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

[anglolawyer]

You are of course correct. The same SC judgement that both Machiavelli and I quoted from earlier makes it perfectly clear that where a PM enacts the 48-hour-maximum restrictions under 104, (s)he must supply a written motivation for that decision to the court:

It's so obvious it hardly needs to be stated.

 

[Welshman]

When it comes to the interrogations, everything stinks to high heaven. Here are some points I want to make about the interrogations.

• The idea Amanda was only being questioned as a witness and did not become a suspect until the spontaneous declaration is nonsense. Amanda and Raffaele were suspects from the beginning of their interrogations. The phones were tapped in the period between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Giobbi said he knew they were guilty from their behavior. At least 12 officers were involved in the interrogation. Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated for long periods during the night.
• If Amanda and Raffaele were being interrogated as suspects, why were the interrogation not taped and why were they denied access to lawyers? If Amanda and Raffaele were well treated, lied about being subject to abuse and their confessions were completely voluntary, the police should have been more than happy to tape the interrogations and release them. In addition, they police would be more than happy to have lawyers witness the interrogations.
• Machiavelli boasts about the overwhelming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. If the police had built up a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were Amanda and Raffaele not presented with this evidence during the interrogations? If the behavior of Amanda was so suspicious, why did the police not make and issue of her behavior during the interrogation?
• Mignini was charged with misconduct. The police and prosecution destroyed evidence, suppressed evidence, released lies to the media and lied in court during this case. Are we expected to believe that mistreating suspects during interrogations and extracting coerced confessions would be out of character for a bunch of corrupt scumbags with a history of misconduct.
• The evidence suggests that the statements made during the interrogations were coerced. If the police had such a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did they have to resort to using coerced confessions? A coerced confession is false and manufactured evidence which is obtained through duress. Why did the police have to resort to using false evidence against Amanda and Raffaele if they had a mountain of genuine solid evidence against them? Having to rely on a coerced confession is a clear indication the police have a weak case against a suspect.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thank you Mach. So we agree, just like I said, there is a document. The document that records his specific exceptional reasons for denying access to a lawyer. Where is it? Also, I am intrigued. Where did you get this one from? Have you got the EDFs too?

According to Raffaele's lawyers, the document was never filed.

Ora, da quanto risulta agli atti, il decreto di differimento del PM non è mai stato esibito (neppure in sede di convalida del fermo innanzi al Gip), nè esso è stato reperito al momento del deposito degli atti ex art. 415 bis c.p.p.

Now, given the evidence on record, the decree of postponement of PM has never been performed (even in the context of the validation of the firm before the magistrate), nor has it been found at the time of filing of art. 415 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure

 

[Wildhorses]

A personal comment: about the cryptic language. As I read Amanda’s hand written memoir for the first time I jumped on the chair when I read about her “memory” of “bloods on Raffaele’s hands” that she says remembers, but thinks is tas “probably” “fish blood”. I felt chilled because this is exactly the kind of cryptic language which I associate to the most dangerous criminals (those who commit crimes in association) and I interpret it as pure mafia-style communication.

Exactly!

It's called projection. It impedes objectivity.

Who knows why the babbling of a naive, frightened young woman triggered such a strong reaction? But it's important to distinguish internal associations from facts. Some people have a hard time doing that.

 

[anglolawyer]

According to Raffaele's lawyers, the document was never filed.

FWIW Raffaele says in HB (loc 1097) that the exceptional circumstances usually involve terrorism or mafia cases as I surmised yesterday. He also implies that a document (he refers to it as a 'petition' but I am not sure that's an appropriate word here) Mignini was required to file was not filed.

 

[LondonJohn]

FWIW Raffaele says in HB (loc 1097) that the exceptional circumstances usually involve terrorism or mafia cases as I surmised yesterday. He also implies that a document (he refers to it as a 'petition' but I am not sure that's an appropriate word here) Mignini was required to file was not filed.

Yes: two documents need to be presented to the court by the PM in this circumstance: 1) a formal decree stating that 104 restrictions have been applied by the PM; 2) a written motivation setting out the grounds for the application of the 104 restrictions.

It appears that neither document ever appeared in this case. It also therefore appears that Matteini was content to take Mignini at his word and (for some reason) to waive the obligation for the PM to supply the required documentation.

QED.

 

[RoseMontague]

FWIW Raffaele says in HB (loc 1097) that the exceptional circumstances usually involve terrorism or mafia cases as I surmised yesterday. He also implies that a document (he refers to it as a 'petition' but I am not sure that's an appropriate word here) Mignini was required to file was not filed.

Yes. The quote I provided comes from Raffaele's first appeal of Massei and is contained in the section I will attach (pgs 40-49).

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes: two documents need to be presented to the court by the PM in this circumstance: 1) a formal decree stating that 104 restrictions have been applied by the PM; 2) a written motivation setting out the grounds for the application of the 104 restrictions.

It appears that neither document ever appeared in this case. It also therefore appears that Matteini was content to take Mignini at his word and (for some reason) to waive the obligation for the PM to supply the required documentation.

QED.

This chimes with Raffaele's account in HB. Contrary to what Mach claimed yesterday (on what basis I know not) Mignini does not seem to have set out his reasons orally before Matteini and defence objections from Tedeschi were peremptorily dismissed.

I don't see what the fuss is about frankly. Raffaele only spent the next two years in prison as a result. In a legal system like Italy's such things are of no consequence compared to much more grave issues such as whether police officers and public ministers feel they have been defamed.

 

[Machiavelli]

Just a note to see if my new signature phrase works... sorry RandyN for butting in.

I urge you to remove (immediately) the alleged quotings that you are falsely attributing to me in your "signature", or remove my name from them.
With reference to the three false quotings:

1. "I analysed her writings and discovered Amanda Knox was immune to sleep deprivation issues."
2. "Amanda Knox shows signs of pure mafia-style communication."
3. "Judge Hellmann was paid off by the Masons to acquit."

You are making up the statements and changing their meaning, falsely placing within quotation marks statements which I have never written. On the first one: the statement "I analysed her writings and discovered Amanda Knox was immune to sleep deprivation issues" is entirely written by yourself.
I never typed the above said statement. Such quote is false, the statement does not exist in my posts.
Moreover, this is a parsing and a twisting of my words which I had even already contested; I explicitly denied the statement "Amanda is immune from sleep deprivation issues", showing that your were twisting and making up your a content, while I have explained (uptheread) that the content and phrase I stated is totally diferent.
By putting quotation commas on a statement which is made up by yourself and falsely attributing to me, you are lying.

The second statement is also made up by yourself. Differently from the first staetment, this one might be a more correct parsing of what I said. But it is a parsing nonetheless, ant not a quoting. You are placing quotation marks and on a phrase which does not appear in an of my posts; this is a fabrication, a false operation using my nickname. Since you are targeting a poster through a lie, you are still lying, and you are violating the basic rules.

The third statement, is again falsely attributed to me. Even if the content somehow resembles the content of another statement, it is parsed differently and the quoting is false.

If you pick up a statement about it:
"Anyway, I think Hellmann was bought off, but the Masons only found the contact and channels, they are not the ones who paid nor those who masterminded".

and you confront it with your false quote:
"Judge Hellmann was paid off by the Masons to acquit."

You can see how you are not quoting the statement but you are instead changing it, making it up. This is not my statement, but something that you made up; and your misquoting is a lie.
Compared to an original statement, your parsing is different as you omit "I think" and then you reverse completely the subsequent meaning concerning the "Masons". So you are again making up, lying, purposedly misquoting and and falsely attributing things to a poster.

Moreover, in general, the naming of another poster in a personal signature is a deliberate provocation against a specific poster and a way of addressing the poster instead of the topic therefore possibly a violation of the rules itself; it is also disturbing to forum users because it affects the research keywords results (like a name "Machiavelli" appears in thousands of posts and discussions which have nothing to do with that author).

 

[Mary_H]

FWIW Raffaele says in HB (loc 1097) that the exceptional circumstances usually involve terrorism or mafia cases as I surmised yesterday. He also implies that a document (he refers to it as a 'petition' but I am not sure that's an appropriate word here) Mignini was required to file was not filed.

You're just doing this to tease me, aren't you?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9406879&postcount=9083

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9504257&postcount=11406

 

[anglolawyer]

You're just doing this to tease me, aren't you?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9406879&postcount=9083

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9504257&postcount=11406

Sorry Mary! Well and truly Ninja'd!

 

[RoseMontague]

So there is certainly a further document, mentioned by the decree, that is a motivation document similar to the decree itself, which Matteini received, but I don't have it.

You're just doing this to tease me, aren't you?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9406879&postcount=9083

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9504257&postcount=11406

Looks to me that nobody got it, including Matteini. I believe Machiavelli is incorrect.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry Mary! Well and truly Ninja'd!

It's only a ninja if you do it at the same time, not six weeks apart. Or a week. Or half a day.

 

[RoseMontague]

There is an important article about an independent investigation of some of the crime scene evidence:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...al-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito.html

For the TV investigation Eric Baskind, a martial arts expert, used a set exactly the same size, layout and dimensions as the villa in which Meredith was killed.

He tested if he could restrain a model and inflict the fatal knife wound without the help of others and found that one person could have carried out the attack, but to do so would have been "considerably more difficult".

To establish whether the window was broken from inside or out, the investigation lawyers recruited forensic glass specialist Greg Waite. Returning to the scale set, Greg set about throwing a similar rock through a window from the outside-in and then repeated it from the inside-out.

After consulting the limited crime scene photographs, he concluded that it was "more likely" that the rock had come from the outside.

He said examining ridge marks of the shards of glass would conclusively determine the direction the rock was thrown.

Traces of Sollecito's DNA were found on Meredith's bra clasp. But at the appeal case his lawyers argued that the clasp had been moved by police and contaminated.

To test if this theory could be correct, the documentary team consulted John Manlove, an expert in forensics.

He applied colourless powder on his hands (a substitute for DNA) before shaking hands with the lawyers. Lights showed how the powder was transferred easily.

Guttieres said: "The police conducted a Mickey Mouse investigation based on pre sumption, conjecture and intuition and it frightens me to death to think that you can go to jail for a very long time based on that evidence."

An unidentified bloody footprint was found on a bathmat in Meredith's home.

Its size appeared too big to be Knox's but if the prosecution could prove it belonged to Sollecito, then it would place him at the murder scene. According to the TV prosecution, Sollecito has a unique arched toe. Forensic podiatrist Dr Sarah Reel carried out a test using ink and a sheet.

It demonstrated that an arched toe would provide distinct imprints in either a walking or a standing position. Dr Reel recommended further footprint tests should be taken at the retrial.

Guttieres said: "That could make a difference in terms of identifying the print and whether it is Sollecito's or not."

Sound engineer Dr Giancarlo Strani was called in by the documentary team To establish whether noise of someone running on the metal stairs. outside. Meredith's home could be heard from inside Nara's flat. Using high-tech audio equipment, Dr Strani concluded it was "impossible" to hear running on the metal stairs.

Guttieres said: "We heard the audio specialist say 'impossible', you can't get any more conclusive." an answer."

Well, well.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's only a ninja if you do it at the same time, not six weeks apart. Or a week. Or half a day.

i am well rebuked.

 

[Bill Williams]

I urge you to remove (immediately) the alleged quotings that you are falsely attributing to me in your "signature", or remove my name from them.
With reference to the three false quotings:

1. "I analysed her writings and discovered Amanda Knox was immune to sleep deprivation issues."
2. "Amanda Knox shows signs of pure mafia-style communication."
3. "Judge Hellmann was paid off by the Masons to acquit."

You are making up the statements and changing their meaning, falsely placing within quotation marks statements which I have never written. On the first one: the statement "I analysed her writings and discovered Amanda Knox was immune to sleep deprivation issues" is entirely written by yourself.
I never typed the above said statement. Such quote is false, the statement does not exist in my posts.
Moreover, this is a parsing and a twisting of my words which I had even already contested; I explicitly denied the statement "Amanda is immune from sleep deprivation issues", showing that your were twisting and making up your a content, while I have explained (uptheread) that the content and phrase I stated is totally diferent.
By putting quotation commas on a statement which is made up by yourself and falsely attributing to me, you are lying.

The second statement is also made up by yourself. Differently from the first staetment, this one might be a more correct parsing of what I said. But it is a parsing nonetheless, ant not a quoting. You are placing quotation marks and on a phrase which does not appear in an of my posts; this is a fabrication, a false operation using my nickname. Since you are targeting a poster through a lie, you are still lying, and you are violating the basic rules.

The third statement, is again falsely attributed to me. Even if the content somehow resembles the content of another statement, it is parsed differently and the quoting is false.

If you pick up a statement about it:
"Anyway, I think Hellmann was bought off, but the Masons only found the contact and channels, they are not the ones who paid nor those who masterminded".

and you confront it with your false quote:
"Judge Hellmann was paid off by the Masons to acquit."

You can see how you are not quoting the statement but you are instead changing it, making it up. This is not my statement, but something that you made up; and your misquoting is a lie.
Compared to an original statement, your parsing is different as you omit "I think" and then you reverse completely the subsequent meaning concerning the "Masons". So you are again making up, lying, purposedly misquoting and and falsely attributing things to a poster.

Moreover, in general, the naming of another poster in a personal signature is a deliberate provocation against a specific poster and a way of addressing the poster instead of the topic therefore possibly a violation of the rules itself; it is also disturbing to forum users because it affects the research keywords results (like a name "Machiavelli" appears in thousands of posts and discussions which have nothing to do with that author).

Can you give me some further guidance, please. How do you explanations above make the silliness of your claims better? I'm referring to things like the "sleep deprivation issue", esp. when people can go back in this "continuation thread" back to circa June 24 and read what you said for themselves?

Consider these things to be like HEADLINES - for instance, the "I was there" headline that appeared above Ms. Vogt's misstatement of the secretly recorded conversation between Knox and her mother. Can you enlighten me the difference between what it is my signature line and that?

Can you also comment on this - you make claims, and then spend dozens of follow up posts claiming you never actually said what you said. The three you complain about above are fair renderings of what you have claimed in various posts.

Take for instance the one about Hellmann being paid off by the Masons. Now you've changed your story.... so would it be any more correct to now say, "Machiavelli believes that the Masons only arranged the money transfer from powerful US Media interests to pay off Judge Hellmann."

Finally, I am truly worried about you. Seriously. Why say things when you have to spend dozens of posts reclarifying and tweeking....?

I'm considering taking them down.... nonetheless. But let me invent some more future dialogue from you....

"But I never asked you to take them down? That is your invention and you are lying." Can you guarantee that if I remove (immediately), and then refer back to your request to have them removed (immediately), that you won't fudge and reclarify and redefine what you meant by "remove (immediately)"?

 

[anglolawyer]

There is an important article about an independent investigation of some of the crime scene evidence

Mignini will be sending writs for defamation to all of them.

 

[MDDVS]

Do you really have to perform tests to see if a single attacker can kill a person? Come on, it's just ridiculous. It happens everyday. In many cases a single individual killed entire families.

The fact that some people appear to take seriously the idea that it is an impossible feat for a single attacker makes my head hurt.

 

[RoseMontague]

Mignini will be sending writs for defamation to all of them.

I thought it interesting that this was in a British paper. Did John Kercher have contacts or articles in the Sun at some point?

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought it interesting that this was in a British paper. Did John Kercher have contacts or articles in the Sun at some point?

Not sure which tabloid he wrote for but it is indeed very interesting. I just posted at IIP that the media line may be very different this time. Amanda is now visible to viewers. She cannot be demonised so easily. At the same time she is very photogenic and should be much in demand for interviews. There is a much bigger story of prosecutorial corruption and incompetence which may play very well. I sense the guilters get this as they go into overdrive trying to swamp the internet and create the false impression there's more than a handful of these obsessive nutters.