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

[Bill Williams]

Given Machiavelli's 12-point defamatory thesis against Judge Hellmann, here is, in Hellmann's words, why he feels Cassazione betrayed justice in Italy....

http://groundreport.com/judge-that-declared-amanda-knox-innocent-in-2011-speaks-out-about-recent-ruling/#.Us2V2_rc5qg.facebook

Hellmann suggests the recent Italian Supreme Court ruling that ordered the case against Amanda and Raffaele to be sent back to the appellate level for review was not based on the actual facts. “The party of the Prosecutors had influence on the Supreme Court of Cassation” said Hellmann, adding “I expected that the decision of the Supreme Court would be the annulment and a new trial. The influence (party) of the prosecutors is very strong in the judiciary.”

Hellmann has now retired and says he is at peace with his decision. Hellmann has no doubt his court came to the right conclusion stating “I want to see who will take responsibility of convicting two innocent people or at least I challenge anyone to demonstrate that there is evidence to convict them.”

 

[Machiavelli]

The court also never found psychopathology in Knox or Sollecito.... (...)

They were not even questioned about this.
They never discussed it (no experts even reporting on that).
They never considered the issue at all.

No court would.
It would be forbidden by the procedure code, for a judge to just make findings about a defendant's psychopathology.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Actually I include the defence, because also the defence had a power to investigate things like the semen stain, or to request it to be investigated.
They decided to not request it, because, by Sollecito's own admission, they fered about the result.<snip>

Cite?

<snip>I see the evidence as solid, undisputable, I fail to see how a test on the stain could change that. It won't change if it's Guede's semen, nor if it's Sollecito, nor if it's SIlenzi's, and it won't change if it is a fourth unknown profile, it won't change if it's vaseline. I don't see how any result could affect the evidence. No result among those could make the evidence against Sollecito go away, so from my point of view I can't see how the test could change the conclusion.

That's not the point. It is not the job of investigators to pick and choose what they test; they are required to test everything. It is not their job to determine what is or is not evidence until after it has been tested. If they had the attitude that collecting and/or testing particular artifacts "would not change anything," then all their training, methods and philosophy would be for naught.

 

[RoseMontague]

The court agreed with Rinaldi finding a probable identity (which I call a type of match btw). Grinder stated "they do not match". The court never stated what Grinder states, so you should say: as for the court finding, what Grinder says is wrong. Shouldn't you?

Rinaldi is an idiot. The prints simply do not match. The only one that is useful for probable identity is the one in Amanda's room and the second toe does not match, something that is glaringly obvious yet Rinaldi did not even address in his report. Most of the Luminol prints are blobs and establishing probable identity based on blobs is stupid.

Rinaldi is a biased non-expert who works for the cops, he is educated as an engineer and could not even explain where some of his measurements came from. Another lying liar and cheating cheater, just like Stefanoni.

 

[AmyStrange]

It would be forbidden by the procedure code, for a judge to just make findings about a defendant's psychopathology.

If that's true, then why do you?

 

[RoseMontague]

They were not even questioned about this.
They never discussed it (no experts even reporting on that).
They never considered the issue at all.

No court would.
It would be forbidden by the procedure code, for a judge to just make findings about a defendant's psychopathology.

So this choice for evil, brought on by porn or manga comics or knife collecting, killing somebody over a sex game gone wrong or a delayed Halloween riti party is not making a comment on the defendants psychopathology?

 

[JREF2010]

Cite?



That's not the point. It is not the job of investigators to pick and choose what they test; they are required to test everything. It is not their job to determine what is or is not evidence until after it has been tested. If they had the attitude that collecting and/or testing particular artifacts "would not change anything," then all their training, methods and philosophy would be for naught.

Isnt it Mignini who decided, or was it Monica, the Intimidator ex-homicide squad, corrupt cop?

Or as many agree, maybe it was tested and information hidden, like the interrogation, or maybe the info was on a harddrive and the Perugia computer experts accidentally erased the info several times...or maybe Stefonani forgot she tested it, or maybe Stefonani has the info but she lost the paperwork but will find it in that garage where she kept all her papers she had lost, to the biggest case in her career.

The dishonesty of the police, the sloppy work of the investigation, the obstinate behavior of Stefonani, made this case what it is.

 

[Bill Williams]

The court also never found psychopathology in Knox or Sollecito.... (...)

They were not even questioned about this.
They never discussed it (no experts even reporting on that).
They never considered the issue at all.

No court would.
It would be forbidden by the procedure code, for a judge to just make findings about a defendant's psychopathology.

Finally, at long last you agree, that Judge Massei never found psychopathology in Knox or Sollecito. Thank you for this admission.

 

[Mary_H]

Isnt it Mignini who decided, or was it Monica, the Intimidator ex-homicide squad, corrupt cop?

Or as many agree, maybe it was tested and information hidden, like the interrogation, or maybe the info was on a harddrive and the Perugia computer experts accidentally erased the info several times...or maybe Stefonani forgot she tested it, or maybe Stefonani has the info but she lost the paperwork but will find it in that garage where she kept all her papers she had lost, to the biggest case in her career.

The dishonesty of the police, the sloppy work of the investigation, the obstinate behavior of Stefonani, made this case what it is.

No doubt it was tested. Machiavelli acts like every test had to be approved by law, but it is highly unlikely the labs submit an individual hard copy request for every blood, DNA, fingerprint or footprint test they perform. That would be a big waste of judges' time.

 

[AmyStrange]

"Reasonable Doubt"

-

So this choice for evil, brought on by porn or manga comics or knife collecting, killing somebody over a sex game gone wrong or a delayed Halloween riti party is not making a comment on the defendants psychopathology?

-

Of course not Rose, it's part of the indisputable evidence that proves beyond a "reasonable doubt" that they are guilty to him or her. I don't think he or she is stupid, but some of his or her messages are.

It's what happens when you have to defend the absurdity of your original beliefs,

In my mind, t gives a whole new meaning to the term "reasonable doubt",

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Isnt it Mignini who decided, or was it Monica, the Intimidator ex-homicide squad, corrupt cop?

Or as many agree, maybe it was tested and information hidden, like the interrogation, or maybe the info was on a harddrive and the Perugia computer experts accidentally erased the info several times...or maybe Stefonani forgot she tested it, or maybe Stefonani has the info but she lost the paperwork but will find it in that garage where she kept all her papers she had lost, to the biggest case in her career.

The dishonesty of the police, the sloppy work of the investigation, the obstinate behavior of Stefonani, made this case what it is.

No doubt it was tested. Machiavelli acts like every test had to be approved by law, but it is highly unlikely the labs submit an individual hard copy request for every blood, DNA, fingerprint or footprint test they perform. That would be a big waste of judges' time.

That's the huge hole in Machiavelli's apology for Italian justice, isn't it.

When they took Raffaele's shoes and asked him to surrender his pocket-knife, did they refuse to test them because, well, they'd already wrapped up this case and did not need any further evidence?

When they photographed the fading hickey-mark on Knox's neck, did they suppress the photo because, well, in their view she'd already ratted out Lumumba, and the case was now closed?

When the postal police testified that their first impression of Filomena's room was, "this was no burglary," did they suppress that because they already had the goods which "proved" a staged break-in?

Massei's logic is after-the-fact lunacy. The problem in real-time, in the days following Nov 2, was that neither Stefanoni nor Napoleoni, nor Mignini, ordered a test of that presumptive semen stain.

For Machiavelli to say that by court-time, the defence would have been involved in the testing is a red herring....

From Nov 2 to Nov 5 there WAS no defence team. Did that stop them from doing a DNA test on the knife or do a luminol examination of the floor in the hallway?

Machiavelli will say anything - except justify his 12 point-defamation of Hellmann upthread. He won't even talk about that.

Maybe I need to repost it.

 

[Grinder]

From Nov 2 to Nov 5 there WAS no defence team. Did that stop them from doing a DNA test on the knife or do a luminol examination of the floor in the hallway?

The stain was spotted for the first time by a defense expert well after the 5th.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Does anyone have any predictions for tomorrow’s court session, should or can Giulia Bongiorno go on the offensive.

 

[Rolfe]

I guess it is either too late or too simple (or maybe both) to point out that Meredith was killed long before the prosecution's argument claims, and indeed at a time when Knox and Sollecito had an alibi?

This case is in la-la land.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

Does anyone have any predictions for tomorrow’s court session, should or can Giulia Bongiorno go on the offensive.

I think we will hear some new information on the computer evidence and probably some poo jokes.

 

[Diocletus]

Does anyone have any predictions for tomorrow’s court session, should or can Giulia Bongiorno go on the offensive.

I predict that the Kerchers will send a letter to the press and Maresca will engage in courtroom shenanigans.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anyone have any predictions for tomorrow’s court session, should or can Giulia Bongiorno go on the offensive.

I predict that guilters and haters will call it a lame presentation. I also predict you'll make no comment at all.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I predict that the Kerchers will send a letter to the press and Maresca will engage in courtroom shenanigans.

Doubt it, they sent a letter at the beginning and have remained quiet as far as I know.

I predict that guilters and haters will call it a lame presentation. I also predict you'll make no comment at all.

You’re right Bill I don’t see much point in commenting on what is discussed on sites I am not a member of, I find all this rather tiresome and pointless as I do not believe discussion sites on either side have had any impact of proceedings.

Rose could be right, Giulia Bongiorno might introduce arguments not raised in the appeal so far, I do get the impression she is by far the strongest of all the defence lawyers.

 

[christianahannah]

That's the huge hole in Machiavelli's apology for Italian justice, isn't it.

~snip~

From Nov 2 to Nov 5 there WAS no defence team. Did that stop them from doing a DNA test on the knife or do a luminol examination of the floor in the hallway?

~snip~

Well, I'm not certain what stopped the forensic team from doing a DNA test on the knife or a luminol examination of the floor but testing of these both occurred after Amanda and Raffaele had attorneys. The knife was tested on November 13 or thereabouts and the luminol was done on the floor mid-December (in which testing would have been done thereafter).

 

[Diocletus]

Well, I'm not certain what stopped the forensic team from doing a DNA test on the knife or a luminol examination of the floor but testing of these both occurred after Amanda and Raffaele had attorneys. The knife was tested on November 13 or thereabouts and the luminol was done on the floor mid-December (in which testing would have been done thereafter).

As Stefanoni confirms in her testimony, once suspects had been arrested, they were barred from conducting scientific tests until such time as they had provided to the defendants notice and opportunity to be present.

In the case of the batches involving the knife, that testing started up on Monday, November 12.

There were, however, other tests that were conducted on November 6, apparently illegally, following the arrests of Knox and Sollecito. The interesting question is: did Stefanoni break the law when she conducted these tests (after suspect arrests but without notice), or did Mignini fail to advise the lab that it was prohibited from testing because suspects had been arrested that morning?

What a surprise it must have been to Mignini, when the results of the early testing came back to him on November 6 or 7, and the tests showed that the rapist and crapper were the same guy, and that guy was neither Sollecito nor Lumumba. Whoops.