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

[TruthCalls]

Did you not understand that all of those news reports you cite come from the same news agency? So of course they all say the same thing? Without looking it up I am going to suggest it is fan girl Colleen Barry of AP News behind it.

Wait, I'm confused. Didn't you just write "British news outlets do verify their news items." Are you now saying British news outlets will publish stories without verifying the content???

 

[Vixen]

Wait, I'm confused. Didn't you just write "British news outlets do verify their news items." Are you now saying British news outlets will publish stories without verifying the content???

It is assumed that news agencies such as Reuters, AP News and ANSA et al verify their sources. They are considered by mainstream news outlets, including, for example, BBC News, to be accurate verified information. Colleen Barry of AP News has made it a point to present Knox as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. That isn't being impartial but, being based in New York, she seems to have got away with slanting AK news whenever she could. So it would not surprise me at all if she is the source of the UK papers stating the claim Guede was a drug dealer.

 

[Vixen]

He's a murderer/rapist because that's what he was convicted of being. Of course, your reading comprehension for what was stated is way off.

To summarise, the main findings of Micheli are :

• Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.
• He had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith.
• Therefore he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact.
• The burglary and rape mise en scene was a second stage of the crime after the murder.
• It thus follows that Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.
• The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.
• There were multiple assailants – as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.
• Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.
• He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it as soon as knives were produced.
• Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli

These are the findings of the merits courts - trial - as weighed and tested in a criminal court of law. I will try to stick to objective facts, whilst of course, you and others prefer to be guided by 'strong suspicions'.

 

[AmyStrange]

Guess what, we also have her phone logs and bank records, and based on those records we KNOW these claims are bogus, and THAT'S why none of them made it to any trial.

Involvement with drug dealers, burning through cash.. if these claims were valid, and evidence existed that proved it, it absolutely would have been introduced at trial. It would go towards motive, and speak to the character of the accused.

Baseless accusations, and you embrace them unequivocally even though you know - because you have the documents - that there is no evidence to support it. You then double down, suggesting there is evidence but it wasn't considered relevant, an obviously ridiculous suggestion. This is hardly the thought process of someone who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective.

I agree, but it does help prove that guiltersplaining is fast becoming the new stupid again, but trumpsplainers are way ahead of them in that department.

In many ways, it's almost as if they're competing which each other for that top spot, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.


-

 

[Vixen]

Guess what, we also have her phone logs and bank records, and based on those records we KNOW these claims are bogus, and THAT'S why none of them made it to any trial.

Involvement with drug dealers, burning through cash.. if these claims were valid, and evidence existed that proved it, it absolutely would have been introduced at trial. It would go towards motive, and speak to the character of the accused.

Baseless accusations, and you embrace them unequivocally even though you know - because you have the documents - that there is no evidence to support it. You then double down, suggesting there is evidence but it wasn't considered relevant, an obviously ridiculous suggestion. This is hardly the thought process of someone who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective.

No, the evidence presented at a trial is all agreed between the parties and the court in advance. If every piece of evidence is presented it would mean cases go on for years. So, if someone is charged with say, a bank robbery, the only evidence considered relevant would be that pertaining to the charge. In respect of Knox' known association with a cocaine smuggler who did receive an extremely long prison sentence when caught, either the court, the defence or the prosecution, or a combination of all three, decided it was not relevant to the murder. If the test for narcotics was negative, there was no dispute as to its lack of relevance by the prosecution. It is only those issues in dispute that become key features of the trial. These points of dispute are called 'the issues'. The theft of Mez' rent money was indeed an issue and Knox was charged with this. The prosecution clearly did not feel it needed to present a motive for the theft, such as drug spending money, as all it needed to do was show it was stolen by Knox. Incidentally re your last statement, I did qualify what I said but you have conveniently left it out, changing the meaning to one of bald Orangery.

 

[AmyStrange]

The post above helps to prove me right again.


-

 

[Disbelief]

To summarise, the main findings of Micheli are :

• Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.
• He had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith.
• Therefore he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact.
• The burglary and rape mise en scene was a second stage of the crime after the murder.
• It thus follows that Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.
• The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.
• There were multiple assailants – as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.
• Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.
• He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it as soon as knives were produced.
• Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli

These are the findings of the merits courts - trial - as weighed and tested in a criminal court of law. I will try to stick to objective facts, whilst of course, you and others prefer to be guided by 'strong suspicions'.

And yet, he was the only person definitively found guilty of the murder of Meredith. He was also found guilty of sexual assault. Those are two objective facts.

By the way, you still not understand the original intent of Stacy's post, which I find rather humorous.

 

[Vixen]

And yet, he was the only person definitively found guilty of the murder of Meredith. He was also found guilty of sexual assault. Those are two objective facts.

By the way, you still not understand the original intent of Stacy's post, which I find rather humorous.

I'm afraid you are the one who hasn't followed the argument. Consider this: Stacyhs argues: RG was a migrant, therefore he is the murderer/rapist. I point out: being a migrant is no proof you will be a murderer/rapist. Stacyhs: well, he was, so that proves I am right. Me: but the courts after weighing up all of the evidence determined that RG did NOT kill Mez and that it was one of two others. Stacyhs: but I have a strong suspicion and that trumps everything else! You come along: but it's true because the migrant was convicted of murder and sexual assault. Do you see the fallacy in your logic? The merits courts determined it was KNOX who killed Mez but your mind just can't cope that it wasn't the migrant of your prejudices.

 

[Disbelief]

I'm afraid you are the one who hasn't followed the argument. Consider this: Stacyhs argues: RG was a migrant, therefore he is the murderer/rapist. I point out: being a migrant is no proof you will be a murderer/rapist. Stacyhs: well, he was, so that proves I am right. Me: but the courts after weighing up all of the evidence determined that RG did NOT kill Mez and that it was one of two others. Stacyhs: but I have a strong suspicion and that trumps everything else! You come along: but it's true because the migrant was convicted of murder and sexual assault. Do you see the fallacy in your logic? The merits courts determined it was KNOX who killed Mez but your mind just can't cope that it wasn't the migrant of your prejudices.

You pretty much lied in that entire screed.

By the way, RG is still the only person definitively convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. You can cry and gnash your teeth about it, but that's reality.

 

[Welshman]

As has been explained, Bongiorno took Gill's multi-page report to the Fifth Chambers Supreme Court Appeal hearing, in which each counsel was instructed they had twenty minutes each to present their skeleton arguments to the panel. As already explained, a skeleton argument on paper should be no longer than one page of A4 or two sides, at the outside. Bongiorno spent two and a half days presenting her case to the court. Bruno was once charged with mafia connections. So, surprise, surprise, the family stuck together, so to speak, and fixed it for the Sollecitos of Bari. You can't see anything amiss with this because you don't understand how fairness in law works. It should mean each party is given the same amount of time to present their skeleton argument in respect of the appeal hearing to the panel of judges. If you cannot see it is unfair that one party got an incredible two whole days and presented a multi-page report by someone not even a witness at the trials/appeals, when the other parties each had a strict twenty-minute time limit to speak and submit a proper skeleton of just one A4 page (double spaced), then you really do not comprehend the meaning of justice needing to be seen to be a level playing field for all parties.

Guilters have a consistent history of objecting to something if it works in Amanda and Raffaele's favour but support something if it works against Amanda and Raffaele but are too dishonest to admit this and give the impression they have an issue with something in general. The above post is a typical example of this. This post gives the impression they object in general to one side having more time to present their case than the other side when in reality their issue is how this is used. If the defence was given more time to present their case than the prosecution, guilters object to this because this would have worked in Amanda and Raffaele's favour and if the prosecution had more time to present their case than the defence, guilters would have no objection to this because it would have worked against Amanda and Raffaele.

It is gross hypocrisy for guilters to complain about unfairness when Amanda and Raffaele were subject to numerous instances of unfairness.


*Being convicted on the basis of an illegal interrogation where Amanda was denied access to a lawyer and not recorded which are requirements under Italian law. Amanda was convicted on the basis of an illegal interrogation.

*The fact there is no video or audio recording of the interrogation is critical as there is no independent verification of what happened in the interrogation. A recording would establish once and for all if Amanda voluntarily named Lumumba or was coerced.

*Amanda was questioned for long periods in the night.

*The two statements used against Amanda were clearly not Amanda’s word and were prepared by the police.

*There were numerous examples of people making false accusations which implied Amanda murdered Meredith but they were not charged with Calunnia

As per the links below the police/prosecution told numerous lies and false information was used to imply Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredith.

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

Guede falsely accused Amanda of being present at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

There are several instances of witnesses who gave false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The shop owner Quintavelle initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. Curalto a vagrant and drug addict lied about seeing Amanda and Raffaele near the cottage. As the link below shows the English friends of Meredith were caught giving false testimony against Amanda in court http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/

*Amanda and her parents were charged with Calunia for speaking about the abuse Amanda suffered.

*The calunnia was reinstated despite the ECHR ruling in Amanda’s favour.

*Convicted on the basis of evidence with zero credibility such as a knife whose characteristics made it impossible to have been used to stab Meredith or contain her DNA.
The knife was picked at random with no other knives taken from Raffaele’s kitchen or the cottage. Is it credible a knife collected under these circumstances was the murder weapon.
The knife didn’t match a bloody imprint on the bed.
The knife was too large to have caused the two smaller wounds.
There was bruising on the fatal wound which indicated the knife had gone all the way in. The length of the fatal wound was 8 cm whilst the length of the knife was 17 cm which indicated the knife couldn’t have caused the larger wound.
The knife didn’t have any blood or human biological material on it.
The defence had no objection to the knife being opened while the prosecution didn’t want the knife opened.

*In the Massei trial, the defence demolished the prosecution's evidence but this was completely ignored by Massei.

*Defence requests in the Massei trial were turned down as per this extract from the excellent website amandaknoxauguriesofinnocence.wordpress.com

"When the defense teams sought to have basic information released to them as well as permission to conduct additional testing, they got the Judge Roy Bean treatment every time—a “fair” hearing followed by the inevitable ruling for the prosecution.

For example, the defense requested the release of the electronic data files from the police lab. In theory, Italy requires full disclosure so this ought not to have been a problem. But in practice the initial trial judge allowed the files to be suppressed. The one judge worthy of the title—Judge Hellman—ordered their release and the police grudgingly produced some data (though by no means everything). Now, long after the initial flawed conviction, we are beginning to take full measure of the fraud and incompetence the police were trying to hide.

In a similar vein, the defense asked to send Amanda’s police-damaged hard drive to the manufacturer to see if photographs and video important to the defense could be retrieved. “No,” was the response.

The defense asked to have the critical semen stain tested. No. No.

The defense asked for audiometric testing to see if an elderly, highly confused witness could possibly have heard what she claimed to have heard through the sound-proof glass of her apartment. No, no, and yet again no.

And so on.*

Guilters have no issue with unfairness when it works against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[gabeygoat]

I'm afraid you are the one who hasn't followed the argument. Consider this: Stacyhs argues: RG was a migrant, therefore he is the murderer/rapist. I point out: being a migrant is no proof you will be a murderer/rapist. Stacyhs: well, he was, so that proves I am right. Me: but the courts after weighing up all of the evidence determined that RG did NOT kill Mez and that it was one of two others. Stacyhs: but I have a strong suspicion and that trumps everything else! You come along: but it's true because the migrant was convicted of murder and sexual assault. Do you see the fallacy in your logic? The merits courts determined it was KNOX who killed Mez but your mind just can't cope that it wasn't the migrant of your prejudices.

No offense, but it reflects poorly on you when you make up this stuff, when we can all read what is actually in the thread.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm not a participant in the thread, but according to the local weekly Amanda will be kicking off her "Free Amanda Knox" tour here in Port Townsend's Rose Theater!

 

[junkshop]

...bald Orangery.

Maybe I'm dumb, but what?

 

[TruthCalls]

It is assumed that news agencies such as Reuters, AP News and ANSA et al verify their sources. They are considered by mainstream news outlets, including, for example, BBC News, to be accurate verified information. Colleen Barry of AP News has made it a point to present Knox as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. That isn't being impartial but, being based in New York, she seems to have got away with slanting AK news whenever she could. So it would not surprise me at all if she is the source of the UK papers stating the claim Guede was a drug dealer.

So NOW what you're saying is the British news outlets don't always verify what they're publishing, that they sometimes assume their source has verified what they are feeding them.

You know what that tells me? That the British news outlets do NOT verify what they are publishing, and you can't be confident what you're reading is accurate. And this takes us back to that Irish Independent article that was making all these baseless claims about Amanda, and how you ensured us we can believe it because the British news outlets always verify what they publish, except now you are telling us that they don't.

 

[Stacyhs]

Did you not understand that all of those news reports you cite come from the same news agency? So of course they all say the same thing?

The BBC and The Telegraph are NOT from the same news agency. The BBC is a pubic corporation owned by the UK government, the UK public and is governed by a Royal Charter. At the time of the quoted articles, The Telegraph owned by the Barclay family.

Is the Italian media report below also from the same news agency?

Conosciuto come piccolo spacciatore, Rudy Hermann, su cui pende un mandato di cattura internazionale per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher, rivela caratteristiche ..
Known as a small-time drug dealer, Rudy Hermann, who has an international arrest warrant pending for the murder of Meredith Kercher,

Without looking it up I am going to suggest it is fan girl Colleen Barry of AP News behind it.

You should have looked it up first before making such a silly comment.

 

[TruthCalls]

No, the evidence presented at a trial is all agreed between the parties and the court in advance. If every piece of evidence is presented it would mean cases go on for years. So, if someone is charged with say, a bank robbery, the only evidence considered relevant would be that pertaining to the charge. In respect of Knox' known association with a cocaine smuggler who did receive an extremely long prison sentence when caught, either the court, the defence or the prosecution, or a combination of all three, decided it was not relevant to the murder. If the test for narcotics was negative, there was no dispute as to its lack of relevance by the prosecution. It is only those issues in dispute that become key features of the trial. These points of dispute are called 'the issues'. The theft of Mez' rent money was indeed an issue and Knox was charged with this. The prosecution clearly did not feel it needed to present a motive for the theft, such as drug spending money, as all it needed to do was show it was stolen by Knox. Incidentally re your last statement, I did qualify what I said but you have conveniently left it out, changing the meaning to one of bald Orangery.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really this dense?

Let me repeat... WE HAVE AMANDA'S PHONE LOG AND BANK RECORDS so we know the claims made in the Irish Independent are bogus. THAT is why it never came up in any trial. All the diversionary fluff in your post is irrelevant.

And BTW, you repeating those lies doesn't make them any less of a lie. There was no "known association with a cocaine smuggler" and I find it rather disgusting that you continue to repeat this as if true, and that includes the continued use of "smuggler" when you have repeatedly been reminded he was a dealer, not a smuggler. Oh yeah, you're impartial, neutral and entirely objective! What a joke

Here's what you wrote;

If it was in the police evidence files then they clearly had the phone logs, the name of the drug smuggler and Knox' bank records. The fact it was not included in the evidence list for the trial simply means it wasn't considered relevant to the case in hand.

So what/how did you qualify, and what did I "conveniently" leave out?

 

[Vixen]

You pretty much lied in that entire screed.

By the way, RG is still the only person definitively convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. You can cry and gnash your teeth about it, but that's reality.

You still don't get it. RG was convicted as being part of a group that committed the crime. It is made clear he was not the one who killed Mez. Whilst RS and AK are acquitted of murder and theft, it still holds true that the fact found and which remains, is that AK was the killer. In other words although insufficient evidence to prove murder, she is still factually the killer, albeit she has 'got away with a criminal charge'.

 

[Vixen]

Maybe I'm dumb, but what?

King Orange of Don.

 

[Vixen]

So NOW what you're saying is the British news outlets don't always verify what they're publishing, that they sometimes assume their source has verified what they are feeding them.

You know what that tells me? That the British news outlets do NOT verify what they are publishing, and you can't be confident what you're reading is accurate. And this takes us back to that Irish Independent article that was making all these baseless claims about Amanda, and how you ensured us we can believe it because the British news outlets always verify what they publish, except now you are telling us that they don't.

It is verified Knox was in contact with the cocaine smuggler and that she was getting through money very quickly. It wasn't thought pertinent to the murder case which is why it wasn't part of it. The guy does exist you know. I believe the same one she met on a train. She wrote all about it on her MySpace page so it is not anything made up.

 

[Vixen]

The BBC and The Telegraph are NOT from the same news agency. The BBC is a pubic corporation owned by the UK government, the UK public and is governed by a Royal Charter. At the time of the quoted articles, The Telegraph owned by the Barclay family.

Is the Italian media report below also from the same news agency?




You should have looked it up first before making such a silly comment.

What? Perhaps look up how news is syndicated. When something happens across the world, or there is a press conference, do you really believe a reporter is sent out by the Telegraph and all its stablemates, when it is much cheaper and efficient to send along a stringer or journalist already in the region? This small handful of people syndicates the story to the news agencies, Reuters, AP, etc., who then sell it on to the national press. This is why all the newspapers carry the same stories most of the time. Your belief that each of the papers you quoted each went out and reported and verified each of their stories is a misconception. As an example, look up the recent news story of Knox appealing against the calunnia. You'll see half the UK papers and world press use the phrase 'Knox is appealing against the last legal stain'. Those are the words of just ONE person: Collen Barry of AP News. The non-neutral word, 'stain' is her spin as she has long presented Knox as the victim.