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

[Machiavelli]

Oh, so we're throwing the judges under the bus now. OK, fair enough. The judges are responsible for doing justice, and they issued the orders that denied the defendants' equality of arms and access to information that they needed to defend themselves. So, shame on these half-wit judges.

If fairness to the judges, though, they were defrauded by the prosecution and Stefanoni into believing that there had been something like a full disclosure. That wasn't true, though. In fact, Stefanoni is hiding dozens of egrams, including controls.

No no, the judges perfectly know that there was further documentation, but they also know that a 'disclosure' of such documentation is irrelevant at an advenced stage of the trial, also because the defence experts themselves were not interested in it for years. The judges apply the law.
Stefanoni and the prosecution instead did nothing wrong: they deposited with the court just all information they always deposit. The did what they always do. Stefanoni herself declared she never deposited quantization data an raw data or SALs at the clerk's office, in no previous case. But nothing prevented the defence to request something, since they were offered access to the laboratory (and defence experts know there are and can requst charts, raw data, videos, SALs, templates etc, without needing to be clairvoyants).
At the end of a trial, if a party makes a new request, there must be a compelling reason. It must be something determinant. Or they need to show it was something they could not request before.
The judges only said the defences are wrong: their late request was not admissible.
So you are keeping on spinning it. You are trying and trying again to assert something you know is a lie.
The simple truth is the defence experts did not do their research when they were free to do it, they did not make their requests during the investigation, while everybody knew in advance Stefanoni and the prosecution would never deposit all the existing documentation at the clerk's office, because this never happens (and even the transcripts confirm that the defence experts were aware about this from the very beginning).
The legend of "hiding information" is pretext, good only for press and propaganda, for thse who won't accept to lose at any cost and do not intend to play by the rules, while they only plan to play the "legitimacy card" against the "evil system" (this is Diocletus' position).

 

[Dan O.]

Rudy has left the cottage and taken Meredith's phones with him. There are a series in interactions on Meredith's phones indicating that an unfamiliar hand is trying to manipulate them and the connections are hitting cell towers inconsistent with inside the cottage. The phones will be found later in a garden several blocks away from the cottage.

It is also right about this time that Elizabetta receives a hoax bomb threat and will be calling the police who respond immediately. It is Elizabetta's guarden where the phones will be found. Rudy covered in Meredith's blood cannot be approaching this garden after the police are there so he must have tossed the phones before 10:15 PM.

At 10:13 PM Meredith's English phone receives a picture message. Rudy is already freaking out having just left a brutal Murder and being unable to shut down the English phone. Then it starts ringing while at the same time the police sirens and lights are quickly coming up the road. He's going to have more than blood stains on those wet pants.

 

[RandyN]

No no, the judges perfectly know that there was further documentation, but they also know that a 'disclosure' of such documentation is irrelevant at an advenced stage of the trial, also because the defence experts themselves were not interested in it for years. The judges apply the law.
Stefanoni and the prosecution instead did nothing wrong: they deposited with the court just all information they always deposit. The did what they always do. Stefanoni herself declared she never deposited quantization data an raw data or SALs at the clerk's office, in no previous case. But nothing prevented the defence to request something, since they were offered access to the laboratory (and defence experts know there are and can requst charts, raw data, videos, SALs, templates etc, without needing to be clairvoyants).
At the end of a trial, if a party makes a new request, there must be a compelling reason. It must be something determinant. Or they need to show it was something they could not request before.
The judges only said the defences are wrong: their late request was not admissible.
So you are keeping on spinning it. You are trying and trying again to assert something you know is a lie.
The simple truth is the defence experts did not do their research when they were free to do it, they did not make their requests during the investigation, while everybody knew in advance Stefanoni and the prosecution would never deposit all the existing documentation at the clerk's office, because this never happens (and even the transcripts confirm that the defence experts were aware about this from the very beginning).
The legend of "hiding information" is pretext, good only for press and propaganda, for thse who won't accept to lose at any cost and do not intend to play by the rules, while they only plan to play the "legitimacy card" against the "evil system" (this is Diocletus' position).

So, what you are saying is that an appeal should be requested by AK and RS based on having incompetent defense lawyers? And that the Italian justice system should readily grant this request since the defense couldn't even win this most bogus of cases that lacked a motive, facts, witnesses, evidence, but contained clear prosecution corruption and lies by its witnesses, plus mind boggling illogical decisions by so called judges like Mattini, Massei et al.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Bill Williams]

No no, the judges perfectly know that there was further documentation, but they also know that a 'disclosure' of such documentation is irrelevant at an advenced stage of the trial, also because the defence experts themselves were not interested in it for years. The judges apply the law.
Stefanoni and the prosecution instead did nothing wrong: they deposited with the court just all information they always deposit. The did what they always do. Stefanoni herself declared she never deposited quantization data an raw data or SALs at the clerk's office, in no previous case. But nothing prevented the defence to request something, since they were offered access to the laboratory (and defence experts know there are and can requst charts, raw data, videos, SALs, templates etc, without needing to be clairvoyants).
At the end of a trial, if a party makes a new request, there must be a compelling reason. It must be something determinant. Or they need to show it was something they could not request before.
The judges only said the defences are wrong: their late request was not admissible.
So you are keeping on spinning it. You are trying and trying again to assert something you know is a lie.
The simple truth is the defence experts did not do their research when they were free to do it, they did not make their requests during the investigation, while everybody knew in advance Stefanoni and the prosecution would never deposit all the existing documentation at the clerk's office, because this never happens (and even the transcripts confirm that the defence experts were aware about this from the very beginning).
The legend of "hiding information" is pretext, good only for press and propaganda, for thse who won't accept to lose at any cost and do not intend to play by the rules, while they only plan to play the "legitimacy card" against the "evil system" (this is Diocletus' position).

Nice try. In fact the defence DID request this.... so you are correct, nothing stopped them.

Machiavelli.... your position seems to be if you keep repeating the above, then eventually it will become true.

It's like what others try to do - blaming the defence, for instance, for the 47 day delay in collecting the bra-clasp... you've contributed (sometimes as "Yummi" to those very boards and have not corrected them...)

When the fact is that on Nov 2 when the bra-clasp was photographed and then (incredibly) not bagged or collected, that there was no defence (presumably) needed until the 6th, when Knox and Sollecito were denied lawyers... until they had to go for a court appearance and they only met their lawyers moments before that happened.

You must be very disappointed that the new Ris DNA investigators turned the RAW data over to the defence immediately, without asking, according rules of natural justice.

That fact alone cannot make you impressed with Stefanoni's work, OR the court which justified withholding those things.

 

[Diocletus]

Stefanoni and the prosecution instead did nothing wrong: they deposited with the court just all information they always deposit. The did what they always do. Stefanoni herself declared she never deposited quantization data an raw data or SALs at the clerk's office, in no previous case.

She purported to produce all of her egrams. So, explain where are Egram Nos.: 600-604, 622, 626, 628, 631, 685-86, 688-89, 693-94, 758-60, 762-69, 939, 944, 948, and 952.

Those are the ones that Stefanoni is hiding (just from November) because they show contaminations, just like 36i.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is true.

But there are a few things we can tell Machiavelli about the meaning in his own language. Remember way, way up thread Machiavelli tried to finesse the meaning of the word "riti" to include "game"?

(..).

But I never did so! What a spin. I just reported the meanings of the word riti in Italian, because a poster asked about it.

I repeat this:
I wrote a post which listed and explained the meanings and uses about the word "riti", because a poster (RoseMontague) asked for it.
Clear?

And in that post (underline "that", since you miss logical words) - and by saying this, I imply everything that has to do with the aim and the function of that post - there was nothing (as far as I remember) about "game".
Nothing.
Clear?

The only association between a game and a ritual was made later, several post later, and that one was instead in a response to another poster (Mary H): this latter response was NOT about the Italian word "riti". It was a different topic.
On this latter response, I never spoke about including "game" among the meanings of the Italian word "riti", because in fact I was not talking about Italian words. Instead, talking with mary H I only said that even a game is a ritual (please note: I said a game is a ritual, I wrote "ritual", which means: now we were talking about the meaning of an English word). Not "rito/i" (Italian), but "ritual" (English).
See the difference?

What I meant is a footbal game for instance is a ritual, if "ritual" is meant extensively, in anthropology; in the same use a theatre play is a ritual as well (Peter Brook would certainly call a theatre play a "ritual").
But this subsequent, off-topic anthropologic consideration about whether a game is a ritual, it has nothing to do with the other previous post, where I was answering to RoseMontague, about the translations of the Italian word "rito".

So, I did never "finesse" the meaning of the Italian word "rito" to include "game". I never wrote a post to say so.

 

[Dan O.]

For those that think Rudy would have dropped into the flat of his friends downstairs to clean up and perhaps pilfer their pot profits, new information has come to light that the boys keys were found in the entrance to the hallway in the search on November 4th. After locking Meredith't door with her keys, Rudy would discard the second set of keys so as not to confuse them before reaching the front door.

Now I'll be scanning those photos and videos taken on the second to see if those keys show up. Two keys connected by a ring was reported to the press in the early days but this information was forgotten soon afterwards.

 

[RoseMontague]

Guede's lawyer is in the studio.

 

[RoseMontague]

Gentile is recycling lamp and bloody footprints.

 

[RoseMontague]

Updates coming from Luca, btw. Probably just another letter coming from Rudy.

 

[RoseMontague]

Picozzi says always thought it was an erotic game, yes game.

 

[snook1]

Thank you, Rose. I'm also watching, not understanding most of it though. Keep us updated, please.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nice try. In fact the defence DID request this.... so you are correct, nothing stopped them.

Machiavelli.... your position seems to be if you keep repeating the above, then eventually it will become true. (...)

I will always hit there, always repeat this point, because here your lie lies...

The defence DID NOT request raw data until the end of the 2009 trial.

During the investigations they were summoned to meetings with Stefanoni and they did not come.
They were offered to come and request material to the laboratory, and they did not come, with the sole exception of Prof. Vinci who only requested to examine the pillowcase for footprints.

 

[RoseMontague]

"I don't slander anybody innocent, the real murderers are still free, people have distorted my personality, I'm not a liar" "not murderers" but "murderer"

 

[RoseMontague]

That is quote from Rudy's letter.

 

[RoseMontague]

Luca says that was the gist of it, also said...the only "meaningful" thing, the rest was "I did not stage, I did not rape", don't believe to Alessi.

 

[RoseMontague]

Pretty much a non event.

 

[Bill Williams]

I will always hit there, always repeat this point, because here your lie lies...

The defence DID NOT request raw data until the end of the 2009 trial.

During the investigations they were summoned to meetings with Stefanoni and they did not come.
They were offered to come and request material to the laboratory, and they did not come, with the sole exception of Prof. Vinci who only requested to examine the pillowcase for footprints.

Snore.... so now after typing copious lines saying they never requested them, now you're saying they DID request them.

Sheesh. I don't know why anyone responds to you. (Me, calling the kettle black.)

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
You must be very disappointed that the new Ris DNA investigators turned the RAW data over to the defence immediately, without asking, according rules of natural justice.

Natural justice? Not even Vecchiotti turned out the raw data unrequested: there was a request (and the request is in the records).
When RIS summoned the defence experts, the defence experts came, they attended the work, and they were given the documentation they wanted (just like Vecchiotti and Conti declared - and please, don't forget this - they declared before a judge that they were granted unfettered access to all documentation by Stefanoni, and they praised the police for their total cooperation). This is what Vecchiotti and Conti said: they said they were given all the documentation they requested.

Vecchiotti and Conti declared this: this declaration alone should make everybody of you assume that Stefanoni never prevented access to any documentation.
Despite this, you decide to claim the opposite of what Vecchiotti and Conti said.

You go on saying that Stefanoni did something unusual against Knox or Sollecito. The fact is, the prosecution experts, as far as all cases I know about, they simply never, never deposited raw data at the clerk's office. Stefanoni simply did what she always did and there was nothign strange in that, regardless of the fact that you don't like the rules of the game.

 

[Bill Williams]

But I never did so! What a spin. I just reported the meanings of the word riti in Italian, because a poster asked about it.

I repeat this:
I wrote a post which listed and explained the meanings and uses about the word "riti", because a poster (RoseMontague) asked for it.
Clear?

And in that post (underline "that", since you miss logical words) - and by saying this, I imply everything that has to do with the aim and the function of that post - there was nothing (as far as I remember) about "game".
Nothing.
Clear?

The only association between a game and a ritual was made later, several post later, and that one was instead in a response to another poster (Mary H): this latter response was NOT about the Italian word "riti". It was a different topic.
On this latter response, I never spoke about including "game" among the meanings of the Italian word "riti", because in fact I was not talking about Italian words. Instead, talking with mary H I only said that even a game is a ritual (please note: I said a game is a ritual, I wrote "ritual", which means: now we were talking about the meaning of an English word). Not "rito/i" (Italian), but "ritual" (English).
See the difference?

What I meant is a footbal game for instance is a ritual, if "ritual" is meant extensively, in anthropology; in the same use a theatre play is a ritual as well (Peter Brook would certainly call a theatre play a "ritual").
But this subsequent, off-topic anthropologic consideration about whether a game is a ritual, it has nothing to do with the other previous post, where I was answering to RoseMontague, about the translations of the Italian word "rito".

So, I did never "finesse" the meaning of the Italian word "rito" to include "game". I never wrote a post to say so.

Ok, just to be clear.... you are now saying that Mignini had always claimed it was a *****ic ritual? Wasn't that the whole point of the word play you made?

Why waste the keystrokes on the various meanings of "riti", if even you concede in the end Mignini was talking about a ritual!?

(I won't use the word Satanic here, just to avoid pulling you away from your non-point....)