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

[Mary_H]

<snip>If the court denies further opinions from court appointed neutral experts, the results from the show will impact some world public opinion.

The context will be the judges decisions next week not what media experts or pundits on either side of this case say should be happening.

<snip>Obviously, what the judges decide is the most important but public opinion will play a part if the appeals court convicts.

I completely agree with Grinder. The Florence court's judgment rests on media perceptions and politics, not on evidence or the review of it. Their decision is not about innocence vs. guilt, it's about whether they want to keep this thing going.

Mignini learned the hard way that he wasn't the only one who could fight the case in the media:

[Mignini] called on the jurors to concentrate only on the evidence presented in court.

"The trial must be held here, in this courtroom. This lobbying, this media and political circus, this heavy interference, forget all of it," he said.

Giancarlo Costagliola, another prosecutor, said an "obsessive media campaign" had unfairly tilted the case towards Knox.

He asked the jury instead to focus their attention on the victim of the crime and to "feel like the parents of Meredith Kercher."

 

[Bill Williams]

Let it not be forgotten that you also agreed with Hellmann upholding the calunnia conviction. You resisted all the arguments that made it clear that she didn't freely name Patrick and continued to proudly state that you were the only one that completely agreed with Hellmann.

And what changed your mind? An interview with CNN changed your mind, not cross examination in court.

It would seem that the interview was relevant to you.

Obviously, what the judges decide is the most important but public opinion will play a part if the appeals court convicts.

And we're arguing about.................................. ??

 

[Dan O.]

It is obvious that Raf was talking about the 31st and not the 1st. He told basically the same story to Mansey.

The kids are space cases. They are ditsy but that doesn't translate to murderers.

It's not exactly the Mansey story but a mishmash that ILE is putting together to create the story they want. By the 7th, Raffaele is still telling his original version and recounts the version told on the 5th from a third person perspective. At least this is how the translation comes across for me.

 

[Grinder]

And we're arguing about.................................. ??

Bill you made the statement that you agreed with Coulsdon that "what counts, really, is what the judges decide, good, bad, corrupt, or indifferent."

 

[Supernaut]

I'm partly with CoulsdonUK in this... what counts, really, is what the judges decide, good, bad, corrupt, or indifferent.

Yet, when judges like Massei, for instance, play mind-games with their imaginings when judges like Massei could very well have ordered a recreation like Channel 5 did....

... meaning: Channel 5 pretty much destroyed the myth that the entry in through Filomena's window was even difficult, much less impossible.....

.... yet what Judge Massei did was substitute his own imaginings of what a burglar must have done, and for Massei he imagined that the burglar would have had to have gone up that wall three times in a difficult climb, and that the burglar would not have done that three times because it would have taken too long; risking exposure...

Those are Massei's imaginings, and he rendered a judicial decision partly on its basis. So CoulsdonUK is quite correct - they actually COULD find a video showing Rudy doing the thing alone, but a judge like Massei might prefer his own imaginings to video evidence.....

You get the drift. I think CoulsdonUK is just being practical here. Two innocents really ARE in danger of being sentenced to decades' worth of imprisonment for judges imaginings.

Of course, the rest of the world (except for some spots in England and perhaps all of Perugia) will see the process for what it is. One thing for sure, for most of the world (I mean if anyone is paying attention anymore) Italy's judicial system is on trial here.

But will it? As I and others have noted, mainstream sources, for whatever reason, are refusing to draw attention to the manifestly illegal actions of the Italian authorities.

Now that the case is back in the news, it's easy to bring it up in casual conversation, and I've found that there is no awareness of how Amanda's "statement" was obtained - none whatsoever.

Notice that in the (error-ridden) "5 key questions", the interrogation is blandly referred to as "further questioning" during which Amanda and Raff just "changed their stories". That the producers don't mention the lack of counsel or recordings (and hence that there is no way of knowing what either of them actually said) can't be anything but an editorial decision.

 

[Supernaut]

The photos of that reconstructed room don't look right. There is way too much space between the bed and the door. Are you sure that they got the dimensions right? The printed dimensions on the floor plan from the evidence file don't form an internally consistent structure. The walls in that part of the house aren't even square which has thwarted my efforts to reconstruct the plans from the photos and videos.

Do they have a discussion area where these questions can be answered?

None of the furniture - wardrobe, desk, chair etc' - was included. Idiotic.

 

[codyjuneau]

Up and down and up again. That three climbs.

It's amazing that Italy has any crime at all. The way Massei talks about it if you don't set the merchandise out on a pedestal the criminals won't bother to stoop over to pick it up.

.
And criminals with atrocious work ethics, when climbing up, down, and up again to commit a burglary is too much effort.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill you made the statement that you agreed with Coulsdon that "what counts, really, is what the judges decide, good, bad, corrupt, or indifferent."

Please read again. You missed the use of the word "partly". As in, "I'm partly with CoulsdonUK in this".

So... what is it you and I are arguing about?

 

[JREF2010]

It is obvious that Raf was talking about the 31st and not the 1st. He told basically the same story to Mansey.

The kids are space cases. They are ditsy but that doesn't translate to murderers.

The phone records support it was the 31st.

 

[RWVBWL]

Whom to believe?

Well, if Mignini felt so strongly about how Knox shouldn't have a lawyer, then why did Mignini tell Bob Graham that Mignini shouted this after the 1:45 statement: "Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney!".

Absolutely EXCELLENT POINT Diocletus!!!! Quite interesting that Mignini demands that Amanda gets counsel and then immediately goes about denying here said counsel. The man is a lying scumbag.

Judge Matteini wrote:
As for the flight risk, it is still present. Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility.

Whom to believe?
PM Mignini or Judge Matteini?

For some reason, I believe the Judge.

But yet I still find it hard to believe that IF Amanda's arrest was effected purposely before her Mom arrived, that Miss Knox was not provided with access to a lawyer nor her interrogation recorded.

 

[JREF2010]

The photos of that reconstructed room don't look right. There is way too much space between the bed and the door. Are you sure that they got the dimensions right? The printed dimensions on the floor plan from the evidence file don't form an internally consistent structure. The walls in that part of the house aren't even square which has thwarted my efforts to reconstruct the plans from the photos and videos.

Do they have a discussion area where these questions can be answered?

The TV show was too empty, no closet in the corner was one large missing object. Most noticed when the attack scenario was done.

 

[Grinder]

The TV show was too empty, no closet in the corner was one large missing object. Most noticed when the attack scenario was done.

There was missing furniture but still plenty of room for four people.

This from the Daily Mail or this from Hendry.

 

[Supernaut]

The TV show was too empty, no closet in the corner was one large missing object. Most noticed when the attack scenario was done.

It's a 'whitewash'.

Never mind the de-materialised furniture, what about the blood evidence? The spray/spatter patterns which are EASILY the most important evidence to consider when trying to reconstruct the attack.

 

[Supernaut]

There was missing furniture but still plenty of room for four people.

This from the Daily Mail or this from Hendry.

"But" nothing. This attempt at a 'reconstruction' fell way, WAY short.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then why do you suppose Mignini needed another minutes almost exactly the same signed at 5:45? Something he perhaps needed changed slightly? Some word or phrase? Some thing that was illegal about the first police created and produced statement that was altered slightly in the second police created and produced minutes?(...)

Mignini did not "need" any other minutes. He explained why he god another minutes: because Amanda was not entirely satisfied with her interrogation, she wanted to say more. She wanted to say something. As she was given the possibility to talk more, she just did.
Just like she always did. Whenever she had the possibilty to make some manipulative spontaneous statement during the investigations and trial, she always did that, she was doing that all the time.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have to say that Briars and Machiavelli both prove my theory about this case. It is a sad reflection on human behavior. It is also a sad reflection the Italian psyche. That above all else, save face. They continue to insist on posting moronic arguments to support the unsupportable.

Briars argument that Raffaele or Amanda turning off their phones was unusual behavior when he doesn't actually have a clue what is usual or unusual for either one of them, separately or together. His unwillingness to budge even an inch on the obvious is a clear indication that he insists on making a stupid unsubstantiated argument. What does that say about him? Could Forest Gump be right? "Stupid is as stupid does?"

Machiavelli's twists and turns of the facts and the evidence in his feeble defense of denying Amanda and Raffaele counsel demonstrates that very essential code of the real Machiavelli, not the one who posts on JREF but the one who lived hundreds of years ago. That is the "the end justifies the means".

The willingness of the Italians, to break their own laws, destroy, suppress and most likely manufacture evidence, just to save face is disgraceful.

I won't touch most idiocies in this post (or in your mind?) with my fishing rod. But while reading I was wondering - just my need to understand where your logicical standpoint leads - your "logical" theory so is that the Supreme Court quashing Hellmann-Zanetti had the purpose of "saving the face" of.. the Italian Judiciary ? Is that the (conspiracy) theory?

 

[Supernaut]

Mignini did not "need" any other minutes. He explained why he god another minutes: because Amanda was not entirely satisfied with her interrogation, she wanted to say more. She wanted to say something. As she was given the possibility to talk more, she just did.
Just like she always did. Whenever she had the possibilty to make some manipulative spontaneous statement during the investigations and trial, she always did that, she was doing that all the time.

Yeh, yeh. I'm sure there's someone stupid enough to buy your BS.

but the bottom-line is;

both Amanda and Raff were denied counsel while being given the 3rd degree for many hours, in the middle of the night.

The End.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini did not "need" any other minutes. He explained why he god another minutes: because Amanda was not entirely satisfied with her interrogation, she wanted to say more. She wanted to say something. As she was given the possibility to talk more, she just did.
Just like she always did. Whenever she had the possibilty to make some manipulative spontaneous statement during the investigations and trial, she always did that, she was doing that all the time.

You are simply parroting Mignini here. Mignini is lying.

No one said that Knox, "wanted to say something." Not Knox, not anyone EXCEPT Mignini. You are simply repeating Mignini's fantasy.

He told Drew Griffin that he could tell simply by looking at Knox:

1) That she was afraid of Lumumba
2) That she was released from a great burden, and
3) That she needed to keep talking.​

No one other than Mignini says that. You are simply parroting the untruth that, factually, Knox needed to do this for herself. It's an untruth Mignini would like you to believe.

Mignini acted illegally even by his own definition of when he stopped Ficarra. Yes, I know you want to debate the word "illegally". Good for you.

Griffin's interview with Mignini is the very roadmap of the crime Mignini committed by goading her on saying, "You speak, I'll act as if only a notary."

What is really interesting here is why you and Andrea Vogt defend the man. And why you receive information from him, and promulgate it.

 

[Bill Williams]

I won't touch most idiocies in this post (or in your mind?) with my fishing rod. But while reading I was wondering - just my need to understand where your logicical standpoint leads - your "logical" theory so is that the Supreme Court quashing Hellmann-Zanetti had the purpose of "saving the face" of.. the Italian Judiciary ? Is that the (conspiracy) theory?

Makes more sense than the Masonic conspiracy the other way.

 

[Machiavelli]

Makes more sense than the Masonic conspiracy the other way.

You are saying it's logical that the SC annulls Hellmann-Zanetti with the aim of "saving face" to the Italian Judiciary?