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

[Vixen]

Duh. The question is whether it was opened when the police found it or opened by them? See Chiacchierra's testimony already presented.

That article only mentions Mignini's theory:

MIgnini claimed a lot of nonsense including it was a "satanic rite". So which is it? 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 OR inspired by a manga vampire comic? OR was it jealousy, OR theft, OR a sex game gone wrong?

I see you're indulging in yet more "mind reading".

They reported what they saw. Unsurprisingly, for you, that is evidence of guilt.
Meredith stumbled home at dawn after a night of partying and likely fell into bed immediately.

Police and the prosecutor are not allowed to mislead the court, so if Mignini brought up the issue of the manga magazine, it was completely bona fide. Contrary to the fond belief of the AK/RS CT-er's, none of the evidence was faked, tampered with or contaminated.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

In Waiting to be Heard 2013 Amanda Knox resolutely omits the detail of ‘going into the old town’:

The afternoon of Thursday 1 November 2007

P61

“Sometime between 4:00pm and 5pm we left to go to his place.”



There then follows filler sentences about how “we wanted a quiet cozy night in.



As we walked along, I was telling Raffaele that Amélie was my all time favourite movie.

‘Really?’ he asked. ‘I’ve never seen it.”



[Forgetting completely, forensic police discovered he’d downloaded the movie way back on 28 Oct 2007].



“Oh my God,’ I said, unbelieving. ‘You have to see it right this second. You’ll love it.”
So here are the forensic police logs proving that Sollecito already knew about Amelie and had downloaded it on HIS Macbook 28 Oct 2007. It is next recorded as playing 18:27 - 21:10 1 Nov 2007, as a CD-Rom.

View attachment 60911

View attachment 60909

View attachment 60910


.

• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito.zip
• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito-Macbook.pdf
• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito-Macbook-Fastweb-logs.pdf

For god's sake, PLEASE learn to reduce the size of you photos! It's not hard. Just click on a corner of it until a blue box appears and drag it inward to a more appropriate size.

What does it matter that it was downloaded on Oct. 29 when it was WATCHED on Nov. 1 just as they both claimed? How does that change anything? So she didn't remember she might have mentioned it to him earlier. She may not even have known he already downloaded it when they were walking home so she mentioned it again.

You expect them to have perfect playback memories of casual conversations or events when, at the time, they were not important. Any deviation or imperfect recollection is assumed to be a lie or other sign of guilt.

 

[Vixen]

For god's sake, PLEASE learn to reduce the size of you photos! It's not hard. Just click on a corner of it until a blue box appears and drag it inward to a more appropriate size.

What does it matter that it was downloaded on Oct. 29 when it was WATCHED on Nov. 1 just as they both claimed? How does that change anything? So she didn't remember she might have mentioned it to him earlier. She may not even have known he already downloaded it when they were walking home so she mentioned it again.

You expect them to have perfect playback memories of casual conversations or events when, at the time, they were not important. Any deviation or imperfect recollection is assumed to be a lie or other sign of guilt.

Heh heh. How did I KNOW you would rationalise a blatant lie and find an 'alternative explanation', as usual


So, so predictable!

A reasonable objective person can see a mile off the pair were setting up Amelié as a fake alibi for the evening, whilst they dealt with Mez.




.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Police and the prosecutor are not allowed to mislead the court,

I never said they did.
But would misleading the court include NOT reporting the "Good night" portion of Amanda's text to Lumumba?
From Matteini's MR pg. 8:

In her answer, she told him that they would meet later, then she left after telling Mr. Sollecito she was going to work.

so if Mignini brought up the issue of the manga magazine, it was completely bona fide.

Please stop moving the goalposts. No one here has said it wasn't bona fide to bring it up. The question is, and always has been, whether RS had even seen the graphic drawing in a comic that RS said was in sealed cellophane and that Chiacchiera testified could have been sealed and which he opened.

Contrary to the fond belief of the AK/RS CT-er's, none of the evidence was faked, tampered with or contaminated.

I've never said it was 'fake' or 'tampered with" but it was contaminated per the report of the forensic experts appointed by the court. Oh, wait....I forgot: they're 'bent'.

 

[Stacyhs]

Heh heh. How did I KNOW you would rationalise a blatant lie and find an 'alternative explanation', as usual

So, so predictable!

Heh heh. How did I KNOW you would claim to know it was a 'blatant lie'? Because every single error in memory must be a lie rather than simply a poor memory? So, so predictable!

I guess Filomena was telling a 'blatant lie' when she got the time of a phone call wrong. Were the postales telling a 'blatant lie' when they claimed they arrived at 12:35 when the logs prove they arrived later?

A reasonable objective person can see a mile off the pair were setting up Amelié as a fake alibi for the evening, whilst they dealt with Mez.

Hahahahahaha! So now you, despite every court finding the murder was NOT premeditated, being a "reasonable and objective person" can see that they were planning the murder two days earlier! Not only were they planning on killing Meredith, they watched Amelie between 6:27 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. and Meredith didn't even arrive home until 9:00! Some alibi! A 'reasonable, objective person' can see a mile off what's wrong with your theory.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is more than one frame to a comic strip!

Room not too small. When the jury visited, seven people (including 'larger' middle-aged types) fit in easily, milling around as Comodi explained where was what.

And there was more than ONE example of how the comic drawing and Meredith's body were NOT in the same position or otherwise similar. Which you ignore.

A reasonable, objective person would see and acknowledge that.

 

[Myriad]

There is more than one frame to a comic strip!

If there were a frame that resembled the crime scene any more closely, Filet (and you) would have pointed it out.

Room not too small. When the jury visited, seven people (including 'larger' middle-aged types) fit in easily, milling around as Comodi explained where was what.

Having seen the photos of the crime scene, I don't believe you. The room is far smaller than the room depicted in the comic panel. As for the jurors, maybe they all managed to cram into the room like it was a subway train, or maybe they fit easily and milled around in the entire apartment. I don't know what the truth is, but I know from experience how unlikely it is that you're telling it.

 

[Vixen]

Heh heh. How did I KNOW you would claim to know it was a 'blatant lie'? Because every single error in memory must be a lie rather than simply a poor memory? So, so predictable!

I guess Filomena was telling a 'blatant lie' when she got the time of a phone call wrong. Were the postales telling a 'blatant lie' when they claimed they arrived at 12:35 when the logs prove they arrived later?

Hahahahahaha! So now you, despite every court finding the murder was NOT premeditated, being a "reasonable and objective person" can see that they were planning the murder two days earlier! Not only were they planning on killing Meredith, they watched Amelie between 6:27 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. and Meredith didn't even arrive home until 9:00! Some alibi! A 'reasonable, objective person' can see a mile off what's wrong with your theory.

Once again, you are failing to keep track. The thrust of the discussion was a poster announcing he was reading WTBH to get familiar with the case. I pointed it that it was hardly an accurate account and cited the key alibi of staying home all evening and watching Amélie. Given the film Le Monde d'Amélie was the pair's key alibi, it is rather striking Knox blatantly lies about this in her book. She knowingly and disrespectfully deceives her reader and this is clearly deliberate as she had, at that stage, over five years to establish all of the facts, major and minor, of the alibi she would be relying on in court. So your claim about people's causal memory of past events being naturally faulty is a laughable attempt to defend the indefensible. Or more likely, you know perfectly well Knox is deliberately misleading her readers but you somehow think this type of criminal is to be admired, rather like a lot of Brits idolise the escaped Great Train Robber, Ronnie Biggs (yes, there was a railway worker left dead directly as a result of the audacious heist but, like Mez, everybody's forgotten about him, and Biggs is their hero because he screwed the police).






.

 

[Vixen]

I never said they did.
But would misleading the court include NOT reporting the "Good night" portion of Amanda's text to Lumumba?
From Matteini's MR pg. 8:





Please stop moving the goalposts. No one here has said it wasn't bona fide to bring it up. The question is, and always has been, whether RS had even seen the graphic drawing in a comic that RS said was in sealed cellophane and that Chiacchiera testified could have been sealed and which he opened.

I've never said it was 'fake' or 'tampered with" but it was contaminated per the report of the forensic experts appointed by the court. Oh, wait....I forgot: they're 'bent'.

Rubbish, that was just Bongiorno for Sollecito trying to catch Chiacchiera out in the witness box. He was the joint prosecutor with Mignini originally, so quite high up and experienced in giving testimony. When Bongiorno asked if the mags were still shrink-wrapped, he realised it was a trap so gave a noncommital answer rather than say, 'No they were not shrink wrapped' aware that some might have been and hence the 'AHA!' moment so instead said some might have been. It doesn't follow that they were ALL shrink wrapped and unread. Whilst witness testimony counts as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, the judges and jury is still entitled to take it or leave it as they see fit. Please read more carefully in future. Chiacchiera did NOT confirm the magazines were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread', he was being non-committal - i.e., it was possible that some might have been - rather than fall in to Bongiorno's 'GOTCHA!'. (i.e., that none were.)



.

 

[Vixen]

If there were a frame that resembled the crime scene any more closely, Filet (and you) would have pointed it out.



Having seen the photos of the crime scene, I don't believe you. The room is far smaller than the room depicted in the comic panel. As for the jurors, maybe they all managed to cram into the room like it was a subway train, or maybe they fit easily and milled around in the entire apartment. I don't know what the truth is, but I know from experience how unlikely it is that you're telling it.

You 'saw the photos of the crime scene'. Let's go over the the actual fact of the matter:

From Death in Perugia, John Follain, p 298:

Holding her torch up by her head, Comodi led the group down the corridor. The others followed her gingerly and stopped briefly to look inside Amanda's tiny room. Then Comodi went next door into Meredith's room. Using her torch, she walked across it avoiding the pool of blood on the floor and opened the window and shutters. The sunlight streamed in. The view over the rolling hills was at its spring best - a view Meredith had never seen.
The blood on the floor had caked completely dry. It was a dark colour. The splashes and streaks of blood on the walls had also darkened with time. The judges and jurors gazed for a long time at the photographs of Meredith and her friends still on the walls.
Looking around the room, a juror commented: 'But this isn't a small room like Amanda's. How many of us are in here now?"
Quick as a flash, Comodi replied: 'Seven.' She was secretly delighted by the question, as the defence had claimed Meredith's room was too small for three killers to attack her in it.

Please stop trying to rewrite history to fit in with the 'story you tell yourself'. Yes, it causes cognitive dissonance to realise the 'story we tell ourselves' is wrong and a form of rationalisation of unsavoury or unwanted information. For example, "Smoking is not dangerous, my old aunt lived to 99 and she smoked forty cigarettes a day from age of eleven; and drank two bottles of vodka every day". Get rid of the rationalisation and face up to the fact you have been deceived into believing AK's fairy tale of the wicked prosecutor.



.

 

[Vixen]

And there was more than ONE example of how the comic drawing and Meredith's body were NOT in the same position or otherwise similar. Which you ignore.

A reasonable, objective person would see and acknowledge that.

The courts ruled - including the final Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court of 2015 - that the crIme scene was staged. It was a heavily theatrical scenario in which a super-large small boulder weighing almost 10lbs /4kg had been used to smash Filomena's window from the inside, Filomena's clothes having first been scattered about the floor. A DNA mixture of AK/MK is scientifically conclusive of having been found in the room. Bits of paper and cards - one with Knox's shoe print - had been scattered about, including a couple on top of the duvet which was placed over the body AFTER* the murder - i.e., the murder happened before the paper scattering - the body being returned to AFTER the murder to undress it. This was ascertained by a forensic examination of expirated blood, which was on the bra some distance away from the body but not on the key points of the parts of the breasts it covered. Someone had either torn or cut off with a knife, the bra from the body. The bra claps with Sollecito's full DNA profile inside the bent hook was UNDER the body UNDER the pillow, which did have a ladies size 37 trainer imprint in the victim's blood.

The prosecution had no duty to provide a motive so it didn't persist with the 'vampire-slaying fantasy' , but given the thrill kill element, it seems plausible to me. As in the Brianna Ghey killing by a couple of teens, calling their victim 'It', made it easy to do. Dehumanising the victim makes it easier to comprehend how people could do such a thing for such futile motive.

*Given it is scientifically conclusive the murder happened before the mise-en-scène it follows that the shard of glass trailed into the murder room from Filomena's room is that of one of the murderers, who had the key to lock the room afterwards.



Has the penny dropped yet..?



.




.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rubbish, that was just Bongiorno for Sollecito trying to catch Chiacchiera out in the witness box. He was the joint prosecutor with Mignini originally, so quite high up and experienced in giving testimony. When Bongiorno asked if the mags were still shrink-wrapped, he realised it was a trap so gave a noncommital answer rather than say, 'No they were not shrink wrapped' aware that some might have been and hence the 'AHA!' moment so instead said some might have been. It doesn't follow that they were ALL shrink wrapped and unread. Whilst witness testimony counts as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, the judges and jury is still entitled to take it or leave it as they see fit. Please read more carefully in future. Chiacchiera did NOT confirm the magazines were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread', he was being non-committal - i.e., it was possible that some might have been - rather than fall in to Bongiorno's 'GOTCHA!'. (i.e., that none were.)



.

LOL In her latest risible post attempting to "educate and enlighten" others, Vixen is still clearly ignorant regarding the definition of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, and the difference between the two.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Once again, you are failing to keep track. The thrust of the discussion was a poster announcing he was reading WTBH to get familiar with the case. I pointed it that it was hardly an accurate account and cited the key alibi of staying home all evening and watching Amélie. Given the film Le Monde d'Amélie was the pair's key alibi, it is rather striking Knox blatantly lies about this in her book. She knowingly and disrespectfully deceives her reader and this is clearly deliberate as she had, at that stage, over five years to establish all of the facts, major and minor, of the alibi she would be relying on in court. So your claim about people's causal memory of past events being naturally faulty is a laughable attempt to defend the indefensible. Or more likely, you know perfectly well Knox is deliberately misleading her readers but you somehow think this type of criminal is to be admired, rather like a lot of Brits idolise the escaped Great Train Robber, Ronnie Biggs (yes, there was a railway worker left dead directly as a result of the audacious heist but, like Mez, everybody's forgotten about him, and Biggs is their hero because he screwed the police).

You just can't help yourself, can you? I never said I was reading WtBH "to get familiar with the case." I have mentioned that there are people who know a lot more about the case than I. And I also pointed out that no one gives a damn about your opinion of WtBH (or any of Amanda's other writings, for that matter). See my post #3874 and those following.

As for the rest of your dreck, everyone can see that we're back to your absurd, worn-out "Amanda is obviously lying" schtick.

 

[Myriad]

You 'saw the photos of the crime scene'. Let's go over the the actual fact of the matter:

From Death in Perugia, John Follain, p 298

Just as I thought. No "easily" entering the room or "milling around." Enough space for seven people to carefully stand, but not nearly enough to resemble the manga scene with people (and vampires) spread around on upholstered chairs and couches.

I never said the room was too small for Guede to murder MK in there. Nor that it was too small for the jury to enter. The point remains that the scene does not resemble the manga picture you claimed it does. Not the victim's condition or position, not the seating, not the number of killers, not the number of victims, not the injuries, not the clutter, and not (on top of all of that) the size of the room.

Please stop trying to rewrite history to fit in with the 'story you tell yourself'. Yes, it causes cognitive dissonance to realise the 'story we tell ourselves' is wrong and a form of rationalisation of unsavoury or unwanted information. For example, "Smoking is not dangerous, my old aunt lived to 99 and she smoked forty cigarettes a day from age of eleven; and drank two bottles of vodka every day". Get rid of the rationalisation and face up to the fact you have been deceived into believing AK's fairy tale of the wicked prosecutor.

"Witches did it to imitate vampires! Now stop telling fairy tales!!

 

[SpitfireIX]

Note: I'm leaving on vacation for about the next week, so my posting will be sporadic.

 

[Numbers]

In Italian trials, the verdict (the short form operative verdict) is issued by the judges soon after the conclusion of the adversarial debate and final summation parts of the trial. Then, after some months, a motivation report is issued with the reasoning justifying the verdict. Therefore, one shouldn't be surprised if the some "judicial facts" in a motivation report are constructed after the verdict is reached to support that verdict.

Similarly, when the Italian prosecutor - and in particular, Mignini in this case - formulates reasoning for arresting persons - the suspicion of the persons may come first, and the reasons for the suspicions come after, to justify those suspicions. Furthermore, the initial suspicions could actually have been the recognition of the persons most convenient and vulnerable to prosecution. See, for example, Giobbi's testimony in the Massei trial - his reasons for suspicions related firstly to his negative perceptions of the innocent noncriminal behavior of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Vixen]

LOL In her latest risible post attempting to "educate and enlighten" others, Vixen is still clearly ignorant regarding the definition of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, and the difference between the two.

Witness testimony is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which we can infer a thing. For example, forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence*. So, as the witness was describing the act of he himself finding the porno-horror fantasy comics n RS' bedroom when the police search was carried out, it does count as both direct evidence and also circumstantial insofar we can deduce RS had a liking for this type of stuff.

AI Overview
Learn more

Witness testimony, when direct, is firsthand account of events observed by a witness, while circumstantial evidence is indirect and requires inference to connect facts to a conclusion.

Witness Testimony:

• Definition:
  A witness's testimony directly relates to what they personally saw, heard, or felt during an event.

*The circumstantial evidence of DNA is a powerful one, yet because it is invisible to the naked eye, some people can't quite believe it is possible it really was Mez' DNA on the knife blade or RS' full profile on the bra clasp. They seriously try to claim it was 'contaminated', as if a grotty dusty student digs should be akin to a sterile hospital ward in the first place. By that criterion, all crime scene DNA should be impermissible. They can understand the footprint on the bathmat because 'seeing is believing' - the mantra of the 'stands-to-reason' brigade- but despite extremely fine analysis by highly skilled engineers with PhD's, using the technical drawing skill to record the parameters of the minutest measurements, angles and dimensions, of every toe, 'hammer' defect, ball of foot ratio to other parts, width, depth and thickness, still insist that somehow, the imprint on the bathmat, in the victim's blood, can be shoehorned (pun intended) to also fit Guede's foot!!! And LondonJohn epitomises this 'true believer's unbelievers' mindset. "No science, today, thanks! It's Fantasy Island Day today."




.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

Hahahahahaha! So now you, despite every court finding the murder was NOT premeditated, being a "reasonable and objective person" can see that they were planning the murder two days earlier! Not only were they planning on killing Meredith, they watched Amelie between 6:27 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. and Meredith didn't even arrive home until 9:00! Some alibi! A 'reasonable, objective person' can see a mile off what's wrong with your theory.

As the Murder charge was already that of 'Aggravated Murder' (equivalent to US First Degree Murder, where there is premeditation) due to the cruelty element and sexual assault, there was no requirement for the prosecution to prove premeditation, just as it didn't need to prove motive. Why would they make it more difficult than needed to succeed in a conviction?

Truth is, the fact of AK tearing out the pages in her diary, switching off their phones, cunningly planning to make it look like they were snug at home watching Amelié - which they could prove as they had seen it a few days before and could quote key scenes from it! - plus a naurato automatic download, either preplanned or someone sent it unwittingly. The fact of both AK and RS trying to conceal from police what they did and where they went after Mez left the cottage shows they were stalking Mez and went to great lengths to conceal this behaviour.

Whether the premeditation took half an hour or a few days, it doesn't matter, there is no time limit in what constitutes premeditation. What starts as fantasy can turn into reality at any time, especially when high on drugs or triggered.



.

 

[Vixen]

Just as I thought. No "easily" entering the room or "milling around." Enough space for seven people to carefully stand, but not nearly enough to resemble the manga scene with people (and vampires) spread around on upholstered chairs and couches.

I never said the room was too small for Guede to murder MK in there. Nor that it was too small for the jury to enter. The point remains that the scene does not resemble the manga picture you claimed it does. Not the victim's condition or position, not the seating, not the number of killers, not the number of victims, not the injuries, not the clutter, and not (on top of all of that) the size of the room.



"Witches did it to imitate vampires! Now stop telling fairy tales!!

Oh dear, Myriad. Car screeches past, two guys jump out, throw dynamite at the bank doors, the pair make off with a heist of gold bars and money bags. Myriad: (for it is he). I can't see anything suspicious about that. <shrugs>


.

 

[Myriad]

Oh dear, Myriad. Car screeches past, two guys jump out, throw dynamite at the bank doors, the pair make off with a heist of gold bars and money bags. Myriad: (for it is he). I can't see anything suspicious about that. <shrugs>

Not unless the two guys are wearing black and white horizontal striped shirts, and the money bags have big black $ signs printed on them.

"Stop telling fairy tales! We're doing cartoons now instead!"