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

[acbytesla]

Great post...let me tidy up a few things though...RS has the 9:10 computer interaction alibi ...I am fairly certain they also have a 9:26 Narturo action. Plus he has the rock solid alibi of AK.The 10,000 tapped phone calls was actually 30 thousand tapped phone calls.

Lets hope the defense demands independent computer review this time.
Lets hope someone on the defense asks why this interrogation evidence keeps coming up in trial when it was clearly ruled inadmissible by the SC in the first trial...and yet even they use that "inadmissible evidence" to come to their conclusion to overturn the defendants acquittal. Its that Italian "logic" again.

I think using "Italian" and "logic" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

 

[RandyN]

I would give a lot for a readable translation of Micheli. I think (only provisionally, because I get a headache reading the google translation) he was scathingly critical of Mignini's sick fantasies and went his own way, nonetheless grossly over-estimating his own abilities as a detective, like most Italian judges. He decided that the climb was perfectly feasible for someone like Guede, for instance, and as I posted, made a reasonable, common sense ruling on the 'I was there' non-evidence. So I don't see him as a Mignini lapdog like Matteini and Ricarelli were. Mignini dumped Micheli's moving the body theory at the Massei trial, preferring his own bat-**** crazy 11.30 TOD.

It's weird that Barbie recounts attending a birthday party in a bar somewhere in the town attended by lawyers and cops in the case and Micheli! WTF! Can you imagine that here?

Interesting factoid about Micheli.

He is the judge who had to decide the Narducci case Mignini had brought against the 20 plus defendants. Now when this case took place I have no idea...but it was notable that Micheli missed the 90 day limit to produce the motivation report for this case...in fact it took him a year to write the 1000 plus pages (how long is War and Peace?) that explained how and why he found all defendants innocent. Shortly after release Mignini made a statement that he planed to appeal this decision. All this took place during or in between this AK,RS case. So its little wonder that he could think of Mignini as anything but a loon!

 

[RandyN]

The only person in the square for hours was Curatolo, The defendants came and went. Someone upthread brought up the kiosk being glass, meaning great view. It is glass but the sides have magazines displayed to the ceiling blocking all visibility.The back has the metal caseing that closes on all four sides after operation. There is an opening in the front where customers come with no view of the bench or railing. I heard Curatolo in his interview he is coherent. The journalist who wrote about him after his death certainly respected and valued the man despite his shortcomings. I have no reason to believe he lied unlike the defendants who continue to make up stories.

No thoughts on Totos prior jobs as witness in a murder trial?

As for the reporter who respected and valued Toto after his death...I wonder how he would feel if Toto had sold heroin to his children? The man was drug pusher. What part of that endeavor do you admire? So you hate lying but like drug pushing...is that it?

 

[davefoc]

I think using "Italian" and "logic" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

An unfortunate comment that is unlikely to win support for the view that RS & AK are innocent and that fails to convey any useful information.

 

[anglolawyer]

Interesting factoid about Micheli.

He is the judge who had to decide the Narducci case Mignini had brought against the 20 plus defendants. Now when this case took place I have no idea...but it was notable that Micheli missed the 90 day limit to produce the motivation report for this case...in fact it took him a year to write the 1000 plus pages (how long is War and Peace?) that explained how and why he found all defendants innocent. Shortly after release Mignini made a statement that he planed to appeal this decision. All this took place during or in between this AK,RS case. So its little wonder that he could think of Mignini as anything but a loon!

It was Biscotti's party. April 2009. Also present: Micheli, Napoleone, Zugarini, Follain, Vogt ...

 

[RandyN]

It was Biscotti's party. April 2009. Also present: Micheli, Napoleone, Zugarini, Follain, Vogt ...

Biscotti is Lumumba or Guede lawyer?

 

[acbytesla]

An unfortunate comment that is unlikely to win support for the view that RS & AK are innocent and that fails to convey any useful information.

It is unfortunate, but have you read the Italian Supreme Court decision in this case? Have you read the pedantic posts of Machiavelli? Have you read about the Monster of Florence case?

Even Hellmann who seem to throw out logic upholding the silly callunia conviction. Hell, the callunia law lacks logic and is silly.

 

[LondonJohn]

Biscotti is Lumumba or Guede lawyer?

Biscotti is (was?) Guede's lawyer.

Lumumba's lawyer is (was?) that paragon of class and civility, Carlo Pacelli.

 

[davefoc]

It is unfortunate, but have you read the Italian Supreme Court decision in this case? Have you read the pedantic posts of Machiavelli? Have you read about the Monster of Florence case?

Even Hellmann who seem to throw out logic upholding the silly callunia conviction. Hell, the callunia law lacks logic and is silly.

I haven't read all of it, but I see no reason to believe the decision was legally correct. It appeared to be based on a good old boy system in which the ISC just decided to make a decision to obfuscate a serious problem with the Italian judicial system or they have formed an opinion of RS and AK guilt based on emotional flights of fantasy.

I also agree with your comment about Hellman and the poster who many posts back said that he thought Helmman made this decision as a method of providing some cover for the Italian judicial system.

Nonetheless, Italy is a diverse country with people that are on average about as logical as people in any other country. Your post can easily be perceived as racist and as I said I think the public perception that RS and AK are innocent is more harmed than helped by a comment like that from an RS/AK supporter.

 

[JihadJane]

The Italians aren't a race.

 

[RandyN]

An unfortunate comment that is unlikely to win support for the view that RS & AK are innocent and that fails to convey any useful information.

Actually it is unfortunate that the comment is shown repeatably to be true according to the tactics and excuses used in this case.

The problem with this case is that everyone continues to lie either to themselves or to the press and that includes even Miss Knox.

Recently she was given the chance to explain how she really feels about the case in Italy. Matt Lauer asked her why she would not return to Italy for trial.

What she said was blah blah blah blah...

What she should have said was...look I was locked away a year without charge by Italy. Then I was kept in jail for another year while the trial dragged along at a snails pace and which concluded in a guilty verdict even though there were no facts that I was involved in any way let alone a actual murderer...meanwhile I was vilified by the media because of false information leaked to it by someone ...who could that possibly be? No matter I was finally exonerated after another 2 years and I am free. The fact that the Italian Supreme Court decided to break the law and make an illegal decision by going against their mandate or at least that is what I understand the appeal judge Hellmann believes since he stated that.

Now lets add up the suspicious activities of police and judiciary...the 4 burned up hard drives, the missing interrogation tapes (AK,RS,PL) the illegal interrogation without lawyer... and yet no review of police and prosecutor when clearly denying my rights, the fake discredited witness brought into the case by the prosecutor...a drug addicted homeless pusher, a provable liar named Quintinvale, a lady who testifies to nonsense that contradicts the drug pusher...and yet they still wish to use both against all logic and facts. I have my doubts that I can ever get a fair trial in Italy. That is why I refuse to return. Their system is abusive to the defendant and is designed to punish and bankrupt even the innocent. The full scientific data has been withheld for 6 years now, the scientific data that was reviewed by independant court ordered experts found that evidence to be highly suspect and likely even corrupt, but certainly not produced to any world recognized standards and this has been confirmed by several world renowned sources...only a few Italians think this science is defensible...but it is not. So why would I return? I would be a damn fool to return somewhere the ECOHR finds that the courts there violate human rights far and above most other countries.

Dose she say this? NO! She says I have to trust that Italy will provide me with a fair trial.

And I say to her...WTH you thinking girl? Pussy footing around these clowns has allowed them to continue this farce they call a case. How many times do you have to get screwed to understand that they have no interest or idea what fair means? That's why your lawyers are silenced by threats of suits by the prosecutor...list them all just by Mignini alone...and that is enough to show just how high this kangaroo court actually hops...

Sorry Dave but after 6 years I have heard almost zero from Italian posters who think this case may be just a bit shaky...imagine if the Duke lacrosse guy had the whole country standing behind him? Not one citizen stands up to protest? Thats what we have here. That is illogical given all we understand about the lack of real evidence in this case...especially when it was long ago solved...and every single fact fits that lone wolf killer perfectly. Unless you use some sort of illogical logic...like the Italians are being allowed to do with the evidence in this case...shamelessly allowed to do.

Are there an average number of logical Italians? Maybe...but I'm still waiting to hear from the third one...after Hellmann and Zanetti.

 

[Briars]

Well Nara's "best guess" was later. That's a big reason Mig moved the TOD from the early leaked times. Did they wash off in the minute or two between the scream and the running feet? Why would they run if they took the time to clean up?

So they are torturing Meredith and she screams while her system still can. By all accounts she lost that ability before the fatal wound was inflicted. They would have had blood all over them as Rudy said. It would have taken time to clean body and clothes enough to go out. By that time why would they run? To call attention to themselves?

The car/tow truck was there from 10:30 to 11:15. You have them running out as the car broke down and then deciding they needed to go back as soon as possible, why? There was no evidence of a clean up.

Neither witness is credible. Neither came forward in a timely manner. Neither got the date correct. One was a heroin addict on smack that night. Both came forward to the media and we don't know if they were paid or just wanted the fame of helping convict the American.

If it were possible, rather than the sound test I'd like to put two people at the edge of the park with their backs turned to Curatolo's bench and see if he could pick them out of a line up.

Your scenario makes no sense.

ETA - now Rudy's story makes sense. He was there when she died. He had blood on himselve and cleaned it and then put a sweatshirt over the pants and headed back to his place to change and then went out to a local (no buses) disco for a bit more of a alibi. That makes me wonder at what time he was observed there as at this moment I don't remember. Why didn't he stand somewhere with his bloodiness and knife watching?

I think your times are off even 15 minutes is important. The car broke down around 10:30 the tow truck arrived at 11 and departed at 11:13

 

[Briars]

No thoughts on Totos prior jobs as witness in a murder trial?

As for the reporter who respected and valued Toto after his death...I wonder how he would feel if Toto had sold heroin to his children? The man was drug pusher. What part of that endeavor do you admire? So you hate lying but like drug pushing...is that it?

I have the most problem with murderers. In the other 2 cases he was witness to did he send innocent people to jail or did he just help to identify those involved in a crime?

 

[Skind]

I think your times are off even 15 minutes is important.

What precise time did the eyewitness claim to see the couple and what precise time did the ear-witness hear the scream?

If 15 minutes is important, the importance works both ways.

 

[Machiavelli]

The difference between these two opinions?

It is the contortions that Machiavelli has to go through to somehow, using probablies and global assessments of marginal and/or non-existent "evidence" shoehorn two innocents into this.

It's why his defence of Andrea Vogt is so telling. There is actually a straightforward, plaintext meaning for what Amanda Knox said, "I was there." It is validated by the context in which those three words were.... She meant she was at Raffaele's all night.

(...)

The argument for the defence of Andrea Vogt is the hypocrite pulpit of the accusers (you). Not the topic itself. Not the statement or else. It's the way in which you use it.
The outrage comes from 1) that you dare to seek a straw in Andrea Vogt's work, cherry pick only a "mistake" that bothers you (so forgetting Vogt's "mistakes" and omissions that went your favor - yes, in favor of Knox) you attempt to use it ; 2) your attitude of pure hypocrisy with respect to the rest of the press: while your little finger seeks a little straw in the pesky journalist, you accept aand welcome the metric tons of falsehoods, a criminal libelous campaign made that a pletora of journalists vomits on innocent people (from Mignini and Stefanoni to doctors on...). How you dare ask someone else to "recant", and you don't recant yourself all your unfounded, unproven or proven false "myths" ("Satanic ritual", "illegal interrogation", refusal of providing data, "lying", all your omissions an the rest of your mobbing smearing machine).

 

[Briars]

What precise time did the eyewitness claim to see the couple and what precise time did the ear-witness hear the scream?

If 15 minutes is important, the importance works both ways.

No it doesn't a precise time when someone is woken up isn't necessarily on the agenda.Why would the time of 10 10:15 or 10:30 be be of concern unless you knew a crime had occurred? A call for a tow truck, the wait and the drivers response to the call involve checking time.

 

[Bill Williams]

The argument for the defence of Andrea Vogt is the hypocrite pulpit of the accusers (you). Not the topic itself. Not the statement or else. It's the way in which you use it.
The outrage comes from 1) that you dare to seek a straw in Andrea Vogt's work, cherry pick only a "mistake" that bothers you (so forgetting Vogt's "mistakes" and omissions that went your favor - yes, in favor of Knox) you attempt to use it ; 2) your attitude of pure hypocrisy with respect to the rest of the press: while your little finger seeks a little straw in the pesky journalist, you accept aand welcome the metric tons of falsehoods, a criminal libelous campaign made that a pletora of journalists vomits on innocent people (from Mignini and Stefanoni to doctors on...). How you dare ask someone else to "recant", and you don't recant yourself all your unfounded, unproven or proven false "myths" ("Satanic ritual", "illegal interrogation", refusal of providing data, "lying", all your omissions an the rest of your mobbing smearing machine).

You should calm down a little.

First off, even Barbie Nadeau concedes that Mignini theorized a connection between this horrible event and Hallowe'en. Call it a "Satanic ritual" or that it was a "ritualistic killing associated with the dawn of the dead," or anything else. It is simply a matter of record that Mignini theorized this way. Then he changed it.

The interrogation was inadmissible at trial. That's what the ISC ruled. If that doesn't make it "illegal" what does?

Andrea Vogt made a mistake. I am clear that I did not and have never accused her of lying. She simply parroted the prosecution line, that eventually was not used as a basis of conviction. Repeat: if it had been an admission by Knox that she'd been at the cottage, Judge Massei would have used that as a reason to convict. He did not. Ms. Vogt reported on a reason to heavily suspect Amanda Knox was guilty... and this turned out not to be true. Has she ever corrected the record?

A "criminally libellous campaign"? Is not this accusation itself the definition of "calunnia"? Are you not accusing someone of committing a crime when you know full well they are doing no such thing?

Does Ms. Vogt share your belief that Judge Hellmann was bought off by a Masonic conspiracy? Does Ms. Vogt share your belief that Amanda Knox is immune from sleep deprivation? Does Ms. Vogt share your belief that guilt or innocence is NOT derived from a comprehensive narrative of the crime?

 

[RoseMontague]

The argument for the defence of Andrea Vogt is the hypocrite pulpit of the accusers (you). Not the topic itself. Not the statement or else. It's the way in which you use it.
The outrage comes from 1) that you dare to seek a straw in Andrea Vogt's work, cherry pick only a "mistake" that bothers you (so forgetting Vogt's "mistakes" and omissions that went your favor - yes, in favor of Knox) you attempt to use it ; 2) your attitude of pure hypocrisy with respect to the rest of the press: while your little finger seeks a little straw in the pesky journalist, you accept aand welcome the metric tons of falsehoods, a criminal libelous campaign made that a pletora of journalists vomits on innocent people (from Mignini and Stefanoni to doctors on...). How you dare ask someone else to "recant", and you don't recant yourself all your unfounded, unproven or proven false "myths" ("Satanic ritual", "illegal interrogation", refusal of providing data, "lying", all your omissions an the rest of your mobbing smearing machine).

Wow. Is Vogt a personal friend of yours?

 

[Diocletus]

The argument for the defence of Andrea Vogt is the hypocrite pulpit of the accusers (you). Not the topic itself. Not the statement or else. It's the way in which you use it.
The outrage comes from 1) that you dare to seek a straw in Andrea Vogt's work, cherry pick only a "mistake" that bothers you (so forgetting Vogt's "mistakes" and omissions that went your favor - yes, in favor of Knox) you attempt to use it ; 2) your attitude of pure hypocrisy with respect to the rest of the press: while your little finger seeks a little straw in the pesky journalist, you accept aand welcome the metric tons of falsehoods, a criminal libelous campaign made that a pletora of journalists vomits on innocent people (from Mignini and Stefanoni to doctors on...). How you dare ask someone else to "recant", and you don't recant yourself all your unfounded, unproven or proven false "myths" ("Satanic ritual", "illegal interrogation", refusal of providing data, "lying", all your omissions an the rest of your mobbing smearing machine).

The criminals are the people who are hiding the lab records. Why are they hiding them? Just so they can feel good about themselves by imprisoning innocent people. This is truly shameful.

 

[RoseMontague]

Andrea Vogt made a mistake. I am clear that I did not and have never accused her of lying. She simply parroted the prosecution line, that eventually was not used as a basis of conviction. Repeat: if it had been an admission by Knox that she'd been at the cottage, Judge Massei would have used that as a reason to convict. He did not. Ms. Vogt reported on a reason to heavily suspect Amanda Knox was guilty... and this turned out not to be true. Has she ever corrected the record?

If you compare Vogt to some of the other journalistic hacks on the case like Nadeau, on the surface she appears to be more objective and fair. In actuality she is just very subtle in her approach. She wants to have the appearance of fairness while still slanting her articles towards guilt. In my opinion, this is even worse than those who have spoken out for guilt. A reader not familiar with the history of the case might mistake her stuff as fair and balanced reporting when it is not. Pretty disingenuous on her part, in my opinion. For this reason she is more dangerous to the reputation of Knox and Sollecito than some of the others that speak for the prosecution. She isn't going to recant Bill. She is a guilter pure and simple.