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

[RandyN]

Randy, you are missing the point or, as you would put it - bull crap! She has been convicted of the offence in all three courts. It is therefore a judicially established and legally incontrovertible fact, so far as Florence is concerned, that she did know Patrick was innocent when she accused him of murder.

Well the only thing that makes it an "incontrovertible fact" is your addition "so far as Florence is concerned."

It is neither bullcrap nor am I missing any point. The fact remains that the three phases including the SC confirmation is not always the final word on a case! I have provided you with the proof of this a number of times...please stop beating this dead horse. Look up the case from year 2000 and with that in mind prove that I am wrong. You wont, because you cant, because I'm not.

 

[Methos]

The above means that the Mignini crew are by rights subject to 4 to 12 years in clink for their false accusations against Amanda and Raff.
... and should have protected Amanda from any threats against her for raising in court the physical abuse she suffered during the all-night interrogation.

Interesting if this is true then how could Knox be charged for testifying about being struck by police during her interrogation? And for that matter how can she be charged for the written (in Italian) statements about Lumumba during her interrogation? I recall that the SC ruled these writings inadmissible since she was never represented by an attorney. And perhaps the gift statement may seem different but once again Knox was not provided...and in fact she was prohibited from speaking to her attorney.

The question is, what crime exactly Mignini and Comodi think Amanda Knox accused the police of?

 

[anglolawyer]

Well the only thing that makes it an "incontrovertible fact" is your addition "so far as Florence is concerned."

It is neither bullcrap nor am I missing any point. The fact remains that the three phases including the SC confirmation is not always the final word on a case! I have provided you with the proof of this a number of times...please stop beating this dead horse. Look up the case from year 2000 and with that in mind prove that I am wrong. You wont, because you cant, because I'm not.

If I may drag you back to what I thought we were discussing, namely tactics for the Florence trial, your point is that she should continue to challenge things which I say the Florence court is precluded from looking into. They are res judicata. If your 2000 case means Florence can blithely disregard a triple level conviction then Italian law is even more than I thought.

 

[Antony]

The question is, what crime exactly Mignini and Comodi think Amanda Knox accused the police of?

It's neither here nor there. The point of the callunia charge was to intimidate the defence against challenging the prosecution's alternative reality, and to burden them with extra threats so as to obstruct an adequate defence to the main case. It's quite transparent.

 

[Diocletus]

What new computer evidence?

The supplemental consultant's report that was not admitted in the prior proceeding due to untimeliness. The one that says that the screensaver was not activated that night.

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the past six months, they have been pouring over the computer records and come up with something more.

I think we see this as a big issue in the upcoming trial 3.0.

 

[Grinder]

The supplemental consultant's report that was not admitted in the prior proceeding due to untimeliness. The one that says that the screensaver was not activated that night.

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the past six months, they have been pouring over the computer records and come up with something more.

I think we see this as a big issue in the upcoming trial 3.0.

If you could control the message on this aspect, what would you convey?

Would you write a short summary of the old and new information found on Raf's and the other computers that is of interest.

It is not obvious to me what the screensaver information means.

 

[Diocletus]

If you could control the message on this aspect, what would you convey?

That he was in his apartment using his computer at the TOD.

 

[Grinder]

That he was in his apartment using his computer at the TOD.

Well I figured that, but how would the computer records do that?

You did convey it in a concise fashion . Please expand a bit.

 

[Diocletus]

Well I figured that, but how would the computer records do that?

You did convey it in a concise fashion . Please expand a bit.

Well, my experience is that my screen saver doesn't go on when I am interacting with my computer. It does go on when I am not interacting with my computer. If he can show that his screen saver wasn't on at TOD, then that's pretty good evidence that he was using his computer.

Sure, the prosecution can try to poke holes in this by suggesting that he rigged some program or someone else was using the computer, etc. But they'll need more than the argument from some sweaty prosecutor.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, my experience is that my screen saver doesn't go on when I am interacting with my computer. It does go on when I am not interacting with my computer. If he can show that his screen saver wasn't on at TOD, then that's pretty good evidence that he was using his computer.

Sure, the prosecution can try to poke holes in this by suggesting that he rigged some program or someone else was using the computer, etc. But they'll need more than the argument from some sweaty prosecutor.

Jeepers. They switched their phones off, took the knife and rigged a computer programme, proving premeditation conclusively but then they forgot about the computer alibi and stood around in the piazza for 2-3 hours. They also both forgot they had this alibi when under questioning by the cops. Duh.

 

[Dan O.]

Jeepers. They switched their phones off, took the knife and rigged a computer programme, proving premeditation conclusively but then they forgot about the computer alibi and stood around in the piazza for 2-3 hours. They also both forgot they had this alibi when under questioning by the cops. Duh.

Don't forget completely scrubbing down the cottage the night before so they will be able to clean their own traces after the murder while leaving Rudy's and not leaving a line showing where the cleaning stopped.

And a week earlier they snuck out of the country and bought outfits identical to the ones they normally wore so they could dispose of the bloody clothes after the murder and leave the same outfit in plane sight without so much as a drop of blood on them. But Mignini was too smart for that. He simply made the bare assertion that they committed the murder completely naked and there was no rebuttal.

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't forget completely scrubbing down the cottage the night before so they will be able to clean their own traces after the murder while leaving Rudy's and not leaving a line showing where the cleaning stopped.

And a week earlier they snuck out of the country and bought outfits identical to the ones they normally wore so they could dispose of the bloody clothes after the murder and leave the same outfit in plane sight without so much as a drop of blood on them. But Mignini was too smart for that. He simply made the bare assertion that they committed the murder completely naked and there was no rebuttal.

Yeh, an obvious blunder that one. I guess they were just not smart enough to out fox The Great Mig.

 

[Grinder]

Well, my experience is that my screen saver doesn't go on when I am interacting with my computer. It does go on when I am not interacting with my computer. If he can show that his screen saver wasn't on at TOD, then that's pretty good evidence that he was using his computer.

Sure, the prosecution can try to poke holes in this by suggesting that he rigged some program or someone else was using the computer, etc. But they'll need more than the argument from some sweaty prosecutor.

How do we know that he had his computer turned on all night?

From what you've described so far I don't see this aspect to be ready for YouTube.

I would concentrate of TOD, DNA, footprints, witnesses and the "accusation".

 

[Methos]

It's neither here nor there. The point of the callunia charge was to intimidate the defence against challenging the prosecution's alternative reality, and to burden them with extra threats so as to obstruct an adequate defence to the main case. It's quite transparent.

I think you're right on that, but we still need a "crime" allegedly commited by the police officers (how many of them signed up as civil parties btw?) and reprorted to a magistrate (judge Massei?) by Amanda Knox (during her testimony?) to make the calunnia work...
Btw. This is from the transcript of the hearing of March 13th, 2009:

Grazie signor Presidente, volevo insistere su un punto per me molto, molto importante. I testimoni stanno evitando ed anche negando i fatti sugli avvenimenti, sull’interrogazione nella notte del 5 e 6 novembre 2007.
Volevo precisare alcuni elementi che per me sono importantissimi e non riesco a lasciare stare. Prima ci sono ore, ore ed ore che loro non dicono che io ho confermato sempre la mia stessa storia anche quando io ho detto che Raffaele avrebbe detto che io sarei uscita da casa. C’era questa insistenza aggressiva sul messaggio che ho ricevuto e che ho risposto da Patrick, proprio aggressivissimi! Hanno chiamato “stupida bugiarda”, da tutte le parti... anche c’era questa storia del trauma che questa Donnino mi ha raccontato e poi successivamente ha suggerito che questo sarebbe stata anche la stessa situazione per me. Nel senso che proprio mentre io non ricordavo bene perché io ero traumatizzava e così dovevo provare di ricordare qualcos’altro. Poi c’è questi scappellotti sulla testa che ho veramente ricevuto... è vero, mi dispiace, è così! Volevo dire queste cose, grazie.

To that a certain prosecutor reacts with:

PUBBLICO MINISTERO – DR. MIGNINI – A questo punto la Procura chiede la trasmissione al nostro ufficio delle dichiarazioni rese da Amanda Knox.

google translation:

Thank you, Mr. President, I wanted to emphasize a point for me very, very important. Witnesses are avoiding and even denying the facts of the events, on 'interrogation on the night of 5 and 6 November 2007.
I wanted to clarify some elements that are very important to me and I can not leave alone. First there are hours, hours and hours that they do not say that I have always confirmed my own story when I said that Raffaele would have said that I would leave my house. There was this aggressive insistence on the message that I received and I responded by Patrick, just aggressivissimi! They called me "stupid liar", from all sides ... There was also the story of the trauma that this Donnino told me and then subsequently suggested that this would have been the same situation for me. In the sense that just as I did not remember well because I was traumatizzava and so I had to try to remember something else. Then there's these slaps on the head that I really received ... it is true, I'm sorry, that's it! I wanted to say these things, thank you.

At this point, the prosecutor asks the transmission to our office of the statements made by Amanda Knox.

 

[Grinder]

Perhaps they should bring each member of the interrogation team and ask them if she was ever hit. If they say no, ask how they could know. Ask them if Raffaele couldn't know Amanda was there the whole time because he was sleeping how they could know no one hit her unless someone was in the room the whole time.

That is a cute idea but I'd rather have them haul in the chief and the others and quiz them on what they thought they knew before the interrogations started.

Maybe they should get recordings from other cases at the same time frame and make one of their own for YT in which she is hit and claim it is the real deal.

They could even admit they made it and emphasize that it should really have been recorded.

 

[anglolawyer]

Perhaps they should bring each member of the interrogation team and ask them if she was ever hit. If they say no, ask how they could know. Ask them if Raffaele couldn't know Amanda was there the whole time because he was sleeping how they could know no one hit her unless someone was in the room the whole time.

That is a cute idea but I'd rather have them haul in the chief and the others and quiz them on what they thought they knew before the interrogations started.

Maybe they should get recordings from other cases at the same time frame and make one of their own for YT in which she is hit and claim it is the real deal.

They could even admit they made it and emphasize that it should really have been recorded.

If she has a spare €189,000 she could make a cartoon of the interrogation.

 

[acbytesla]

How do we know that he had his computer turned on all night?

I can not speak intelligently about Macs which I believe Raffaele's computer was. However, Windows PCs keep log files for startup and proper shutdowns. (If one merely unplugs a PC, that isn't recorded, however the next logon is recorded.)

 

[Antony]

I think you're right on that, but we still need a "crime" allegedly commited by the police officers (how many of them signed up as civil parties btw?) and reprorted to a magistrate (judge Massei?) by Amanda Knox (during her testimony?) to make the calunnia work...

The point is that the callunia charge doesn't even need to stick to serve Mignini's agenda. He'll get the defence lawyers to shut up about the slapping, and he'll tie down Amanda's parents with a burdensome court case so that they have less resources to devote to the murder charge.

There's no downside, even if the charge is ultimately thrown out for being of no merit. It's win-win either way for him. What is there "not to understand" about the cops' supposed hurt feelings?

Btw. This is from the transcript of the hearing of March 13th, 2009:
To that a certain prosecutor reacts with:

google translation:

 

[Grinder]

If she has a spare €189,000 she could make a cartoon of the interrogation.

Brilliant.

 

[Grinder]

Perhaps I've forgotten it, but wasn't the only calunnia charge the one against PL?

I thought the rest of the charges were defamation/slander/libel.