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

[Antony]

Interesting.

But the Pratillo Hellmann-Zanetti verdict doesn't exist anymore.

I am still waiting for your explanation, in legal (not evidentiary) terms, as to how that verdict came to be annulled.

And meanwhile, you didn't explain why C&V and Vinci projecting slides the court alreayd has is "evidentiary" while Maresca projecting slides id "prejudicial".

The obvious answer is that it's the content, not the nature of the medium used, that shows whether it can be considered evidentiary or not. Maresca's slides did not add any facts relevant to the question of Amanda or Raff's involvement, and were intended merely to shock in an attempt to manipulate the court emotionally.

 

[Rolfe]

I see we're once again encountering the assertion that only those who are aware of absolutely every single detail of the case both in and out of court, and not only that were present in court for every day of every hearing can have an opinion about innocence.

Believe it or not, I have encountered this in another, similar context. It's not enough simply to have the entire court transcript, to have the forensic reports and associated photographs, to have police memos and witness statements! No, all these are as naught unless you were actually in court for the whole process to observe the physical demeanour of the witnesses, the accused, everyone.

First of all, since that is clearly impossible, it places an impossible burden on the defence. The trial has happened, it is in the past, and although we can talk to those who were there and hear what they say about witness demeanour and so on, nobody who wasn't there can go back in time and magically be there. It's a requirement specifically dreamed up by those who know they cannot win on the evidence as it is available.

It's also irrational. If a witness uses weasel words and is clearly shifty and evasive in the transcript, are we suddenly to imagine that these words were in fact said with great conviction that persuaded all who actually heard them that the witness was confident and straightforward? It's special pleading.

But mostly, it's clutching at straws. In this case, as in others, we have an enormous amount of evidence in the public domain. We have an obsessed bunch of people working hard to promote the message that Knox is guilty. And yet the evidence in the public domain not only doesn't amount to a hill of beans, it actually proves her innocent if people would only take a proper look at the post mortem findings.

So now we're being invited to take the view that despite all the information that is available (which is exculpatory, in fact), and despite the prosecution doing its best to promote their case to the public, there is or there might be some killer evidence of guilt hidden away in documents that haven't made it into the public domain?

Get real. If the prosecution can't make a coherent case for guilt in open court and in the eyes of the public, they lose. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

LBR asks how PIP come to the innocence conclusions they do without reading all the court documents.

This is the selling point for McCall's Wiki, which in my view presents a very slanted view of this case, cherry picking evidence, masked as present all the raw evidence.

But that's not what concerns me about it - the way Andrea Vogt promotes the site, as well as others, you'd think the Italian authorities were not doing a good enough job explaining why AK and RS are guilty.

I can see why, then, McCall would take on this project - because, in fact, the Italian judiciary IS NOT doing a very good job putting forward a single case against AK and RS.... a few "cases against them" need to be put forward - heck, even the ISC said that all the motives needed to be dropped except for one: sex game gone wrong.... and then what does Crini do with that!? He ignores it and goes to another one no one had every posited before.

What does one mean by, "a single case"? Well, it seems every time a new prosecutor handles this case, or every time a judge writes a motivations (including the ISC), they have to completely reinvent the case against AK and RS. Apparently they are having trouble settling on a convincing single narrative - no wonder guilters seldom try.

The essence of rights against double jeopardy, extradition issues aside for a moment, is that the State does not get to use its unlimited resources to keep prosecuting someone endlessly - either after they've been acquited, or by another route...

.. by having to keep reinventing the crime, assigning new roles and motives to the two people they are hell bent to convict, regardless of the evidence, even in consecutive courts which convict, but do so with almost mutually exclusive reasons.

So it is strange; some guilters with Wiki skills need to, themselves, put the case against RS and AK.... I thought this was the State of Italy's job? The question is....

Does McCall go with one of Mignini's mnay and ever evolving theories? Does he go with the one Massei adopted - remember, Massei finds that Raffaele called 112 BEFORE the postal police arrive. Does McCall accept this, or does he have another theory. (At the very least this should be a more important issue than an April Fools prank done when Knox was a teenager!)

Does McCall go with Galati and the ISC theory which caused the annulment of the acquittals? Or does he go with Crini and the pooh motive, and household tensions - which, strangely, portrays Meredith as vindictive and so obsessively clean that she would raise a fuss - a fuss in a decidedly non-English manner, I should say?

Or worse still, does McCall simply invent his own?

The very existence of that Wiki is troubling. Why would it be needed if the Italians had simply solved this "case closed" right on Nov 6, 2007? Ooooops, a Wiki developed that day would have had to have made mention of Lumumba as most certainly the killer, because experienced cops closed the case around him!

The very existence of the Wiki requires the question to be asked: how many scenarios does Italy or guilters get to cycle through, until they hit upon one?

Can anyone say Quadruple jeopardy? That's what the Wiki is about.

Surely the overwhelmingly important point about the "wiki"-style page created by McCall and others is this:

It has zero credentials, and therefore has zero credibility as an objective source of information about the case.

The site has merely been created using the Wikipedia style template. It therefore looks and feels something like a genuine Wikipedia page. But other than that, it's absolutely no different from any other website that might be set up by anyone concerning any subject.

Put it this way: I could download the wiki-style template and create a website that contained "all the information" showing how the Moon landings were hoaxes. My site would look much like any true Wikipedia page - but the choice of content and editorial slant would be entirely mine.

McCall's website has absolutely zero checks and balances: no editorial oversight, no right of reply, no trusted claim of objectivity. In that respect, it's absolutely no different as a "resource" than a site such as TJMK. If the "wiki" look and feel of McCall's website is fooling people otherwise to any extent, then it only points to the gullibility and stupidity of those being fooled. I suspect, however, that this deception was probably one of the conscious aims of McCall and others who conceived and constructed the website. And that of course would tend to suggest that they intended to use the possibility of deceit as a tool to push their biased point of view.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have family, friends and co-workers dotted around the States and I would have to agree folks moved on from this case a long time ago, sure there will be the peaks of media interest; this case matters to a relatively small group of people (PIP and PGP) who for various reasons have chosen to follow the case, it’s the same in the UK.

Most people only get interested in a story when the mainstream media decide to highlight it. There will be a high degree of interest in the Knox/Sollecito trials around the 30th January, because the media will all be running with the verdict and its aftermath.

It's the same with virtually every other subject matter of note. There is still, for example, widespread massacre and atrocity going on in Syria - but it's off most people's radars because the mass media have decided that it's no longer a "hot topic". Another amusing example that's currently happening in the UK is the issue of the importance of sugar intake in regard to obesity and public health in general. Dietary professionals have known for decades that sugar is the real problem - not fat. And if people cared to examine the issue for themselves at any time over the past couple of decades, they could easily have found all the information they needed. Yet it takes a sudden focus by the mass media on this issue to spark a form of national debate on it - all of a sudden, radio and TV phone-ins are being dedicated to the topic, and the general public are gasping in horror (or faux-horror) at this "new-found" revelation. Which is not new-found at all, of course.

In short, the mass media have tremendous power to instruct people as to what's "important" and "relevant". I think that this is the insidious problem with he mass media - rather than the ability to influence people's point of view on any particular issue.

 

[Bill Williams]

Surely the overwhelmingly important point about the "wiki"-style page created by McCall and others is this:

It has zero credentials, and therefore has zero credibility as an objective source of information about the case.

The site has merely been created using the Wikipedia style template. It therefore looks and feels something like a genuine Wikipedia page. But other than that, it's absolutely no different from any other website that might be set up by anyone concerning any subject.

<..... sinister deletia ....>

McCall's website has absolutely zero checks and balances: no editorial oversight, no right of reply, no trusted claim of objectivity. In that respect, it's absolutely no different as a "resource" than a site such as TJMK. If the "wiki" look and feel of McCall's website is fooling people otherwise to any extent, then it only points to the gullibility and stupidity of those being fooled. I suspect, however, that this deception was probably one of the conscious aims of McCall and others who conceived and constructed the website. And that of course would tend to suggest that they intended to use the possibility of deceit as a tool to push their biased point of view.

The reason why it will ultimately fail in its objective is this... some reporter is going to give it the benefit of the doubt, and park each factoid therein, in that part of the brain marked, "to be verified."

They may wander over to Bruce Fisher's site. They'll be able readily to find out who the real Bruce Fisher is... which might cause some pause: yet then they find Fisher's site is based on known, reviewed experts - like John Douglas, Steve More, Ron Hendry, etc. Each of THESE people can have their credentials checked.

The only verifiable person I know, with a modicum of professional background, who's endorsed the Wiki is Andrea Vogt.

Imagine this reporter getting e-mails from people like The Machine, Harry Rag, Machiavelli, Briars, Kermit all people who will not talk about their "identity", much less their own credentials. "Trust me, I've been following the case and that bitch Amanda Knox from the beginning, but I cannot tell you who I am."

But here's the deal - Why the need for the Wiki? Why not just link to the excellent English translation of the Massei motivations report? Isn't Massei's reasoning enough to find AK and RS guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Apparently, implies the Wiki's existence, no.

We also have the advantage of knowing who Massei is, and that he can be held to "peer review", hence Hellmann... but if one still pooh-pooh's Hellmann, consider that even Cassazione overruled elements of Massei - motive for instance. Massei can be peer reviewed in his assessment of Stefanoni... etc. etc. Just who do we talk to to do the same with McCall's site? Who is McCall to begin with?

Massei said AK and RS had no motive. Massei was "peer reviewed" by Cassazione.

So the big question is, why is THAT process not good enough for guilters? Why even the need for the Wiki? Why not just a quarter page website, mainly with a link to Massei? Or why not a page called, "understanding why Massei convicted"?

I think the guilters/haters know why. McCall disagrees with Massei, because the latter judge did not particularly vilify Knox or Sollecito. They were normal kids who made a brief, inexplicable "choice for evil".

The McCall's of the world, defended by such peer experts as "The Machine", "Machiavelli", "Kermit", etc., have a very different purpose. It's why they're called haters.

 

[Bill Williams]

I see we're once again encountering the assertion that only those who are aware of absolutely every single detail of the case both in and out of court, and not only that were present in court for every day of every hearing can have an opinion about innocence.

<.... sinister deletia.... >

So now we're being invited to take the view that despite all the information that is available (which is exculpatory, in fact), and despite the prosecution doing its best to promote their case to the public, there is or there might be some killer evidence of guilt hidden away in documents that haven't made it into the public domain?

Get real. If the proescution can't make a coherent case for guilt in open court and in the eyes of the public, they lose. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Rolfe.

There are two people I know who listened to every witness, and read every transcript, and heard all the eivdence.

Massei is one, Hellmann is another. And it is my contention that the current crop of guilters/haters discount both of them, With Hellmann they have Cassiazione's annulment of his verdict to bolster their prejudice.... but they also discount Massei.

It's the reason for the Wiki... or else why not just link to sections of Massei's report for "true info"?

It's because for them Massei does not vilify enough. Massei heard every word of the British friends evidence, heard every word from Filomena and Meredith's boyfriend.

So it is wrong to simply cite their testimony and leave it at that. One should also cite that in terms of trying to sully Amanda Knox's reputation, Massei heard it all and did not believe them!

The judge in the room did not believe Mignini's thesis. The point of the Wiki is to resurrect Miginini's failed prosecution - one that won a conviction at the 1st grade trial, but with the publication of Massei's motivations report, has been in tatters since.

Should I list all the elements of wht Massei did not believe about Mignini's case? Heck, even Crini has abandoned major elements of Mignini's case?

The Wiki, though, thinks that if it represents Mignini's case, it's all right then to vilify Knox. Because without vilification, there is no case.

 

[Samson]

It’s difficult for any of the families directly involved to move on with their respective lives given the glacial pace of the judicial process.

This is true, but you know that a Coulsdon family is protracting this process with intense deliberation, as is Rudy Guede, no crocodile tears needed.

 

[Bill Williams]

It’s difficult for any of the families directly involved to move on with their respective lives given the glacial pace of the judicial process.

You can say that again.....

 

[Bill Williams]

I only have a few left to get through of the ones Amanda recently posted. If you are thinking the pro-guilt wiki is an accurate summary of those primary sources, think again. I don't believe they even want you to bother reading for yourself.

Here is an example when that wiki says something and cites as the source Curatolo's testimony.

According to Curatolo Knox and Sollecito were in the square from roughly 9:30 pm until 10:00 pm and after that they were gone.[12] Curatolo then saw them return to Piazza Grimana from Via Pinturicchio and he saw them there from roughly 11:30 pm until midnight.[13]

I don't see this in the testimony. What I see is that several times he reports that he looked up and saw them and that they were there continuously until shortly before midnight.

Maybe you can point it out to me where he says they left and where he says he saw them return from Via Pinturiccho (which I don't even see mentioned).

Strange.

What LBR leaves out, is that when some objective third party discovers this sort of thing for themselves, it's not going to be enough to fall back on, "But I read ALL the 10,000 pages of evidence."

It will become clear that if they DID read all 10,000 pages, the author of the Wiki obviously read them wrong.

And the only public, "peer-reviewed" person who will stick her neck out for this Wiki is Andrea Vogt.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo..... kay!

 

[Bill Williams]

One can always hope. I'm not at all optimistic.

At the outset, the court denied all defense requests but agreed to examine two pieces of evidence requested by the prosecution:

- The witness Aviello, who claims his/her dead brother committed the murder, and whom the prosecution hoped would say he/she was bribed for this testimony, which he/she did not.

- A DNA sample from the kitchen knife that C&V deemed unsuitable for analysis, which the prosecution hoped would confirm the 36-B result, but did not.

The rest consisted of arguments and pleas by the defendants and lawyers for both sides.

This cannot be regarded as a meaningful examination of the evidence. Therefore, I have assumed it is a fig leaf for a decision made before the hearings ever started. We know what decision the Court of Cassation wants. Will Nencini disappoint them? I doubt it. Hellmann was on the verge of retiring, and even so, he took the precaution of bringing in outside consultants to bolster his decision. Nencini looks to be a man in the prime of his career. He has nothing to gain by bucking the system in a high-profile case, and perhaps much to lose.

.... and imagine, if Nencini acquits, there will be internet posters who'll claim he's been paid off by the Masons and is a criminal.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This is true, but you know that a Coulsdon family is protracting this process with intense deliberation, as is Rudy Guede, no crocodile tears needed.

Of course you understand that Italy has a judicial process consisting of a 3 level trial system; so I don’t understand how the family from Coulsdon are protracting the process.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Most people only get interested in a story when the mainstream media decide to highlight it. There will be a high degree of interest in the Knox/Sollecito trials around the 30th January, because the media will all be running with the verdict and its aftermath.

It's the same with virtually every other subject matter of note. There is still, for example, widespread massacre and atrocity going on in Syria - but it's off most people's radars because the mass media have decided that it's no longer a "hot topic". Another amusing example that's currently happening in the UK is the issue of the importance of sugar intake in regard to obesity and public health in general. Dietary professionals have known for decades that sugar is the real problem - not fat. And if people cared to examine the issue for themselves at any time over the past couple of decades, they could easily have found all the information they needed. Yet it takes a sudden focus by the mass media on this issue to spark a form of national debate on it - all of a sudden, radio and TV phone-ins are being dedicated to the topic, and the general public are gasping in horror (or faux-horror) at this "new-found" revelation. Which is not new-found at all, of course.

In short, the mass media have tremendous power to instruct people as to what's "important" and "relevant". I think that this is the insidious problem with he mass media - rather than the ability to influence people's point of view on any particular issue.

People are also experiencing “news fatigue” and “editorial fatigue”, folks are mentally if not literally switching off from saturation 24/7 news industry or foreign news items, but if you have a loved one in Afghanistan your focus will be different, if you are of Syrian heritage again you’ll want to know more about what is happening there. However, issues such as the Wiki site or who is Harry Rag are only of interest to those who exist within the PIP\PGP bubble; my point is the average person in the street just doesn’t care either way, I can’t see how any site connected to the case has had any impact on the appeal.

 

[Grinder]

So . . . an anonymous someone calling him/herself Joh who refused to be named or even to verify the rumor (and who was in any case not even present) is the source of a story that turns out to be distantly related to an actual event that bears little relation to the rumor.

His comment linked to his MySpace page with his real name. I quoted them above as they appeared in the Stanger.

 

[Grinder]

I am curious, where does the number 5 come from? The first I had seen of that number was when Machiavelli introduced it in this thread a short while ago.

On the other side of those co-perpetrators, there are all of the victims of the prank. Why haven't any of them spoken up? Do you think any of them are still alive??

Perhaps you missed the PGP theory back in the day that Marriott and the FOA gang contacted all her friends and acquaintances and ordered them not to talk to anyone about her.

There was this one idiot PGP that went to look for the police incident report on the noise ticket but didn't understand how to do it. Since she couldn't find it, it was concluded that the powerful Knox family had the police suppress the report. That all evaporated when the PI printed the report. It was always on the Seattle Municipal Court site.

Thank god we don't have to deal with actual evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Here is an example when that wiki says something and cites as the source Curatolo's testimony.

Quote:
According to Curatolo Knox and Sollecito were in the square from roughly 9:30 pm until 10:00 pm and after that they were gone.[12] Curatolo then saw them return to Piazza Grimana from Via Pinturicchio and he saw them there from roughly 11:30 pm until midnight.[13]​

I don't see this in the testimony. What I see is that several times he reports that he looked up and saw them and that they were there continuously until shortly before midnight.

Maybe you can point it out to me where he says they left and where he says he saw them return from Via Pinturiccho (which I don't even see mentioned).

Rose I used Google translate and it is clear that he originally testified that he saw them every time he looked up from 9:30 until just before midnight. He did not report that they were ever not there when he looked up.

Massei changed the time to 11:30 because Curatolo said the disco buses were there when he left and those buses were gone by 11:30. Of course, it was later established that the out-of-town discos that use those buses weren't open that night.

I have begged Briars and all PGP Italian speakers to do the translation but to no avail which leads me to believe that my translation interpretation is spot on.

Curatolo saw them, if one chooses to believe him, from 9:30 til midnight with no times that could be missing more than a few short minutes.

 

[Grinder]

It’s difficult for any of the families directly involved to move on with their respective lives given the glacial pace of the judicial process.

In the first trial the PGP blamed Raf's use of GB a sitting member of the legislature for the paucity of court dates but obviously it is just their system.

 

[Katody Matrass]

His comment linked to his MySpace page with his real name. I quoted them above as they appeared in the Stanger.

I somewhat doubt Filliam H Muffman is his real name.

 

[Grinder]

Briars you were wrong about the prank talk by the PGP

I somewhat doubt Filliam H Muffman is his real name.

Joh Alwood.

I found this old post of mine and would like Briars to see what her leader at PMF said:

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
SB wrote this today:



This is a great example of the PR effort made by PGP. The style here is her pervasive approach of sophistry.

She writes "The first person to mention this prank did so in the comments section of the Seattle Stranger very early on."

Of course, except for SB and her band of merry followers nobody mentioned this prank except to say that it had no validity.

Then she says "I contacted the guy (I think his screen name was "joh" and he confirmed the story, saying he had heard it from one of AK's roommates in the house where the rock throwing party took place."

She contacts a commenter and gets the lowdown that it was hearsay but manages to call the noise ticket party "the rock throwing party", isn't she clever.

If you'd like to check him out his link still works - just search the link for joh

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/12/end_of_an_affair

She claims she tried to contact the guy that told the guy but too common a name. The guy had said she got friends to dress up and break into her (Amanda's apartment) and harass her roommate. So the guy didn't actually see the prank but HE also got it from hearsay. But the big and decisive fact is that FOA NEVER DENIED IT. Also, did Amanda ever live in an apartment? I thought she went from dorm to house.

"No one in the FOA has ever denied this story, which is about all that can be said. Incidentally, I don't know that this prank occurred on Halloween. It was said that AK and fellow pranksters wore ski masks and "kidnapped" someone in their dorm, who was terrified by this joke."
The actual comment said it happened in an apartment, but what the heck. I guess that they not denying it proves she murdered Meredith.

If anybody from the other side is reading this please go to the link and read the actual comment and then go to JOH's link. Reassess what your leader is poisoning you with and figure out who is drinking the Kool-Aid.
​

 

[Briars]

Joh Alwood.

I found this old post of mine and would like Briars to see what her leader at PMF said:

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
SB wrote this today:



This is a great example of the PR effort made by PGP. The style here is her pervasive approach of sophistry.

She writes "The first person to mention this prank did so in the comments section of the Seattle Stranger very early on."

Of course, except for SB and her band of merry followers nobody mentioned this prank except to say that it had no validity.

Then she says "I contacted the guy (I think his screen name was "joh" and he confirmed the story, saying he had heard it from one of AK's roommates in the house where the rock throwing party took place."

She contacts a commenter and gets the lowdown that it was hearsay but manages to call the noise ticket party "the rock throwing party", isn't she clever.

If you'd like to check him out his link still works - just search the link for joh

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/12/end_of_an_affair

She claims she tried to contact the guy that told the guy but too common a name. The guy had said she got friends to dress up and break into her (Amanda's apartment) and harass her roommate. So the guy didn't actually see the prank but HE also got it from hearsay. But the big and decisive fact is that FOA NEVER DENIED IT. Also, did Amanda ever live in an apartment? I thought she went from dorm to house.

"No one in the FOA has ever denied this story, which is about all that can be said. Incidentally, I don't know that this prank occurred on Halloween. It was said that AK and fellow pranksters wore ski masks and "kidnapped" someone in their dorm, who was terrified by this joke."
The actual comment said it happened in an apartment, but what the heck. I guess that they not denying it proves she murdered Meredith.

If anybody from the other side is reading this please go to the link and read the actual comment and then go to JOH's link. Reassess what your leader is poisoning you with and figure out who is drinking the Kool-Aid.
​

Exactly,old news that hasn't been discussed in ages because it could not be verified. Joh worked with one of the roommates so blame him for the close to the source account. The resurrection of the story has been by Amanda . Initially she ignored a question by Celeste on her blog. Interesting what followed she was asked by another to put the rape prank" to rest . She does but confirms a robbery prank that required an apology for the distress caused. So why then did her supporters become so enraged on her blog? Why did they attack the person who asked for it to be put to rest if not true. Simple they knew a staged robbery a year earlier on a roommate (s) that caused distress should be kept under wraps.It would be an indication of what Amanda thought might be fun to organize.

 

[Dan O.]

I see we're once again encountering the assertion that only those who are aware of absolutely every single detail of the case both in and out of court, and not only that were present in court for every day of every hearing can have an opinion about innocence.

Perhaps it would be instructive to dig up Machiavelli's post about how actual recordings of interrogations are not allowed in court but have to be transcribed so the transcript can be entered. Or that the record of the trial which later courts will reference is the written transcripts and not a live video or audio recording.

It's an authoritarian meme that only someone that was there in court every day can divine the truth. The reality is that the trial is a controlled event designed to produce an approximation of the truth in a reasonable time while balancing the resources available to all sides. We are outside of the court restrictions so we don't have to rely on intuition to judge the integrity of the testimonies given. We can instead attempt to verify the details, look for additional evidence, construct and test our own theories and discuss the results openly and take all the time we need until a consensus forms around the best truth that can be extracted from the available evidence.