wonder at the judgement of a man who is hoping to get €517K out of the Italian courts in compensation for wrongful arrest, when he gives the police lots of reasons to view him as a suspect.

1. He takes a knife into the Questura with him.
2. He claims he pricked the back of Mez' hand with one of his knives, 'whilst cooking'.
3. His apartment reeks of ammonia when the police arrive.
4. He doesn't bother to get a lawyer, unlike all the other Italians.
5. He tells police to wait whilst he finishes his meal before condescending to attend the questura as ORDERED by them.
6. He tells his counsel he doesn't want the stain on the pillow tested 'in case it's a semen stain which they find to be mine.'
7. He tells a firend of Mez that the body was found 'covered in vaseline'.
8. He tells another friend of Mez in the Questura that Amanda meant to have a shower, but didn't because of the blood in the bathroom.
9. When a couple hours of being questioned at the questura he withdraws his alibi for Amanda, saying, 'I told you a crock of ****'.
10. He tells his father Amanda 'lives in a dream world' and that 'I wish I had never met her'.
11. He writes in his book he can see why people think she is odd.
12. He produced a FB/MySpace page describing drug experimentation and saying he wanted 'extreme experiences'.
13. He puts up a FB photo showing him wielding a meat cleaver and covered in toilet paper, with a 'mad scientist' beaker of pink solution in his hand.
14. His father threatened him with rehabilitation and has to ring him several times a day, he is so worried about him.
15. His sister Vanessa tries to interfere with the evidence gathering and is sacked from her Carabinieri job as a result.
16. His Papa is overheard bragging on the phone that Bongiorno has political connections so can help get his boy off.
17. He refuses to take the witness stand to defend himself, yet jumps up to make 'spontaneous statements' about, amongst other things, his 'fairy tale love affair with Amanda'.
18. He appeals to the Nencini panel of judges to let him off as he is Italian, like themselves.

 

[abaddon]

Ad hominem logical fallacy is all you have, to explain Massei's findings, and by Amanda's own hand several times, including in her own 'Prison Diary'.

Not ad hom at all, not even vaguely. You have made it abundantly clear that you have no clue how the cell network actually operates.

 

[LondonJohn]

And one has to wonder at the judgement of a man who is hoping to get €517K out of the Italian courts in compensation for wrongful arrest, when he gives the police lots of reasons to view him as a suspect.

1. He takes a knife into the Questura with him.
2. He claims he pricked the back of Mez' hand with one of his knives, 'whilst cooking'.
3. His apartment reeks of ammonia when the police arrive.
4. He doesn't bother to get a lawyer, unlike all the other Italians.
5. He tells police to wait whilst he finishes his meal before condescending to attend the questura as ORDERED by them.
6. He tells his counsel he doesn't want the stain on the pillow tested 'in case it's a semen stain which they find to be mine.'
7. He tells a firend of Mez that the body was found 'covered in vaseline'.
8. He tells another friend of Mez in the Questura that Amanda meant to have a shower, but didn't because of the blood in the bathroom.
9. When a couple hours of being questioned at the questura he withdraws his alibi for Amanda, saying, 'I told you a crock of ****'.
10. He tells his father Amanda 'lives in a dream world' and that 'I wish I had never met her'.
11. He writes in his book he can see why people think she is odd.
12. He produced a FB/MySpace page describing drug experimentation and saying he wanted 'extreme experiences'.
13. He puts up a FB photo showing him wielding a meat cleaver and covered in toilet paper, with a 'mad scientist' beaker of pink solution in his hand.
14. His father threatened him with rehabilitation and has to ring him several times a day, he is so worried about him.
15. His sister Vanessa tries to interfere with the evidence gathering and is sacked from her Carabinieri job as a result.
16. His Papa is overheard bragging on the phone that Bongiorno has political connections so can help get his boy off.
17. He refuses to take the witness stand to defend himself, yet jumps up to make 'spontaneous statements' about, amongst other things, his 'fairy tale love affair with Amanda'.
18. He appeals to the Nencini panel of judges to let him off as he is Italian, like themselves.

I cannot even be bothered to address the number of points here which are either distortions, exaggerations, misrepresentations or flat-out falsehoods. Perhaps someone else with the time and inclination would care to pull this list apart and expose it for what it really is....?

 

[Vixen]

Rofl. A "typo." This typo carries on to his analysis of the day's events:



And it is confirmed again by none other than Nencini:



This typo has traveled the span of space and time remarkably well. The Patrick SMS being outside the apartment is a prosecution meme that the bent judges indulged, but did not themselves bother to consistently analyze, because they would have found their own understanding of the cell tower evidence completely disproved it. You have no case.

The phone records clearly show that Patrick sent his message circa 20:17, and that Amanda read it circa 20:40-ish and that she was in the vicinity of Sant Antonio telephone mast.

It's clear Massei got the locations the wrong way round when he ascribed them - see Nick van der Leek's books on the matter.

 

[bagels]

And one has to wonder at the judgement of a man who is hoping to get €517K out of the Italian courts in compensation for wrongful arrest, when he gives the police lots of reasons to view him as a suspect.

But think of the juicy drama for the PGP if Raff can thumbs up photoshopped pictures of Amanada and Patrick from his profile picture of him sitting in a Ferrari.

 

[Bill Williams]

You made three specific claims about Italian law - two claims which happen to have nothing to do with the contents of the sources you quote.

You asserted criminal law prior to the 1988 reform had a principle of "presumption of guilt" and had no principle of "presumption of innocence";
you asserted that criminal law prior to the 1988 reform had no standard "beyond reasonable doubt";
you asserted that the BARD standard was established in jurisprudence doctrine only in the 2000s.

All three claims above are false. They are completely false.

They are made up by 'Numbers' - such assertions are not in the quoted sources, they have nothing to do with theme - those theories are entirely invented. w
On the other hand, I have quoted Supreme Court sentences and scholar literature which explicitly refute Numbers' false theories.

It's in thread-disputes such as these between you and Numbers that the rest of us look to third parties to see who is right.

I must admit the real problem with your position, Machiavelli, is that between you and the YouTuber you cite, all of Italian journalism is now cowed into silence in exposing the massive judicial fraud you claim is at the heart of this case.

Why then does it even matter this dispute between you and Numbers? There's a more fundamental problem with Italy's judiciary, and only two people in the whole country have the courage to expose it - with what you claim as the Hellmann fraud of 2011 as the canary in the mine.

Has this YouTuber been arrested by the perpetrators of this massive fraud? I mean, your claim is that the fraud can be seen, obviously, simply by reading a few lines (out of context) of the M/B report.

It's right there for all to read. Yet the subsequent Boninsegna court, in acquitting Knox of defamation against the police, continues the fraud by referring to the 2015 ISC action as an "absolution". Boninsegna, then, must be a party to the fraud.

I tend to agree with you. Not only is Italian journalism now quiet about all this, even the YouTuber seems to have gone dark.

Dark times in Italy. Someone should take this to a Florence courtroom to begin the process of righting this massive fraud.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please refer to the attached thumbnail, which clearly shows which phone mast - or 'cellullar base station' to use LoJo's americanism - relates to which region.


It is a fact that the one serving Sant'Atonio region (by the carpark serving via Pergola 7) is a super powerful mast.

The delicious irony (which also further exposes your gross ignorance on this matter in a most satisfying way....) is that the term "cellular base station" is the correct term used to describe transmitter/receiver/network-connectivity points in a GSM network - a network which was invented in Europe and which was adopted in almost every part of the World except for Japan, Korea and..... the USA

And I'd love to see the evidence to support your claim that "it's a face that..... (this particular base station)....... is a super powerful mast". Over to you!

 

[bagels]

The phone records clearly show that Patrick sent his message circa 20:17, and that Amanda read it circa 20:40-ish and that she was in the vicinity of Sant Antonio telephone mast.

It's clear Massei got the locations the wrong way round when he ascribed them - see Nick van der Leek's books on the matter.

Now you're moving the goal post from the towers proving her location, to an alleged piece of circumstantial evidence: the time between received and reply implies she may have been out of the apartment. I offer no objection.

 

[LondonJohn]

The phone records clearly show that Patrick sent his message circa 20:17, and that Amanda read it circa 20:40-ish and that she was in the vicinity of Sant Antonio telephone mast.

It's clear Massei got the locations the wrong way round when he ascribed them - see Nick van der Leek's books on the matter.

No. You're wrong and van der Leek is wrong.

(Incidentally, using van der Leek's "book" as a reliable source is - remarkable as it may seem - even more laughable than using that fake wiki as a reliable source)

 

[Vixen]

Not ad hom at all, not even vaguely. You have made it abundantly clear that you have no clue how the cell network actually operates.

I certainly do! For example, when I was in Israel, outside of the Eurotraveller zone, I am subscribed to, I made sure to set my phone to 'flight mode' as well as switch it off to be absolutely sure I didn't get whacked with charges of up to £15 per text incoming or outgoing. I knew a text sent whilst a phone is switched off, simply bounces from one phone mast to another until it is picked up by the recipient. The mast swivels round from side to side. This can go on for up to fifteen times, before it is registered as a failed SMS.


This is what happened to Raff. He switched off his phone, but his queue of a message from his Papa was still waiting to come through to him at 6:00-is next morning, as well as a notification of his call at 23:00 the night before.

Oops!

 

[LondonJohn]

You don't recognise braggadoccio? How is that a problem for me?

Whose braggadoccio braggadocio? Sollecito's or yours?

You made claims about what Sollecito had written. Claims which, had they been accurate, would have been of significant interest to any analysis of the case. But your claims were falsehoods - Sollecito never wrote those things. Does that make things clearer for you, and show you exactly "how it is a problem for you"?