Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

Um. No. You wrote: "Er, the forensic scientists identified the make as a Ladies ACIS size 37."

I posted the LEGAL FACT found by Massei, Hellmann, and Nencini that "In fact, as was shown at the first trial, it cannot be ruled out that the pillowcase was trodden upon only by Rudy Hermann Guede's left shod foot, ruling out a smaller foot belonging to the defendant Amanda Marie Knox,"

What part of the quotes I provided previously and again here are you not understanding? NO court accepted it was made by an ASICS woman's shoe.

"the defence's paid for talking points"

LOL. You do know that Boemia and Rinaldi, the prosecution's paid for experts, were hired as outside consultants, don't you? Experts are paid to testify. Or do you think they do it or free?

• 2008-01-09-Notice-Prosecutor-hiring-Rinaldi-Boemia.pdf

Incorrect again. They were the Court's appointed independent expert witnesses.


As you know but fail to point out, Vinci was heavily rapped by the court for artificially manipulating the shoeprint images to try to make it fit Guede. In other words, the Court caught out Vinci being a fraud.




.

 

[Vixen]

Don't forget, the mafia is also behind this acquittal because sharing the same last name as a criminal in Canada and going to the DR on holiday are absolute proof of a mafia connection! Oh, I forgot...Dr. Sollecito went to Rocco's memorial and Vixen provided photographic proof him coming out of the church...er...courthouse in another city in a different year.

The mafia is a real problem in Italy. I am surprised you didn't know that. The Italians judiciary has been corrupted by mafia infiltration. Both Bruno and Boninsegna were accused of mafia corruption at one point or another. Bongiorno represented mafia influenced Andreotti and also got him off under the same legal get-out clause as Knox and Sollecito.

So, yes, you can scoff but it remains very compelling that Bongiorno managed to get the Appeal hearing diverted to Hellman, hitherto only experienced in business disputes and had no idea how to treat evidence in a Serious Crime case. He was sacked immediately after he egregiously set the pair free.

.

 

[Vixen]

I don't agree with this statement, since I believe that the evidence strongly suggests that the relevant Italian authorities intended to frame Knox and Sollecito, through the official misconduct of those authorities.

I don't know what posters here mean by "frame" - that is, what definition they are using. Here is a definition from a legal context:




Source: https://www.legalbriefai.com/legal-terms/frame

I've read several objections to the use of the word "frame" to describe the official misconduct (including but not limited to failing to provide a lawyer, failing to provide a fair interpreter, and use of coercive methods) of the Italian police and prosecution in the Knox - Sollecito case. I believe that some of these objections relate to the use of a different definition or a misapprehension as to the legal status, even in Italy, of a suspect or an accused (the last term may be used to mean a defendant in a criminal case in Italy).

One objection seems to be that the police and prosecutor sincerely believed Knox and Sollecito to be guilty, even before the beginning of the impugned interrogation, and therefore the official misconduct could not by definition be "framing". However, under Italian law, a suspect or an accused is to be presumed innocent (Italian Constitution)*, provided with a defense lawyer, particularly during interrogations (CPP Articles 63 and 64), and not subjected to "methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts" - that is, coercion to gather evidence is prohibited (CPP Article 188).

Another objection seems to be that the police and prosecutor were so incompetent that their official misconduct should be taken to be mistakes rather than intentional violations of Italian law, and therefore no "framing" occurred. My view is that the police and prosecutor were highly trained professionals who were careful to make their violations of Italian law seem to be excusable mistakes or otherwise covered, for example, by pretending to interrogate Knox and Sollecito as witnesses when in fact they were already suspects in the (undocumented) opinions of the police and prosecutor. It should be recalled that the prosecutor, Mignini, at the relevant time, was himself a defendant in a criminal case alleging abuse of his power as a prosecutor against several persons, including fellow prosecutors. He was pursuing what many would consider rather bizarre hunches as to the guilt of certain (innocent) individuals in an alleged conspiracy in the Monster of Florence murders. The charges against Mignini were dismissed because the length of the trials against him exceeded the time limit set under Italian law - this was due in part to the Italian judicial system initiating trials in a judicial district that included prosecutors or other judicial officials whom he had (allegedly) targeted with his (alleged) abuses of power. Mignini also had the Italian journalist Mario Spezi imprisoned on false charges of impeding Mignini's Monster of Florence investigation; that imprisonment was subsequently declared illegal.

In the Knox case, Migini questioned her following her impugned interrogation by the police. He would certainly have been aware that under Italian law CPP Article 63 she was entitled to a defense lawyer to be present at that point because of her first interrogation statement. It was his responsibility to not question her until she had that lawyer. According to Knox's statement in her memoir Free: My Search for Meaning, Knox told Mignini, in response to his question why she was crying and hitting her head, she complained that she had been hit on the head and yelled at (page 7). Mignini's legal duty would have been to initiate an independent investigation of Knox's complaint. He did not do so.

See:

Mario Spezi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Giuliano Mignini - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* The suspect or accused can be subjected to security measures, such as detention, but only according to law and with the approval of a judge.

Seriously, for that conspiracy theory to work, you would need the entire Perugia police force in on it, together with the civil servant interpreter, the forensic science police, who number in their dozens and whom you are demanding they forget all of their scientific training and fiddle the forensic results, including PCR/DNA tests which need a computer printout to analyse the various SNPs, the defence witnesses to the DNA testing also needed to be in on the act <fx taps nose conspiratorially> and then you need to also nobble the panel of criminal law judges and the lay judges. The panel of Supreme Court juges then need to be fixed to write a motivational report full of lies. Who are these defendants who are such celebrities they need to be protected, the astonished reader might ask? The ex-President of Italy Andreotti...? Berlesconi, perhaps....? Errrrrr, no!!! Just a couple of nobodies kicking their heels.





.

 

[Vixen]

I highly doubt Vixen meant "framed" in any sense but the police/prosecution wrongfully prosecuting two people they knew/believed to be innocent.

I do agree that both the police and Mignini were already convinced of their guilt and were not just "witnesses informed of the facts" when they chose to neither record nor provide lawyers during the interrogation. They had a legal loophole, and they damn well used it. What proves this to me is the later repeated admissions by Mignini and the police that the two were already suspects before Nov. 5.
They didn't record Lumumba's interrogation or provide him with a lawyer either and they most certainly saw him as suspect when they raced out at dawn, handcuffed him, and took him to the questura.

Only "witnesses informed of the facts" my arse.

Wow, those tag teams of twelve from Rome were also in on the act bullying a wretched young women all night over 53-hours screaming 'Remember! Remember!'. All because of some gawky female and her callow youth boyfriends. For some reason, these needed the entire Italian state to join in and 'get'em!'. Nothing to do with their being suspicious in any way.

 

[AmyStrange]

SCENE: Royal Court of Justice.

PROSECUTOR: <begins opening statement> M'Lord, the defendant, before you today, is charged with the murder of all the facts. The circumstances are that Vixen is delusional and should be put away in a facility for the criminally insane until such time as he is deemed sane by a competent psychiatrist.

VIXEN: <interrupts with a loud raspberry> All I have is confirmation bias you jackass...

JUDGE: <bangs gavel> Order! Order! Sit down Vixen, you will have an opportunity to present your case shortly.

<Prosecutor continues in a similar and eloquent fashion for twenty minutes>

JUDGE: The defendant may now make their opening confession.

VIXEN: <looks around confused> Er, um, like I said, confirmation bias is all I have to prove my case, sir. Er... That's all I have... sir.

JUDGE: <bangs gavel again> Guilty! Take the defendant away. Next case...


FTFY. Please, no thanks necessary.


-

 

[Vixen]

I should have added to my post that Sollecito was interrogated first, and according to his memoir* Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox, the approach of the interrogators from the start if that interrogation was to get him to disavow his previous statements that Knox had been with him at the time of Kercher's death. That interrogation had some coercive elements as well. Again this shows that Knox was a suspect before the interrogation and is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that the police and prosecutor were seeking to frame Knox and perhaps Sollecito. The motivation of the authorities to jointly accuse Sollecito would be that as a co-accused, his alibi for her presence in his apartment at the relevant time would be devalued.

Also, whether his statement was true or not, Giobbi claimed in his testimony during the Masse court trial that he had planned having Knox and Sollecito come to the police station for special questioning. In fact, only Sollecito was invited, and Knox accompanied him because she feared to be left alone after Kercher was murdered, according to her first memoir, Waiting to be Heard.

* written with Andrew Gumbel

Hmmm, yeah. Gumbel had to ghost write it for Sollecito to introduce a scintilla of human empathy of which 'icy cold' smug Sollecito lacks completely. OMG I am crying with tears in my eyes at Sollecito's professed tenderness towards Knox, so much so, he refused adamantly to incriminate her. Whoops! Within a day or so he completely rubbished his original police statement to deny Knox was ever with him all evening and that, in fact, she didn't return home until about 1:00am Sollecito, such a gentleman. so caring. So chivalrous.

No wonder Knox refused to marry him when he begged her for a US green card. What an utter bastard!






.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen appears to be bringing up the possibility of a wide-ranging conspiracy in the Knox - Sollecito case, although apparently with the intent to

Wow, those tag teams of twelve from Rome were also in on the act bullying a wretched young women all night over 53-hours screaming 'Remember! Remember!'. All because of some gawky female and her callow youth boyfriends. For some reason, these needed the entire Italian state to join in and 'get'em!'. Nothing to do with their being suspicious in any way.

Vixen appears to be bringing up the possibility of a wide-ranging conspiracy by the authorities in the Knox - Sollecito case, apparently with the intent of showing that the actual relatively small scale conspiracy by the authorities to frame them good not exist because it would be a logical absurdity.

Vixen's argument, however, is itself a logical absurdity, because it ignores the empirical facts of the case - the acts and failures to act of the authorities. Furthermore, there are historical or cultural elements of Italian society that have resulted in extensive conspiracies, although the relevance of those extensive conspiracies to the Knox - Sollecito case is uncertain. For example, in the 1990's, it was revealed that the Italian state institutions and political parties were extensively involved in bribery and other corruption:

At one point, more than half of the members of the Italian Parliament were under indictment, while more than 400 city and town councils were dissolved because of corruption charges. The estimated value of bribes paid annually in the 1980s by Italian and foreign companies bidding for large government contracts reached US$4 billion (6.5 trillion lire).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_pulite

Perhaps more relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case are the features of the Italian legal system, such as the law that specifies that a prosecutor becomes in essence the chief detective supervising police activities in an active investigation once a crime is discovered or suspected, although the police continue to exercise some independence in the investigation, as stated in CPP Article 327*:

The public prosecutor directs the investigations and directly controls the judicial police which, even after the communication of the crime report, continues to carry out activities on its own initiative according to the methods indicated in the following articles.

It should be understood that the police in an investigation operate as a team, and in the Knox - Sollecito case, the interpreter was an employee of the police, who admitted in her testimony before the Massei court the interrogation behavior - suggestively recounting her own claimed experience of traumatic amnesia - that Knox had stated. The interpreter's statements made during the interrogation had not been recorded in writing - a violation of Italian procedural law. In fact, none of the questions and answers of the impugned interrogation of Knox were recorded, except for a list of persons and Knox's allegedly coerced statement that had been typed out in Italian by the police. Similarly, in the second impugned interrogation by Mignini, there was no written record, except for Knox's alleged "spontaneous statement" typed out by the police. It is absurd to believe that Knox, a beginning student of Italian language with no training in Italian law, would on her own begin a document with the Italian legal formula "spontaneous statement".

* See: https://www.altalex.com/documents/n...i-e-udienza-preliminare-disposizioni-generali
The quote here is a Google translation.

 

[SpitfireIX]

The mafia is a real problem in Italy. I am surprised you didn't know that. The Italians judiciary has been corrupted by mafia infiltration. Both Bruno and Boninsegna were accused of mafia corruption at one point or another. Bongiorno represented mafia influenced Andreotti and also got him off under the same legal get-out clause as Knox and Sollecito.

I usually leave dealing with your junk claims in this thread to those with more knowledge of and interest in the case than I have, but, just because I called you on this particular dodge when you tried it in another thread, I'll respond. You're employing the motte-and-bailey fallacy^WP here.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte). [notes omitted]​

You routinely claim, or insinuate, that Knox and Sollecito were acquitted due to, inter alia, Mafia influence on the judiciary. When challenged on the extreme weakness of your evidence for this claim, you then retreat to the much more defensible but only tangentially relevant claim that the Italian judiciary is generally susceptible to Mafia influence. And then you try to pretend that you've somehow defended your claim or insinuation of Mafia influence on the Knox-Sollecito trial.

 

[Numbers]

I usually leave dealing with your junk claims in this thread to those with more knowledge of and interest in the case than I have, but, just because I called you on this particular dodge when you tried it in another thread, I'll respond. You're employing the motte-and-bailey fallacy^WP here.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte). [notes omitted]​

You routinely claim, or insinuate, that Knox and Sollecito were acquitted due to, inter alia, Mafia influence on the judiciary. When challenged on the extreme weakness of your evidence for this claim, you then retreat to the much more defensible but only tangentially relevant claim that the Italian judiciary is generally susceptible to Mafia influence. And then you try to pretend that you've somehow defended your claim or insinuation of Mafia influence on the Knox-Sollecito trial.

Vixen has not at all provided any credible evidence that the Italian Mafia or any organized crime group has influenced the court judgments in the Knox - Sollecito case. Vixen has also claimed, without any credible evidence, that the US government or certain prominent US persons improperly influenced the outcome (to date) of the Knox - Sollecito case. It appears that Vixen's argument or principle of proof is that by merely suggesting something - in line with her bias - is true, she has established that it is true.

There are legal cultural factors in Italy that are of actual relevance to the failings of the Italian courts to their wrongful provisional convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher and for the recent wrongful final conviction of Knox for false accusation (calunnia) against Lumumba. This final conviction is in direct conflict with the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Knox v. Italy.

A major issue in the culture of the Italian judicial system is the failure of a 1988 reform of the code of criminal procedure laws, enacted to change Italy's Fascist-era inquisitorial system, to a modern adversarial system that respects the rights of defendants. See, for example:

...rules are not sufficient to change habits, behaviors, and results.

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE OF ITALIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

https://theitalianlawjournal.it/data/uploads/5-italj-2-2019/565-orlandi.pdf

https://romatrepress.uniroma3.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Italian-criminal-procedure-thirty-years-after-the-great-reform.pdf

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Thank you, SpitfireIX, for the above post....I just wanted to point out that she also blames US State Departmentfor interference and having the immense power to make an Italian court of law overturn a verdict it presumably didn't want to overturn. The funniest part about this is that she never explains a. Why the US State Department would remotely care enough to get involved in this case; and b. Why the mafia & the US State Dept. would pick this case to be on the same "team". And forget about any logical explanation of why Trump's help with legal fees would sway an Italian court in favor of the American.

 

[Numbers]

View attachment 59815


Thank you, SpitfireIX, for the above post....I just wanted to point out that she also blames US State Departmentfor interference and having the immense power to make an Italian court of law overturn a verdict it presumably didn't want to overturn. The funniest part about this is that she never explains a. Why the US State Department would remotely care enough to get involved in this case; and b. Why the mafia & the US State Dept. would pick this case to be on the same "team". And forget about any logical explanation of why Trump's help with legal fees would sway an Italian court in favor of the American.

The guilter's strange conspiracy theories attempting to explain the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges, which Vixen presents in her posts, satisfy the need for the guilters to find a deus ex machina to avoid the problem of acknowledging that there was no credible evidence to support a conviction. I don't recall similar explanations by Vixen for the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy finding Italy had violated Knox's defense rights. Possibly I missed seeing the posts?

 

[Numbers]

Vixen has not at all provided any credible evidence that the Italian Mafia or any organized crime group has influenced the court judgments in the Knox - Sollecito case. Vixen has also claimed, without any credible evidence, that the US government or certain prominent US persons improperly influenced the outcome (to date) of the Knox - Sollecito case. It appears that Vixen's argument or principle of proof is that by merely suggesting something - in line with her bias - is true, she has established that it is true.

There are legal cultural factors in Italy that are of actual relevance to the failings of the Italian courts to their wrongful provisional convictions of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher and for the recent wrongful final conviction of Knox for false accusation (calunnia) against Lumumba. This final conviction is in direct conflict with the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Knox v. Italy.

A major issue in the culture of the Italian judicial system is the failure of a 1988 reform of the code of criminal procedure laws, enacted to change Italy's Fascist-era inquisitorial system, to a modern adversarial system that respects the rights of defendants. See, for example:

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE OF ITALIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

https://theitalianlawjournal.it/data/uploads/5-italj-2-2019/565-orlandi.pdf

https://romatrepress.uniroma3.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Italian-criminal-procedure-thirty-years-after-the-great-reform.pdf

I should add to the above the Italian procedural law that requires guilt to be based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) only in 2006*. Although this concept may have been introduced previously in CSC jurisprudence, many of the judges may still be getting used to this concept. IIRC, the Marasca CSC panel MR devoted some explanation to defending this as an Italian judicial principle.

*See the last source in the quoted post, page 40.

 

[Stacyhs]

With all due respect, this is a subforum under 'Trials and Errors', Criminal Law - and all law, actually - is rules-based. Yes, this can be very dry, for those who prefer tabloid-style soundbites. People studying for the bar are encouraged to join debating societies to hone their skills in presenting a coherent and logical argument based on legal principles. You do have to be able to present an argument to the court at trial as to what your case is. Demanding blind faith in your POV without any reasoning is perhaps better suited to the 'Religion and Philosophy' subforum? Then you can tell people arguing law to shut up and 'just believe'.

SCENE: Royal Courts of Justice

PROSECUTOR (opening statement) M'Lud, the defendant before you today is charged with the murder of X on date Y at Z. The circumstances are these: ABC and the defendant is charged under Sections DCE and F of the various statutes.

DEFENCE COUNSEL, AmyStrange (for it is he) BWAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!! Rubbish! Confirmation bias!

JUDGE <fx bangs gavel> Order! Order! Sit down Mr AmyStrange, you will have an opportunity to present your case shortly.

<fx Prosecutor continues in similar eloquent presentation of the case vein for twenty minutes.>

JUDGE: Mr. AmyStrange, you may now make your opening submissions.

AmyStrange: Er, um, like I said, confirmation bias! Proves my point! Er. ... That's it.




.

Oh, joy! I've missed your imaginary scenarios and conversations you think prove some point. They're always good for chuckle.

 

[Stacyhs]

I should have added to my post that Sollecito was interrogated first, and according to his memoir* Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox, the approach of the interrogators from the start if that interrogation was to get him to disavow his previous statements that Knox had been with him at the time of Kercher's death. That interrogation had some coercive elements as well. Again this shows that Knox was a suspect before the interrogation and is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that the police and prosecutor were seeking to frame Knox and perhaps Sollecito. The motivation of the authorities to jointly accuse Sollecito would be that as a co-accused, his alibi for her presence in his apartment at the relevant time would be devalued.

Also, whether his statement was true or not, Giobbi claimed in his testimony during the Masse court trial that he had planned having Knox and Sollecito come to the police station for special questioning. In fact, only Sollecito was invited, and Knox accompanied him because she feared to be left alone after Kercher was murdered, according to her first memoir, Waiting to be Heard.

* written with Andrew Gumbel

"...the approach of the interrogators from the start if that interrogation was to get him to disavow his previous statements that Knox had been with him at the time of Kercher's death. That interrogation had some coercive elements as well. Again this shows that Knox was a suspect before the interrogation..."

I agree 100% with this statement.

"is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that the police and prosecutor were seeking to frame Knox and perhaps Sollecito."

True...it's no inconsistent with the hypothesis but I still see no evidence that they were trying to frame them. I see no motive for that. It was early days and they were still waiting for the forensics to come back. As I've said many times before, they have admitted they already suspected them as early as Nov. 1 and Nov. 2.


"The motivation of the authorities to jointly accuse Sollecito would be that as a co-accused, his alibi for her presence in his apartment at the relevant time would be devalued"

Obviously. In order to remove her alibi, they had to make Sollecito a co-conspirator.

"Also, whether his statement was true or not, Giobbi claimed in his testimony during the Masse court trial that he had planned having Knox and Sollecito come to the police station for special questioning."

I think that's true and is just more proof that the two were already suspects in reality, if not technically. I think they deliberately wanted Sollecito alone so they could get him to turn on Knox more easily.

 

[Vixen]

"...the approach of the interrogators from the start if that interrogation was to get him to disavow his previous statements that Knox had been with him at the time of Kercher's death. That interrogation had some coercive elements as well. Again this shows that Knox was a suspect before the interrogation..."

I agree 100% with this statement.

"is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that the police and prosecutor were seeking to frame Knox and perhaps Sollecito."

True...it's no inconsistent with the hypothesis but I still see no evidence that they were trying to frame them. I see no motive for that. It was early days and they were still waiting for the forensics to come back. As I've said many times before, they have admitted they already suspected them as early as Nov. 1 and Nov. 2.


"The motivation of the authorities to jointly accuse Sollecito would be that as a co-accused, his alibi for her presence in his apartment at the relevant time would be devalued"

Obviously. In order to remove her alibi, they had to make Sollecito a co-conspirator.

"Also, whether his statement was true or not, Giobbi claimed in his testimony during the Masse court trial that he had planned having Knox and Sollecito come to the police station for special questioning."

I think that's true and is just more proof that the two were already suspects in reality, if not technically. I think they deliberately wanted Sollecito alone so they could get him to turn on Knox more easily.

Why? What would be the motive in police knowingly accusing the wrong person in a brutal murder. Do you really think the police do not have better things to do with their time? Not just Mignini but the entire judiciary network, when in the meantime there could be a serial killer on the loose.

Sollecito was summonsed to the Questura for a formal interview. He could have taken a lawyer with him but chose not to. Police aren't going to know he was going to strut in carrying a knife. So by your account, these police were desperate to get him to implicate Knox because, er, um, er..ah, 'She did cartwheels! So they picked on her!'


Anything but admit what is now as plain as day: They were there. They did it.





.

 

[Stacyhs]

Incorrect again. They were the Court's appointed independent expert witnesses.

Umm.... http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...ices-prosecutor/2008-01-09-Notice-Prosecutor-hiring-Rinaldi-Boemia.pdf
What part of the word "HIRING" is confusing you? Do you seriously want to claim experts HIRED work for free?

As you know but fail to point out, Vinci was heavily rapped by the court for artificially manipulating the shoeprint images to try to make it fit Guede. In other words, the Court caught out Vinci being a fraud.

Whenever you precede something with "Certainly" or "As you know" we can be sure that what follows is unsupported nonsense. Vinci never had to prove the shoeprints were Guede's in court as the police admitted their error long before the first trial when Sollecito's father and uncle proved they were left by Nike Outbreak 2's...Guede's shoes. Dr. Sollecito revealed this in an Italian TV show on January 11, 2008.
That they belonged to Guede was also evidence in Guede's own fast-track trial.

I think you're confusing the "shoeprint images" with the single footprint on the bathmat. Vinci used a forensic alternate lighting source (Crimescope) that enhances images making distinctions easier to examine. The Massei court disagreed with Vinici's conclusion as to it not belonging to Sollecito, but they certainly did NOT "heavily rap" him for "artificially manipulating the image" as you claim (see MR pgs. 354-355 English). And as YOU know, Hellmann (MR pg 65 Eng.) disagreed with Massei's conclusion:

However, [Massei's judgment] is no more than a mere subjective impression, lacking in any logical, let alone technical‐scientific support, and as such it is unsuitable for overcoming the objective data expressed just above. But these are not the only morphological differences between the bathmat print and the foot of the accused. As can be read on p. 45 of his report, Professor Vinci also took care to line up the footprints, taking as a line of reference the base of the forefoot, as it is particularly clear and visible in the bathmat print. This made it possible for him to observe: the different width of the point of contact of the first metatarsal bone, the different width of the whole forefoot “shown in Sollecito’s print by the [99] projection outside of the first yellow reference line of the salience of the metatarsophalangeal articulation of the second toe”; the different position of the tip of Sollecito’s big toe “which goes well over the second yellow reference line lined up with the tip of the trace of the big toe visible on the bathmat print.”

Marasca did not support Massei's conclusion either (pg 46):

Finally, no certainty could be reached [was acquired] about the attribution to Mr. Sollecito of the footprints found in the via della Pergola house, about which the technical reports carried out have not gone beyond a judgement of “probable identity”, and not of certainty (p. 260/1)

Stop making claims so easily disproved.

 

[Numbers]

"...the approach of the interrogators from the start if that interrogation was to get him to disavow his previous statements that Knox had been with him at the time of Kercher's death. That interrogation had some coercive elements as well. Again this shows that Knox was a suspect before the interrogation..."

I agree 100% with this statement.

"is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that the police and prosecutor were seeking to frame Knox and perhaps Sollecito."

True...it's no inconsistent with the hypothesis but I still see no evidence that they were trying to frame them. I see no motive for that. It was early days and they were still waiting for the forensics to come back. As I've said many times before, they have admitted they already suspected them as early as Nov. 1 and Nov. 2.


"The motivation of the authorities to jointly accuse Sollecito would be that as a co-accused, his alibi for her presence in his apartment at the relevant time would be devalued"

Obviously. In order to remove her alibi, they had to make Sollecito a co-conspirator.

"Also, whether his statement was true or not, Giobbi claimed in his testimony during the Masse court trial that he had planned having Knox and Sollecito come to the police station for special questioning."

I think that's true and is just more proof that the two were already suspects in reality, if not technically. I think they deliberately wanted Sollecito alone so they could get him to turn on Knox more easily.

The only motive required for the police and/or prosecutor to frame someone is to give the appearance of having solved the crime.

Now in this case Mignini and perhaps others in the police may sincerely have believed that Knox and/or Sollecito were guilty, but that would not have changed the "framing" to a "mistake". Anytime police or a prosecutor use misconduct to make someone (who is by law presumed innocent) appear guilty - even "merely" using coercion to extract a false statement or false confession - is an instance of framing. The false statement or false confession is fabricated evidence - it is what the police or prosecutor (approximately) wishes as evidence, not the free-will declaration of the person coerced.

 

[Vixen]

Umm.... http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...ices-prosecutor/2008-01-09-Notice-Prosecutor-hiring-Rinaldi-Boemia.pdf
What part of the word "HIRING" is confusing you? Do you seriously want to claim experts HIRED work for free?

Whenever you precede something with "Certainly" or "As you know" we can be sure that what follows is unsupported nonsense. Vinci never had to prove the shoeprints were Guede's in court as the police admitted their error long before the first trial when Sollecito's father and uncle proved they were left by Nike Outbreak 2's...Guede's shoes. Dr. Sollecito revealed this in an Italian TV show on January 11, 2008.
That they belonged to Guede was also evidence in Guede's own fast-track trial.

I think you're confusing the "shoeprint images" with the single footprint on the bathmat. Vinci used a forensic alternate lighting source (Crimescope) that enhances images making distinctions easier to examine. The Massei court disagreed with Vinici's conclusion as to it not belonging to Sollecito, but they certainly did NOT "heavily rap" him for "artificially manipulating the image" as you claim (see MR pgs. 354-355 English). And as YOU know, Hellmann (MR pg 65 Eng.) disagreed with Massei's conclusion:

Marasca did not support Massei's conclusion either (pg 46):

Stop making claims so easily disproved.

Stop quoting Hellmann. His rulings were ripped up and thrown in the bin as complete and utter rubbish by the Supreme Court.


Apart from upholding the Calunnia conviction.



.

 

[Vixen]

The only motive required for the police and/or prosecutor to frame someone is to give the appearance of having solved the crime.

Now in this case Mignini and perhaps others in the police may sincerely have believed that Knox and/or Sollecito were guilty, but that would not have changed the "framing" to a "mistake". Anytime police or a prosecutor use misconduct to make someone (who is by law presumed innocent) appear guilty - even "merely" using coercion to extract a false statement or false confession - is an instance of framing. The false statement or false confession is fabricated evidence - it is what the police or prosecutor (approximately) wishes as evidence, not the free-will declaration of the person coerced.

No, they didn't believe they had 'solved the crime' as the pair were not charged until eight months later. So your hypothesis is, that the police spent eight months framing a couple of people for no reason we can discern.

To do this the entire judiciary had to be in on the act, together with the forensic police and courts.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

The mafia is a real problem in Italy. I am surprised you didn't know that. The Italians judiciary has been corrupted by mafia infiltration.

I do know that. But that does not change the fact that neither you, nor anyone else, has ever provided a scintilla of evidence that the mafia influenced the verdicts in this case or that Raffaele or his family has any connection to the mafia. Of course, that still doesn't stop you from repeating the same lie even after all these years. Wasn't it embarrassing enough to have your "photo of Dr. Sollecito coming out of the chapel where Rocco's memorial was held" disproven? Apparently not.

Both Bruno and Boninsegna were accused of mafia corruption at one point or another.

You'll never learn, will you? We've discussed this before. But since you don't seem to mind being embarrassed yet again, Bruno was held to be completely innocent:

At the request of the same prosecutor in Rome, the judge for the preliminary hearing that dealt with the case of Paolo Antonio Bruno in August 2007 has definitively dismissed all charges against the magistrate, writing harsh judgments against the work of colleagues de Magistris-Lombardi-Spagnuolo. These judgments have been reconstructed and also taken up in the Salerno judgment of civil conviction for the actions of the three, where it says: "The charge against Bruno was completely lacking in adequate confirmation. The Gup of the court of Rome has acquitted not already by virtue of investigative circumstances, but on the basis of a mere taking of action (according to the requisition of the same Roman prosecutor) that from the beginning any element was missing in the investigation, even if it was a mere suspicion".

And if that's not enough, Boninsegna was also officially cleared of any wrongdoing:

The Court of Appeal of Salerno has rejected the request for disqualification from public office against three magistrates operating in the district of the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro. These are the deputy prosecutors Giampaolo Boninsegna – recently transferred to Pisa – and Paolo Petrolo, as well as the judge Giancarlo Bianchi. The Public Prosecutor’s Office of Salerno had filed an appeal against the order of the investigating judge Dolores Zarone, issued on 29 November 2012, through which she considered the accusations against the magistrates under investigation to be “unfounded”. In particular, the magistrates Boninsegna and Petrolo were accused, in various capacities, of having violated official secrecy concerning some investigations into organised crime and drug trafficking by revealing details

Bongiorno represented mafia influenced Andreotti

You mean a defense lawyer defended someone? SHOCKING! How dare she! She must be mafia connected herself!

and also got him off under the same legal get-out clause as Knox and Sollecito.

That same 'legal get-out' was CCP Art. 530, para. 2 "for not having committed the facts". That some "legal get-out" loophole there, Vixen! The SC confirmed that acquittal.

Having regard to art. 530, paragraph 2° p.c.; absolves Andreotti Giulio of the accusations against him because the fact does not exist. Having regard to art.544 paragraph 3° c.p.p. fixes the deadline of ninety days for the deposit motivation. Palermo 23 October 1999

Really, Vixen. Stop embarrassing yourself.

So, yes, you can scoff but it remains very compelling that Bongiorno managed to get the Appeal hearing diverted to Hellman, hitherto only experienced in business disputes and had no idea how to treat evidence in a Serious Crime case. He was sacked immediately after he egregiously set the pair free.

Ah...yet more unsupported by evidence accusations. You really need to stop believing your own propaganda.

A defense attorney cannot choose which appellate court judges try a case. To claim so is one of the most insane claims I've heard in this case. And I've heard a lot of them from the PGP.

And Hellmann, already at retirement age, chose to retire because of how he was being treated by fellow judges, not because he was "sacked".

Claudio Pratillo Hellmann resigned from the judiciary and explained the reasons for his action in an interview with the newspaper La Repubblica (see this link for consultation).

« I was practically forced . Our decision was greeted with reactions of indignation . I still remember the whistles and shouts of a claque that had gathered in front of the court the evening of the verdict. From the next day I felt surrounded by growing hostility . In the bars of Perugia they said that I had sold out to the Americans, that I had given in to pressure from the CIA. Nonsense, of course, but what struck me most about the defamatory lynching that had lasted for years was the reaction of my fellow magistrates . Almost all of them stopped greeting me . In particular, those who in various capacities had been involved in the affair. I realized that that of my Court had been a voice out of the chorus in a court where all the judges , starting from the preliminary hearing judge to those of the various re-examinations, while criticizing the investigation, had endorsed the accusation . Furthermore, I was in the running for the presidency of the Tribunal and naturally that position was assigned to another colleague who was certainly very worthy, but I had some suspicions that it was a retaliation ".