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

[Katody Matrass]

These points of appeal instances (already rejected by Matteini, Ricciarelli and Massei) were also rejected by Hellmann-Zanetti.

I would love to see a quote from Hellmann's motivation where he rejects them.

 

[Supernaut]

Apologies from Bill accepted.

I look forward to the day when you apologise for anything.

 

[RandyN]

I misread your misspelling* here for a moment, and thought to myself: "Wow, so THAT's illegal in Italy too!"

* I assume you meant to write "calunnia"....

Yes please forgive my fucombulation. I suffer from sexdaily...I mean dyslexia...Fcuk!

ETA...BTW welcome back...I was concerned you may not return at all.

 

[Diocletus]

I'll delay answer to the points (I remind you about the burden of proof: you claim a violation). I don't have the document you require, but I have the PM decree of arrest. The decree contains itself quite some details. At the end of the decree you can see evidence that the document you require indeed exists, this because the decree itself mentions it, as "separato atto" (a separate paper).
He sends the three suspects in prison awaiting a hearing before Matteini, saying he will be submitting an arrest validation request:
"come da separato atto" => "as [you will read] in a separate document".
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.

Oh, so they were arrested without counsel at 8:40 am. Is it at this time that it became illegal for Stefanoni to conduct further testing without providing notice and opportunity for the suspects' consultants to attend and observe the testing?

 

[RandyN]

I wonder what the supreme court said about this. Are we going to have video evidence that contradicts their "findings," just like we have pics of the cuts on Rudy's hands contradicting the supreme court's findings?

Aren't these the same guys who found Jesus, Gallileo and the earthquake scientists guilty? Not a good record.

Ahhh... don't forget the present day leader of the ISC is a truther. A nut job who thinks the US is responsible for the twin towers destruction. He wants a case opened. Not a slander but an easily checked fact about the guy.

 

[RandyN]

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)"?

I thought it was called twerking?

 

[RandyN]

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.

Yep I even heard of a case in Nevada where a tiny girl... Arias or something actually killed a huge man all by herself. And they proved that she actually did it. ALL BY HER TINY SELF! Imagine.

 

[RandyN]

I agree with Mac bringing up blood of any kind on the hands of her partner an odd and aggressive statement. Why mention it?
.

Ever notice how often Guede mentioned the blood? The terrible red? A non erasable memory.

No? Didnt think so.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Daily Mail has an article about the Channel 5 documentary. Link

 

[RoseMontague]

Daily Mail has an article about the Channel 5 documentary. Link

Thanks. This is getting some play in the British tabloids.

 

[Briars]

No you don't. You are simply making that up after the fact. If Amanda had not mentioned blood from preparing the fish you would claim that she was hiding something. It leaves us wondering what it was that you did to your sister.

Ever notice how often Guede mentioned the blood? The terrible red? A non erasable memory.

No? Didnt think so.

Exactly, Guede can mention blood and should because he was there and saw it.Why would Amanda have a memory of blood on Sollecito's hands and need to write about it?Why would she also wonder what Meredith's last thoughts were as her life slowly left her?. I can't remember whether that was a diary entry but it is a strange thought.

 

[Dan O.]

Exactly, Guede can mention blood and should because he was there and saw it.Why would Amanda have a memory of blood on Sollecito's hands and need to write about it?Why would she also wonder what Meredith's last thoughts were as her life slowly left her?. I can't remember whether that was a diary entry but it is a strange thought.

That just proves that you aren't human.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yep I even heard of a case in Nevada where a tiny girl... Arias or something actually killed a huge man all by herself. And they proved that she actually did it. ALL BY HER TINY SELF! Imagine.

Well, to be fair, she evened things up by shooting him in the face first.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Thanks. This is getting some play in the British tabloids.

Certainly a week before the start of the appeal there has been newspaper articles and of course the ITV Daybreak interviews, I can’t say that there is any groundswell of public opinion either way. I wonder how the Italian media are presenting the appeal.

 

[JREF2010]

No JREF2010, the calunnia of which she has been convicted on three levels was committed on the night of the 5th-6th when she falsely accused Patrik and it would not have happened had she received professional advice as was her right under Article 104 para 1.

True, yes, the Patrick injustice was done in the dark when they got her to sign up.
The cuffing / slapping was the other charge against her, she did in court and her lawyers didnt stop that professional advice or was it an emotional unplanned script, or did the prosecution lead her into the trap again, this time in court? Matteini and Maresca are still salivating for this one....

 

[Diocletus]

Certainly a week before the start of the appeal there has been newspaper articles and of course the ITV Daybreak interviews, I can’t say that there is any groundswell of public opinion either way. I wonder how the Italian media are presenting the appeal.

Truthfully would be nice for a change.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Screen capture of the Channel 5 (UK) documentary of the Kercher murder trials. They are finally showing that the climb in through the window is doable.

In fact - Massei's argument in his 2010 motivations report was not that it was undoable, but that Rudy would never have had to have gone up to the window three times to effect his entry. Here, it clearly shows that one would only have to go up once..... at least that shows that to me.....

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971524324c05488e.jpg[/qimg]

Thank you very much. Is there more information on the climb somewhere?

 

[JREF2010]

Daily Mail has an article about the Channel 5 documentary. Link

yes the audiometric is not fully done, imo. I would prefer the cell phone logs and prove that the people standing near the driveway outside didnt hear anything, at the time the apartment people said they did.

the fact the courts can even slightly use blind witnesses hearing footsteps to be exactly Amanda and Raffaele is ludicrous in most minds or a stench of corruption.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you very much. Is there more information on the climb somewhere?

To be clear, this is from the promo to the UK Channel 5 documentary. There is also a Daily Mail version of a summary of the documentary. The only two things I know about are this still frame of a very brief pic showing a man standing on the lower window's grill, already at shoulder height, as well as a summary of the rock throwing "evidence".

The Daily Mail suggests that the experts involved in the documentary favour that the rock was thrown from the outside.

 

[Machiavelli]

I would love to see a quote from Hellmann's motivation where he rejects them.

I would like to read it too, but I don't have the transcripts of all hearings from the appeal trial.
The ordnance was read on one of the first two hearings, as the court decided on the reasons of appeal.
The Hellmann-Zanetti accepted only the tests required at point II letter A, while rejected the other five requests of point II, but I think that on those they reserved the possibility to change their mind.
They court also accepted points III and IV.

But they rejected points I , V , VI, VII, VIII. The instance about the lack of document motivating reasons for delay counsel was point V. On these points, Hellmann could not keep any reservation, because they are points of nullity, so they are preliminary, their rejection is definitive.
All points claiming consequence for procedure violations were rejected. This includes the objection related to application of art. 104 § 4.

It would be nice to have the transcript where Hellmann reads these technicalities. I don't have it; but it doesn't matter to our conclusion because the rejection is just obvious. Rejection of those points is just obvious as the fact that the requests were denied and there was no consequence on the proceedings.