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

[Grinder]

Tesla, any luck in finding details of Filomena's alibi that you claimed was the same as Amanda's? While I'm aware that this claim has been standard fodder for PIPs I've never seen any details of Filomena's account of that night. As I said last post on this issue, it would seem reasonable that the birthday party and a dinner afterwards (guessing they had dinner) would take them into late night hours and they were some distance away.

But maybe I've just missed the facts over the years.

Maybe Dan O has something on this.

 

[billyryan]

There are some very important facts that contradict this assertion. One, the prosecution actually came out against additional investigation and the court is actually saying they have enough information and further investigation is not needed. They also have cancelled hearings. So far nothing is going the prosecution's way and the court seems like they are trying to get to a judgement as fast as they can.

I can't imagine the Florence court ruling against Amanda and Raffaele without some new incriminating evidence. But that sure doesn't seem forthcoming.

I've been wrong before, like with the ISC so I'm going to wait. But at the moment, it sure seems encouraging for Amanda and Raffaele.

I agree with you Tesla,the main characters involved on the prosecution side have all committed crimes of perverting the course of justice,while this dog and pony show was being held in Perugia Mignini the police have that town in an iron grip nobody was ever going to hold them accountable for their crimes,now that the show has shifted to Florence the story might be different,instant international fame is awaiting any prosecutor who has the courage to arrest any of these criminals for their crimes,
I bet there is someone weighing up the odds of the enormous advancement to their career of making a high profile arrest of one of the criminals who framed Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

 

[Bill Williams]

So, I would very much like to have dinner with Machiavelli, but I can completely understand why he would not want to have dinner with me.

That's where you and I differ. I cannot fathom why ANYONE would refuse dinner with ME. Especially when I'm buying.....

Maybe I can make it to Orange County and you and I can regale each other with stories of intrigue. But you buy your own!

Something tells me that Machiavelli knows wines better than a Californian!

 

[toto]

Is this one of the room mates? Are you saying she posted here in the past and is now posting elsewhere?

If so, did she say anything interesting? I assume she thinks Amanda is guilty?

Sorry to confuse. i was referring to a poster on PMF.org who used to post here and seems more sensible than most of the posters there. She was showing some incredulity over Amanda's naming of Lumumba in the police interview as being seen in a not-guilty of murder context.

She quoted Amanda's words: (from an Italian interview)

- I didn't know what was happening to me, so I didn't know how to improve the situation. I was trying my best to understand what they wanted from me and what there was inside me to give them. And in this situation their methods of interrogating me confused me completely. They didn't take a confession. And then they put the person who had not done this thing in prison. They didn't look at his alibi. They didn't even ask him a word.​

She then asked

WTF does that mean - "They didn't take a confession"? Did she offer one?

This whole passage is truly odd. "what was inside me to give them"? Umm, is it so hard to say what you know and what you do not know? "Their methods of interrogating me confused me"? Again, how does asking straightforward questions confuse someone? Lot of implication there without a concrete claim. And then....... the leap to the arrest of Patrick with absolutely no mention of the fact she accused him? Is there nothing in between these sentences?

As for this?​

I have already appealed to him to tell him that I didn't go to the Police Headquarters with the aim of accusing him of a murder he did not commit. What was dragged out of me was dragged out from me without my wanting to harm him. I only wanted to help and I was completely confused so that I didn't know what was true and what was not true at that point. Therefore I didn't want to harm him. I … (MAXI-SIGH) … His.. His name came out only because my mobile phone was there and we exchanged some SMS.​

to which she asks

That "Therefore" is .....well what is it?​

I wondered if the poster still read the posts on this forum because I thought the discussion of whether Amanda meant to accuse Lumumba or incriminate him when she "confusedly remembered" details of the night were quite interesting. Machiavelli seemed to have quite a black and white take on the issue , but it seemed far from the case to me, and Bri1 articulated the other side rather well I thought. I don't think the poster on PMF.org gets the benefit of much nuanced discussion.

 

[Bill Williams]

Peter Popham of "The Independent" has written THE story of this, the third trial.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-retrial-of-amanda-knox-in-the-kercher-case-will-be-a-show-without-its-star-8887158.html

Of interest to Machiavelli is this....

The prosecutors and police wanted a quick, clean wrap-up to this atrocious scandal; Giuliano Mignini, the chief prosecutor and a conservative Catholic, was known to have it in for those he saw as a menace to the community, whether foreign striptease artistes or British second-homeowners with poppies growing wild in their front gardens or the dope-smoking British and American students littering Perugia’s august centro storico.

Knox and Sollecito were certainly guilty of smoking dope and fornicating – they said as much themselves – while the only people able to bear witness to their non-involvement in Meredith’s murder were their fornicating, dope-smoking selves. So Mr Mignini wrapped the whole decadent scenario into an unforgettable description of a drug-addled orgy leading to the killing of Meredith, throwing in some perverted Satanism for good measure. That was as good as the trial got, that description. He never repeated it because there was no evidence whatsoever that it had happened. But it certainly stuck in people’s minds.

Appropriately, Popham feels sorry for the reporters which have to sit through this trial.... who will all be scratching their heads, "They annulled the acquitals for this!?"

 

[davefoc]

That's where you and I differ. I cannot fathom why ANYONE would refuse dinner with ME. Especially when I'm buying.....

Maybe I can make it to Orange County and you and I can regale each other with stories of intrigue. But you buy your own!

Something tells me that Machiavelli knows wines better than a Californian!

Sounds good to me, except the part about you buying. I would be most pleased if you would let me do that. Varwoche just stopped by and said hi. A genuinely nice fellow and a real pleasure to meet. I was the terminus of his grand tour of JREF posters. I can understand your inability to understand why anyone would refuse dinner with you given your obvious charm and wit. Hopefully, when the emotions of this case have settled into distant memories perhaps you and Machiavelli will share a meal.

 

[Kaosium]

In the case of the diary, how would the media even know it existed? The police confiscated it from Amanda and had it in their possession. They controlled what went out to the public. The role of the prosecutor's office is anyone's guess.

As for Follain, someone may have been given him a corrupted text of Amanda's short story, but he has no real excuse, because the original was posted on the Internet for the entire world to see. After reading his book, I would not be at all surprised if he changed it himself.

He'd have the perfect excuse if in fact someone authoritative gave him an official copy of that 'translation' (of something written originally in English!) and that's what he quoted in his book. He, like Vogt, Gangong and Nadeau had access to the '10k page case file' which might include other interesting 'translations' as well, like Amanda's entry regarding the implausibility of Raffaele getting the knife and killing someone while she was sleeping. Who put together that '10k page case file,' was it some police entity or the prosecution?

It's much better to quote an official source, however when they're wrong that's interesting too.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla, any luck in finding details of Filomena's alibi that you claimed was the same as Amanda's? While I'm aware that this claim has been standard fodder for PIPs I've never seen any details of Filomena's account of that night. As I said last post on this issue, it would seem reasonable that the birthday party and a dinner afterwards (guessing they had dinner) would take them into late night hours and they were some distance away.

But maybe I've just missed the facts over the years.

Maybe Dan O has something on this.

Here alibi is that she was at her boyfriend's. That is the same as Amanda's

 

[Bill Williams]

Sounds good to me, except the part about you buying. I would be most pleased if you would let me do that. Varwoche just stopped by and said hi. A genuinely nice fellow and a real pleasure to meet. I was the terminus of his grand tour of JREF posters. I can understand your inability to understand why anyone would refuse dinner with you given your obvious charm and wit. Hopefully, when the emotions of this case have settled into distant memories perhaps you and Machiavelli will share a meal.

Finally - a poster on JREF makes sense.....

Can you explain this to Machiavelli? Perhaps even Grinder when you get a mo'.

 

[RoseMontague]

Peter Popham of "The Independent" has written THE story of this, the third trial.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-retrial-of-amanda-knox-in-the-kercher-case-will-be-a-show-without-its-star-8887158.html

Of interest to Machiavelli is this....

The prosecutors and police wanted a quick, clean wrap-up to this atrocious scandal; Giuliano Mignini, the chief prosecutor and a conservative Catholic, was known to have it in for those he saw as a menace to the community, whether foreign striptease artistes or British second-homeowners with poppies growing wild in their front gardens or the dope-smoking British and American students littering Perugia’s august centro storico.

Knox and Sollecito were certainly guilty of smoking dope and fornicating – they said as much themselves – while the only people able to bear witness to their non-involvement in Meredith’s murder were their fornicating, dope-smoking selves. So Mr Mignini wrapped the whole decadent scenario into an unforgettable description of a drug-addled orgy leading to the killing of Meredith, throwing in some perverted Satanism for good measure. That was as good as the trial got, that description. He never repeated it because there was no evidence whatsoever that it had happened. But it certainly stuck in people’s minds.

Appropriately, Popham feels sorry for the reporters which have to sit through this trial.... who will all be scratching their heads, "They annulled the acquitals for this!?"

Of interest to me as well. I believe Mignini is quite insane, a pathological liar, a corrupt criminal, his ties to Satan are a lot closer than a couple of innocent college kids.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of interest to me as well. I believe Mignini is quite insane, a pathological liar, a corrupt criminal, his ties to Satan are a lot closer than a couple of innocent college kids.

Mignini as a young man being tutored in Italian Law.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - your posts seem to have the subtext of concern for your friend Mr. Mignini.

(...)

Your main contribution consists in pasting this comments about the poster ad nauseam. Nonsense, useless and provocating like the Mach 1,2,3 story and the rest.

And also re-pasting some most obvious falsehoods (no psychopathology found etc.).

You are trying to be the best candidate to the 'ignore' list.

 

[Grinder]

Here alibi is that she was at her boyfriend's. That is the same as Amanda's

So you really have no idea what her alibi consisted of? I wished neither side would just repeat stuff that has no basis or at least admit that they have no proof of their contentions.

As I said when asking, do you know when they left the company of others? Do you know when they finished dinner and if it was at a restaurant? It wasn't a "school night" so one would think they would party later than 10 pm.

Perhaps they received phone calls and there was GPS to locate where they received them.

I think you have no way to say the alibis were the same, but you do.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your main contribution consists in pasting this comments about the poster ad nauseam. Nonsense, useless and provocating like the Mach 1,2,3 story and the rest.

And also re-pasting some most obvious falsehoods (no psychopathology found etc.).

You are trying to be the best candidate to the 'ignore' list.

You forgot to mention my invitations to you for dinner.

I also thought the cartoon was funny. You didn't mention that!!

 

[Grinder]

Finally - a poster on JREF makes sense.....

Can you explain this to Machiavelli? Perhaps even Grinder when you get a mo'.

I think Dave needs a little help with the emotions

Dave if you put your cursor on them they describe what they mean - this one might have been appropriate next to the wit and charm remark

 

[Bill Williams]

Your main contribution consists in pasting this comments about the poster ad nauseam. Nonsense, useless and provocating like the Mach 1,2,3 story and the rest.

And also re-pasting some most obvious falsehoods (no psychopathology found etc.).

You are trying to be the best candidate to the 'ignore' list.

O would you! Please! Then I can analyze your posts for the forum and you'd have no reply. Brilliant plan, Mach (numeralless).

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you to the thoughtful answers to my questions Machiavelli.

My recollection now is that it was Barcroft that held the copyright.

The situation is interesting, even if it doesn't go exactly to the issue of Sollecito/Knox guilt or innocence. As I recall, the Italian law with regard to this was that the pictures taken by the official police photographer would have been in the public domain if they were ever officially released. So by what means did Barcroft acquire a copyright on these pictures? A few possibilities:
1. The pictures that Barcroft owns the copyright to were taken by somebody other than the official police photographer.
2. The files for the official police photographer were illicitly copied by somebody and transmitted to Barcroft who claimed a copyright on the photos without a legally justifiable reason. The individual that illegally copies a file copyrighted or not can't transfer a copyright to the buyer because he doesn't hold one.
3. The files were transferred to Barcroft by a police or prosecution official that used the power of his office to transfer a copyright to Barcroft, perhaps in return for remuneration of questionable legality.

Do you believe that Barcroft obtained the images and claimed a copyright in some other way than I have described above. If so what are your thoughts on this? Do you think if somebody other than a police or prosecution official had transferred crime scene images to Barcroft there would have been an investigation?

The most likely event is #2. I would guess a likely reconstruction of the sequence in these steps: a) The photo was from a police fil; b) the police file was accessed by one of the parties lawyer/s; c) the lawyer/s or people close to the party gave the picture to a journalist or anyway to third person; d) the journalist or the person sold the photos to either i) sold the formally but illicitly to Barcroft or another media company; ii) gave/sold them informally to his/her newspaper or a media subject; iii) gave/sold them informally to another person; in the case d.(i), the last step is that someone or some subject sells picture to Barcroft claiming an unjustified copyright. In the other cases there may be no subject who claimed an unjustified copyright except Barcroft, but anyway the copirygthe was illicitely created/transferred. In any event, there is certainly a copyright use violation (unjustified use of copyright) along the proces of handling the photos, at some point of the chain.
This does not imply that some officer, nor that some lawyer nor that a party committed anything of criminal nature.
The copyright violation itself might have or not have a criminal content but, strictu sensu, an issue of illicit use of coryright could be only brought to court by a subject who owned the copyright and was damaged by it, or anyway who was damaged by its illicit claim.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Dave needs a little help with the emotions

Dave if you put your cursor on them they describe what they mean - this one might have been appropriate next to the wit and charm remark

I was just going to post how much I like you!

 

[moije2]

Peter Popham of "The Independent" has written THE story of this, the third trial.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-retrial-of-amanda-knox-in-the-kercher-case-will-be-a-show-without-its-star-8887158.html

Of interest to Machiavelli is this....



Appropriately, Popham feels sorry for the reporters which have to sit through this trial.... who will all be scratching their heads, "They annulled the acquitals for this!?"

This is interesting. Re Satan reference, is this just another carry over of popular notion? Didn't we just go through a big discussion and it seems no one found a Satan reference? Or maybe I missed the conclusion showing otherwise.

And regarding Mignini being a "conservative Catholic" - is this another internet meme, or is there some substance to it? And how do we know that if it is true, and what do we know? i would appreciate it if someone could point me to some citation regarding this.

 

[RoseMontague]

The most likely event is #2. I would guess a likely reconstruction of the sequence in these steps: a) The photo was from a police fil; b) the police file was accessed by one of the parties lawyer/s; c) the lawyer/s or people close to the party gave the picture to a journalist or anyway to third person; d) the journalist or the person sold the photos to either i) sold the formally but illicitly to Barcroft or another media company; ii) gave/sold them informally to his/her newspaper or a media subject; iii) gave/sold them informally to another person; in the case d.(i), the last step is that someone or some subject sells picture to Barcroft claiming an unjustified copyright. In the other cases there may be no subject who claimed an unjustified copyright except Barcroft, but anyway the copirygthe was illicitely created/transferred. In any event, there is certainly a copyright use violation (unjustified use of copyright) along the proces of handling the photos, at some point of the chain.
This does not imply that some officer, nor that some lawyer nor that a party committed anything of criminal nature.
The copyright violation itself might have or not have a criminal content but, strictu sensu, an issue of illicit use of coryright could be only brought to court by a subject who owned the copyright and was damaged by it, or anyway who was damaged by its illicit claim.

16 January 2008. Perugia Shock

Police gave out two more pictures.

Anybody ask Frank what he remembers about this?