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

[Stacyhs]

Yes, isn't it great that Kercher's killers evaded justice, apart from Guede? I would call that a Pyrrhic victory...rather like OJ Simpson walking. He, too, brought out a book, 'If I DID IT' and profited from his horrible crime.


.

I was wondering how long it would take you to bring up OJ Simpson. But no mention of Jodi Arias or some other false equivalencies?

 

[Vixen]

You're right...they didn't directly because contamination could not be proved or disproved. But the fact that M-B (pg. 36 MR) declared Nencini in error for his ruling on the bra hook, is evidence that they did think contamination more likely than not:




And there it is again: every judge, lawyer, expert, reporter, etc. who doesn't swallow the guilt narrative is "bent".
Not conspiracy minded much there, eh?

Not according to the forensic experts. But, then again, you have a degree in forensics. Oh, wait....


Heh heh heh....sure. And 911 was an inside job, the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, and the 1969 moon landing was shot on a secret backstage lot.

Nice try! But it remains a fact there was more than one killer. If Guede was ruled an accessory to the crime and therefore culpable by virtue of being there, then it means the REAL killers are still out there. So yes, the real killers have got away with it.


This is factual.


Unlike your ridiculous theory that Mignini the almighty with omnipotent powers in charge of everything was the master of puppets who pursued the pair because being a catholic in Italy he believed - <whisper it> - there are Satanists about.


.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Altieri was shown up as being completely wrong about seeing a couple of mobile phones.

And? That makes his entire testimony 'unreliable'? You trot out Quintavalle as evidence of Knox being out early on Nov. 2. He was found unreliable, not least by Insp. Volturno's testimony. Same with Capezalli, Curatolo, Kokomani, etc. Yet you accept as truth what they said. Being wrong about the phones is only one small part of his testimony.

'Icy cold' is Mignini's description of Sollecito.

Which you repeat ad nauseum. You've referred to him as "knife-boy" on many occasions. Are you just parroting Mignini there, too?

There was a recent book brought out here by some prosecutor or cop or whatever, who explained that the creepiest and most chilling criminals he had ever come across were the ones who acted as though they were talking about the weather, having committed horrible crimes. Yes, 'icy cold' fits Sollecito. Complete sangfroid through and through.

.

 

[Vixen]

Someone asked about Guilio Mignini's view of Knox today. Here's an extract from his book which was published recently in Italy in Itlaian (Google translate):

The idea that I have made of the girl from Seattle is that she

was and is, instead, a normal girl of the far west American, very

extroverted and extremely curious, this is a very important

aspect in her, very open to the dialogue, but also extremely

narcissistic and very firm in her own convictions which,

however, tend to simplify themselves often excessively. P 311



the United States was

interested not in ascertaining the responsibility or innocence of

Amanda but in the fact that she could return free to the United

States to "defend" in this way, the "prestige" of this country and

not to respect the decision that on a tragic criminal affair would

issue the only country that had jurisdiction over the crimes

committed that tragic night between 1 and 2 November, at the

gates of Perugia, in Via della Pergola n. 8. P 314

 

[Stacyhs]

I see Altieri as someone who was eager to help out. A nice guy but misguided. The Popovic woman with her suticase that never happened was similar. People who mean well but just serve to complicate matters.

.

What IS it with you thinking everyone was bent or paid off? Their lawyers are bent and mafia linked, the experts are all paid off and/or incompetent, the witnesses have some ulterior motive to lie, etc. The list of all these corrupt and /or incompetents is never ending with you.

How does Altieri benefit for lying for someone he never met? How does Popovic benefit by lying about seeing Sollecito and Knox BEFORE Kercher even arrived home?

You can't even admit Altieri didn't know either of them.

 

[Vixen]

And? That makes his entire testimony 'unreliable'? You trot out Quintavalle as evidence of Knox being out early on Nov. 2. He was found unreliable, not least by Insp. Volturno's testimony. Same with Capezalli, Curatolo, Kokomani, etc. Yet you accept as truth what they said. Being wrong about the phones is only one small part of his testimony.

Which you repeat ad nauseum. You've referred to him as "knife-boy" on many occasions. Are you just parroting Mignini there, too?

Here's what Mignini says about Sollecito in his recent book (google translate from Italian):

Sollecito was and is, in my opinion, the most enigmatic,

indecipherable character of the three and who had suffered most

in his life, especially for the death of his mother.

It was

immediately revealed the strong family bond of Sollecito.

During the trial, they were the ones who bore the brunt of the

counseling with which they sought to oppose the prosecution.

They also used their evident relationship with the political sector

of the old National Alliance and then the party founded by

Gianfranco Fini.

<snip>

The undecipherable and viciously hostile Sollecito.



Where there is no clarity and in this case there was no clarity

in its conclusion above all, it is a sign that something negative

and disturbing is at work and this process has ended in a

procedural manner bordering on "abnormality" and with a

deciding content almost incomprehensible.

 

[Vixen]

What IS it with you thinking everyone was bent or paid off? Their lawyers are bent and mafia linked, the experts are all paid off and/or incompetent, the witnesses have some ulterior motive to lie, etc. The list of all these corrupt and /or incompetents is never ending with you.

How does Altieri benefit for lying for someone he never met? How does Popovic benefit by lying about seeing Sollecito and Knox BEFORE Kercher even arrived home?

You can't even admit Altieri didn't know either of them.

Please do not put words in my mouth.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nice try! But it remains a fact there was more than one killer. If Guede was ruled an accessory to the crime and therefore culpable by virtue of being there, then it means the REAL killers are still out there. So yes, the real killers have got away with it.

That is fact.

A judicial fact is not necessarily an actual fact. You don't accept the judicial fact that the pair had nothing to do with the murder, so stop touting a judicial fact made by a court before their acquittal in 2011 when crucial prosecution evidence was discredited.

There is no evidence of ANYONE in that bedroom except Guede. You can't handwave away that fact no matter how many times you trot out a "judicial fact".

Unlike your ridiculous theory that Mignini the almighty with omnipotent powers in charge of everything was the master of puppets who pursued the pair because being a catholic in Italy he believed - <whisper it> - there are Satanists about.

LOL. Oh, honey....that there were Satanists about was Mignini's theory just like his satanic cult nonsense in the M of Florence case.

As late as October 2008, a year after the murder, he told a court that the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” — on Halloween itself — “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day.”

 

[AmyStrange]

Please do not put words in my mouth.

They don't have to do anything; you do a bang-up job of it all by your lonesome.

BTW, have you set up a date to meet Mignini? I'm sure you won't tell us, but it would still be interesting to read what you both talked about.


-

 

[Numbers]

Exactly. Knox had not been charged with any criminal offence as of the time she committed her criminal offence of Calunnia, hence there was no requirement for a lawyer to be present. IOW the ECHR was misinformed if it believed she was an 'accused' person when she committed the crime.

You don't have this quite right. Perhaps you are misreading the ECHR judgment paragraph 152* and the following paragraphs 153 - 167. Recall that the ECHR is not merely evaluating the single alleged violation of the denial of a lawyer for Knox during the interrogation, but how that denial was treated or not treated by the Italian court during the trial**.

* There was no doubt that Knox was an accused and denied a lawyer during the second interrogation.

.... The {ECHR} Court cannot but note that, just a few hours before the impugned hearings, the applicant had promptly retracted her statements, in particular through a text written on her own initiative on 6 November 2007 at around 1 p.m. and submitted to the police ... {in} another text written on 9 November 2007 for her lawyers ..., and the telephone call to her mother on 10 November 2007 while the line was tapped .... (an excerpt from paragraph 160)

There was no documentation that she had been notified of her procedural rights during the second interrogation (paragraph 165). {The ECHR therefore assumed that there was no notification. Documentation of defense rights during the questioning of an accused is required for a fair trial.}

.** The Italian court did not consider that Knox had withdrawn her allegedly coerced statements against Lumumba soon after making them. There was a violation of Article 6.1 with Article 6.3e.

 

[Stacyhs]

Someone asked about Guilio Mignini's view of Knox today. Here's an extract from his book which was published recently in Italy in Itlaian (Google translate):

Ah, yes, his book. A book in which he tries desperately to save face for having lost the biggest murder trial in decades. The one in which he praises all those reporters who repeated his version and vilified all those who dared question it. The book in which he moans and whines about how unfairly he was treated.

 

[Stacyhs]

Here's what Mignini says about Sollecito in his recent book (google translate from Italian):



<snip>

I don't give a rat's arse what Mignini has to say about him or Knox.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please do not put words in my mouth.


.

I'm not. Longtime members here will recall your use of "knife-boy" and your claims of multiple judges, lawyers, experts and witneses being bent, paid off, or incompetent.
And you didn't answer my questions:

How does Altieri benefit for lying for someone he never met?
How does Popovic benefit by lying about seeing Sollecito and Knox BEFORE Kercher even arrived home?

Nor have you yet acknowledged Altieri did not know RS or AK. But that would be admitting being wrong, right?

 

[AmyStrange]

Ah, yes, his book. A book in which he tries desperately to save face for having lost the biggest murder trial in decades. The one in which he praises all those reporters who repeated his version and vilified all those who dared question it. The book in which he moans and whines about how unfairly he was treated.

OMG, that sounds like the fat clown himself!


-

 

[Stacyhs]

OMG, that sounds like the fat clown himself.


-

It does, doesn't it? I suspect Mignini has more than just a touch of narcissism. He thinks of himself as an Italian Sherlock Holmes, down to the pipe smoking. He thinks he can see evidence in tiny details that others overlook. He bragged about how people came up to him on the streets after the Massei trial and praised him for what a fantastic job he'd done.

TJMK seems to be down or I'd quote you some of the slathering, obsequious, and adoring reviews of his book. Apparently, it's a "spectacularly eye-opening" account!

 

[Numbers]

You don't have this quite right. Perhaps you are misreading the ECHR judgment paragraph 152* and the following paragraphs 153 - 167. Recall that the ECHR is not merely evaluating the single alleged violation of the denial of a lawyer for Knox during the interrogation, but how that denial was treated or not treated by the Italian court during the trial**.

* There was no doubt that Knox was an accused and denied a lawyer during the second interrogation.

.... The {ECHR} Court cannot but note that, just a few hours before the impugned hearings, the applicant had promptly retracted her statements, in particular through a text written on her own initiative on 6 November 2007 at around 1 p.m. and submitted to the police ... {in} another text written on 9 November 2007 for her lawyers ..., and the telephone call to her mother on 10 November 2007 while the line was tapped .... (an excerpt from paragraph 160)

There was no documentation that she had been notified of her procedural rights during the second interrogation (paragraph 165). {The ECHR therefore assumed that there was no notification. Documentation of defense rights during the questioning of an accused is required for a fair trial.}

.** The Italian court did not consider that Knox had withdrawn her allegedly coerced statements against Lumumba soon after making them. There was a violation of Article 6.1 with Article 6.3e.

I was testing if readers here were paying attention when I wrote this line.

Nope, actually, it was a typo. I meant the end of the last line to read "This was a violation of Article 6.1 with Article 6.3c." There was also a violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3e in the case, and that was centered on the inadequate or unfair interpretation.

One point readers may get from Knox v. Italy is that denial of a lawyer during an interrogation does not in itself necessarily lead to an ECHR judgment of an unfair trial. A court could correct for that procedural violation by excluding the evidence obtained by the interrogation. In this case, that would mean no trial of Knox on a calunnia charge.

 

[Vixen]

They don't have to do anything; you do a bang-up job of it all by your lonesome.

BTW, have you set up a date to meet Mignini? I'm sure you won't tell us, but it would still be interesting to read what you both talked about.


-

As I said, it was a polite platitude not anything to be taken literally.



.

 

[Vixen]

I don't give a rat's arse what Mignini has to say about him or Knox.

I wasn't responding to you.

.

 

[AmyStrange]

Look, the willfully stupid and ignorant Darkness is back.


-

 

[Vixen]

I'm not. Longtime members here will recall your use of "knife-boy" and your claims of multiple judges, lawyers, experts and witneses being bent, paid off, or incompetent.
And you didn't answer my questions:

How does Altieri benefit for lying for someone he never met?
How does Popovic benefit by lying about seeing Sollecito and Knox BEFORE Kercher even arrived home?

Nor have you yet acknowledged Altieri did not know RS or AK. But that would be admitting being wrong, right?

Knife boy or nice boy? He was a knife boy. Collected knives. Strutted into the Questura with a knife on his person then whined about the police confiscating it. Waved a butchers cleaver around on FaceBook. Claimed to have pricked MK's hand whilst cooking.

C&V were bent. They were discovered with a whole load of cadavers lining their corridors and no proper thermostat on their 'scientifically controlled' lab refrigerators. Vecchiotti convicted of covering up for another killer by concealing his DNA from the courts. I dare say Vecchiotti sees herself as some kind of 'innocence' campaigner. I see a misguided crook.

Altieri and Popovic were simply sticking up for a couple of people they perceived to be in trouble. And let's face it, the suitcase on the coach never happened, did it? Nor did the mobile phones Altieri saw, nor did he 'see a medic doing a slashing throat gesture' which is how he knew how MK died in order to impart the message onto Knox in the car as they were driving to the Questura. The claim that Knox knew Mez had her throat slashed 'because Altieri told her in the car' is hilariously ludicrous. Knox claimed she knew the body was by the wardrobe because that is what Filomena said is also laughable. A cop who looked in on the scene said the fact the body had been placed on a sheet and moved eighteen inches towards the closet informed him that whoever did it, intended to dispose of the body later. Yet in the Questura Knox was telling people the body was found in the closet. Amazing insider knowledge there, eh, for someone who wasn't there.


Smell the coffee.


.