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

[Rolfe]

Amanda has a marked "girl next door" look about her. I sympathise because in a way I think, "that could be me."

Rolfe.

 

[Grinder]

I think a publisher should put out the word that they are paying top Euro for the truth, that the police source can remain anonymous, and that interviews are being done discreetly in nearby Switzerland. Once word gets out that the first police officer is already talking, the "blue wall of silence" will open. In spite of denials, nobody will know for sure who is talking and who isn't and it will become "everyone for himself".

If I were a publisher, I'd be very open about it. I would send a letter to each police officer and the officer's spouse and other adult relatives saying we are paying a large amount for the truth, and that you or a family member or your attorney or press agent may contact our law firm in Switzerland to discuss terms for the interview.

I'd rather approach it differently.

Officer Zugarini, if you can read this, have an attorney contact the defendants' defense counsels to arrange for you to give a voluntary deposition about what you know. You have been used by your commanders who made poor decisions in this case.

Officer Zugarini, please also realize that your truthful account of this entire incident is of interest to publishers. You can negotiate very large compensation for your truthful account. Possibly millions of Euros.

This holds true for other mid-level police officers involved in this case. If you, the reader of this post, are the spouse or relative of such a police officer, urge the officer to disclose what the police commanders and prosecution did to shape this misguided case. It is inevitable that several officers will eventually disclose the truth about what really occurred and the first few to do so can earn substantial sums for their truthful disclosure. Ask your police officer relative to discretely contact defense counsel and/or a publisher.

You can't trust a bloody word of anything someone is paid millions of Euros to "reveal".

Rolfe.

I'm sure that both the Italian and English tabs did whatever they could to get the story. One of the reasons I doubted totally a poster here saying that the recordings of Amanda existed and would soon be made public (two years and counting) is the value those recordings have.

Any wider 'conspiracy' would have long since collapsed. It isn't just police that could come forward but people with the cell companies and ISP providers. The technician that burned the hard drives and his family and friends.

The Napoleoni incident came about because of her divorce with her ex-husband. In six years good friends and even relatives become estranged and yet not a peep.

Patrick told a story for money. Why wouldn't he go for bigger bucks and tell the real story?

I have little doubt that a PR effort was made. But what was that PR effort? It would be impossible for Marriott to control the story. At best they could only just offer a different narrative than the one the prosecution put forward.

The truth is that one of those narratives would fail and fall under the facts that were available.

It is pretty clear which one hasn't been holding up to scrutiny.

Well clearly there are others that disagree and feel that the US media has caused you to have the wrong idea about guilt and innocence.

Curious as to whether you read the story about Marriott's participation? Also the other story preceded Steve Moore's involvement in the case IIRC.

 

[Matthew Best]

This means: Massei finds the semen stain may yield a result that is irrelevant, not just insofar it could be from Giacomo Silenzi and because it could not be dated, but also on some further, additional grounds; thus independently from the issue of its dating. So my reading: Massei says the stain may be irrelevant also on independent reason; it may be irrelevant not only in the event that it’s attributed to Silenzi (in that event, the reason would be that it could not be dated) but it would be irrelevant even if it was found to be attributable to Guede or to Sollecito. This for other independent reasons, besides the fact that it can’t be dated.

So Massei thinks that Sollecito's semen found in the murder victim's room would be "irrelevant" for some (unstated) reason?



I'd mock, but where's the challenge? If what you say is actually what Massei thinks is true, there is nothing more that anyone needs to say to make people laugh at him.

 

[Grinder]

So Massei thinks that Sollecito's semen found in the murder victim's room would be "irrelevant" for some (unstated) reason?

I'd mock, but where's the challenge? If what you say is actually what Massei thinks is true, there is nothing more that anyone needs to say to make people laugh at him.

What if the fluid came from someone not on anyone's list? What if it was from Kokomani or a friend of his? What if it came from another person that was at the Halloween party?

This lack of scrutiny would be part of my closing argument for the defense. It isn't just what it is likely to be, but what it is possible to be. That they didn't disturb the print at first can be excused but that they never tested it is absurd.

 

[Machiavelli]

What if the fluid came from someone not on anyone's list? What if it was from Kokomani or a friend of his? What if it came from another person that was at the Halloween party?

This lack of scrutiny would be part of my closing argument for the defense.
(...)

That won't work. Because Nencini has refused to test the semen stain too, just like Massei did.
Could you complain about a "lack of scrutiny" with the court, when the alleged lack of scrutiny is something decided by the court itself? I think, hardly so.

I think Massei is correct reporting the legal requirements for such test: it must be "absolutely necessary" and must be "detarminant" to the outcome, not just "explorative" (this latter statement meaning: it must not be aimed at finding something possible and something new, it can only be necessary to decide on the set charges).

 

[Grinder]

That won't work. Because Nencini has refused to test the semen stain too, just like Massei did.
Could you complain about a "lack of scrutiny" with the court, when the alleged lack of scrutiny is something decided by the court itself? I think, hardly so.

Why not? Yes, the courts have had a lack of scrutiny concerning the fluid stain.

I think Massei is correct reporting the legal requirements for such test: it must be "absolutely necessary" and must be "detarminant" to the outcome, not just "explorative" (this latter statement meaning: it must not be aimed at finding something possible and something new, it can only be necessary to decide on the set charges).

Once again it would seem the mind of an Italian works differently than most of first world people. Was the luminol testing determinant or explorative? The footprints didn't match Amanda's or anybody's and couldn't be dated. They could even be determined to be blood.

So in Italy the courts can't order the testing of something that could reveal a new direction or charges?

If Massei was correct the system is a sham.

 

[Bill Williams]

That won't work. Because Nencini has refused to test the semen stain too, just like Massei did.
Could you complain about a "lack of scrutiny" with the court, when the alleged lack of scrutiny is something decided by the court itself? I think, hardly so.

I think Massei is correct reporting the legal requirements for such test: it must be "absolutely necessary" and must be "detarminant" to the outcome, not just "explorative" (this latter statement meaning: it must not be aimed at finding something possible and something new, it can only be necessary to decide on the set charges).

You can "think" all you want.

That you do not see Massei's reasoning as ultimately absurd is all anyone really needs to hear.

How do you square all of this with the Kerchers' stated request that they want ALL the evidence tested? You blame everyone, except... for instance .... Maresca, who himself should be standing from the high mountain screaming that it be tested.

With every keystroke, Machiavelli... you proclaim the absolute absurdity of these proceedings. Good for you! You've been a good boy.

 

[Rolfe]

Massei says the stain may be irrelevant also on independent reason; it may be irrelevant not only in the event that it’s attributed to Silenzi (in that event, the reason would be that it could not be dated) but it would be irrelevant even if it was found to be attributable to Guede or to Sollecito.

Can I Stundie that?

Rolfe.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - this is the evidence you say you have that Hellmann is corrupt and a criminal. I believe this will come back to haunt you. I have also made an effort to warn you. You reject the effort. You are a good boy.

Well I have the following evidence:

1) the number and gravity of obvious violation of law and factual falsehoods/absurdities in Hellmann-Zanetti verdict and running of the trial, is too much beyond what you can expect a judge to get wrong in good faith; I had spotted the abomination and absurdity of the Hellmann-Zanetti motivation from the beginning.
2) Hellmann had no experience as a criminal judge; he used to be a nullity, and a civil judge in a minuscle venue, and had no reputation of respect or transparency;
3) Hellmann he was put in that role in sudden replacement of the true judge, Sergio Matteini Chiari, who was pushed away and forced to give up the role through a Machiavellian move by Wladimiro De Nunzio
4) all indication point to the fact Hellmann is a Mason;
5) Hellmann is a very rich man who loves money, collects Ferraris and luxurious items, despite having the pay of a normal magistrate.
6) witnesses saw Vecchiotti and Conti in a chummy atitude with Dalla Vedova and Maori at at time before they issued their report
7) witnesses have spotted a number Knox-Solelcito of defence lawers in the ofices of Wladimiro De Nunzio before the beginning of the appeal trial
8) Rocco Girlanda published a book and spoke publicly as if he knew in advance that Knox and Sollecito would be freed on appeal; Girlanda is a Mason and a key person in a US-Italy lobby, and politically linked to a number of people including Hellmann
9) witnesses reported about contacts betwen Vecchiotti and Conti and American defence consultants, and there were public admissions of them
10) there is another number of public admissions by American people involved, evidence about which I will remain silent;
11) the reputation of Conti and Vecchiotti from their prior history (as well as the complete lack of expertise of Conti on the filed); the tight links between Vecchiotti and some defence experts (who are also now indicted for corruption on other cases); the personal war already existing between Vecchiotti and Stefanoni;
12) a number of other elements: overall, the picture of manipulation of the trial was glaring and obvious on any aspect of the trial conduction.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why not? Yes, the courts have had a lack of scrutiny concerning the fluid stain.

Once again it would seem the mind of an Italian works differently than most of first world people.

My respectful opinion is that you may nt have a big experience about courts in European jurisdictions. (people who appear surprised about what the SC decided about the 11yo girl abuse for example, appear to be completely unaware about decisions taken by German, Dutch or Danish courts).

Was the luminol testing determinant or explorative? The footprints didn't match Amanda's or anybody's and couldn't be dated. They could even be determined to be blood.

The attributable luminol footprints did match Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The ideat that they don't match anyone is an opinion expressed by some Knox suporters (based on assessing small toe).

So in Italy the courts can't order the testing of something that could reveal a new direction or charges?

The courts decide what they are tasked with.
The tasks of judiciary organs depends on what they are working on. The main explorative phase is the investigation, which is a formal period of time, followed by the preliminary hearing. There is an investigating judge ruling on the investigation, and a preliminary judge ruling on the preliminary hearing.
There are other smaller investigation frames which may be opened on requets called istanze istruttorie, at the beginning of a trial discussion.

Could a judge decide the testing of something just to investigate possible direction or charges? In general: no. This is an investigator's task. Assise courts do not take investigating initiatives but on some codified occurrences (like if they are informed about the commission of a crime; in that case, they do not investigate but task another office with opening an investigation file). A judge can decide to open new investigation paths within his trial only if this is something absolutely necessary to decide on the charges that have been already set (the charges are set by the preliminary judge).
Which implies, if the judge has already evidence enough to decide on the charges on the presented evidence, there will be no further investigation.

 

[RoseMontague]

My understanding is that the stain could be dated because of the print contained in it, while it had not dried.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - this is the evidence you say you have that Hellmann is corrupt and a criminal. I believe this will come back to haunt you. I have also made an effort to warn you. You reject the effort. You are a good boy.

For the second time in half an hour you are insulting and addressing the poster on the public forum.
As a third occurrence, I may mention that you did also on a PM within the same half hour.

 

[RoseMontague]

The attributable luminol footprints did match Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The ideat that they don't match anyone is an opinion expressed by some Knox suporters (based on assessing small toe).

I recall Vinci using words such as useful, not useful, compatable and not compatable. What is the Italian word for match? Can something be a match that is a blob? Can something be a match when the second toe doesn't match?

 

[Matthew Best]

For the second time in half an hour you are insulting and addressing the poster on the public forum.
As a third occurrence, I may mention that you did also on a PM within the same half hour.

Calling you a "good boy" is insulting?

 

[Machiavelli]

Calling you a "good boy" is insulting?

Statements like: "I believe this will come back to haunt you", "I have also made an effort to warn you", "You are a good boy"
they are called mafia threats in Italy, and I am not goint to tolerate this addressing by someone any longer.

 

[Matthew Best]

Statements like: "I believe this will come back to haunt you", "I have also made an effort to warn you", "You are a good boy"
they are called mafia threats in Italy, and I am not goint to tolerate this addressing by someone any longer.

We are not in Italy and nobody here is in the Mafia. Calm down and be reasonable.

 

[Belz...]

The cartwheel was actually a split! (much harder to do IMHO) I think Knox should sue everyone who accused her of doing the common and easy cartwheel...IT WAS A SPLIT DARN IT! Much much harder to do.

Uh-huh... so what was it about ?

 

[Bill Williams]

Statements like: "I believe this will come back to haunt you", "I have also made an effort to warn you", "You are a good boy"
they are called mafia threats in Italy, and I am not goint to tolerate this addressing by someone any longer.

I have made a serious effort to privately warn you, and you regard it as a threat? What's the matter with you?

Ok, from this point onward, you're on your own. Have it your way. Ignore what I say. Please. Be a good boy.

 

[RoseMontague]

We are not in Italy and nobody here is in the Mafia. Calm down and be reasonable.

None of us have this secret Mafia Code Machiavelli also attributes to Amanda.

His accusations amount to a pretty extensive conspiracy involving judges, politicians, bribery, corruption, defense lawyers, independent experts, Masons, and Americans unnamed (that he has previously said are in the media). All of this because Hellmann saw that the evidence against AK and RS was worthless, which it was, btw.

 

[Bill Williams]

None of us have this secret Mafia Code Machiavelli also attributes to Amanda.

His accusations amount to a pretty extensive conspiracy involving judges, politicians, bribery, corruption, defense lawyers, independent experts, Masons, and Americans unnamed (that he has previously said are in the media). All of this because Hellmann saw that the evidence against AK and RS was worthless, which it was, btw.

When all one has is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.

Machiavelli is obviously assuming something more dire than I intended. Over reaction much, Machiavelli? Or are you facing other things a low life like me is unaware of?

This is what is so kind of you - you reveal far more than anyone intends.