Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[MDDVS]

It was not used here, because she was interrogated for only 2.5 hours before she accused an innocent.

She also said she (allegedy) slept two hours the night before, and she did a lot of things that people with clinical symptoms of sleep deprivation don't do.

I think that it is important to remember that she didn't know (or at least we can't assume she did) that the man she accusing was innocent.

From all we know, maybe she was just trying to help the police. Once again the video recording that the police could and should have produced would help us to understand this point better.

I didn't want to imply she was clinically sleep deprived.

She released the 05:45 spontaneous statement after she had chamomille tee and pastries. And nobody hit her during her 05:45 statement (where she was not even interrogated).
In any event, it does not justify her hand written note and her claim of false memory.

)

Are you claiming false memories don't exist? But regardeless, considering the conditions of the interrogation which the police failed to properly document, I see no reason to take seriously anything produced by it. I don't see what's so special about the written note. She says point blank that her word should not be used to incriminate her boss, so the real question is why the police did anyway.

The problem is that if you consider suspicious something which is normal, what you build a prejudice. (it's lke saying: the fact that your skin is dark/ that you speak Arabic, etc. it makes me suspicious).
The fact that police do not videotape a witness interrogation is not considered a suspicious even by the Italian system, and this takes place within the system. The same goes for the fact that Donnino is acquainted with the police: nobody thinks you are allowed to see Donnino as a liar with no evidence.

That analogy is crap. I know for a fact that police (once again I repeat, not only in Italy but in other first world countries too) uses coercion and sometimes physical violence to extract confessions. You can't convince me otherwise because I know this for a fact.

The suspicion arises from this previous knowledge coupled with other facts such as: the result of the interrogation was crap (wrong information), the defendant claims she was hit in the head, no lawyer was present, some of the people enforcement people present had legal problems of their own. All this together with the fact that the police decided to not record the interrogation is what makes me suspicious.

Also, the italian system is not an example to anybody, and actually encourages this kind of abuse because the judiciary enjoys too much independence (maybe it's necessary to combat the mafia, I don't know, but a lack of accountability does tend to favour abuse of power).

As I said that witness is useless, I don't understand why you treat her as a separate entity from the police. I'd like to to know what she would say under interrogation (the same as Amanda Knox).

 

[MDDVS]

No it isn't irrelevant at all. Any investigator would see a huge red flag. In any place of the world. Any person (criminal) acts for a purpose and follows some logic, burglars are no exception. In fact, home break ins and thefts are extremely serial and predictable.
The FBI would see a huge red flag too.
(from an article by John E. Douglas, Corinne Munn , on FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, February 1992)

They would also point out autopsy finding, remerk that whenever there is a very violent murder, you need to be skeptical about burglary and think about "domestic" or "close" murderer and staging of a burglary.

Yes, but in this case the ground floor window had bars, so it had to be a first floor window instead. I don't see much difference between using the balcony or Filomena's window.

If the ground floor window was accessible it would be indeed suspicious if a burglar chose the first floor one instead.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not incompatible?

Thanks that's how I remembered it. There was a defense demonstration showing the print looked smaller because of the folds in the material.

If I am thinking of the same thing, it was two parallel lines that Rinaldi turned into a shoe print that was the same size as Amanda's shoe size. Vinci argue that shoes don't have parallel edges and that the fabric had creased to make the second line.

 

[Dan O.]

When did Machiavelli drop the facade of arguing only what was relevant in court?

 

[RWVBWL]

Breakin' in, again...

One of the things I promised Grinder a long time ago was a picture of Filomena's window with the plywood nailed over it. The other thing I promised back then to Grinder was a newspaper account of thieves who broke into the cottage when it was a crime scene, and (allegedly) set up a satanic rite inside, in what was regarded as mocking Mignini....
But, take this for what it's worth.... until I can re-find the blessed things....

Heya Bill Williams,
I found this, dated Feb. 18, 2009:

"During an inspection this morning set by the judge in order to pick up personal items belonging to Amanda Knox's house-mates, Filomena and Laura, it was discovered that strangers had entered the house by breaking the balcony window, according to some policeman, or through the window that looks the road, according to some others.
It seems that the burglars left 4 kitchen knives in very visible positions, 1 on the floor of the living room, lying on a plastic bag. 1 on a shelf of the living room. 1 in the corridor, ahead Meredith's room, and a 4th one even on Meredith's bed.
It seems that 4 candles were used and then left there. Reportedly leaked wax was found on the floor of Meredith's room.
It's not clear yet if candles and knives belonged to the house. In this case what looked, by the very first information, as a ritual, can instead be explained with the intrusion of some homeless people who needed to light candles in order see in the house.
It's not clear if something was stolen, but everything was disordered.
It's interesting that in the last hearing Mrs Comodi kept asking the boys downstairs all possible information about how to enter the house by climbing the back side...
In any case, new spurs for Mr Mignini. The favorite ones."

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100806235950/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

 

[RandyN]

The only true element was the drink taken from fridge. There is nothing like oddly pled glass etc.
All break ins actually look the same; the balcony was the same as the cottage balcony. The most easily reachable. All from balconies.



I consider this pure BS.
If they lie obstructing the search for truth on a murder, this is circumstantial evidence they are implicated in the murder. No way this could be an alibi.



No, you are not funny.
And why do you say "forgot"? I never said that.



No, I prefer to tell things only once. Maybe you can read the summary of the SC ruling.
Btw, the defendants did take part to the Guede trial.



They could cross exam witnesses, and they also brought in their own evidence (the broken glass allegedly stuck in Guede's shoe...).



You are being just superficial and insulting. The autopsy shows a bit more than just the number of wounds.



I already explaionied this in a post responding to you on this forum. Go back and read it, before repeating false claims again.



I already explained that in the sam post. Go back and read it.



Yes, I do.
Btw, this allowed pfor. Vinci to re-assess the pillowcase evidence himself.

Anyway the main reason why the semen stain was not tested in the subsequent trial, is that Gude chose a fast-track trial. The fast track trial cuts out part of the evidence set. It's the law. Probably to complicate for you to understand.
But you may instead question why the Sollecito defense team didn't request to test the semen stain during the 2007 examination, and didn't request it until 2009.



You call whatever you want but you sound like a superficial, childish bully.
It's like when you wre talking about sea disasters, mocking "the Italians" because of the captain wrecking a liner. The US and BP destroyed half of the Mexico gulf sea by recklessly drilling holes they could not close; you can build thousands of liners, but we only have one planet. You had governments telling the world Iraq had mass destruction weapons, 60% of Americans believe 9-11 was an attack by Saddam Hussein.
Yet you mock "the Italians", you brag about your moral superiority with that bullying, self-qualifying, xenophobic presumption; the fat that you seem still unaware of you prejudice seems to me an indication for medical treatment. Your pomposity is grotesque.

Btw you also quote self-serving picked out pieces of data from ECHR reports, avoiding to detail data that contradicts your rants; all this is more of a childish game.

I know Yummi/Migni the truth is hard to accept for you. But you never explained one thing I questioned...provide links and we will look.
It is you and your idiot Italian legal friends who are the bullies. Bullies and liars and cheats.

Look at Hellmanns words to the country about the SC. He must be the last honest and logical person left in Italy.

BTW...the disaster in the gulf was caused by BP...that stands for British Petroleum. And I dont recall any BP captains claiming to have tripped and fallen into a life boat...the same one his GF was in. Do Italians think everyone is that stupid to believe such nonsense?

Your efforts to convict innocent people like AK and RS and Sara Scazzis aunt and cousin is grotesque. What you call rants are undeniable and easily provable facts of corrupt behavior by the Italian judiciary and police.

Even Hellmann declares that what the SC did by considering evidence is totally illegal. Do you think they can hide that? The ECOHR is not so stupid...that's why you have such a terrible rating...most violations for failing to provide a fair trial...seems spot on in light of this case and the Scazzi case.

Mignini is going down! The corrupt crook wants to attach AK book. LOL...good luck with that clowns...what are you going to do send the Italian Army to collect? Tell Mignini that when you find yourself in a deep hole the best thing to do is first stop digging it deeper... It is proof of his insanity though.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh, no. The sleep deprivation issue was not started by me, not at all. That was others' idea. Kaosium and you claimed that theory and attempted to argue about evidence of sleep deprivation, and about a consequential link with Knox's written memoir. You were the ones bringing claims (blostered somehow by statements in Knox's book) and arguments about sleep deprivation, and playing the "experts" (without actually even a shred of experience).

But nevertheless, you claim that she was well rested when she 'crumbled' and told the police what they already knew to be true. I assume you also believe she was supplied with refreshment and that when she says in her book that she needed to attend to her menstruation but was refused a bathroom break she is lying.

Do you really imagine the ECHR would not regard the time of the interrogation and the preceding exhaustion of her many hours at the questura as relevant? At what point was she informed of her right to remain silent and to legal counsel as a 'strongly suspected' person? Do you think that would be of no concern to the ECHR?

 

[RWVBWL]

Is it semen? TEST IT, please!

<snip>
NancyS might also not know that there was a semen-like stain on the pillow, with Rudy's shoe print in it. Massei in his motivations report makes a big deal about why a stain on a pillow under Meredith's hips was NOT even tested to determine it's owner and its compostion - preferring instead to concentrate on the shoeprint, which at the time the PLE was convinced was Raffaele's.

It turned out to be Rudy's. And the alleged semen stain remains untested.NancyS - get ready for Machiavelli's "down the rabbit hole" response to this!!!! You'll love it!

Hiya Bill Williams and everyone else,
I gotta gut feelin' that Machiavelli is stoked that Amanda Knox+Raffaele Sollecito
are now facing re-trial and some 20 odd years in prison for a horrible crime of murdering Miss Meredith Kercher.
A bloody crime which I, and many others, do not believe that they committed.
So let's examine that possible semen stain a little closer, ok?
Cool...


I dug up an old article from Oct. 2009,
on the old Perugia Shock, + a coupla pix,
have a look:+read, please:

IMPORTANT EVIDENCE WITHHOLD
A substance between the victim legs

<snip>

At a more attentive search on the pillowcase two stains on the side of it appeared like having a different color than blood. So experts used a crimescope, which, as we know, is a device that emits various bandwidths of light to reveal latent traces. Depending on which frequency it is used, the crimescope can show fingerprints, blood, saliva, semen, etc.
When used on the two stains, at a semen frequency, it confirmed that the two stains could be semen as we can see on the picture below, a version of which just appeared on Oggi.

But those stains have a relative importance in themselves, since they could even have been left on a previous day. The crimescope observation, though, revealed another trace, less spectacular, less visible, but more important, that we can here see for the first time.

As we can see in the picture above, in the middle of the pillowcase there's another of those shoeprints so familiar to us. It has the same white luminescence of the first picture, as if the shoe had touched the same substance of the two stains and then, in some way, imprinted it on the tissue. If that's true this second picture is particularly revealing, since it suggests that the substance must have been left during the crime.

The stains should be tested to know if the substance is really sperm and who belongs it to. But nobody required that test and the evidence wasn't presented in court. Why was that?

Useless asking the defenses, the reserve is total about that.
But we can understand that a contamination may have easily occurred, and if the test resulted a DNA belonging to Raffaele that would be a serious problem. Better not to take the risk, they must have thought (for not to mention that the defenses, for technical reason, maintain that there wasn't sexual violence).

Even for Professor Francesco Vinci the reserve is total. But he's the wizard of all kind of traces, he's the morphologist, the number one in Italy and not only in Italy, the one who provided crucial results such the right attribution of the damning shoeprint at the beginning of the case. I managed to tear just one sentence out of him: I can only say that the stains look like having the typical luminescence of sperm.
So, it looks like the piece of evidence will not enter this trial since both defense and prosecution seem to be paralyzed by the risk that the test may result something inconvenient for them.

In conclusion, for a number of reasons, we don't know yet if that substance is really semen.It could, for instance, be vaseline, which doesn't have DNA and could go undetected with the swabs.
The substance, then, is not were it was supposed to be. But close to it.
Looking at how the victim was found, the area of the pillow were the two stains are located may indeed be exactly between her legs. It's however difficult to understand why the substance should be only on the pillow, underneath her.
But, after having heard the opinion of professor Vinci we have to assume as concrete the probability that the substance could be semen. And we have to suspend our theories on about why the rape was interrupted. Maybe it wasn't interrupted.

And that substance may belong to Rudy or, hopefully for him, to the one who went with him.

Link here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100806.../2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html


What!
A possibly wet semen stain,
that Rudy Guede stepped in and left an imprint of his sneakers on a pillow
that was found underneath Miss Kerecher's dead, naked body?
And it still has not been tested yet?

 

[RandyN]

Yummi/Mig says this about Totos testimony.

"I consider this pure BS.
If they lie obstructing the search for truth on a murder, this is circumstantial evidence they are implicated in the murder. No way this could be an alibi."

So what did Toto mean then when he said the two were in the plaza from 9 until midnight?

You want us to believe that RS and AK lied about being out and that is proof of something...but you ignore Quintinvales lie to police that he saw nothing when asked shortly after the crime...why is that?

And how does being spotted continuously in a plaza during the time of the murder not provide an alibi for the falsely accused? It is impossible for them to be in two places so it most certainly does provide an alibi...unless you wish to concede Toto was a crazy police informant that Mignini used in an attempt to bolster his weak as water of a case. And who he later threw in jail where he improbably dies under the custody of the wonderful jail personnel. A man use to sleeping outside in winter dies after receiving three hots and a cot? Yea sure...its all just a coincidence...

How convenient he died. Now he is like the un-retestable DNA, like the missing interrogation tapes, like the burned up hard drives.

How will super witnesses Nara and Moicha answer this question? Ladies what time exactly did you hear the scream? Dont guess...tell the truth. What time exactly? Good luck with that...and for the other one...who heard arguments in Italian..so who exactly was arguing? Cant be Knox since she has limited Italian...so who exactly? Dont guess...try to be honest.

Like Hellamnn says...Florence has its orders from the SC. Its just that the SC broke Italian law. And I happen to agree with this professional judges opinion. Last honest Italian...

 

[Antony]

For now PGP are still crowing that the fix is in without thinking through the troubling implications. Within a few weeks I fully expect them to be arguing, perversely, that the Cassation report isn't too prescriptive and isn't too hard on the defense -- and, oh, let's just overlook their "occasional" mistakes. Once again (see Massei) we'll be quoting a pro-guilt document to deflate pro-guilt talking points.

The more things change...

The time for them to be crowing was after the SC ruling was announced, but before the details were known.

Now that the nature of the motivation has been revealed, with all its faulty facts and unlawful revisiting of the evidence, it is no longer possible for anyone to claim that there is a legal basis for the SC decision or for the continued persecution of the 2 students.

 

[NancyS]

But nevertheless, you claim that she was well rested when she 'crumbled' and told the police what they already knew to be true. I assume you also believe she was supplied with refreshment and that when she says in her book that she needed to attend to her menstruation but was refused a bathroom break she is lying.

Do you really imagine the ECHR would not regard the time of the interrogation and the preceding exhaustion of her many hours at the questura as relevant? At what point was she informed of her right to remain silent and to legal counsel as a 'strongly suspected' person? Do you think that would be of no concern to the ECHR?

I would go as far as saying if it wasn't recorded, the so called confessions shouldn't even be up for discussion. Not recording indicates that they were either inept or corrupt - and anything Amanda said should be discarded and the shoddy/corrupt workings of that night should be investigated.

As for sleep deprivation - regardless of whether you consider her innocent or guilty she was probably sleeping poorly due to extreme anxiety. You can keep going for so long and even eat pizza, do homework, whatever it takes to keep your mind occupied - however, if you don't rest sooner or later you will crack/crumble as you just don't have the reserves to cope with more pressure.

If the police did make her crumble that night and she was guilty, there is no reasonable explanation for her not naming Rudy. She would have known he was involved and could have cried about how scared she was and how he had threatened her if she said anything - he was the perfect guy to take the blame (especially as it is continually claimed that they staged the scene to set him up!). Confirming Lumumba indicates that she had no idea who was responsible. It's far harder to lie than tell the truth - and once she had cracked she would have said Rudy did it. If they had been involved, I think she would have convinced herself that it was all Rudy's fault and psychologically he would have been an easy person to blame as they had no prior relationship

 

[bri1]

Yes but - besides other things - the false memory syndrome (as much as any fabricated memory induced through hypnosys) has one remarkable feature: the subject is convinced about the memory. The memory doesn't fade away nor disappear as the time passes, and it seems real, not 'unreal'.
It doesn't change its aspect and credibility.
The principle of hallucination is similar, the difference is hallucination is a present sensory perception that happens in real time, not a memory. When you are hallucinating, you cannot distinguish false perception from reality, unless you are used or prepared to it: hallucination may be bizarre in its content but seems real in perception, not false. The same way, a false memory is vivid, seems real, not false.
If you have a false memory you can't say "don't use that in court, it's not credible, it's dream-like, it's unreal", because you can't know that, you can't think that. You can't "change" and elaborate (as Knox dis) or "retract" (as some say) a false memory.

I've read much of the literature about false memory, answer as I recall, many people who had had false memories constructed by overzealous psychotherapists did retract their allegations upon realising the falsity of them. This often happened when the memories were no longer being reinforced by the 'authority', i.e. The psychotherapists did(and in 'Amanda's case the police). Can you provide a cite from the literature to support your claims about false memory syndrome?

 

[Matthew Best]

I've read much of the literature about false memory, answer as I recall, many people who had had false memories constructed by overzealous psychotherapists did retract their allegations upon realising the falsity of them. This often happened when the memories were no longer being reinforced by the 'authority', i.e. The psychotherapists did(and in 'Amanda's case the police). Can you provide a cite from the literature to support your claims about false memory syndrome?

He doesn't need to - he's also an expert in false memory syndrome.

 

[anglolawyer]

snip

And maybe you can also recall us that Sollecito's defence (he admits that also in his book) refrained from requesting a test of the alleged semen stain for more than two years, because they were afraid of the result....
They refused to demand it because they were afraid!

They asked for it only when the evidence analysis phase was over, and the trial already had turned desperate to the defence. Ask them why did they wait for so long.

(at that point - Massei ruled, as by the law - the result would have been irrelevant)

Hmm. No one tackled you on this. The reason Raffaele's defence did not ask for the stain to be tested is they feared the result would be fixed by the mafiosi conducting the prosecution case. You think it very fine to mock them for this ('they were afraid!') not realising you have fallen in with a bunch of fascistic thugs. They had good reason to be afraid. Their client was (and still is) being framed for murder.

The cops who treated Amanda so well, were they the same ones who beat up Patrick and called him 'dirty black'? Or was he lying about that too? Is she lying about not being allowed to attend to her menstruation? You would think, whatever the law says, the cops would want to record everything to protect themselves from such beastly allegations.

ETA it occurs to me your glee about the defence attitude to the semen stain is truly idiotic. They were afraid! Ha ha! Of what? That it would be tested and turn out to be Raffaele's semen? Just stand back and think how dumb that is. Let's suppose it is his. Well now, what would that say about the competence of your heroes? And, knowing it was his, why would Raffaele have applied to test it on the last day of the first instance trial (when, I agree, it was much too late)?

So, just like your demand of Bill to lay out the whole case on the clothes on the bed, let's hear your take on the semen stain which might have wrapped up the whole case by itself but was never tested. What possible contortion of investigative logic results in failing to test a sample on a pillow that had been thrust under the hip of the stripped, naked body of the victim? Go on Machiavelli. You're so smart. Tell us. Maybe you're afraid! Ha ha!

 

[NancyS]

The more I think about it, the more stupid it seems for them not to have blamed Rudy if they were all involved. They must have been fairly terrified that their prints would be all over the murder scene and that the police might find their abandoned bloody clothes and murder weapon. It would have been fairly easy for Amanda to play the part of the stupid American girl, all alone in Italy, who had watched too many episodes of the Sopranos and was terrified by threats that Rudy made - and only feeling that her family was safe once he was behind bars - she could easily have used an excuse like this in the weeks afterwards. How was she to know, if guilty, that there was no evidence of them ever being in Meredith's room - sticking to the innocent story was going to be a far bigger risk than just blaming Rudy

 

[anglolawyer]

The more I think about it, the more stupid it seems for them not to have blamed Rudy if they were all involved. They must have been fairly terrified that their prints would be all over the murder scene and that the police might find their abandoned bloody clothes and murder weapon. It would have been fairly easy for Amanda to play the part of the stupid American girl, all alone in Italy, who had watched too many episodes of the Sopranos and was terrified by threats that Rudy made - and only feeling that her family was safe once he was behind bars - she could easily have used an excuse like this in the weeks afterwards. How was she to know, if guilty, that there was no evidence of them ever being in Meredith's room - sticking to the innocent story was going to be a far bigger risk than just blaming Rudy

This comes under the heading of 'defence strategy'. If guilty, their defence strategy throughout was pathetic. Raffaele should have blamed Amanda and cut a deal. Amanda should have blamed everyone else except Lumumba. The selective clean-up that framed Rudy followed by the extended failure to implicate him over the entire course of the proceedings defies reason. 'But if we say it was Rudy he will retaliate. Oh no!' But he did retaliate anyway, so where was the gain in not blaming him having gone to all the trouble of framing him by faking his MO and staging a sex assault and robbery which cunningly left his DNA in all the places it shouldn't be?

News just in - Ergon announces it was Rudy who took and dumped the phones.

 

[katy_did]

Yes but - besides other things - the false memory syndrome (as much as any fabricated memory induced through hypnosys) has one remarkable feature: the subject is convinced about the memory. The memory doesn't fade away nor disappear as the time passes, and it seems real, not 'unreal'.
It doesn't change its aspect and credibility.
The principle of hallucination is similar, the difference is hallucination is a present sensory perception that happens in real time, not a memory. When you are hallucinating, you cannot distinguish false perception from reality, unless you are used or prepared to it: hallucination may be bizarre in its content but seems real in perception, not false. The same way, a false memory is vivid, seems real, not false.
If you have a false memory you can't say "don't use that in court, it's not credible, it's dream-like, it's unreal", because you can't know that, you can't think that. You can't "change" and elaborate (as Knox dis) or "retract" (as some say) a false memory.

This sounds completely wrong to me. From what I've read on the subject, it's not at all unusual for a person to become gradually aware that what they thought was a "memory" didn't really happen, at least in the sort of context we're talking about. Vague statements are also characteristic of this kind of false memory. You seem to be suggesting that either a false memory pops into someone's head fully formed and in lots of detail, with the person themselves absolutely convinced it's real, and that it never changes; or else it's not really a false memory but a conscious lie. Even if that were true of people with, for example, false memories of child abuse (which I have to say I doubt, as it seems far too simplistic), it certainly isn't true of the type of false internalized statement we might expect to see in a case like this one.

Here are some notes I scribbled down ages ago (from this book, if you're interested):

Coerced-complicant false confessors are likely to retract or withdraw their false confession as soon as the immediate pressures are over... Coerced-internalized confessors, on the other hand, will only retract after they themselves have become convinced, or suspect, that they are innocent of the crime they are accused of. How long this takes depends on the individual case (Ofshe 1989, 1991b)... The critical issue is to what extent, if at all, the suspect's original memory for events becomes permanently damaged as the result of coercive and manipulative police interviewing.

Ofshe...believes that coerced-internalized false confessions are typically characterized by tentative expressions, such as 'I guess I must have', and 'I think I did this next'.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would go as far as saying if it wasn't recorded, the so called confessions shouldn't even be up for discussion. Not recording indicates that they were either inept or corrupt - and anything Amanda said should be discarded and the shoddy/corrupt workings of that night should be investigated.

As for sleep deprivation - regardless of whether you consider her innocent or guilty she was probably sleeping poorly due to extreme anxiety. You can keep going for so long and even eat pizza, do homework, whatever it takes to keep your mind occupied - however, if you don't rest sooner or later you will crack/crumble as you just don't have the reserves to cope with more pressure.

If the police did make her crumble that night and she was guilty, there is no reasonable explanation for her not naming Rudy. She would have known he was involved and could have cried about how scared she was and how he had threatened her if she said anything - he was the perfect guy to take the blame (especially as it is continually claimed that they staged the scene to set him up!). Confirming Lumumba indicates that she had no idea who was responsible. It's far harder to lie than tell the truth - and once she had cracked she would have said Rudy did it. If they had been involved, I think she would have convinced herself that it was all Rudy's fault and psychologically he would have been an easy person to blame as they had no prior relationship

Trouble is they will now use the false accusation of Lumumba as circumstantial evidence in the murder charge. They have played well and, so long as the case remains within the confines of Italy, all should be as intended. The case needs to go to the ECHR or, perhaps less promisingly, whichever department of state in the US will handle any extradition request resulting from a conviction for murder.

I am increasingly inclined to the view she should appeal calunnia now and ask the Florence court to stay the case until the ECHR has ruled.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hmm. No one tackled you on this. The reason Raffaele's defence did not ask for the stain to be tested is they feared the result would be fixed by the mafiosi conducting the prosecution case. You think it very fine to mock them for this ('they were afraid!') not realising you have fallen in with a bunch of fascistic thugs. They had good reason to be afraid. Their client was (and still is) being framed for murder.
(...)

But if you start from the assumption that the whole investigating police and judicial authority are a system of fascistic thugs and that thei are violating the law, then any other argument becomes unnecessary. If you assume that as true, you should not make any further point.

Bill makes arguments about evidence (clothes, window etc.) and this to me implies one can respond pointing out other actual arguments - without your arbitrary assumption - which can be consdered and are in the opposite direction.
It is obvious that it you also add a prejudicial axiom that makes the judicial system guilty and the defendant become unfairly persecuted by definition, such a priori would alter all terms of the logical equation and no argument would be possible, you would decline every aspect on reality along with it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yummi/Mig says this about Totos testimony.

"I consider this pure BS.
If they lie obstructing the search for truth on a murder, this is circumstantial evidence they are implicated in the murder. No way this could be an alibi."

So what did Toto mean then when he said the two were in the plaza from 9 until midnight?

You want us to believe that RS and AK lied about being out and that is proof of something...but you ignore Quintinvales lie to police that he saw nothing when asked shortly after the crime...why is that?

And how does being spotted continuously in a plaza during the time of the murder not provide an alibi for the falsely accused? It is impossible for them to be in two places so it most certainly does provide an alibi...unless you wish to concede Toto was a crazy police informant that Mignini used in an attempt to bolster his weak as water of a case. And who he later threw in jail where he improbably dies under the custody of the wonderful jail personnel. A man use to sleeping outside in winter dies after receiving three hots and a cot? Yea sure...its all just a coincidence...

How convenient he died. Now he is like the un-retestable DNA, like the missing interrogation tapes, like the burned up hard drives.

How will super witnesses Nara and Moicha answer this question? Ladies what time exactly did you hear the scream? Dont guess...tell the truth. What time exactly? Good luck with that...and for the other one...who heard arguments in Italian..so who exactly was arguing? Cant be Knox since she has limited Italian...so who exactly? Dont guess...try to be honest.

Like Hellamnn says...Florence has its orders from the SC. Its just that the SC broke Italian law. And I happen to agree with this professional judges opinion. Last honest Italian...

Mach's point makes no sense. Say they gave a false alibi because they were getting high on some illegal substance in the piazza when the murder was committed and didn't want anybody to know. Then say the original alibi gets disproved and they later bring forward Curatolo as their witness to prove their real alibi. Is this evidence somehow inadmissible? Of course not. Is it reliable? Well, no. No sane person would believe a word of it but since he's the prosecution's witness and they say he is 'extraordinarily accurate' (Galati) that problem fades away and he provides the required alibi. It's as though the defence called him and the prosecution elected not to cross examine.