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

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

Vixen said:
This has to be one of the most outlandish, outrageous and most preposterous of all the cuckoo left field curve ball conspiracy theories of all: the IT forensic police not only fried the laptops themselves, they then wrote up a report stating they were fried, presented it in a Criminal Court of Law under oath and committed criminal perjury! All, presumably because they were in thrall to Mignini. In the real world these IT boffs are the geekiest, nerdiest, brainiest, literally minded, straighht forward asperger's types you could meet. No way did they fiddle the results to please Mignini! Outrageous!

Sollecito and Knox planned their devilish stunt in advance, hence the ripped out pages of her October diary and he downloading of Wonderful World of Amèlie in advance (28 Oct). That is why AK carried a knife in her bag to the apartment for when MK arrived home and the anime graphic book 'Blood Last of the Vampires was used as the theme. Kokomani saw the three of them by the bins stoned out of their boxes lying in wait for Mez to arrive home. RS being a nerdy geeky type, was deeply anxious after the crime and went to superhuman lengths to conceal his presence, hence the large bottles of ACE bleach, dismantling of the U-bend in his kitchen, bucket full of used latex gloves, auto P2P naruto download, switched off phones, spying on the cottage from Grimana Piazza as seen by Curatalo. So AK ripped up her fantasy notes and RS wiped hers and his PC's to destroy the hard drive data. He wiped MK's and FR's the same time to allay suspicion if it was only his and AK's. Left his student studies PC intact. The sandstone/limestone mini-boulder was all part of the wheeze, together with scattering Filomena's stuff about her room - this would be something AK has done before at WSU 'for a laugh'. The icing on the cake was seeing Guede's faeces in the toilet unflushed and his shoeprints in the hallway, left unmopped. Getting Dad to say his leak happened before 8:40. RS had it all sussed.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Maybe read the judgements of the Marasca SC panel and the ECHR. Then come back to us.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, Leopold and Loeb were considered brilliant. Jody Arias thought she got away with it. Kohberger had been planning his crime since the previous July/August. Yes, they all erred and left behind a clue. RS being short-sighted and in the dim November light probably didn't notice how clear his footprint on the mat was.
Click to expand...

Sounds plausible, yeah :ROFLMAO:
 
TruthCalls said:
It doesn't matter what the postal police say, the data shows the machine was booted up long after Raffaele was arrested. This is indisputable. This has been shown to you repeatedly but I guess, just like claiming a P2P download, you figure people will eventually forget and accept your explanation, but we don't. I have judged the data and the postal police fried the drives.

BTW, there is no such file as T-postal-police-notices.html in the file library. If you're going to provide a link, you should at least offer a working one.
Click to expand...
The postal polices findings on the fried laptops were discussed in detail in the past so if you are genuinely interested, just perform a simple search to read their testimony and documentation.
 
Last edited:
TruthCalls said:
First you tried the "spousal privilege" route, failing to realize they were not married, nor were they testifying against each other. Once that was pointed out, you shift to 'Plan B'... she was "just doin what my boyfriend wants me to say" tactic. This is just pathetic.

This entire event happened well before Meredith's murder, so Guede was a nobody at the time. There would be no reason for Christian to be identifying Guede except that he clearly witnessed him as he confronted him. Christian didn't need his girlfriend to back his account, but she was there and she did see Guede. That you continue to denigrate anyone who reported something that even remotely assists with the defense's case (Popovic, Alteri, etc.) while relentlessly trying to defending Guede at every turn proves your claim of being "impartial, neutral and entirely objective" is a complete joke.
Click to expand...
We have criminal trials in criminal courts of law to try to establish the facts. It was never established that Guede was the guy in Taramantano's apartment. It is that simple. It is not a reflection on Taramantano or his girlfriend. His claim remains unverified conjecture.
 
If Raffaele had destroyed his own computer, why was this never mentioned in any motivation report and was never part of the prosecution's case. If Raffaele had destroyed his own computer, this would be damming evidence as this would indicate Raffaele had something to to hide. Other posters have shown why the claim of Raffaele destroying his own computer is false. Why repeat the same falsehoods over and again and devote so much time and effort to defending blatant falsehoods when there is supposedly hard evidence against Amanda and Raffaele? Why does Vixen have to invent non existent evidence to argue her case?
 
Vixen said:
Mez' door was locked, so there's the distance.
Click to expand...

Ah so in your fantasy, Knox and Sollecito decided only to put very partial distance between themselves and their victim. Rather than entirely distancing themselves properly by going on their planned and previously announced trip to Gubbio. Do you really actually understand the illogical crap you post?
 
Vixen said:
No, it didn't. Dalla Vedova submitted the MR of Boninsegna, which was a different case of calunnia all together, this time against the cops. Boninsegna was not the presiding judge. Had Dalla Vedova submitted the salient judgment in support, it would have been thrown out.
Click to expand...
Vixen, your post displays several logical and factual errors.

Mignini initiated the case charging Knox with calunnia harming the police when, during the Massei court trial, she testified to her account of their mistreatment of her during the interrogation. The persons allegedly harmed by this alleged calunnia by Knox's testimony was expanded to include Mignini when the case was transferred to the Florence court district to avoid a conflict of interest. As you should know by now, based on previous discussions on this thread, a charge of calunnia leveled against a person means that person has alleged, at least in substance, that that person has made at least one statement maliciously accusing another of a criminal act. Thus, Mignini and the Florence prosecutor agreed that the substance of Knox's testimony showed that her statements in court meant in substance that the police and prosecutor (Mignini) had committed crimes under Italian law during the interrogation. Therefore, your post is logically and factually in error to claim that the Boninsegna court MR, the official record of the reasoning of that court, was somehow unrelated to the records that the ECHR needed to examine to reach a judgment in Knox v. Italy. The Boninsegna MR was a highly relevant document, and the case and trial judgment it discusses directly concerns the allegations embodied in Knox's calunnia harming Lumumba trial.sd

In fact, Boninsegna was the presiding judge of the Boninsegna court. Your statement that he was not the presiding judge makes no sense.

Your statement that there was a "salient judgment" is unclear and the construction of the sentence with those words is ambiguous. As it reads, I understand the sentence to say: Had D.V. submitted the "salient judgment" in support [of what?], that judgment [which judgment, the "salient judgment" based on the sentence structure] would have been thrown out.

BTW, "salient" in the legal usage merely means prominent and relevant.

The ECHR had access to all the MRs of the judgments relevant to the case, including each of the provisional convictions and the final conviction of Knox for calunnia harming Lumumba, up to the relevant time of the publication of Knox v. Italy in 2019. The final conviction of Knox for calunnia harming Lumumba was the Hellmann Court of Appeal verdict and MR as finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel MR in 2013. The ECHR also had the Nencini verdict and MR, which included an aggravating factor in its provisional conviction, but that was not relevant, as it had been quashed by the Marasca CSC panel acquittal in 2015. If that is your concern, here is the text from the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy showing that the ECHR was aware of the Nencini court aggravating factor and dismissed it as irrelevant to the case, although the Italian government tried to use to have the case dismissed as inadmissible:

109. The Government submits that, at the time the application was lodged on 24 November 2013, the applicant's conviction for malicious prosecution was not final and that, therefore, this part of the application should be declared inadmissible.

110. The Court reiterates that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is assessed, save in exceptional circumstances, as of the date on which the application is lodged with the Court (Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).

111. However, it also reiterates that it tolerates the final stage of domestic remedies being reached shortly after the application is filed, but before it is called upon to rule on its admissibility (Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, 17 March 2016, and Škorjanec v. Croatia, no. 25536/14, § 44, 28 March 2017).

112. In any event, in the present case, the Court notes that the impugned conviction was upheld by the judgment of the Court of Cassation delivered on 18 June 2013, after three levels of jurisdiction, and that the referral to the Assize Court of Appeal concerned only the existence of the aggravating circumstance.

113. In view of the above, the objection raised by the Government must be dismissed.
Click to expand...
So the claims you make in your post are not supported by facts.

Source:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...
hudoc.echr.coe.int hudoc.echr.coe.int
 
LondonJohn said:
And cunning people do not point out their incriminating evidence to the police. Or did you not realise this?
Click to expand...
As I said, he may not have realised it was his identifiable print. Some criminals have been taken by surprise to discover the boot mark they left on a door to break it down could provide key forensic evidence. People think forensic evidence is all to do with DNA and fingerprints.
 
Numbers said:
Vixen, your post displays several logical and factual errors.

Mignini initiated the case charging Knox with calunnia harming the police when, during the Massei court trial, she testified to her account of their mistreatment of her during the interrogation. The persons allegedly harmed by this alleged calunnia by Knox's testimony was expanded to include Mignini when the case was transferred to the Florence court district to avoid a conflict of interest. As you should know by now, based on previous discussions on this thread, a charge of calunnia leveled against a person means that person has alleged, at least in substance, that that person has made at least one statement maliciously accusing another of a criminal act. Thus, Mignini and the Florence prosecutor agreed that the substance of Knox's testimony showed that her statements in court meant in substance that the police and prosecutor (Mignini) had committed crimes under Italian law during the interrogation. Therefore, your post is logically and factually in error to claim that the Boninsegna court MR, the official record of the reasoning of that court, was somehow unrelated to the records that the ECHR needed to examine to reach a judgment in Knox v. Italy. The Boninsegna MR was a highly relevant document, and the case and trial judgment it discusses directly concerns the allegations embodied in Knox's calunnia harming Lumumba trial.sd

In fact, Boninsegna was the presiding judge of the Boninsegna court. Your statement that he was not the presiding judge makes no sense.

Your statement that there was a "salient judgment" is unclear and the construction of the sentence with those words is ambiguous. As it reads, I understand the sentence to say: Had D.V. submitted the "salient judgment" in support [of what?], that judgment [which judgment, the "salient judgment" based on the sentence structure] would have been thrown out.

BTW, "salient" in the legal usage merely means prominent and relevant.

The ECHR had access to all the MRs of the judgments relevant to the case, including each of the provisional convictions and the final conviction of Knox for calunnia harming Lumumba, up to the relevant time of the publication of Knox v. Italy in 2019. The final conviction of Knox for calunnia harming Lumumba was the Hellmann Court of Appeal verdict and MR as finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel MR in 2013. The ECHR also had the Nencini verdict and MR, which included an aggravating factor in its provisional conviction, but that was not relevant, as it had been quashed by the Marasca CSC panel acquittal in 2015. If that is your concern, here is the text from the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy showing that the ECHR was aware of the Nencini court aggravating factor and dismissed it as irrelevant to the case, although the Italian government tried to use to have the case dismissed as inadmissible:


So the claims you make in your post are not supported by facts.

Source:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...
hudoc.echr.coe.int hudoc.echr.coe.int
Click to expand...
I was referring to the presiding judge who convicted Knox of calunnia against Lumumba, not the police one (Boninsegna).
 
Vixen said:
As I said, he may not have realised it was his identifiable print. Some criminals have been taken by surprise to discover the boot mark they left on a door to break it down could provide key forensic evidence. People think forensic evidence is all to do with DNA and fingerprints.
Click to expand...

LOL Self-serving load of nonsense. Please stop embarrassing yourself with bat guano like this. Knox and Sollecito, in your ludicrous fantasy, switch between being smart/cunning and being flat-out stupid and self-incriminating.
 
Vixen said:
I was referring to the presiding judge who convicted Knox of calunnia against Lumumba, not the police one (Boninsegna).
Click to expand...
But that judge was Hellmann (provisional conviction) or Chieffi (CSC panel finalizing the Hellmann court court conviction). The ECHR was well aware of them and the MRs of their courts, as shown in my quote (Google translation) from the ECHR judgment.

So you haven't explained what, if anything, you actually meant to say in your post. Are you merely posting without thinking through what your post states?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I must apologise for using an example of Fair Market Value from Taxation Law in valuing property as the concept I was trying to convey about close friends and relatives. I obviously didn't succeed, my bad. Try again. 'Teacher, dog ate my homework'. Little brother: 'That's right miss, I saw the dog do it'. Now, this doesn't have the same level of credibility as, third party random stranger passerby, 'That is correct, I saw a dog, a fluffy grey-brown cockerpoo that did toss about an A4 notepad, ripping it to bits, with the headed paper, 'Homework'".
Click to expand...
So, in your mind, a young child, lying for his sister over a missing homework assignment is equivalent to a grown woman who understands that lying to the police about a murder suspect can result in criminal charges. Gotcha.
 
Stacyhs said:
So, in your mind, a young child, lying for his sister over a missing homework assignment is equivalent to a grown woman who understands that lying to the police about a murder suspect can result in criminal charges. Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Whooosh! I was trying to explain in the simplest of terms why Taratanamo's girlfriend backing him up...oh, never mind...
 
Vixen said:
Whooosh! I was trying to explain in the simplest of terms why Taratanamo's girlfriend backing him up...oh, never mind...
Click to expand...

No, never mind. You can't explain your attempted analogy and how it pertained to the Tramontano situation. Best to give up and stay silent on the matter, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom