Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

The semen stain* (* read: alleged semen stain) cannot be exculpatory to anyone, this is plain obvious.

Yes it can, because it belies the whole nonsense story that Mignini fed to the Supreme Court in Rudy's case in order to bolster the case against the innocent people. The story/lie of Mignini was that Rudy was one of multiple killers but was entitled to mitigation because he said he was sorry that he didn't do more to help.

In truth, the only thing Rudy did to "help" was deposit his semen. And this tells us that he never tried to help. That means that he stabbed her, sexually assaulted her, and left her to die. It also means that multiple attackers is a fantasy, Mignini is a liar, and the Supreme Court is a sucker.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Frank Sfarzo wrote the truth. He is right. Kerchers' grief is perpetuated by the pack of corrupt officials and lawyers who see their own interests in manipulating the family.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Frank has a new entry, and it is a powerful, if difficult, read.

Meredith, rest in peace.

A very compelling post. Of course pmf is saying that Sfarzo is a shameless lunatic who makes them feel like puking. sigh.....

 

[pilot padron]

They are "used to it" and have not "given it up"

Good grief. Give it up already.

She's innocent. Get used to it.

Oh Dear.

Just maybe Curt Knox, Radar Online, the Telegraph editors and, and probably millions of others do not quite buy the simpleton argument that "it is over".
Just maybe Curt Knox and these editors do not read this fact based Thread.
Because this "its over" agenda driven talking point has been echoed literally many hundreds of times here for over a year.

Yet, Curt, et al have not "given it up already".
And apparently with perfectly good reason

From Radar Online:
While her father said the family is declining to talk about how Amanda is doing, he was keen to discuss the case, which shockingly may not yet be over.

"Whether it is resolved or not is in the prosecution's hands," Curt told RadarOnline.com.

In the most extreme circumstances, it could mean Raffaele Sollecito would be sent back to prison and attempts made to extradite Amanda from the U.S., reported the Telegraph.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...her-murder-anniversary-william-knox-exclusive
________________________________________

Many do not need biased, soundbite style prompting to be "used to" that ever so obvious possibility, Matthew.


BTW:
Somewhat strange how innocence posters whined and wailed if anyone argued guilt, and horrors, oh dear, dare say Knox was 'guilty'.
This because "all 3 Courts had not completed hearings and/or rulings".
But now "its over" and "she's innocent" after only two of the three are complete ? ?
HUH ? ?
How does one conclude anything other than more of the usual blatant bias and clueless cheer leading? ?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Oh Dear.

Just maybe Curt Knox, Radar Online, the Telegraph editors and, and probably millions of others do not quite buy the simpleton argument that "it is over".
Just maybe Curt Knox and these editors do not read this fact based Thread.
Because this "its over" agenda driven talking point has been echoed literally many hundreds of times here for over a year.

Yet, Curt, et al have not "given it up already".
And apparently with perfectly good reason

From Radar Online:
While her father said the family is declining to talk about how Amanda is doing, he was keen to discuss the case, which shockingly may not yet be over.

"Whether it is resolved or not is in the prosecution's hands," Curt told RadarOnline.com.

In the most extreme circumstances, it could mean Raffaele Sollecito would be sent back to prison and attempts made to extradite Amanda from the U.S., reported the Telegraph.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...her-murder-anniversary-william-knox-exclusive
________________________________________

Many do not need biased, soundbite style prompting to be "used to" that ever so obvious possibility, Matthew.


BTW:
Somewhat strange how innocence posters whined and wailed if anyone argued guilt, and horrors, oh dear, dare say Knox was 'guilty'.
This because "all 3 Courts had not completed hearings and/or rulings.
But now "its over" and "she's innocent" after only two of the three are complete ? ?
HUH ? ?
How does one conclude anything other than more of the usual blatant bias and clueless cheer leading? ?

Notwithstanding all you say, I still think it is over - really over. And that Hellman's Motivation will be persuasive to the SC, and that Sollectio will not be called back to prison, nor Knox called to extradition....In the meantime, it will only seem that it is not yet over.....Curt is speaking in the meantime stance.....

 

[Rolfe]

"In Italian law, there are two types of acquittal," he explained, "There’s 'not enough evidence to commit' and '100 percent that you had nothing to do with this crime." Amanda and her former boyfriend Sollecito were acquitted on the basis of the latter.

"We are viewing it as a done deal but the decision is in the prosecution's hands as to what they decide they want to do with it," concluded Knox's father.

He's just giving the factual legal position. Interesting that Pilot tries to twist that into a suggestion that the Knox family is seriously contemplating the possibility of the conviction being reinstated.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

This is odd.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=428&start=1250#p107107

Stilicho mentions a Wikipedia editor called SlimVirgin. That rings a lot of bells, because there's some sort of weird conspiracy theory about this person being a disinformation agent in the Lockerbie case. I have a couple of mad online stalkers who repeatedly accuse me of being SlimVirgin. Odd to see the name crop up in relation to the Kercher murder.

Rolfe.

 

[Didaktylos]

BTW - any UK-based followers of this thread who didn't catch the broadcast of "Amanda Knox: The Untold Story" (UK) Channel 5 last week: don't bother. I watched it on Demand 5 this morning and it's utter drivel. It looks like they made it in expectation of AK and RS losing the appeal and had to backtrack so quickly the stitches to the alterations are visible.

 

[HumanityBlues]

BTW:
Somewhat strange how innocence posters whined and wailed if anyone argued guilt, and horrors, oh dear, dare say Knox was 'guilty'.
This because "all 3 Courts had not completed hearings and/or rulings".
But now "its over" and "she's innocent" after only two of the three are complete ? ?
HUH ? ?
How does one conclude anything other than more of the usual blatant bias and clueless cheer leading? ?

Actually, they've always said she is presumed innocent until her final appeal This case is over. The acquittal is not going to be overturned. You and your friends lost and were wrong about everything, as usual. Over.

 

[TruthCalls]

I have no definitive judgement on Curatolo and Quintavalle.
But I think Curatolo may be credible because witnesses testified about the disco buses running that day. And because he never changed his story. Also since I herd part of his testimony and his statements, I can say I could not see any specific element to state he was lying.

About Quintavalle, I may only consider the possibility he could be mistaken about he person he recalls. But there is no element to say he was lying. And because Quintavalls's testimony is bolstered by his employees, who recall of that day and they confirm that morning he did say he saw a girl in the shop.
The arguments brought by the defense against Quintavalle are unsupported, inconclusive, if you look at the actual documentation they refer to.
The first time the police entered his shop, he said he didn't recall anything. This is just normal, what is expected. Every Italian shop owner would just give this as first answer, most people at a first, uexpected question, by default, in case of the slightest doubt or uncertainity or just for precaution, they answer they don't know anything, have nothing to say, they are not witnesses. Nobody wants to be a witness. This is normality except egregious cases of super-witnesses who have peculiar information. We took a year to find the first witness in the Aldrovndi case.

Wow.. so Quintavalls' memory is better a year later than it was the day after or all the days in-between? OK, I don't buy that but if you do, then how do you account for this;

- The employee working that day, Ana Marina Chiriboga, claims she did not see Knox in the store.
- No receipt or record of a purchase of bleach was ever found.
- He claimed Knox was in a grey coat, but she did not have one. He likely created this recollection based on the photos of Sollecito putting his grey coat over Knox as they waited at the house.

So, your logic is that a 'recollection' a year later, which conflicts with his own initial testimony, conflicts with another employee that was there and is not substantiated by a receipt or record of purchase of bleach is still acceptable evidence of guilt? This is why arguments such as the one you put forth here are deemed not credible. You belie the evidence in order to justify a conclusion.

 

[TruthCalls]

No way. To defend from evidence, you have to disprove pieces of evidence. Not just show "improper" behaviour (improper in your opinion).

I believe I wrote disproving evidence is every bit as important as 'proving' innocence.

The interrogation was not recorded and no lawyer was provided, making the signed statement illegal. The lead prosecutor, Mignini, is already convicted of abuse of power. There's no dispute a lawyer was not provided and the interrogation not recorded. This alone is what I would call illegal and/or improper. Further, Knox's claims of abusive and coercive tactics became far more credible when you take into account the experiences of Preston and Spezi. The charges can't be proven because Mignini didn't record the sessions, but as far as circumstantial, it's very strong. That you want to base so much of your case on what was said during the interrogation is very telling.

 

[Rolfe]

This reminds me of the case of Liz McLean, the social worker involved in the Orkney child abuse scandal. Even after the whole thing had been completely exploded as fantasy and imagination, she continued to repeat that she knew the whole satanic abuse thing had really happened. When interviewers pointed out that the children involved were and are adamant that no such thing occurred, she merely smiled slyly and knowingly and said that this sort of denial is exactly what you'd expect to encounter in a case like that.

Rolfe.

 

[TruthCalls]

Oh Dear.

Just maybe Curt Knox, Radar Online, the Telegraph editors and, and probably millions of others do not quite buy the simpleton argument that "it is over".
Just maybe Curt Knox and these editors do not read this fact based Thread.
Because this "its over" agenda driven talking point has been echoed literally many hundreds of times here for over a year.

Yet, Curt, et al have not "given it up already".
And apparently with perfectly good reason

From Radar Online:
While her father said the family is declining to talk about how Amanda is doing, he was keen to discuss the case, which shockingly may not yet be over.

"Whether it is resolved or not is in the prosecution's hands," Curt told RadarOnline.com.

In the most extreme circumstances, it could mean Raffaele Sollecito would be sent back to prison and attempts made to extradite Amanda from the U.S., reported the Telegraph.

________________________________________

Many do not need biased, soundbite style prompting to be "used to" that ever so obvious possibility, Matthew.


BTW:
Somewhat strange how innocence posters whined and wailed if anyone argued guilt, and horrors, oh dear, dare say Knox was 'guilty'.
This because "all 3 Courts had not completed hearings and/or rulings".
But now "its over" and "she's innocent" after only two of the three are complete ? ?
HUH ? ?
How does one conclude anything other than more of the usual blatant bias and clueless cheer leading? ?

Pilot,

The Italian Supreme Court will not be judging on evidence. They merely look to see if there were legal or procedural violations that would justify sending the case back to the lower courts to re-prosecute. Virtually all legal analysts have weighed in that this is extremely unlikely. Obviously those convinced of Knox and Sollecito's guilt are still clinging to hope, but it is thin at best.

I was a big fan of Yogi Berra.. it ain't over till it's over, but the fat lady is certainly clearing her throat.

 

[Kestrel]

This is odd.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=428&start=1250#p107107

Stilicho mentions a Wikipedia editor called SlimVirgin. That rings a lot of bells, because there's some sort of weird conspiracy theory about this person being a disinformation agent in the Lockerbie case. I have a couple of mad online stalkers who repeatedly accuse me of being SlimVirgin. Odd to see the name crop up in relation to the Kercher murder.

Rolfe.

A related editorial post, The Amanda Knox Case: A Rare Failure at Wikipedia

For the last two years the article represented little more than a soapbox where those with an agenda of hate could use the good name of Wikipedia to promote their warped opinions about the sensational trial. Powerful Wikipedia moderators who saw Ms. Knox as guilty had hijacked the article and proceeded to break every rule in the book. They were able to ban fully a dozen editors from participation solely because they held the point of view that Ms. Knox might be innocent.

 

[Rolfe]

It all depends on Hellmann's motivations report, which I suspect we'll see before Christmas if indeed the judgement will be void if he misses the 90-day deadline.

My main interest there, really, is seeing how he justifies the guilty verdict on the slander charge.

When Amanda applies for a job, she will be lying if she indicates "NO" to the question of convicted and served prison time for a felony.

There's why I think Knox is likely to appeal that conviction to the Supreme Court if there are any grounds at all for so doing.

Rolfe.

 

[Didaktylos]

This reminds me of the case of Liz McLean, the social worker involved in the Orkney child abuse scandal. Even after the whole thing had been completely exploded as fantasy and imagination, she continued to repeat that she knew the whole satanic abuse thing had really happened. When interviewers pointed out that the children involved were and are adamant that no such thing occurred, she merely smiled slyly and knowingly and said that this sort of denial is exactly what you'd expect to encounter in a case like that.

Rolfe.

I think it's called "being unable to forgive those you have wronged".

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Oh Dear.

Just maybe Curt Knox, Radar Online, the Telegraph editors and, and probably millions of others do not quite buy the simpleton argument that "it is over".
Just maybe Curt Knox and these editors do not read this fact based Thread.
Because this "its over" agenda driven talking point has been echoed literally many hundreds of times here for over a year.

Yet, Curt, et al have not "given it up already".
And apparently with perfectly good reason

From Radar Online:
While her father said the family is declining to talk about how Amanda is doing, he was keen to discuss the case, which shockingly may not yet be over.

"Whether it is resolved or not is in the prosecution's hands," Curt told RadarOnline.com.

In the most extreme circumstances, it could mean Raffaele Sollecito would be sent back to prison and attempts made to extradite Amanda from the U.S., reported the Telegraph.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...her-murder-anniversary-william-knox-exclusive
________________________________________

Many do not need biased, soundbite style prompting to be "used to" that ever so obvious possibility, Matthew.


BTW:
Somewhat strange how innocence posters whined and wailed if anyone argued guilt, and horrors, oh dear, dare say Knox was 'guilty'.
This because "all 3 Courts had not completed hearings and/or rulings".
But now "its over" and "she's innocent" after only two of the three are complete ? ?
HUH ? ?
How does one conclude anything other than more of the usual blatant bias and clueless cheer leading? ?

Pilot,

It's over. You were wrong. Your friends were wrong. If you would have listened to me instead of calling me a liar, you would not have ended up on the wrong side of history. You chose to attack instead of listen. You lose.

What's wrong? Are you having trouble finding another case where you can use your talent to display multiple personalities from board to board?

I almost feel sorry for you. You are obviously in your twilight years; why all the anger? Relax and enjoy life. It all ends in a flash for all of us.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

With all due respect, your 'charitable' evaluation of Sfarzo's Anniversary blog entry requires a complete suspension of disbelief.

On the Anniversary of a horrific senseless murder to write that abominable abortion of disgusting disrespectful drivel could only come from a personality such as Sfarzo.

Yes, Dr, it sure is 'difficult'.

I am certain that if it was your daughter Sfarzo was stupidly mocking and demeaning on the Anniversary of her death, you might find it even more 'difficult' than your argument implies.

Your concluding sincere personal wish for the deceased would have been much better served by just remaining silent and ignoring the likes of Sfarzo and his sick parody attempt.

This just the latest example that Sfarzo's iconic standing and endless quoting and heralding from the majority of innocence arguers could not be more undeserved.

Frank's post is right on. It is a difficult read because it is all true. This is a very sad case but not a complicated one.

 

[TruthCalls]

This is a change of topic. We were talking about Antonio Curatolo: he has never changed his story and his account was corroborated by withesses who testified there were disco buses running that night, and that that day it had rained, and that the day before there has ben a market in Piazza Grimana.

If Curatolo's testimony is truthful, this is evidence they are implicated in the murder because they are lying on their alibies.

About further evidence about the time of death, Nara and Antonella both heared a woman's scream (not an argument and a yelling) located after 22.30.
The telephone records also locate the phone still far from Lana's garden (likely at the cottage) after 22.00. Itself, this datum is not very compatible with an aggression at 9:00, because requires the burglar to remain in the house for an hour after the murder. But also, the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00, not earlier, since at this time - not earlier - for the first time the phone automatically pings at the cell compatible with Lana's garden.

The rest of the scientific argument is easilly dismissed both on the ground of its intrinsic uncertainity, and on uncertainity of its implications: the defendants simply have no alibi after 8:40.

What in the world are you talking about. Curatolo testified he witnessed Knox and Sollecito from 9:30pm to just before midnight. Stomach content analysis is the most accurate means to determine TOD after the police bungled it and didn't take a core body temperature reading. If we assume Curatolo to be a credible witness then he provides an alibi for Knox and Sollecito. If he is not, then this discussion is moot.

 

[Rolfe]

A related editorial post, The Amanda Knox Case: A Rare Failure at Wikipedia

So SlimVirgin is on the side of the angels in the Kercher article? That's a turnup for the books!

Wikipedia and Lockerbie

Spies in Wikipedia

[SlimVirgin] is known as an administrator with inhuman capacity for work. Over the past year, she edited nearly 35,000 articles (about 100 every day, without holidays and weekends). The same SlimVirgin also holds a record of continuous editorial work lasting 26 hours, with the longest break in editing not exceeding 40 minutes. These statistics from Wikipedia's editing records suggests either a supernatural ability, or more likely that SlimVirgin is a convenient smoke screen for an entire team of specialists editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of intelligence services.

So yeah, weird.

ETA: Weirder. The first comment on the article Kestral linked to is from Charles Norrie, who was banned from JREF for repeated rule breaches in a thread on Lockerbie. He immediately piles in there with the information about who SlimVirgin is, and her record in the Pan Am 103 articles. Charles is one of my online stalkers who is (or at least was) putting around the idea that I am SlimVirgin.

I suspect he must have some sort of alert set up for that name appearing in a discussion context, but even so, it's all quite peculiar.

Rolfe.