• 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.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/05/article-1233281-077995B9000005DC-873_634x421.jpg[/qimg]

There's that pesky Barcroft media copyright again. Of what must be an official police photo. Deposited in the investigation file.

Sure would like to know the basis on which a copyright is claimed.
 
Almost as unimpressed as if you had "spoken to an Italian lawyer" and proffer that to us as some sort of simpleton badge of credibility for an argument.

That's ok Pilot. I've never been preoccupied with impressing those who have chosen to surround themselves with a group of buffoons.

It was so great to see your friends on PMF talk about how Amanda had no chance of being acquitted. They of course were wrong.

It's also been great to see the jesters over there talk about Amanda being extradited for defamation charges. Of course they're wrong about that too. With all those legal scholars and professionals over there, you'd think they'd be able to do a little simple research.

Did you know that even if Hellmann's ruling was overturned, Amanda still couldn't be extradited? Of course you don't, because you just listen to people who are always wrong.

Every time PMFers have a chance to show they actually know something, they completely fail. You've bought a load of goods and now want everyone else to feel as foolish as you I suppose. I bet you're still cradling on the "it ain't over till it's over" with the hope that the Supreme Court of Italy will do something to rectify Hellmann's ruling.

Guess what? They won't. And I'll be right again. Hey, why don't you get PMF to make a prediction on that too so they can be wrong on that as well.

And of course, the sick SOB Peter Quennell months ago talked about how the Kerchers could bring a civil suit in the US. He's also wrong about that. What kind of stupid lawyers are giving him these stupid ideas?

Your friends at PMF=wrong wrong wrong every time. Always wrong!

It's over and there's nothing you can do about it.
 
Last edited:
That's ok Pilot. I've never been preoccupied with impressing those who have chosen to surround themselves with a group of buffoons.

It was so great to see your friends on PMF talk about how Amanda had no chance of being acquitted. They of course were wrong.

It's also been great to see the jesters over there talk about Amanda being extradited for defamation charges. Of course they're wrong about that too. With all those legal scholars and professionals over there, you'd think they'd be able to do a little simple research.

Did you know that even if Hellmann's ruling was overturned, Amanda still couldn't be extradited? Of course you don't, because you just listen to people who are always wrong.

Every time PMFers have a chance to show they actually know something, they completely fail. You've bought a load of goods and now want everyone else to feel as foolish as you I suppose. I bet you're still cradling on the "it ain't over till it's over" with the hope that the Supreme Court of Italy will do something to rectify Hellmann's ruling.

Guess what? They won't. And I'll be right again. Hey, why don't you get PMF to make a prediction on that too so they can be wrong on that as well.

And of course, the sick SOB Peter Quennell months ago talked about how the Kerchers could bring a civil suit in the US. He's also wrong about that. What kind of stupid lawyers are giving him these stupid ideas?

Your friends at PMF=wrong wrong wrong every time. Always wrong!

It's over and there's nothing you can do about it.
This is the alpha and omega of all arguments. This says it all, and finishes it. Bravo. :D
 
So just a quick follow-up on the photographs. I couldn't make much headway on the Barcroft site.

But I did notice that Iberpress also maintains a set of the same crime scene photographs, dated 1/15/08. Iberpress's site says that no rights are claimed for Italy. The Iberpress crime scene photos indicate that the rights holder is Settonce Photo Agency.

I checked Settonce Photo Agency. It is a local Perugian photo agency that goes by the trade name of "7 oz." photo agency. The proprietor is Roberto Settonce.

So, on or about January 15, 2008, one Roberto Settonce acquired the police photographs and assigned the images to Iberpress. It appears that he did not claim copyright in Italy, which perhaps is an acknowledgement that the photographs originated with the Italian government.

This doesn't solve too much, but does raise the following questions:
How did Roberto Settonce acquire the crime scene photographs?
Did Barcroft also get the photographs from Settonce?
 
There's that pesky Barcroft media copyright again. Of what must be an official police photo. Deposited in the investigation file.

Sure would like to know the basis on which a copyright is claimed.


It's a photo taken after the team from Rome arrived because the markers have been placed. But that image is again different than the color photo taken by by the team with the Nikon D50 camera and placed in the file. I suppose we could scan the November 2 videos and see who was wandering around the cottage with a different camera that day.
 
It's a photo taken after the team from Rome arrived because the markers have been placed. But that image is again different than the color photo taken by by the team with the Nikon D50 camera and placed in the file. I suppose we could scan the November 2 videos and see who was wandering around the cottage with a different camera that day.

You're dead on with that. Within the Settonce crime scene photos on Iberpress there are actually a couple of pictures of the guy who is holding the Nikon D50. So clearly, some other photographer was given access, and his photos ended up in Settonce's hands but maybe not in the investigative file. Weird.
 
Hey Macciavelli--maybe you know this Roberto Settonce, you could ask him how he got the crime scene photos, and that would clear everything up.
 
Maybe they only believed there was evidence of staging. But for sure they shared with her the fact that there was evidence since Sollecito had just accused her of lying, withrew her alibi, and blamed her for his previous false account. You seem to forget this detail.

The people in custody cannot provide spontaneous statement? Maybe.
But this is not enough. I would need more explanations to excuse Knox. Because Knox did not release just any wrong statement. She released a statement which she later failed to correct, to motivate, and failed to provide an alternative explanation for where she was the night and for why she released the statements. Amanda also wrote a hand written note which she claims to be voluntary and which is a false testimony besides being a second false accusation. She also failed to clarify the point before three preliminary judges and one magistrate, and failed to provide written explanations of any kind. There is at least one non-police witness testifying against her.
Amanda is inconsistent and lying on her false accusation. And this is evident. And this is logically explained straightforwardly if she is involved in the murder.

Knox is not a proven liar. For that the police would need a recording of the interrrogation. The testimonies of the police are worthless to any real justice. This is precisely why interrogations should be recorded. To avoid suspicions of coerced and false confession.

You can't explain the truth of the Calunnia crime based on the truth of the murder charges. Since Knox is innocent your whole argument is false.

You must get off your high horse. Machiavelli. We were right and you were wrong. So you should be very careful preaching to people and calling them liars and stupid. You don't know the truth of what happened at the Questura.

Therefore your arguments are false. You can't deduce what happened from your belief in Knox's guilt. Your logic is insufficient.
 
The formal part is informing the parties about the collecting of the evidence. When there is something that might be relevant, parties can be informed.

By who? If there is no authourity that has any rights of administration over the investigation file, how can you possibly have an authourity that can issue a formal notification?

If there is an authourity or collection of authourities that have (amongst other rights) the ability to add documents to the IF, then you have an authourity that has an interest and knowledge of the IF, and thus an authourity that would have an interest if several major publications in the victims home country were to publish photos that were not already in the IF.

You therefore have an authourity that could potentially make informal inquiries, with the eye to possibly advancing thier findings towards the next relevant investigative authourity.

There is no requirement that there be only one authourity, nor that their only power be to administrate the IF, in order for there to be an authourity that would be interested to see if there was a leak.

"I don't think there is something as an "official photographer". There is a photographer on the scene, which can be basically a more or less trained officer or an embedded photographer specialized in crime scene photos."

Any officer who was there exclusively or partially in the paid capacity of a photographer could count as an official photographer, although thats not the issue. The issue is whether of not photos taken by officials on the scene count as official photos.

In your example, the traffic officers will be taking photos as part of thier offical role.

For the forensics team, the purpose of taking photos would be as part of the official forensic analysis.

If a officer was using police time and police resources to take photos for a private collection, or was deliberatly withholding official photos from being made known to the various agencies that compile the IF, then that would be of extreme interest as a source of serious professional misconduct, as well as good cause for psychological assessment.

Checking to see wheter the photo was actually released to 'the parties' through legitimate and legal means would be the first logical step to assessing whether of not the photo ended up in the press through entirely legitimate channels, or whether a deliberate leak or misconduct is a more likely explanation.
 
Of course the few that hang on will never admit that they are wrong. The rest will just disappear.

It's odd Migninni had Franks site shutdown, but Edgardo Giobbi can hang pictures in a govt. office on the "wall of shame" of guilt, of murderers....yet the court found them innocent?

it'd be a great film of him, removing the pictures off his wall.
 
That comes as no surprise to me at all. Do you have a published link/source denying the cartwheel?

The information came from a private conversation. Even if it was said during a published interview, Pilot and his cult would say it was a lie.

Amanda and Raffaele owe absolutely nothing to anyone. It will be completely up to them if they decide to speak publicly in the future.

None of that matters now. I know the truth, Clear minded people know the truth, Hellmann knows the truth. It's over.
 
There's that pesky Barcroft media copyright again. Of what must be an official police photo. Deposited in the investigation file.

Sure would like to know the basis on which a copyright is claimed.

One sure way to find out is to infringe it and make them defend it.
 
Hi Bruce,
Why do you suppose the guilt clan is still hanging on to their belief in guilt ?
I still believe that some are nothing more than debators. There are people I know that take the opposite view of others just for the sake of arguing. Either that or they have some sort of agenda. They can't possibly believe the nonsense they post.
 
Last edited:
Hi Bruce,
Why do you suppose the guilt clan is still hanging on to their belief in guilt ?
I still believe that some are nothing more than debators. There are people I know that take the opposite view of others just for the sake of arguing. Either that or they have some sort of agenda. They can't possibly believe the nonsense they post.


You'd be surprised what people will believe. I don't doubt that some are just intellectually perverse, but I think most that are still at it are sincere.
 
From the Guardian's review of Follain's new book (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/27/death-perugia-kercher-follain-review):

<snip> The beauty and kindness of the victim, the fresh faces of her alleged assassins, and their passion for sex and drugs, all set against the backdrop of one of Italy's most stunning cities, made this a story that was as captivating as it was tragic. Now that both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been acquitted of Kercher's murder, the story becomes in some ways even more fascinating, as no one knows quite what to believe any more. Many people remain convinced that the two are guilty.

<snip>

Attention turned to Kercher's American flatmate for many reasons: Amanda Knox had a scratch on her neck, and her behaviour as detectives watched her was bizarre in the extreme – constantly kissing and laughing with her Italian boyfriend, doing yoga in the police station, and snapping at one of Kercher's friends, who had expressed the hope that Meredith didn't suffer, with the retort: "She *********** bled to death."

As investigators looked more closely at Knox, she emerged as a narcissistic attention-seeker who was sexually adventurous but also jealous of Meredith Kercher's cheerful contentment. Knox knew, it seemed, no boundaries, leaving a vibrator in a transparent washbag and enjoying one-night stands. Detectives thought she was both sly and naive.

<snip>

Her DNA was found on the handle of a knife that also had Kercher's DNA on its blade. That knife came from the kitchen of Knox's boyfriend, Sollecito. He, it emerged, was a habitual drug-user who liked knives and hardcore porn. His DNA was found on Kercher's bra clasp. He had lied about when he had used his computer, about the time of certain phone calls, and also about the time he'd eaten dinner.

A third man emerged as a suspect. Rudy Guede alleged that he had merely been making out with Meredith and was in the bathroom when he heard her screams from the other room. He tried, he said, to save her. Prosecutors didn't believe his story, especially when DNA evidence indicated a sexual encounter with Kercher – with, detectives thought, Knox and Sollecito involved as coercers. Various eyewitnesses came forward to place Guede, Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime, and the fact that the young lovers had bought bleach the following morning suggested they were trying to cover their tracks.

The evidence appeared overwhelming and all three were convicted. But earlier this month, Sollecito and Knox were acquitted. The lead prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, had told the jury "you can't make a black boy pay for everyone", but that is how it now stands: only Guede, raised in Perugia, born in Ivory Coast, remains in prison. Doubts had been raised about the DNA evidence: the bra clasp had been found 46 days after the initial police search and contamination seemed a possibility. Witnesses were shown to be confused. Knox stopped laughing and clowning around in court. The prosecutor himself was described as a sex-obsessed conspiracy theorist. Now, as the prosecution appeal to overturn the acquittal, there will probably be another trial.

Emphasis mine. Tobias Jones' hack-job contains one measly paragraph on the appeal and even resurrects the old lie about the bleach purchase (is this myth even included in Follain's book?). The TJMK review is balanced by comparison. :jaw-dropp
 
From the Guardian's review of Follain's new book (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/27/death-perugia-kercher-follain-review):



Emphasis mine. Tobias Jones' hack-job contains one measly paragraph on the appeal and even resurrects the old lie about the bleach purchase (is this myth even included in Follain's book?). The TJMK review is balanced by comparison. :jaw-dropp

Follain before the independent review:

[Comment From Peter Polites]

What do you expect to be the outcome of the Amanda Knox appeal which has been delayed so forensics can carry out a review of the evidence used to convict her? When do you think we will hear the result? And do you think there is the possibility that the forensic evidence was contaminated?

John Follain:

Hi Peter,

Given that more than 20 judges have so far ruled that AK is guilty, I think the appeal court will head the same way - although it could reducer both the sentences for both her and Sollecito.

But no thinks the outcome is certain - the key hearing will be in late May when the court-appointed experts report back on their review of the DNA evidence found on the kitchen knife believed to be the murder weapon, and on Meredith’s bra clasp in her bedroom.

Yes contamination is in theory always possible but I see nothing to indicate that happened here.

How oblivious on so many levels. It was incredibly obvious once the independent review was ordered which way the wind was turning (even before their findings came back). This poindexter John Follain didn't see this coming? Just like PMF. Always wrong.

Furthermore, the fact that he saw nothing to indicate contamination occurred is so jaw droppingly stupid it actually makes me laugh.

The independent review really shouldn't have surprised anyone who was studying this case. They clearly and objectively compromised the crime scene and crucial pieces of evidence.

What a joke!
 
Honestly, Follain doesn't have a clue. Here is a quote from his recent "Killer Questions" article in the Times recently

The prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, accused Guede, Knox and Sollecito of killing Meredith when she resisted their attempts to force her into a sex game.

Certainly, there appeared to be compelling evidence that Knox was lying. She had tried to frame Lumumba. The defence now claimed that an intruder had broken into the cottage and attacked Meredith; but the break-in had clearly been staged. Amateurishly, a room had been ransacked before the window into it was smashed — the glass lay over the strewn clothes instead of under them. Was this to cover Knox’s tracks?

There were mixed traces of Knox’s and Meredith’s blood in the bathroom and another room. Bloody footprints had been left by Knox and Sollecito in the bathroom and in the corridor. Knox had behaved bizarrely at the police station after the murder, kissing and caressing Sollecito and doing yoga exercises. Sollecito had said he spent much of the murder night on his computer, but this was disproved by experts.

Can we honestly take this guy seriously as some objective reporter? He just takes whatever the prosecution says and writes it as fact. A horrendous joke.

Btw, here is Follain talking about the "satanic ritual" put forth by the prosecutors:

Italian prosecutors yesterday accused Amanda Knox of stabbing to death the Leeds Univeristy exchange student Meredith Kercher in a satanic ritual with the complicity of her former boyfriend and an Ivory Coast drifter.
It's behind a pay wall.

Here he is quoting an "investigator" about the Rudy Guede ruling:
The consensus among judicial and legal sources in Perugia is that the Rome ruling will have a significant negative influence on the prospects of Knox and Sollecito, whose appeal hearing opened last week. They have been sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively for murdering Kercher, an exchange student from Coulsdon, south London.

“The Supreme Court verdict will be a milestone for the appeal by Knox and Sollecito, even though the appeal court is, of course, independent in theory,” an investigator said. “The charge against Guede is that he carried out the murder not on his own but with accomplices. And that will put Knox and Sollecito in a tighter spot.

Well that turned out to be wrong.

Wow, reading this guy's articles is ridiculous. This guy is a real creeper. Here is an interesting headline:

Amanda Knox, ‘Foxy Knoxy’, reveals her lesbian trauma

And what the entire headline is based on:
ON A cool autumn night in the Italian city of Perugia, Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito lay on his bed smoking cannabis and talking heart-to-heart. As she put it later, they were discussing "the kinds of people we were".

Sollecito, a 24-year-old engineering student, confided to the American beauty known as "Foxy Knoxy" for her wily ways on the football field that he had been mocked at school because he liked watching Sailor Moon, a Japanese cartoon for girls.

Knox, 21, comforted him with a confession of her own about her teenage years in Seattle. "I told him how at high school I was just as unpopular because people thought I was lesbian," she said.

I think it's worth repeating that this is supposed to be the UK's equivalent of the New York Times. Good grief. The rest of the article has nothing to do with Knox's lesbian trauma.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to harp, but one last thing. In Follain's recent blog piece, he writes this about the new slander trial for Knox's alleged defamation of the police:

Knox herself will be back on trial in Perugia once again next month. In this separate case, she is accused of slandering the police for alleging that they threatened her and beat her during questioning after Meredith's body was found.

Few in Italy expect Knox to return to sit in court. The Perugia prosecutors have asked about the possibility of extradition should she be found guilty, but they have been told that although there is a treaty between the two countries, America would never send her back.

Apparently Mignini and Comodi have never read the Italy/United States extradition treaty. Someone should tell them!

I thought this was interesting as well:

Is this month's acquittal the last word on the murder? Of course not. The Rome supreme court found Guede and unidentified accomplices guilty – so who are they? Under the Italian system, only a verdict from the supreme court is definitive. The prosecution will appeal against the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito and hopes to persuade the Rome court next year to either convict the pair, or at least to order a new trial – this time before a different court, probably in Florence.

Good luck with that....
 
Last edited:
Astonishing review. It borders on parody.

Good thing he mentioned the dildo. Can’t imagine why he didn’t include a photo of the bloody bathroom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom