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

[toto]

Close...they are actually claiming that there are photos that show glass on top. In 5 years I have yet to see one of those photos. So in fact they are outright lying about the photos or else someone has kept them well hidden...probably somewhere in those 10 thousand pages...right next to the control data sheets I suppose.

That would explain why the SC wrote as such. But it would be interesting to actually see them.

 

[RoseMontague]

That would explain why the SC wrote as such. But it would be interesting to actually see them.

They are in error on basic facts of the case, including this one. As Luca points out...

As a further inconsistency we can cite the assertion that photographs and video would show that the glass fragments were over and not under the clothes: in truth the fact that the pictures show the exact opposite is agreed both by the first instance judgment (Massei, p. 42-43) as by that of second instance (Hellmann, p 119), even if they then differ as to the value to be attributed to such images .

It is pretty obvious that they are not familiar with the case evidence nor have they bothered to read the previous Motivations. Idiots.

 

[RWVBWL]

Have you tried holding a rock that weight, though? I'm genuinely curious because for me, it would have been impossible to throw it upwards that far, and feeling how heavy it was changed my mind about how it was thrown. But as I said, I'm not sure how much my pathetic upper body strength factors into that - maybe it really would be quite easy for someone stronger, like your (I assume) big strong self.

I'm a little late to this conversation, but I'd still like to chime in...

If I recall correctly, that rock weighed 8.8 lbs.
About the same weight as of a gallon of milk here in the USA.

I feel that rock was kinda heavy for 1 chosen just to be thrown thru a window to see if anyone was home, as some have thought.

Why not just use a smaller, lighter rock which coulda been thrown from farther away with less chance of being seen?

Here's a pic of that rock:


To read more about this rock:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html


My opinion?
I believe that Rudy rang a door buzzer.
(which he mentioned hearing of while conversing with a friend on SKYPE after the murder) found no one answering, and so grabbed that particular sized rock, not to see if anyone was home-(which he knew already was the case), but because it was of perfect size+weight to create a big enough hole so that he did not have to play with too much glass when he went to climb up + inside Filomena's broken window.

 

[Diocletus]

They are in error on basic facts of the case, including this one. As Luca points out...



It is pretty obvious that they are not familiar with the case evidence nor have they bothered to read the previous Motivations. Idiots.

So add this to the cuts on hands thing: two examples of situations where the perverts on the Supreme Court say things that are contradicted by photos. Next: water runs up hill.

Anyway, putting aside the stuff that's only partially covered, how exactly would a photo show glass under clothes? It would be covered up. Duh.

 

[Grinder]

Go Dempsey!

Yes, far away and soon

 

[Grinder]

They got a statement from (or about) Filomena saying she was 'tidy.'

Therefore she couldn't have left clothes on the floor. Thus they must have been strewn about by the 'stagers' before the window was broken.

Actually that was one of the PMF errors in translation. The actual Italian would read something along the lines of an organized memory of where she left things.

And I never believed she closed the outer shutters. She just said so to look organized and proper.

 

[Skind]

Can someone clarify? On PMF years ago, I saw a photo of a knife claimed to belong to Raff, with a weird-looking hook on the back of the blade. After a little reflection, I realised the hook allowed the knife to be used as a bottle-opener - but of course the PMFers were making out that it had some sinister purpose or meaning.

Did Raff's "knife collection" consist of this one plus his ordinary pocket knife?

To my knowledge he had:

1 imitation combat knife
1 Brian Tighe replica knife (which is probably the pocket knife you mention)
1 SpyderCo tactical knife

SomeAlibi described it as 'not a pocket knife' yet the manufacturers page indicates it was desgined to be used a pocket knife - the part you refer to is actually the blade opener which is expressely designed to catch the edge of the pocket to open the blade - a really useful feature if you're constantly having to open and reclose the blade for, say, outdoor work were you may already be using the main/off hand. It's a pocket knife by design and definition.

The TMoMK webwiki indicates that English speakers would call it a tactical knife and not a pocket knife - this is false. English speakers would call it a pocket knife as it is one.

Raffaelle had 2 rather mid-level knives from two premium knife companies - hardly 'a collection'. Proper knife collectors would have individual knives that cost more than his entire collection.

 

[Bill Williams]

If Machiavelli ever returns.... do you think he'll respond to this post which proves that even Judge Massei debunked Mignini's key prosecution theories?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9568149#post9568149

You're kidding ...right??? OF COURSE NOT!!!!

Well, I just wanted to quote this for no reason, really... just in case Machiavelli does come back, this should be at the top of the conversation pile. MOO.

Judge Massei, even in convicting Sollecito and Knox, completely debunked most of the original prosecution's wild theories.

First and foremost was whose "motive" this horrible killing was. And even in convicting, Masse shows no psychopathology at all in the two students, Massei calls it a bad momentary choice because they'd just smoked marijuana.

Note how this is a double edged sword. Massei makes it up! Out of whole cloth. If that was true, most college campuses in the world would be killing fields....

But back to point - Massei debunks Mignini, and ALL Mignini's motives. Even for Massei, the convicting judge, this is no Satan Rite killing, this is no sex-game gone wrong killing, this is no teach-her-a-lesson-jealousy killing, this is simply a momentary thing.....

.... but the motive is all Rudy's.

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms (the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.

Maybe Machiavelli will come back claiming that Massei is writing in "Mafia code"!

So.... anyone have guesses about why in 2013 Mignini wants to debunk the Satanic Rite claim? Why now?

 

[Grinder]

Not only that, but Machiavelli buttresses this with the claim that Amanda and her parents were using "Mafia Code" to "really say" that she'd been at the cottage during the murder.

I think that Grinder did, in fact, get pissed off royally about Dempsey in some unrelated matter.

I have never had any connection to any of the the writer/reporters in any form at any time. Specifically I have never heard of Dempsey before or had any connection. I did know the subject of her first blog. Poor Nick Gallo who went off to Europe to do a story and had a heart event on the plane and died shortly thereafter in the hospital, a young very nice man.

However, to any readers that are not aware that many of those criticizing me have had or have contact with Dempsey and the FOA.

Charkie W helped found FOA according to his own post which I totally believe.

And yes Charlie I think that Dempsey tries in every way to "help" the kids and damage the prosecution. You approve because they are innocent.

To mischaracterize the key piece of evidence against Amanda, having been told about it specifically years ago is a purposeful act to mislead anyone she could. She feels like part of the PR effort. That's what I don't like.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have never had any connection to any of the the writer/reporters in any form at any time. Specifically I have never heard of Dempsey before or had any connection. I did know the subject of her first blog. Poor Nick Gallo who went off to Europe to do a story and had a heart event on the plane and died shortly thereafter in the hospital, a young very nice man.

However, to any readers that are not aware that many of those criticizing me have had or have contact with Dempsey and the FOA.

Charkie W helped found FOA according to his own post which I totally believe.

And yes Charlie I think that Dempsey tries in every way to "help" the kids and damage the prosecution. You approve because they are innocent.

To mischaracterize the key piece of evidence against Amanda, having been told about it specifically years ago is a purposeful act to mislead anyone she could. She feels like part of the PR effort. That's what I don't like.

Is Charlie supposed to HELP the prosecution? Even you think the two are innocent.... this is one of the weirder statements I have read in a long time. MOO.

 

[Grinder]

Concur...my advice to CD was upon her request. I recall her reply that she had changed this in her article...nothing to do with her book btw. She did explain that Sara Gino had expressed this idea or at least alluded to that. I happen to think Sara Gino understands perfectly well the starch was unrelated to 36b...I also happen to think she could have very well implied the opposite due to a translation error.

Here's what you wrote: CD asked for opinions on her article before she sent it out. I mentioned the starch issue was unrelated to 36B and that her article implied the two were related.

I can only imagine that she didn't want to write another book explaining the distinction about the two.​

The follow-up sentence made it seem that you were talking about her book. It seemed more reasonable that she would share the book with people to proof than an article er.. blog post. I thought you had mis-typed the first part.

Frank may be to blame for some small part in this...his style of writing may have alluded to someone not following the case very closely that the starch was more important than it actually was.

Agree but I do think that showing the knife wasn't "that" clean meant something since it was supposedly selected because it was so clean.

{quote]For me the starch was proof that the police contention of a highly cleaned knife was a lie.[/quote]

Check.

It still stands today as proof against that contention made by police and prosecutor. Either that or we need to believe that AK and RS are so mental that they would kill someone and then clean and continue to use this knife at breakfast the next day. And the best PGP or maybe even the prosecution has about this is that....sure they washed and reused this knife...it was inventoried by the landlord...a cheap, common knife easily picked up at any discount shop for a Euro or two.

Purloined letter approach. leave the knife in open sight. If they had done what the ILE contended I'm sure they could handle the knife in the kitchen.

Just one more stupid implausible, fact-less, excuse from deep within the perverted mind of Mignini. And this is just one more tiny thing, of hundreds of crazy things, that he created in the full year plus that he had to prepare and concoct his story.

Don't think this was on him rather the police.

 

[Grinder]

Is Charlie supposed to HELP the prosecution? Even you think the two are innocent.... this is one of the weirder statements I have read in a long time. MOO.

I in no way implied Charlie should do anything. It is Candace that purports to be a reporter or journalist that should report accurately.

Since I left you out, perhaps you can fill in your connections to Candace, Bruce, Frank and others.

 

[acbytesla]

Is Charlie supposed to HELP the prosecution? Even you think the two are innocent.... this is one of the weirder statements I have read in a long time. MOO.

What is it that Edmund Burke said Bill?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -

When you know something is wrong, shouldn't you do something about it? I don't see Candace as an agent of Amanda's, but an agent of truth which just happens to support Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Bill Williams]

I in no way implied Charlie should do anything. It is Candace that purports to be a reporter or journalist that should report accurately.

Since I left you out, perhaps you can fill in your connections to Candace, Bruce, Frank and others.

My argument with you, Grinder, is that you equate "accurate" with "balanced". Sometimes accurate reporting is showing how skewed things are towards one end of the story.....

It's a bit like trying to give a "balanced" account of Watergate.... what would that look like? "Nixon had a right to be paranoid?"

Also Grinder, rather than you trying to ferret out people's connections - it would be good to set an example.... you're trying to set yourself up as an impartial arbiter and it's not working.... face it - you hate Dempsey. I get it.

 

[Grinder]

The independent experts in the first appeal trial reported that the DNA of Meredith allegedly found on the knife could well have been contamination because proper protocols and procedures were not followed.​

32 words, lots of big words like con-tam-in-a-tion.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2013/09/30/amanda-knox-judge-orders-new-test-on-knife/

Amanda Knox: New DNA test good or bad?
In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch.​

18 words, nothing bigger than two sylables.




You might have a better truth but for writing to her audience she can't be beat.

Well your snip of CD's doesn't even mention the knife.

Here's her's again - I fear we’ll see the rejected kitchen knife, wrapped with a bright red ribbon, brought back to court under melodramatic armed guard. Too large to fit victim Meredith Kercher’s wounds, it doesn’t match a bloody imprint on the victim’s bed. In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch.

About 50 words and mel-o-dra-mat-ic is just a letter short of contamination.

Now I think it was Charlie that said she couldn't have been fooling her astute readers but you say they can only handle short words.

If she needed a few extra words perhaps she could have cut some of the below:

By Candace Dempsey, author of Murder in Italy, (Penguin), the true story of Amanda Knox. See the best courtroom tweets on Amanda Knox Retrial Rages on Twitter​

Wonder what the trial looked like on Twitter? It got ugly on hashtag #Amandaknox, with trolls creating new accounts overnight and trying to drown out reporters. I captured best tweets and televised scenes on Amanda Knox Retrial Rages on Twitter. This trial won’t be over anytime soon. See you on Friday for next court date.

MURDER IN ITALY, my book on the spell-binding Amanda Knox case, is now in its third printing, updated after the overturning of her acquittal. A Library Journal Bestseller, it has won Best True Crime 2010 Editor’s Choice and Reader’s Choice awards.

I’m an award-winning, Italian-American journalist based in Seattle, Amanda Knox’s hometown. MURDER IN ITALY is online at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Indiebound and bookstores. It’s also a Kindle & ebook.Get updates and ask questions about the Amanda Knox case on Murder in Italy’s Facebook page. You can email me at candacedem@gmail.com and follow me on Twitter.
​

When I read the top highlight I was under the impression she was tweeting from the trial but the lower highlight left me thinking she is just sitting on Mercer Island.

Maybe I'll go to Luther Burbank today

 

[acbytesla]

My argument with you, Grinder, is that you equate "accurate" with "balanced". Sometimes accurate reporting is showing how skewed things are towards one end of the story.....

It's a bit like trying to give a "balanced" account of Watergate.... what would that look like? "Nixon had a right to be paranoid?"

Now this is how I have would have it described. Is it balanced to give an accurate but scathing assessment? Is saying that smoking or obesity or pollution is bad balanced?

 

[Grinder]

My argument with you, Grinder, is that you equate "accurate" with "balanced". Sometimes accurate reporting is showing how skewed things are towards one end of the story.....

The DNA was never shown to be starch. It has nothing to do with balanced. Lying about facts is never accurate. The DNA on the knife should never have been in because of how it was handled from start to finish, period.

It's a bit like trying to give a "balanced" account of Watergate.... what would that look like? "Nixon had a right to be paranoid?"

Hitler, Nixon who next Benedict Arnold, Attila the Hun, O.J. - If they had reported that Nixon was personally at the Watergate that would have been inaccurate and wrong. I hated Nixon but would have defended him on the false report.

Also Grinder, rather than you trying to ferret out people's connections - it would be good to set an example.... you're trying to set yourself up as an impartial arbiter and it's not working.... face it - you hate Dempsey. I get it.

I didn't try to ferret anything. I asked you to lay it out there for all to see. Don't you think connections should be known? Of course you do because that's been at the heart of your Vogt and Mach posts.

I think Dempsey is a fraud and of all the writers involved became partisan the earliest and made a beeline to get a book deal to cash in. She continues to promote shamelessly and probably is trying daily to get a movie deal since she claims she wrote it as screenplay.

 

[acbytesla]

The DNA was never shown to be starch.

MACFLY!!! MACFLY!!! THINK...THINK!!!! But what was found on the knife was. There was no DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife. C'mon Grinder, beat that dead horse some more!!!!

I think Dempsey is a fraud and of all the writers involved became partisan the earliest and made a beeline to get a book deal to cash in. She continues to promote shamelessly and probably is trying daily to get a movie deal since she claims she wrote it as screenplay.

You must think that anyone who wrote a book about this to be frauds. How about all the newspapers? How about Dateline NBC? Or 48 Hours? How about 60 Minutes? They all did specials about Amanda Knox and they all sold a lot of advertising making millions off the Amanda Knox story. And they all came to the conclusion that this was a railroad job from hell.

Guess, they all weren't balanced either.

 

[Grinder]

Now this is how I have would have it described. Is it balanced to give an accurate but scathing assessment? Is saying that smoking or obesity or pollution is bad balanced?

Saying that they are bad is generally accurate or at least how it is viewed by the majority of scientists at this time. Would it be accurate or balanced to say pollution is good?

You can dance and wave your arms all you want but the DNA wasn't deemed to be starch by anyone but Dempsey and it is well known, as Charlie pointed out. This is a little like the PGP is with Amanda.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think Dempsey is a fraud and of all the writers involved became partisan the earliest and made a beeline to get a book deal to cash in. She continues to promote shamelessly and probably is trying daily to get a movie deal since she claims she wrote it as screenplay.

That is your opinion. Personally I think she saw a couple of innocent kids that were victims of a corrupt justice system and decided to do something about it.
Good for her.