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

[Dan O.]

You should not consider a person untrustorthy a priori, you always need to listen to the testimony first. Then you can state that the testimony is untrustworthy.

Tell that to the ISC.

Guede's declarations were brought into court by the defence. You may turn the question to the defences: they called Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello as witnesses - those are charechters not more trustworthy or reliable than Guede. The Sollecito defence called Alessi to answer about confidential declarations he had from Rudy Guede. So it's the defence who brought Guede's declarations into court.

Where have we heard that before?

This Court called these people to testify, on the request of the defendants’ counsel, due to the profound conviction that it was not possible a priori, without having heard them, to exclude their credibility merely by considering their character and the fact that they are being detained for serious crimes.

The defense didn't choose Alessie and once his statement was known the court had no choice but to hear his testimony.

You obviously have no standing in the Italian legal system or you would have known this.

Once such evidence was entered by the defence, you can only listen to it completely. What Guede had to say about his own confidences to Alessi, is obviously part of the same piece of evidence. The evidence must be complete.

The evidence was not complete. It was a slanderous accusation made by Rudy Guede to lessen his role in Meredith's murder in the hopes of better treatment when his case comes up for parole. This was probably instigated by Mignini even if the letter was not authored by him. The letter had become public knowledge and therefore the whole evidence had to be heard including cross examination of Rudy to learn how he came by that information.

Rudy needs to be resentenced for his roll in Mignini's coverup of the mistakes and deliberate actions that brought Amanda and Raffaele to trial in the first place. There is some series lying to the judges that put Amanda and Raffaele in custody in the first place and Mignini is right in the middle of it.

 

[Dan O.]

[IMGL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=8013[/IMGL]

So, were Amanda's clothes collected? If so, when?

One pair of Amanda's socks (that were not seen earlier) appear to have been collected on December 18. Everything was stripped off the bed and just about everything else from the room was tossed there. But the distinctive gold knit sweater can be seen stuffed in a suitcase in a corner of one of the photos.

 

[Bill Williams]

Isn't it interesting that no one who actually knows Amanda or Raffaele have said anything other than that they are both kind intelligent people. Their behavior has always been upstanding. The prosecution looked desperately for signs of violence or unstable behavior and they found nothing at all.

NOTHING!!!!

Which is what, in essence, Judge Massei said, and he's the convicting judge. He put the whole involvement of them to chance and to a momentary choice for evil, probably because of the marijuana. There is NOTHING about psychopathology, as per the first three of Mignini's motives.

What I noted about Machiavelli, though, is Machiavelli's denial of the plain meaning of what Judge Massei wrote.

Anyone here remember when Machiaveli was claiming expertise in sleep and sleep deprivation issues, all to claim that Knox was rested and ready just prior to the 11:30 pm interrogation, to manipulate seasoned investigators.

How did Machiavelli use his expertise to make this clinical assessment of Amanda Knox? BECAUSE OF WHAT SHE WROTE!

Yes, that's right. Machiavelli cannot glean the plain meaning of what Judge Massei wrote about Knox's and Solelcito's normal, non-psychopathological character.....

..... but for some reason he has the expertise as a quasi-sleep clinician to assess Knox's ability to survive stress and deprivation based on what she wrote.

Be a good man, Machiavelli, and quit being this silly. I fully expect you to retreat into other issues soon. You retreat back through issues a lot lately. You are a peach, really.

 

[NewtonTrino]

He put the whole involvement of them to chance and to a momentary choice for evil, probably because of the marijuana.

Which is hilarious. Obviously the good ole judge doesn't have much pot smoking experience. Marijuana is going to make you kill someone? Maybe murder by eating too many doritos? Possibly laughing so hard you run out of oxygen?

 

[Mary_H]

Massei never found anything factual about psycopathology. Absolutely never.

(he they did not even search the topic, actually).

No factual finding on the topic. This did not happen.

The fact that Massei does not speak about psychopatology, is not a factual finding of something. Massei doesn't make any finding about the existence of the Venice bell-tower. By your logic you would deduce they made the factual finding that the Venice bell-tower doesn't exist.

Speaking of logic, you have said that if Amanda's lawyers did not complain about police mistreatment, then there was no police mistreatment. You also have suggested that if Amanda did not tell Judge Matteini she was innocent, then she was not innocent.

Ergo, if Judge Massei did not mention the Venice Bell Tower, then there is no Venice Bell Tower.

 

[Mary_H]

"Kids" is a word which doesn't belong to Massei's document.
(a court of Assise tries adults, not kids).

Also, there is no "history of being good"; there is no moral judgement of "being good" or "being bad" on a person in a legal document.

There is actually no assessment on the personality of a defendant in a criminal trial at all, unless limited aspects are explicitly required and discussed in court for specific legal purposes.

For which specific legal purpose did Mignini ask Amanda about the party in Seattle where rocks allegedly were thrown?

 

[Mary_H]

.
And then it was put in a plastic bag to rust. An effective way of making sure there is no further examination of the extra alleles. Sort of like destroying hard drives, missing interrogation recordings, missing control data.

Maybe somebody should seal a few bra clasps in plastic bags to see how long it takes them to rust. I have a feeling it would require adding extra moisture to get any significant amount of rust.
.

In a multi-trial system, it seems reasonable to expect all parties to conserve the evidence. If they allow evidence that has been questioned at one trial to deteriorate before the next trial, they should not be allowed to use it at the next trial.

Has anyone ever actually seen this allegedly rusty bra clasp? Or do we just have to take Steffi's word for it?

 

[RandyN]

So you think that most courts wouldn't take police work at face value? Silly.



Bill can you imagine defense lawyers requesting independent review of every issue in a trial?
In Italy Mach has made it quite clear, Galati too, that the court must make the decision on their own and may not let an independent expert make the decision. Massei listened to both sides' multiple experts and decided he had heard enough. I think he made the wrong choice. I think he had enough from the defense experts to discount the two crucial pieces of DNA evidence. Don't you?

In the vast majority of cases the police experts evidence is by and large correct. If the defense doesn't shake their opinions, then the court goes with them.

This is all well and good but then how does one explain the Galati appeal and SC confirmation that further testing that the prosecutor (supposedly) requested was unfairly denied by Hellmann? It seems to me that Galati wants Hellmann to decide on his own...which he clearly does after getting additional information from independent experts ...but then just in case Galati is turned down on that issue by the SC...he doubles down on his load of crap and contends that the prosecution needs more testing. Which begs the question...double speaking corrupt judiciary much?

Is the SC translation available yet? Id like to know how they felt about Hellmanns calling for independent experts? Using the experience I gain from Yummi/Machs illogical Italian logic then Im guessing they will say no Hellmann should not have called for experts but yes the prosecution should be allowed more kicks at the can and so they should be allowed more DNA investigation...even though the prosecutor and victim representation both jumped out of their shoes in leaping to objection at the simple request by the IE to open the knife handle. Damn odd contraction me thinks.

Quite certain Yummi/Mach can make this point clear as mud in two thousand words or so.

 

[GWCarver]

For which specific legal purpose did Mignini ask Amanda about the party in Seattle where rocks allegedly were thrown?

He was looking for previous bad acts. He needed to connect those rocks to staged break-ins in Seattle. She did stage several of them, and her Masonic conspirators removed the rocks from the houses and put them on the street in front of Amanda's house for her to use to stage other break-ins.

Steffi is now examining the rock DNA and comparing it to minute particles found in the bedrooms of the houses in which the break-ins were staged. They have all matched, and if anyone requests the controls, she will provide them with her usual expediency.

 

[Mary_H]

He was looking for previous bad acts. He needed to connect those rocks to staged break-ins in Seattle. She did stage several of them, and her Masonic conspirators removed the rocks from the houses and put them on the street in front of Amanda's house for her to use to stage other break-ins.

Steffi is now examining the rock DNA and comparing it to minute particles found in the bedrooms of the houses in which the break-ins were staged. They have all matched, and if anyone requests the controls, she will provide them with her usual expediency.

 

[Mary_H]

Is the SC translation available yet?

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/CassazioneTranslationFull.pdf

Read it and weep.

 

[RandyN]

In a multi-trial system, it seems reasonable to expect all parties to conserve the evidence. If they allow evidence that has been questioned at one trial to deteriorate before the next trial, they should not be allowed to use it at the next trial.

Has anyone ever actually seen this allegedly rusty bra clasp? Or do we just have to take Steffi's word for it?

There are pics somewhere. And BTW...the clasp was stored in a plastic test tube and sealed with a plastic top...not in a plastic bag. Although the results are predictably similar I would guess.

I seem to recall that C&V reported the rusted metal hook and missing damaged sample.

I agree that the absence of the evidence should mean the evidence is forever more absent. I suspect what we will get is the "oh trust me" egram that Stefanoni created from her imagination. And since all samples are now destroyed while in her custody then Italian logic must say "Oh darn the luck...well lets go with the good doctor...errrr lab tech" Why would she lie?

Even when she clearly is demonstrated as lying in court and it is easily pointed out... except that the weak as water defense lawyers are afraid to point to those lies because they then face a flood of hellish charges themselves courtesy of your local corrupt prosecutor.

Italian logic...oxymoron.

 

[acbytesla]

In a multi-trial system, it seems reasonable to expect all parties to conserve the evidence. If they allow evidence that has been questioned at one trial to deteriorate before the next trial, they should not be allowed to use it at the next trial.

Has anyone ever actually seen this allegedly rusty bra clasp? Or do we just have to take Steffi's word for it?

When you consider Stefanoni's refusal to provide the EDFs, it is clear that is all we really have.

This is what bothers me about DNA evidence. The state can at their discretion create document that would incriminate anyone.

 

[RandyN]

KP not CD

Yes KP not CD I transfucd the letters. Sorry KP.

 

[RandyN]

When you consider Stefanoni's refusal to provide the EDFs, it is clear that is all we really have.

This is what bothers me about DNA evidence. The state can at their discretion create document that would incriminate anyone.

Not unless they are not required to provide the EDF. With EDF you can determine how and when the document was modified. Plus other things like control runs and dates and times, etc...

You mentioned the Photoshop program and that is a good analogy for the EDF. What Stefanoni is asking us to believe in is what our eyes are showing us...but what we could be seeing is not a real picture like with a Photoshop of Migninis head on a jackasses body. But Im refusing to provide you with anything but that one pic I printed out.

You could get to the truth if I provide you with the electronic file of the Photoshop program...but I see no reason to do that and the Italian court seems content to make a case based on the Mignini headed jackass...(probably a confusing example since....oh well)

 

[Antony]

It's in many parts, Antony. It's 74 pages long. You will have to look it over to find all the references.

That doesn't answer my question. Somebody must be able to point to an example of it. From what I've read, the nearest the SC gets is to assert that Hellman was incorrect to conclude that prosecution evidence was unreliable.

 

[anglolawyer]

Instead, I am impressed by the absence of your arguments.

(By the way, event the referent is absent in your post; the topic is unknown).

Never mind nobody is able to quote Massei's alleged "factual finding"; nonetheless, a little mob of converts believes there is a factual finding.
Never mind nobody is able to explain the absence of an instance to obtain EDF data from the laboratory, the proof in trial transcripts with Bongiorno's admission they were not requested for two years (2007-2009), the proof in Vecchiotti and Conti's declarations that all data they requested was given and the laboratory never withhold anything, never mind nobody is able to quote a defence complaint to the SC about such missing data, nor a request from the reasons for appeal, nor a witten brief or oral request to Hellmann.
All this doesn't matter to the believers who decided that Stefanoni withhold data.

Any factual basis of an argument is missing.
The argument is missing.
The referent is missing.
Never mind. Your idea is made of proclaims and beliefs. This is your intellectual ethics.

Mach

Please either provide a cite to support your claim that Conti and Vechiotti declared that the laboratory never withheld anything or abandon it.

 

[platonov]

Cartwheels and broken records – spinning in sync.

This double-talk and denial of fact is wearisome.

I have a copy of a written request for the EDFs from Vecchiotti. I sat in on a meeting between Greg Hampikian and Carlo dalla Vedova at which Greg stressed the importance of getting these files.
By saying that any informed defense consultant or DNA expert would regard this data as "irrelevant," Machiavelli simply underscores his ignorance of the subject.

A few points CW.

1. But hold on – Why did dalla Vedova need to be reminded of the importance of these files.
Oh that’s right - they were never part of his appeal, apart from a rehash of the timeliness issue.

2. And was GH not advising the Knox defence prior to the appeal submission – why did he allow dV to forget to file.

3. So when did this meeting take place and if it was prior to the appeal submission why did dV ignore the sage counsel of yourself and GH.

4. And is there any connect between the Vecchiotti request and your ‘meeting’ – surely not. Unless you are implying that GH advised dV to advise Vecchiotti and you are posting about it on the net – no, that’s too ridiculous
Let’s hope the vast conspiracy to frame ‘the kids’ doesn’t have leaks like this.

5. Why am I wasting my time with this nonsense?

6.

 

[RoseMontague]

Guede's declarations were brought into court by the defence. You may turn the question to the defences: they called Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello as witnesses - those are charechters not more trustworthy or reliable than Guede. The Sollecito defence called Alessi to answer about confidential declarations he had from Rudy Guede.
So it's the defence who brought Guede's declarations into court.
Once such evidence was entered by the defence, you can only listen to it completely. What Guede had to say about his own confidences to Alessi, is obviously part of the same piece of evidence. The evidence must be complete.

It was the prosecution that introduced Guede's letter (or at least a letter that is claimed that he "wrote") in which he implies guilt on the part of AK and RS.

 

[RoseMontague]

5. Why am I wasting my time with this nonsense?

6.

I don't consider Charlie's post nonsense at all. If he says he has a letter in which V requested the EDF's then I believe him. I think they are important and not "nonsense". I would think that if this data were made available to C&V then that data would also be available to the defense team.

The nonsense I am seeing is your accusations of racism and now an accusation of a conspiracy between the defense team and C&V.