• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
TruthCalls said:
It's all a matter of perspective...

During the search of his backpack at the nursery school police not only found the knife from the school, the laptop and cell phone from Paolo Brocchi's office, but they also found a gold watch similar to the one stolen from Guede's neighbor. And not to be forgotten is that he broke into Christian Tramontano's home, witnessed by both Christian and his girlfriend, and when confronted by Christian, Guede pulled a pocket knife on him.

But he had no convictions so it's only fair he be considered an upstanding young man.

Amanda, otoh, was an excellent student. She worked three jobs so she could pay her own way to Perugia. She held down a job in Perugia while still attending college. She had plenty of money in the bank and was recently dating someone from a well to do family.

But Amanda was issued a citation for a loud party so it's only fair she be considered an evil bitch.

Speaking of double standards...

Christian Tramontano and his girlfriend Monika both witness Guede breaking into their place, with Guede pulling a knife on Christian. That very evening Christian sees Guede at the Domus club and mentions it to several people. Two months later, after seeing Guede's picture in the news as a suspect in the murder, Christian goes to the police and reports Guede breaking into his place. His testimony is dismissed. Compare this to Quintavalle, who doesn't report anything to the police until a year after the murder and only on the behest of a reporter. He tells police his epiphany is the result of a picture of Amanda in the news. This testimony is considered indisputable. Now THAT'S what I call a double standard.
Click to expand...

Not only does Quintavalle not go to police until over a year later, but he denies seeing Amanda at his store when specifically shown a picture of her within days of the murder by Det. Volturno. On the other hand, Tramontano has witnesses to the fact that he recognized Guede as the intruder in his house earlier and threw him out of Domus because of it. Which one is the more credible? Quintavalle according to the PGP. Go figure.
 
Vixen said:
What does private Family Law have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Napoleoni played a major role in the persecution prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele. This speaks to her character and supports claims related to the malicious nature of the investigation. It would seem ethics isn't one of her strong points.

I could ask you what a noise citation for a loud party has to do with anything but I can easily anticipate your response.
 
Vixen said:
What does private Family Law have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

The charges have to do with her abusing her position as a police officer by using the internal police computer system to illegally access information about the psychologist including her address, make of car, and license plate number. According to the prosecutors there were multiple searches done. Just days after multiple searches for info were made, the psychologist's car was vandalized and a note was left on it saying "Bitch, so you'll learn not to take children away from their mothers." Napoleoni's ex-husband had "Pedophile" and "You must die" spray painted on his house. A policewoman under her named Zugarini, who was one of Knox's interrogators, was also involved.
The prosecutor also entered into evidence a wiretapped conversation from one of Napoleoni's detectives who said he was worried about being questioned by the prosecutor about "what we did for you".

As TruthCalls said, it's about Napoleoni's and the other officers' ethics and character. It also demonstrates their willingness to break the law and to cover for each other when doing so.
 
Vixen said:
What does private Family Law have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
Stacyhs said:
The charges have to do with her abusing her position as a police officer by using the internal police computer system to illegally access information about the psychologist including her address, make of car, and license plate number. According to the prosecutors there were multiple searches done. Just days after multiple searches for info were made, the psychologist's car was vandalized and a note was left on it saying "Bitch, so you'll learn not to take children away from their mothers." Napoleoni's ex-husband had "Pedophile" and "You must die" spray painted on his house. A policewoman under her named Zugarini, who was one of Knox's interrogators, was also involved.
The prosecutor also entered into evidence a wiretapped conversation from one of Napoleoni's detectives who said he was worried about being questioned by the prosecutor about "what we did for you".

As TruthCalls said, it's about Napoleoni's and the other officers' ethics and character. It also demonstrates their willingness to break the law and to cover for each other when doing so.
Click to expand...

At least the early PGP could be forgiven the staggering hypocrisy, given the blowing out of all proportion for the "noise ticket" Knox got back in Seattle in 2007, the legal equivalent to a parking ticket. They perhaps can be forgiven their extreme excess given that the law-breaking Napoleoni (and Zugarini) herself has engaged in has been exposed (legally speaking) only since. (At least the ones we know about.)

But the question, "What does private Family Law have to do with anything?" reeks to high heaven, considering the way peripheral criminal activity has made its way into this case's consideration - on either "side".

Mignini can be charged with abuse of office - he can prosecute Sollecito and Knox even while under suspicion and himself before the courts. Napoleoni (and by extension Zugarini) can face charges for violent behaviour in a family matter concerning Napoleoni, and it is hand-waved away.

It is staggering hypocrisy for all the reasons Stacyhs and TruthCalls suggest. It bears directly on what (for instance) Knox claimed she faced at interrogation 9 1/2 years ago, a hostile environment created by hostile cops; against a 20-year old (4 months removed from her teen-years) who herself had had no more than a noise citation in her background.

If someone cannot see how the charges Napoleoni faces are completely relevant to 9 1/2 years then there's not much more to post in this thread.

It's simply bizarre that, "What does private Family Law have to do with anything?" would find it's way from a keyboard to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
At least the early PGP could be forgiven the staggering hypocrisy, given the blowing out of all proportion for the "noise ticket" Knox got back in Seattle in 2007, the legal equivalent to a parking ticket. They perhaps can be forgiven their extreme excess given that the law-breaking Napoleoni (and Zugarini) herself has engaged in has been exposed (legally speaking) only since. (At least the ones we know about.)

But the question, "What does private Family Law have to do with anything?" reeks to high heaven, considering the way peripheral criminal activity has made its way into this case's consideration - on either "side".

Mignini can be charged with abuse of office - he can prosecute Sollecito and Knox even while under suspicion and himself before the courts. Napoleoni (and by extension Zugarini) can face charges for violent behaviour in a family matter concerning Napoleoni, and it is hand-waved away.

It is staggering hypocrisy for all the reasons Stacyhs and TruthCalls suggest. It bears directly on what (for instance) Knox claimed she faced at interrogation 9 1/2 years ago, a hostile environment created by hostile cops; against a 20-year old (4 months removed from her teen-years) who herself had had no more than a noise citation in her background.

If someone cannot see how the charges Napoleoni faces are completely relevant to 9 1/2 years then there's not much more to post in this thread.

It's simply bizarre that, "What does private Family Law have to do with anything?" would find it's way from a keyboard to this thread.
Click to expand...

Well said, Bill!

The PGP also ignore that Giacinto Profazio was one of two detectives who forced false confessions from two foreign men who had been wrongly accused of rape less than 2 years after he had interrogated Sollecito.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Well said, Bill!

The PGP also ignore that Giacinto Profazio was one of two detectives who forced false confessions from two foreign men who had been wrongly accused of rape less than 2 years after he had interrogated Sollecito.
Click to expand...

It's what the PGP must do to have any chance of arguing the case. Bill's correct to say it's bizarre but it's certainly not unexpected. It's a variation on a nearly ten year old theme. Apparently from the PGP's perspective what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. In this case, while the people who made the case against Amanda and Raffaele are above reproach, anything, no matter how unrelated or irrelevant, may be used in a negative manner against them. I think it's become so habitual for them that they don't even realize it when they're doing it.
 
Stacyhs said:
The charges have to do with her abusing her position as a police officer by using the internal police computer system to illegally access information about the psychologist including her address, make of car, and license plate number. According to the prosecutors there were multiple searches done. Just days after multiple searches for info were made, the psychologist's car was vandalized and a note was left on it saying "Bitch, so you'll learn not to take children away from their mothers." Napoleoni's ex-husband had "Pedophile" and "You must die" spray painted on his house. A policewoman under her named Zugarini, who was one of Knox's interrogators, was also involved.
The prosecutor also entered into evidence a wiretapped conversation from one of Napoleoni's detectives who said he was worried about being questioned by the prosecutor about "what we did for you".

As TruthCalls said, it's about Napoleoni's and the other officers' ethics and character. It also demonstrates their willingness to break the law and to cover for each other when doing so.
Click to expand...


Whoa! The trial is not until next year, and Napoleoni denies the charges. Given it is a high bar to prove 'abuse of office' - because of the seriousness of the allegation - I suspect the court will see it as 'handbags at ten paces': just another acrimonious divorce/custody case.

In the UK any police personnel accessing sensitive information without proper authorisation would be in deep trouble (not just disciplinary action).

If the Italian cops abused office then I hope they have the book thrown at them.
 
Vixen said:
Whoa! The trial is not until next year, and Napoleoni denies the charges. Given it is a high bar to prove 'abuse of office' - because of the seriousness of the allegation - I suspect the court will see it as 'handbags at ten paces': just another acrimonious divorce/custody case.

In the UK any police personnel accessing sensitive information without proper authorisation would be in deep trouble (not just disciplinary action).

If the Italian cops abused office then I hope they have the book thrown at them.
Click to expand...

"Whoa" nothing. I said the charges are abuse of office and defamation and what they are related to.

What you "suspect" is nonsense as the charges are not 'just another acrimonious divorce/custody case". There is no question that the psychologist's records were illegally accessed by the internal police computer, that her car was vandalized just a few days later, the nasty note was left on her car or that Napoleoni's ex-husband's house was spray painted with a threat and a defamatory accusation. The only thing in question is whether they were done with Napoleoni's knowledge and/or at her direction. Her underling and one of Knox's interrogators, Lorena Zugarini, was suspended by a judge for two months for abusing her office by illegally using the computer system to find info on the psychologist.
 
Vixen said:
Whoa! The trial is not until next year, and Napoleoni denies the charges. Given it is a high bar to prove 'abuse of office' - because of the seriousness of the allegation - I suspect the court will see it as 'handbags at ten paces': just another acrimonious divorce/custody case.

In the UK any police personnel accessing sensitive information without proper authorisation would be in deep trouble (not just disciplinary action).

If the Italian cops abused office then I hope they have the book thrown at them.
Click to expand...

And if Napoleoni has the book thrown at her - guilty of all charges - would that have any effect on your trust and confidence in the Kercher investigation?
 
Stacyhs said:
Not only does Quintavalle not go to police until over a year later, but he denies seeing Amanda at his store when specifically shown a picture of her within days of the murder by Det. Volturno. On the other hand, Tramontano has witnesses to the fact that he recognized Guede as the intruder in his house earlier and threw him out of Domus because of it. Which one is the more credible? Quintavalle according to the PGP. Go figure.
Click to expand...

I have pointed out that PGP have displayed hypocrisy on an industrial scale. The defence of Quintavelle is an example of PGP hypocrisy at its worst. Quintavelle said he had not seen Amanda in his shop when first questioned by police. A year later Quintavelle changes his story and says Amanda was in his shop. He has given two version of events. Only one version can be true and Quintavelle has lied in one version of events he gave. PGP defend a witness who blatantly lied and feel it is acceptable to use the testimony of someone who lies as evidence. This proves that PGP feel lying is acceptable if it works against Amanda. PGP such as Vixen viciously attack for lying. PGP attack Amanda and Raffaele for changing stories and then defend a witness who changed his story.
 
Welshman said:
I have pointed out that PGP have displayed hypocrisy on an industrial scale. The defence of Quintavelle is an example of PGP hypocrisy at its worst. Quintavelle said he had not seen Amanda in his shop when first questioned by police. A year later Quintavelle changes his story and says Amanda was in his shop. He has given two version of events. Only one version can be true and Quintavelle has lied in one version of events he gave. PGP defend a witness who blatantly lied and feel it is acceptable to use the testimony of someone who lies as evidence. This proves that PGP feel lying is acceptable if it works against Amanda. PGP such as Vixen viciously attack for lying. PGP attack Amanda and Raffaele for changing stories and then defend a witness who changed his story.
Click to expand...

At this point no one really cares what PGP post about Quintavalle. No one really cares that PGP try to suggest that "hypothetical" does not mean "hypothetical" except perhaps for nutcases like myself who bother to check with uninvolved Italian speakers.

The real tragedy is that two people each spent 4 years in prison based on this nonsense. And of course it's an insult to the first tragedy - the victim - to spend almost a decade clinging to this tripe.
 
Raff will get a verdict today from the Supreme Court over whether his appeal against the rejection of any compensation for wrongful imprisonment as per statute by Florence Appeal court in January 2017.

Both parties have already made their submissions, so there is no hearing except to get the decsision.

(ANSA) - PERUGIA, June 27 - It will be examined by the Supreme Court on June 28 the appeal filed by the defense of Raffaele Sollecito against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence to reject the claim (€ 500,000) for wrongful imprisonment for nearly four years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher, a crime for which he was finally acquitted. The decision is expected during the day.
Defenders Sollecito, the lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, have already submitted to the judges their memories with which seek the annulment of the decision of the Florentine judges. The hearing will then be held in private without the intervention of the parties.
The lawyers argued that the reason for the rejection of the claim "seems a photocopy of that appeal bis in Florence". "Sollecito - said the lawyer Bongiorno - was jailed for a 'footprint Guede Shoe wrongly attributed to him. A fact for which he has no responsibility."
Click to expand...
ANSA
 
Welshman said:
I have pointed out that PGP have displayed hypocrisy on an industrial scale. The defence of Quintavelle is an example of PGP hypocrisy at its worst. Quintavelle said he had not seen Amanda in his shop when first questioned by police. A year later Quintavelle changes his story and says Amanda was in his shop. He has given two version of events. Only one version can be true and Quintavelle has lied in one version of events he gave. PGP defend a witness who blatantly lied and feel it is acceptable to use the testimony of someone who lies as evidence. This proves that PGP feel lying is acceptable if it works against Amanda. PGP such as Vixen viciously attack for lying. PGP attack Amanda and Raffaele for changing stories and then defend a witness who changed his story.
Click to expand...

A court of law is entitled to accept or dismiss a witness' testimony. It accepted Quintavalle's after extensive cross examination by several counsel.

It is fair. It is the court's prerogative. It is the court's job.
 
Vixen said:
A court of law is entitled to accept or dismiss a witness' testimony. It accepted Quintavalle's after extensive cross examination by several counsel.

It is fair. It is the court's prerogative. It is the court's job.
Click to expand...

Do you think courts always make the right decisions? If it was your ass on the line and you disagreed with a court's opinion would you accept it as "fair", as a "court's prerogative" or would you take it to the next highest court and argue your point? (psst; that was rhetorical... we all know you would argue it and your passive comment here is only because you agree with it).

Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? Can you not take a set of indisputable facts and come to your own conclusion? Are you so emotionally tied to your belief in guilt that you can't be honest and admit when something doesn't add up?

Tramontano AND his girlfriend came face to face with Guede. He saw Guede at Domus later that evening and was certain Guede was the guy he caught in his home. The moment he saw Guede's photo in the paper as a suspect in the case he immediately went to the police to tell them of his encounter with Guede in his home. There was no one year lag in him making a connection. He was never shown photos of Guede and said he was not in his home. If ever there was a more compelling piece of evidence to prove Guede was actively breaking into homes this was it.

Quintavalle was shown a photo of Amanda just days after the murder and was asked if he had ever seen her in the store. He confirmed he had, but always in the company of Raffaele. And IIRC, his credibility should have been questioned further because he claimed to have seen Amanda and Raffaele in his store a couple of weeks before the murder which would have been impossible since they weren't dating at that point. He then claims a year later he sees a picture of her and has an epiphany, as if he hadn't seen a thousand pictures of Amanda throughout that year. Nevertheless, he still needs the urging of a reporter before he goes to the police. No one else claims to have seen Amanda, there is no CCTV video putting her at the store and no receipt of her purchasing anything.

Now, it is entirely up to you whether you want to pretend (or prove) you are incapable of looking at a set of facts and forming your own conclusion, but it doesn't take a genius to consider these two witnesses and conclude Tramontano's testimony is solid and Quintavalle's is very suspect. So why then did the courts dismiss Tramontano's testimony but accept Quintavalle's as indisputable? And why do you sit here and pretend to not know the facts and call the decision "fair" and a "courts prerogative"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom