Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

She did not say positive things about Amanda Knox, bagels, she pushed a conspiracy theory about Italian police and judiciaries - like just like the one her family launched to protect her young brother, a campaign she was involved in and after which she decided to get into politics following her father's steps.

Let's not forget that this respected senator started a defamatory campaign against unknown people thousands of miles away. She's a politician who stuck her nose into the Italian judiciary.

For good reason, given the outcome in 2015. It seems she was right.

 

[christianahannah]

Interestingly, if you are in Italy and you do an image search for "cluedo", you get this batch of images:

https://www.google.it/search?q=clue...r97RAhVKCMAKHbm4B5AQ_AUICCgB&biw=1366&bih=698

Several of them are high-resolution, very usable images of the Italian version of the Cluedo box.

I wonder why an Italian national, living in Italy, wanting to produce a spoof photoshopped Cluedo box cover to use on a FB group populated exclusively by Italians, might choose a UK version of the box over the many excellent images of the Italian version of the box....?

It's almost as if the photoshopped image originated from someone in the UK. Kind of like that photoshopped image of Knox and Santa Claus.....? Interesting, huh?

The images could have originated from someone in the UK or the America or Africa, however, it was posted by a member of the invite only or closed group.

The journalist who has reported on this group/s has been investigating them for a while calling for Facebook to close the groups because of their content. She wasn't searching for Raffaele but came upon his participation by accident while searching the group/s.

 

[bagels]

The SC does not have trial documents and cannot access evidence, this is a fact - do you know what a fact is?

You know, this fact exists. And you don't address it. (except by saying you don't believe me - which is a way of not veryfying it)
You like to address just some other facts. And to ignore others. But you made a statement on this one, you said the SC had the same evidence Nencini had, and they don't; and so your statement happens to be false.

But they have Nencini's motivation report, as well as Chieffi's, as well as Massei's, and since the three of those combined wouldn't convince anyone of anything except the obvious wrongful conviction clearly taking place - it would be enough to discern that they have the unique opportunity to end a wrongful conviction that should have ended four court decisions ago, if not sooner.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's nonsense. IIRC somebody claimed she had to 'wait two months' to find out it was negative. The DAILY MAIL article confirms the second test, as is the norm for a first test positive, was done within two weeks.

Thus we see how Amanda's manipulative and cunning self-serving story develops.

1) Who claimed she had to wait for two months to find out the test was negative?

2) In any case, how long would, in your view, be an "appropriate" period of time for a person (let alone a frightened and confused person in a prison cell) to wait between a) being told they had tested HIV-positive, being told that it "could" be a mistake, and being provided with no further context nor clinical/psychological support whatsoever, and b) being told that the second test showed that the true result was a negative?

 

[christianahannah]

Nathaniel Rich had a crush on Madison Paxton. I suspect his crush was the driving force for his stance. He wanted to look good to her so he bashed Italy.

As for the UK, I quite think the UK is facing a difficult situation. But besides it being a great place to live, and I believe you especially for what concerns London, however my friends wo had been living in the UK for years, they now decided to return back to Italy. Two of them used to live in Bristol and another in London. I know another Italian woman who lives in Belfast but I don't know how she's doing after Brexit by now, if anything changed.
I think that it's maybe not exactly the same thing for foreigneers and "natives". Many Italians now say they feel they are not welcome.

For my curiosity - how do you know this about Nathaniel?

 

[LondonJohn]

The images could have originated from someone in the UK or the America or Africa, however, it was posted by a member of the invite only or closed group.

The journalist who has reported on this group/s has been investigating them for a while calling for Facebook to close the groups because of their content. She wasn't searching for Raffaele but came upon his participation by accident while searching the group/s.

Well, by definition it was posted by a member of that group......

The salient questions are these:

1) Who created the photoshopped image in the first place*;

2) Who posted the photoshopped image to that FB group?


Part (but by no means all) of the thrust of my argument was this: if this image had been created and posted by a member of that FB group (whether Sollecito or anyone else), then whoever created it was both a) very computer-savvy, and b) Italian, posting on an exclusively Italian FB group page, to an exclusively Italian audience. As such, and given that there are so many readily-available and "suitable" images of the Italian version of the Cluedo box available via even the simplest Google search, why would the creator in that scenario have chosen a UK-version box with English-language text?


* Of course, within that question, there is scope for this to have been a two-stage (or even more stages) process: one person could have created a first photoshopped image, placing certain people's faces onto the original image of the box; then a second person could have taken that first person's photoshopped image, and changed the faces to the faces of the second person's "liking".

 

[Machiavelli]

You really shouldn't go around saying things like "nonsensical" and "utter bias" if you don't know what you're talking about.

ELISA is an immunoassay which looks specifically for the antibodies and antigens (via the associated glycoproteins gp41 & gp120/160) associated with HIV. Herpes simplex is either HSV-1 or HSV-2. Both of the HSV viruses are associated with entirely different antibodies and antigens (and different glycoproteins associated with the different antigens) than HIV.

The very earliest, crudest field tests for HIV worked at a level which did often lead to false positives with HSV viruses. But the ELISA test - especially in the refinement in which it would have been used in 2007 in Italy - simply would not have possibly generated a false positive from HSV.

Here's a link to a report which discusses the possibility of false positives from HSV in HIV tests:

http://fieldresearch.msf.org/msf/bi...ositive+HIV+rapid+diagnostic+test+results.pdf

The report is actually about the types of rapid deployment tests for HIV which medical charities typically use in the field in remote places such as sub-Saharan Africa. These tests are an awful lot more "quick and dirty" than a lab-based ELISA test, but even so, the report concludes that there's no evidence to support the notion that HSV causes false positives - even upon these cruder field-based tests (the parts about HSV are in the narrative on p16, where it points out that there's only inconclusiva and unsupported evidence that HSV could produce false positives for HIV, and only in the most basic field tests, and in table form on page 32).

So anyhow...........

Yes I say utter bias and nonsensical. I will not even go into medical literature now: the utter bias and nonsense of a theory may be evident at first even simply from a "logical" level that has to do with alternatives. You know the conspiracy 9-11 theorists who belive "controlled demolition" they have an array of quite convincing argumentations when we come to the technical aspects that lead them to suspect that it must have been a controlled demolition. But the theory has a massive failure on a more macroscopic "logical" aspect, that is to actually consider the plausibility of this specific part of the conspiracy if you were to perform it. Imagine what you would have to do - like in the previous weeks - the magnitude technical operations in order to actually demolish a building of that size. And imagine the risks of being detected while planting such massive explosive network of devices, and the almost non-existent political advantage compared to carrying on a 'conspiracy that doesn't include such a complicate detail as controlled demolition but it would be equally effective politically as a terrorist act.

So the nonsensical and biased nature suspicion about the ELISA test is not the consequence of medical considerations, it is the consequence of logical implications of the conspiracy itself.
Without considering the fact that Knox lies in her book - because a prison guard cannot be in the doctor's room when the doctor speaks to the patient.
What are the advantages of lying about a medical test? What are the purposes? Who masterminds the conspiracy, and who are those who execute it?
Everything is nonsensical. There is no logic. It serves no purpose. There is not even a structure of people who could obey to such an order (because the doctors don't obey to prison guards or prosecutors, they all depend from another authority). And there is not even anything in Knox's diary that could make somebody think that a doctor has lied to her, the doctor even reassured her and told her immediately that it was a likely false positive - there is not even a report in her diary that anyone would ever ask her about a "list of sexual partners", and there is no reason to assume that a list of previous, non-occasional partners would have any interest to the investigation at all (at best a person of interests of the investigators could some most recent unknown occasional partner, certainly not a friend she would call to tell him that she's positive to HIV), and there is no way anyone could anticipate she would write a list of sexua lpartners in her prison diary, and there is no reason to believe her list is truthful.

So a conspiracy theory about HIV test is at first nonsensical, before any medical consideration.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, it did not. A specific number of issues went to Nencini, and then to Chieffi.

Only the issues Chieffi sent back down were still open to debate. The issue of Calunnia was rubber stamped iirc, and the only issue there was the category of calunnia, whether it was aggravated (= directly linked to the murder) or a discrete act, in other words, an appeal against the sentence and class of crime.

The defence legally could not send things into appeal again that had been settled (dismissed or upheld). For example, the issue of whether Stefanoni had been 'suspect-centric' when she did her DNA testing was dismissed by Massei and Nencini, and yet the defence brought it up again via Gill, in an appendix tacked on to a 300-page further appeal, most of which was indeed res judicata. The First Chambers cannot be outranked by the Fifth Chambers.


Do you now begin to see Marasca came to reasonings outside of its jurisdiction?

You couldn't be more wrong.

Criminal courts issue judgements on charges. Appeal courts assess appeals against convictions (or, occasionally and in certain circumstances, acquittals). The Chieffi court referred the entirety of the murder-related charges for Knox and Sollecito back down to the appeal-level Nencini court.

Yes, the Chieffi court gave direction (and remember, the Marasca SC court correctly lambasted the Nencini court for slavishly following what it had perceived as "orders" from the Chieffi SC panel....) as to what it wanted the Nencini court to look at in particular. But you are 100% wrong to claim that every other area of the case than those points upon which the Chieffi panel gave direction to the Nencini court was somehow "settled in law" or "unchangeable" or anything similar (let alone "res judicata" - which is several types of wrong to be claiming here, since it specifically applies to settled judgements on the charges themselves).

In short, the Marasca SC panel was entirely entitled to examine matters of law related to, for example, the DNA "evidence" or the Curatolo/Quintavalle "testimony", provided they comprised points of appeal (which they did). The entire case related to each of the charges was subject to appeal: in no system can one say "you can appeal on Issue 1 related to this conviction, but not on Matter 2 relating to this conviction" (unless, of course, the court is denying an appeal on Matter 2 on the grounds that it is a manifestly poor/incorrect grounds for appeal).

 

[christianahannah]

Well, by definition it was posted by a member of that group......

The salient questions are these:

1) Who created the photoshopped image in the first place*;

2) Who posted the photoshopped image to that FB group?


Part (but by no means all) of the thrust of my argument was this: if this image had been created and posted by a member of that FB group (whether Sollecito or anyone else), then whoever created it was both a) very computer-savvy, and b) Italian, posting on an exclusively Italian FB group page, to an exclusively Italian audience. As such, and given that there are so many readily-available and "suitable" images of the Italian version of the Cluedo box available via even the simplest Google search, why would the creator in that scenario have chosen a UK-version box with English-language text?


* Of course, within that question, there is scope for this to have been a two-stage (or even more stages) process: one person could have created a first photoshopped image, placing certain people's faces onto the original image of the box; then a second person could have taken that first person's photoshopped image, and changed the faces to the faces of the second person's "liking".

I am not positive all members were exclusively Italian (or even all men), however, I am not a member so I cannot say for certain.

The second question should be easier to answer who posted and if I can will myself to look through the posts again I will see if I can find that answer. It would probably be more difficult to discern if that poster was the original author of the image but maybe that could be answered, too.

I personally don't think the journalist has falsified any of the documentation that is shown but there is always that possibility.

 

[bagels]

Yes I say utter bias and nonsensical. I will not even go into medical literature now: the utter bias and nonsense of a theory may be evident at first even simply from a "logical" level that has to do with alternatives. You know the conspiracy 9-11 theorists who belive "controlled demolition" they have an array of quite convincing argumentations when we come to the technical aspects that lead them to suspect that it must have been a controlled demolition. But the theory has a massive failure on a more macroscopic "logical" aspect, that is to actually consider the plausibility of this specific part of the conspiracy if you were to perform it. Imagine what you would have to do - like in the previous weeks - the magnitude technical operations in order to actually demolish a building of that size. And imagine the risks of being detected while planting such massive explosive network of devices, and the almost non-existent political advantage compared to carrying on a 'conspiracy that doesn't include such a complicate detail as controlled demolition but it would be equally effective politically as a terrorist act.

So the nonsensical and biased nature suspicion about the ELISA test is not the consequence of medical considerations, it is the consequence of logical implications of the conspiracy itself.
Without considering the fact that Knox lies in her book - because a prison guard cannot be in the doctor's room when the doctor speaks to the patient.
What are the advantages of lying about a medical test? What are the purposes? Who masterminds the conspiracy, and who are those who execute it?
Everything is nonsensical. There is no logic. It serves no purpose. There is not even a structure of people who could obey to such an order (because the doctors don't obey to prison guards or prosecutors, they all depend from another authority). And there is not even anything in Knox's diary that could make somebody think that a doctor has lied to her, the doctor even reassured her and told her immediately that it was a likely false positive - there is not even a report in her diary that anyone would ever ask her about a "list of sexual partners", and there is no reason to assume that a list of previous, non-occasional partners would have any interest to the investigation at all (at best a person of interests of the investigators could some most recent unknown occasional partner, certainly not a friend she would call to tell him that she's positive to HIV), and there is no way anyone could anticipate she would write a list of sexua lpartners in her prison diary, and there is no reason to believe her list is truthful.

So a conspiracy theory about HIV test is at first nonsensical, before any medical consideration.

The purpose would be to see if she breaks down and gets mad at Rudy and they can find a way to document that connection.

In a way the HIV ruse undermines my own theory (that they didn't actually believe Amanda Knox was involved in the crime once Rudy the second story window climbing rock smashing burglar showed up) since it implies they still genuinely believed there was a connection between these two, at least early on.

I only assume it's a ruse because of the incredibly unlikely odds of a false positive, not because I find it a desirable story.

If it was a genuine false positive I can only assume it was a lab screw up and not an actual result. That would be par for the course with this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Show me where on the charge sheet or in the pleadings 'police incompetence' comes up as an issue or as a point of law in the appeals?

'Incompetent investigation' is a completely wrong determination by Marasca as the issue was never weighed up at trial.

You can't just sit in an armchair and add new charges to the charge sheet, even if you are a Supreme Court judge.

Goalpost shift. Once again.

You wrote: "The competence of the police was never an issue."

I pointed out that the Marasca SC panel had, in fact, published an explicit judicial opinion that there was police incompetence.

You now apparently want to change the "rules" to something different again.

Furthermore, both Knox and Sollecito, in their appeals to the SC, couldn't have been any clearer in their submissions that they were asserting gross and widespread incompetence from both the police and prosecutors. You know those parts in the appeals, for example, where they assert that the DNA evidence was collected improperly (the horrific "smearing" of the swabs all over the sink in the small bathroom, the dirty gloves, the "pass-the-parcel" of the bra clasp, the failure to use sterile tweezers......)? Well, do you think that any of those examples imply police/investigator COMPETENCE? There are literally dozens more similar examples in the Knox/Sollecito appeal submissions......

 

[LondonJohn]

I am not positive all members were exclusively Italian (or even all men), however, I am not a member so I cannot say for certain.

The second question should be easier to answer who posted and if I can will myself to look through the posts again I will see if I can find that answer. It would probably be more difficult to discern if that poster was the original author of the image but maybe that could be answered, too.

I personally don't think the journalist has falsified any of the documentation that is shown but there is always that possibility.

Eek.

Firstly, whether or not all the members/posters to that FB group were Italian nationals per se, the relevant fact is that they all certainly must have been very advanced speakers of Italian (including very colloquial terms and shorthand). Hence my point about why an image of the UK-English box for Cluedo was used rather than the Italian-language version (of which there were plenty of high-quality images readily available).

Secondly, I don't understand your mention of "men". I don't think anyone was asserting that all the group members were men - indeed, I think it was a woman (or at least someone identifying online as a woman) who asked Sollecito the provocative "joke" question about how he might kill her, and the blogger herself was of course a member of the group.

Thirdly, as to who created the image, this will probably be incredibly difficult for an "outside" commentator to determine - unless someone states that he was he/she who created it. Plus, as I said before, it's not improbable that a two-stage process might have happened, consisting of a creation (of a photoshopped image) then an editing (to perform further photoshopping, replacing certain faces with others).

Lastly, it's not so much a case of whether the journalist "lied", but about accuracy/mistakes/lost-in-translation and so on. My point about this is that I don't think it's acceptable to conclude that Sollecito was the one who posted this image just because Mach says that the journalist says he did. As you say, it would be easy for anyone with the full relevant section of the group posts to see who first posted that image.

 

[LondonJohn]

There are far too many people in the UK, but apart from that, it is still a great country when it comes to justice and fairness. (On the whole.)


I don't understand LoJo's prejudice against the Italians, likewise, Nathaniel Rich (ROLLING STONE and all the PIP mockers and jeerers.

I have no "prejudice against the Italians".

I am, however, pointing out the truth that the Italian State is currently in disarray - at a constitutional, governmental, banking and economic level. And that Italy has been more-or-less a shambles since well before Berlusconi first came to power.

And I'm further pointing out that, IMO, this level of ineptitude and chaos had material effects on things such as the reform of the judiciary and the introduction of far better criminal justice legislation (and the consequent formulation of a new code of criminal procedure to properly reflect the new legislation). And that all of this very probably had a big - negative - effect on the trial process of Knox and Sollecito.

Look: I know Mach seems to want to turn this into a "physician, heal thyself!" type of game - but that's not what we're talking about here (for the record, there's plenty wrong with British government and institutions IMO, but still waaaaaaaaaay less than in Italy....). No: we're talking about Italy, because that's where the Kercher murder occurred and that's where Knox and Sollecito were investigated and tried. Pro-guilt commentators try the same trick with things like "at least Italy doesn't execute people like in America!" or "Look at the number of miscarriages of justice in your own country before criticising Italy!" and so on. But of course none of them wash either: we're talking here solely about one specific case, and as part of that we're talking solely about the criminal justice system in one specific country (Italy) and the factors affecting the criminal justice system in one specific country (Italy).

 

[acbytesla]

Can you translate this for me: "E pur si muove"

Excellent retort.

 

[Bill Williams]

You know those parts in the appeals, for example, where they assert that the DNA evidence was collected improperly (the horrific "smearing" of the swabs all over the sink in the small bathroom, the dirty gloves, the "pass-the-parcel" of the bra clasp, the failure to use sterile tweezers......)? Well, do you think that any of those examples imply police/investigator COMPETENCE? There are literally dozens more similar examples in the Knox/Sollecito appeal submissions......

The trial documents include Stefanoni's own film of the Dec collection of the bra clasp. When cross-examined about it she could neither confirm nor deny that she herself had touched the clasp with obviously dirty gloves.

That alone was enoughto acquit RS on the grounds of what the ISC said in its 2015 acquittal.

Which is why it is bizarre when some invoke the trial record as a reason why they should have been convicted.

 

[Briars]

Are we missing the point here or trying to minimize the damage? No member of the private group is obligated to post on each and every comment or photo. Participating eagerly with 'likes', lurid comments and thumbs up black emojis makes Sollecito culpable in every way. There is little distinction whether he posted the photo or not, he cheered it, that's what's important.

 

[toto]

1) Who claimed she had to wait for two months to find out the test was negative?

2) In any case, how long would, in your view, be an "appropriate" period of time for a person (let alone a frightened and confused person in a prison cell) to wait between a) being told they had tested HIV-positive, being told that it "could" be a mistake, and being provided with no further context nor clinical/psychological support whatsoever, and b) being told that the second test showed that the true result was a negative?

No. 1 To be fair AK says it in her book (p.216 WTBH). ("nearly" two months)

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach I asked Vixen this but didn't really get a response. How come us PIP are unable to see Knox's clear guilt, and this thing that is blocking us from seeing it, how do you know it is not affecting you?

It seems like by definition one side has to be drowning in delusion and bias, and from that side's perspective, it would always be the other. Isn't that interesting?

It's funny to see pro-Knoxes like you asking this question. I find it funny as the question comes from people who openly declare they are not interested in facts. There is something interesting in the start scenario: some of us must be drowning in delusion and bias. Who? Is it us or is it you?
It's sound interesting. It titillates curiousity. Kind of goads to try find it out. Because it's a question about ourselves, after all. There might be something about our ways of understanding reality. Out about our beliefs.

But - here comes what I find curious - it appears the most vocal pro-Knox advocates actually don't want to find out.

More or less they openly declare they are not interested. The best interaction I may get is "I don't believe you". They believe something else.

Mostly do not actually try to challenge or find out factual points. They manifestly disregard their existence.

The only way of discovering who is biased or deluded would be to approach facts as close as possible, to challenge the other side's facts and our personal arguments as neutrally and critically as possible.


Then, another aspect. Think about how we deal with incomplete information. I look at LJ's approach to Sollecito's Cluedo's photoshopped cover. Could we define his skeptical attitude as "even-sided"? I don't think so. Is it reasonable to assume, as a default position, a following scenario: journalist Selvaggia Lucarelli would tell a lie reporting that it was Sollecito who posted the cover while this not being true; and at the same time also dismiss that Sollecito declared that Amanda is insane by saying "go call 118"; while also considering that she would have lied about something that someone else could have verified and falsified; and also considering that at the same time Sollecito responded and his response did not object to Lucarelli's reporting the he was the one who posted the picture; and also considering that had she made a false report about him, she would be liable by the law, as well as be liable of a disproval resulting as an attack on her reputation.
It is possible to believe that this happened, but is it reasonable to assume it as a default position, just on the basis that the newspaper page may not show all the full screenshots?
And it is reasonable to suspect that "someone else" (who is not Italian) created the picture based on the fact that the picture backgrownd is not from an Italian cover, but not ask ourselves why a non-Italian would place those Italian murderers on it?
I don't believe such positions are neutral. Their logic is profoundly slanted. I think they are unreasonable and utterly biased.

But I also think it would be useful to check our reasoning in purely abstract and hypothetical ways. On points of incomplete information like this one, it might be a good practice to also ask ourselves: and what if the opposite was true? Drawing implication from that, just as a purely hypothetical picture.
LJ might ask himself: what would the implication on my thinking, if I found out that it is actually true that Raffaele Sollecito created or posted this photoshopped Cluedo cover?
What if it's him? How would I have to adjust my worldview if that detail was indeed that way?

Imagine if you had to re-assess, to adjust an array, a long series of details, in that direction. Imagine if - in the abstract - you found out that all your ideas about each of those details requires to be reviewed, if you found out the direction of many details of your beliefs needed to be changed.
How would this affect the system of your view of reality?

 

[Diocletus]

Also the Chieffi points of law are called res iudicata as for the Italian jurisprudence.
For example Chieffi's point that (I know I phrase it incorrectly) "contamination has to be proven", is called res iudicata. (it is actually called giudicato) The SC cannot rule a second time on it, and the parties cannot present a second question about it.

Wrong. Res judicata requires a final judgment. Chieffi was not a final judgment, obviously.

 

[toto]

According to Candace Dempsey herself, Amanda appears only to have named Raffaele Argiro (_sp?) after another inmate reported him for protracted sexual harassment from 2006 to Nov 2007 (predating Amanda's time) after the kids were acquitted by Hellmann 2011.

In Dempsey's story there is no mention of his interest in her sex life being linked to the HIV result.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2012/09/30/amanda-knox’s-prison-guard-investigated-for-rape/


The DAILY MAIL doesn't link it to the HIV test, either. That story seems to have become manufactured in Amanda's 2013 book.



It seems likely Amanda had a grudge against him anyway as he testified, see here. How easy to accuse someone whose reputation is in shreds in order to put in a vexatious claim for compensation for something that never happened (tricked by a doctor):

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Raffaele_Argirò's_Testimony_(English)

Reading Amanda's prison diary and part of her entry for November 22, 2007, lends credence to her later complaint against Agiro:

Thursday, November 22nd, 2007
…
Oh please please let it be a mistake. Please oh please let it not be true. I don’t want to die.

I’ve decided not to freak out about this. There is no way I have HIV. No way. The world, my life, something would have be really unfair (sic). I need to live my life again after this. I need to be happy. I need to be free.
…
And of course dear old vince-capo is insisting that I “stai tranquilla” as he says, but then when I tell him I am he says I am too tranquill because “Your fingerprints, HER dna". I’m becoming convinced he’s no better than the police, that he’s trying to play mind games with me, trying to scare though he’s not remotely as good as the police at the Questera are. They actually confused me, told me lies, yelled at me, kept me up all night, called me a stupid liar, hit me.
….
…
Another thing: a (sic) got a good talking to by the vince-capo today. He said that my roommate was telling people that I DEFINATELY (sic) have HIV and the guards were asking questions. So he sat me down with the doctor who said it was absolutely unsure and the test would almost definitely (sic) come out negative. He had a weird way of showing his support however. He said that he would most definitely have sex with me right now he was so sure that I had nothing to worry about. Then he joked about having me promise to have sex with him. Once again Ol’ vince-capo is hitting on me. But I don’t care right now. I’m just relieved about almost definitely not having HIV. He even told off my roommate for freaking me out about it.​