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

[Diocletus]

Mignini was telling about his arrival at the Questura, my question was: "what time it was? Was it around midnight?" and I asked no further question on the point. Mignini said "no, it was later than 2am", said he arrived after 2am and then recalled he had been aslep for a while when he was awaken. The "REM slep" detail is just Mignini's words describing the event.
I will not provide any further explanation on this point because all what I said is clear.
I point out that Giobbi's testimony confirms this.

Well, that's good. By that time, the cops had already violated Knox's right to counsel under the ECHR, by interrogating a suspected person, and then typing up a statement for the suspected person to sign without advice of counsel. So, I guess that Mignini is off the hook for all of that.

He's still in trouble, though, for the non-spontaneous statements after 2:00 in the absence of counsel, for holding her for two days without counsel, and for locking her in jail for a year without effective access to counsel and on the basis of phony evidence.

You'd better tell Mignini this isn't going to be good. Spezi is going to have fun when the ECtHR says that Mignini violated Knox's human rights.

 

[anglolawyer]

Can a corpse actually own property? That would seem weird. You would think that at the moment of Meredith Kercher's death, her phone would belong to her heirs at law (probably her parents).

Yes, about four of us have made this point now. Not saying ninja or anything but all four are correct. If it were otherwise I could wait for someone to die, go to their house and just take everything. That would be absurd but it doesn't stop some posters who might stop and think before they type.

 

[Diocletus]

Kaosium basically admitted the pillow under the body is not a proof of this scenario. It's merely a detail which the pro-Knoxes interpret as suggestive.
But in fact it is not. In my opinion the same pillowcase physical scenario also contains evidence of the contrary.
For example the absence of any bloody hand print on Meredith's body, it's evidence suggesting that the person who left the palm print on the pillow is not the same person who placed it under the body. Try to lift a body and place a pillow under it while having a bloody hand, see if you don't leave traces on the body.
And also imagine, Guede "raping" (touching, grabbing) a body wihout leaving any bloody fingerprint or blood smear on it.

Frankly, I think that Guede had his hand on his penis. Did anyone run a luminol check on that?

 

[Diocletus]

Instead, as for the stronger possibility, all what is required is that the judge thinks there is independent evidence of a staging; if it is proven that a staging occurred, if you have evidence that someone did intended to alter the scene, then you a further element in support the strongr hypothesis and you can consider it as part of a staging.

Staging is a silly Italian fairy tale. Like Benandanti.

 

[Bill Williams]

Case in point - Machiavelli is willing to attempt a case against Knox, based on a non-existent "relationship" between her an Rudy Guede. This is combined with being completely resistant to develop a comprehensive timeline of the crime, one that fits with Dan O.'s known way-points.

The elements indicating contacts between Guede and Knox are not argument to build a case against Knox; the function of the argument is to undermine the positive defensive counter-argument that Knox would not have any contacts with Guede, on anthropological, social and historical grounds (honor student, alleged proven "difference" or "distance" etc.).

The basic problem is this is just more made up fantasy and wishful thinking made up by those that viciously insult and hate AK and RS.

Machiavelli - I wish to thank you for a remarkable candid post, and perhaps one of the first I've read where you have successfully put your remarks (remarks like, "contacts between Guede and Knox") into a reasonable argumentative framework, and what your intent is.

As you say, your intent is not to prove anything, it's just to counter what you believe is an iron wall FOA's try to erect between Guede and Knox.

I, for one, am not trying to do that.... it still is a matter of the evidence and what the evidence says. Ok, ok, ok you are trying to get us to concede that a relationship between Knox and Guede beyond this evidence is "theoretically possible," and I suppose ANYTHING is possible....

But like I say this is the first time I have ever seen you be this clear.

Yet, the second half of my statement is now ever more so true. You and your ilk still have yet to provide a positive reason, based on evidence and thing's like Dan O.'s time line, why anyone should even suspect the pair!

You have said various things about you don't do this:

- You have said that it is not necessary in convicting, that (in essence) an "osmotic" evaluation of the suspicions/assertions of prosecutors is enough

- You have said that since this is a war between guilters and FOA's you do not want to aid and abet the enemy.​

It would be exceedingly helpful for me, at least, that when you post from this point on, you be exceedingly clear what your statements are referring to - I can accept posts which simply say, "anything is possible," even though I actually do not know how that is helpful to this debate.

For instance, the flip side to this have been the speculations about your own identity. It is possible you are related to Andrea Vogt, for instance. No one is stating that as a fact - but if you get to say, "the function of the argument is to undermine the positive defensive counter-argument that Knox would not have any contacts with Guede"....

.... most surely this tactic can also fairly be used against you in the search for who it is saying these things. The better example would be for one of us to claim that you are simply an unimportant guilt-groupie, who hangs around people like Mignini and who posts what you post in an attempt to impress him.

Please note, I am not claiming this as fact. I say it only, "to undermine the positive defensive counter-argument that Machiavelli would not have any contacts with Mignini."

In other words, this project of yours contributes little....

Because you see, you cannot built your case simply by countering positive defence arguments.

You see, there are no positive prosecution arguments - if there are please present them. If there are you you please mark them so, and clearly distinguish them from when you are trying simply to offer possibilities to positive defence arguments...

... do you see what I mean?

I mean, are you now a proponent of the "Boy's night out" theory Nencini seems to have invented? Or the "pooh in the toilet" that Criini invented out of nowhere?

What you miss is that many of us, me included, would be quite prepared to drop support for innocence if there was a convincing case for guilt.

You mention "lies" and "autopsy", as being some of the elements of this positive-guilt case.

But you never, ever lay this out. You prefer to play defence, and never offence.

The closest you've come is in relation to things like stomach contents. Instead of addressing directly that stomach contents alone mean a T.O.D. cannot be much past 9:30 pm, you bring up your own experiences making pizza dough, and how it might get stuck in someone's stomach!!!!

That one statement shows you have no positive evidence, really, because even you are looking for an excuse, or an explanation why in normal circumstances stomach contents place TOD before 9:30 pm!!! Even you are trying to explain, with particularly tough dough!!, why this is an case exception!!!!

So thank you for explaining the function of your posts which are intended not as "evidence" or a theory, but as a counter to possibilities.

Please mark your points as such... because even this latest admission of your - that you're engaged in rhetoric - kind'a falls flat.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope. That is not what I "mean" at all. If you are trying to read my mind you have failed miserably. I am talking about stuff like the claim that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith. That is what I "mean" by insulting and vicious fantasies.

This is not an argument for the accusation. Amanda had some behaviours with Meredith (including showing off, suggestions with seductive content) which were put on records by witnesses. She also wrote other things, tales etc. Anyone is free to have their opinions about her charachter based on this material, there is no "lie" in this. Some people suspect michael Jackson was a pedophile, and some people suspect Woody Allen abused his stepdaughter: maybe such suspicions are wrong, maybe they are false, but there is no "vicious fantasy" in them, they are reasonable legitimate scenarios based on elements.

 

[RoseMontague]

Kaosium basically admitted the pillow under the body is not a proof of this scenario. It's merely a detail which the pro-Knoxes interpret as suggestive.
But in fact it is not. In my opinion the same pillowcase physical scenario also contains evidence of the contrary.
For example the absence of any bloody hand print on Meredith's body, it's evidence suggesting that the person who left the palm print on the pillow is not the same person who placed it under the body. Try to lift a body and place a pillow under it while having a bloody hand, see if you don't leave traces on the body.
And also imagine, Guede "raping" (touching, grabbing) a body wihout leaving any bloody fingerprint or blood smear on it.

For example imagine 3 people involved in a bloody murder and sexual assault and only one of them leaving evidence of his presence. Too funny. Maybe the other two were not there at all. Hmmmm.

 

[RoseMontague]

Nope. That is not what I "mean" at all. If you are trying to read my mind you have failed miserably. I am talking about stuff like the claim that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith. That is what I "mean" by insulting and vicious fantasies.

This is not an argument for the accusation. Amanda had some behaviours with Meredith (including showing off, suggestions with seductive content) which were put on records by witnesses. She also wrote other things, tales etc. Anyone is free to have their opinions about her charachter based on this material, there is no "lie" in this. Some people suspect michael Jackson was a pedophile, and some people suspect Woody Allen abused his stepdaughter: maybe such suspicions are wrong, maybe they are false, but there is no "vicious fantasy" in them, they are reasonable legitimate scenarios based on elements.

I did not say lie. I said "insulting and vicious fantasies". It is what it is. The fact that this is your fantasy is your problem, not mine.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

He's still in trouble, though, for the non-spontaneous statements after 2:00 in the absence of counsel, for holding her for two days without counsel, and for locking her in jail for a year without effective access to counsel and on the basis of phony evidence.

I think it was clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to hypothesyze the statement was "non spontaneous". The statement meets al requirements and criteria as for art. 350 § 7.
The delay of counsel also was perfectly legal and reasonable under art. 104 cpp.
The pro-Knox group should re-calibrate all their claims about this, and make it fit reality instead of their fantasy.

You'd better tell Mignini this isn't going to be good. Spezi is going to have fun when the ECtHR says that Mignini violated Knox's human rights.

Actually, this will not happen, but if it happens Knox will be in jail by that time, and I believe Spezi will be dead (not that I wish him that - but I'm afraid he won't survive for more than a couple of years).
Anyway Spezi is a criminal caught in flagrante delicto, the fact that some pro-Knox decide to rely on a person like Spezi, seen as a kind of idol, qualifies them in the most extreme negative way.

 

[Diocletus]

The elements indicating contacts between Guede and Knox are not argument to build a case against Knox; the function of the argument is to undermine the positive defensive counter-argument that Knox would not have any contacts with Guede, on anthropological, social and historical grounds (honor student, alleged proven "difference" or "distance" etc.).

Of course she had a contact with him. Meredith's dirtbag boyfriend supplied Guede with drugs downstairs, which attracted Guede to the cottage like a cockroach on rotten food.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are wrong. Your argument is invalig and illogical everywhere. "He might have taken them with one idea but realised it was not a good one and tossed them over Lana's hedge or he might have taken them to toss them" is the repetition of the hypothesys which I have already shown to be weak and unproven. Therefore it is not good to convict someone on it. You may think it's possible, but you have no proof. Guede could never be convicted of theft base on it.

And what I said is perfectly consistent, not contradictory at all. Is motive necessary to convict? No. But the logic is as follows: motive can be relevant only insofar as it is evidence. If motive is evidence, that is if there is logical evidence of a motive, this is relevant in one direction or in the other. If facts have no logical content as for a motive, motive is irrelevant.
So motive is unnecessary on principle, but might be relevant if facts indicate that evidence exists as a pice circumstantial evidence.
You should understand this as a lawyer.

This is a losing argument in any courtroom, except, it seems, for Massei's court.

 

[Machiavelli]

I did not say lie. I said "insulting and vicious fantasies". It is what it is. The fact that this is your fantasy is your problem, not mine.

But the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is no fantasy. It's a proven fact. If you assume their guilt as a proven fact, then it is normal that you will consider that conjectures about their motives based on factual elements are reasonble.
Your accusations agaisnt Mignini and Stefanoni, or against Quintavalle, instead, are defamatory falsehoods. Your calling names of of Nara Capezzali is a gratuitous insult. Unproven and unsubstantiated, or proven false, assertions of facts.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have provided this forum with the proof that this is NOT what Mignini said, at least he said the opposite to Drew Griffin.

This is where your style betrays you. You merely make the assertion. I've already come to grips with this. It is called "Machiavelli lying."

Rather than merely assert I am wrong, you may wish to provide some actual "evidence". Why do I feel yet another assertion by you in our future?

What you have provided is evidence that you fail to understand a logical phrase. "Amanda decided to release a statement" has exactly the same meaning of what Mignini said to Drew Griffin.
But you are unable to read statements without twisting them.

Read this again, and I will walk you through it. I cannot believe someone is this dense. There is no place here in Mignini's account where it is Amanda who says she wants to release a statement.

20’48’’ Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”.

Once again, you fail to do anything except assert.... this time assert things in the face of the evidence.

- It was Mignini who was made to notice that Amanda "wanted to go on talking". He was made to notice this by some anonymous, "they".

- who is this "they"? It is not Amanda.​

- "I remember she had, like, a need to."

- Did Amanda say she had a need to? No.​

- So Mignini interrupts the silence giving Knox a "way out" of his own imaginings, that she wanted to release a statement.​

You are losing this one Machiavelli, and every time you object, I will simply repost this evidence.

Of course, you might do something other than simply assert the opposite. You could provide something, other than your osmotic assertion.

But you never do that.

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course she had a contact with him. Meredith's dirtbag boyfriend supplied Guede with drugs downstairs, which attracted Guede to the cottage like a cockroach on rotten food.

This is an example of unfounded assertion. There is no evidence and no element indicating Giacomo was a drug dealer whatsoever. No sane person would consider the five mini-marjuana plants as a drug dealer's storage.
As for contacts, maybe you also forget about the phone contacts between Knox and the Piazza Grimana drug dalers gang.

 

[Diocletus]

I think it was clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to hypothesyze the statement was "non spontaneous". The statement meets al requirements and criteria as for art. 350 § 7.
The delay of counsel also was perfectly legal and reasonable under art. 104 cpp.
The pro-Knox group should re-calibrate all their claims about this, and make it fit reality instead of their fantasy.

The ECtHR doesn't care about these Italian laws. These laws are illegal to the extent that they are being used to justify a deprivation of counsel in violation of Article 6, which they clearly have been.

As a matter of fact, the issue of "spontaneity" is really irrelevant. What Mignini would need to show, in order not to be a violator of human rights, is that Knox clearly and knowingly waived her right to counsel. Unfortunately for him, he forgot to build the waiver into the 5:45 statement, so he's out of luck.

As for article 104, the ECtHR won't care about that for one second. They are just going to notice that Knox was deprived of counsel and that the deprivation rendered the process unfair. And, they're going to order Italy to fix it, which will mean vacating the callunnia conviction and the murder conviction.

This all probably will take about 4-6 years, unless Knox's lawyers can figure out a way to expedite, and I'll bet she's got some pretty good ECtHR lawyers. The good news is that maybe by that time the perverts on the Italian supreme court will have retired.

Odd that you think that Spezi doesn't have that much time left in him.

 

[Machiavelli]

Read this again, and I will walk you through it. I cannot believe someone is this dense. There is no place here in Mignini's account where it is Amanda who says she wants to release a statement.

The word "notary" says exactly this.

 

[Bill Williams]

But the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is no fantasy. It's a proven fact. If you assume their guilt as a proven fact, then it is normal that you will consider that conjectures about their motives based on factual elements are reasonble.
Your accusations agaisnt Mignini and Stefanoni, or against Quintavalle, instead, are defamatory falsehoods. Your calling names of of Nara Capezzali is a gratuitous insult. Unproven and unsubstantiated, or proven false, assertions of facts.

Two of three courts have come to this determination.

But they have had to invent mutually contradictory "facts" to do it. Once again, you do not lay out these "facts", you merely assert they exist.

If they exist, you would have no trouble listing them. You never do.

 

[RoseMontague]

But the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is no fantasy. It's a proven fact. If you assume their guilt as a proven fact, then it is normal that you will consider that conjectures about their motives based on factual elements are reasonble.
Your accusations agaisnt Mignini and Stefanoni, or against Quintavalle, instead, are defamatory falsehoods. Your calling names of of Nara Capezzali is a gratuitous insult. Unproven and unsubstantiated, or proven false, assertions of facts.

No, the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is not "proven" at all. The only thing proven is the corruption of certain people like Nencini, Mignini, and Stefanoni. Mr Memory was proven a liar in court and Miracle Ear Lady is just that, requiring a miracle ear to hear what she said she heard.

Conversely, your claim that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith is an insulting and vicious fantasy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Read this again, and I will walk you through it. I cannot believe someone is this dense. There is no place here in Mignini's account where it is Amanda who says she wants to release a statement.

The word "notary" says exactly this.

I cannot believe you said this. You've misplaced where the problem is. Mignini specficially says that he can ask her no questions, because if he does she needs a lawyer.

His question is, "Do you want to continue?"

Machiavelli, do yourself a favour, reread my post and answer it. Either that or I will need to repost it, simply to embarrass you further.

 

[MDDVS]

Show us the proof man.