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

[lionking]

You're mixing up your acronyms.

This IS an ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) issue. The article you linked is about another body - the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission), a statutory UK advisory body with no powers in law - advising the UK government on how to implement the remedies demanded by the ECHR (and what, in their opinion, would and would not satisfy the ECHR).

I know that now and I apologised. Looks like you made the same mistake.

 

[LondonJohn]

No more so than people clutching at straws to find ways to reverse an Italian judgement......

Ahhh..... your use of the term "clutching at straws" betrays you, I'm afraid.

But if you can offer a cogent, well-reasoned argument as to why the objective investigation into the impact and implications of ECHR rulings in this case is nothing more than "clutching at straws", I would certainly be very interested in hearing it. For example, do you think that Knox and Sollecito have no chance of success in any application to the ECHR (and if not, why not)? Or if you think they do have a reasonable chance of success with the ECHR, do you think that this would have little or no material effect upon their conviction statuses (and again, if no, why not)?

Or you can stick with your unsupported and pejorative "clutching at straws" remark. As ever, it's entirely your prerogative

 

[LondonJohn]

I know that now and I apologised. Looks like you made the same mistake.

No that's the point. You didn't make a mistake! (And nor did I.) This really IS a live ECHR issue where the UK is prevaricating over how to apply the necessary remedy.

But what the UK is NOT doing is ignoring the ruling. What it IS doing is trying to see how far it can push things (mainly in an attempt to follow UK public opinion) without being in breach of its obligations.

Again, this is one of those rulings that is purely related to legislation, rather than things that specifically only concern one individual. And it's a ruling that is hugely vague and wide open to interpretation. That is precisely how and why the UK Government is ducking and diving somewhat in order to try to fulfill its obligations to the ECHR while at the same time managing UK public opinion.

In the end, I think it's almost a certainty that the UK Govt will introduce new legislation granting the vote to people imprisoned either for certain maximum custodial amounts of time, or for certain ranges of offence. For example, it may say that people imprisoned for 6 months or less (or with fewer than six months remaining on their sentence) are allowed to vote, or that people with imprisoned for non-violent, non-sexual offences are allowed to vote..... etc.

 

[Samson]

Here's some other interesting Guede tidbits from early PS, back on Dec. 7, 2007:

Quote:
This morning Pm Mignini and Gip Matteini met at the Capanne Prison to have a joined interrogation of Rudy Guede. SCO people and Squadra Mobile were present as well.

Rudy Guede's attorney, Walter Biscotti, came out of the interrogation (which lasted more than 7 hours) and said that Rudy claims to be innocent, he admits his presence, admits contacts with Meredith but he says he didn't kill her.
Biscotti specifies that "He didn't name anyone because there's no one to be named". He didn’t look the murderer well in the face, but an attempt of describing the person more precisely will be done on a meeting which is to be settled by judges for the purpose.
Walter specified that no pictures of suspects have been shown to Rudy.
And Rudy doesn't know Raffaele and knew Amanda just by sight.
<snip>

I am not great at editing and posting but RWVBWL posted above. Can anyone from either side of this debate explain why there was no one to be named on this date when all three were in custody? For chrissakes this is the smoking gun for THE DEFENCE. Credit please for the poster.

 

[katy_did]

They don't give a list using a name and a date they started that particular wiretap but the beginning was the second day of investigation (3 Nov). This included Patrick's phone and they also bugged his bar. They certainly wouldn't bother bugging his bar after he was arrested and the bar closed so it is almost certain that this happened before the arrest and most likely the same date (3 Nov). A google translation of that testimony is here...

http://translate.google.com/transla...ri-Tacconi-Latella-Sisani-Buratti.pdf&act=url

I think this is a big leap, Rose. If Patrick's bar were one of just two places they bugged on the 3rd November (the other being the police station) it's very hard to believe this wouldn't have surfaced before now and that the defence wouldn't have jumped on it. The wiretaps they started on the 3rd were most likely those of the people who were outside the cottage after Meredith's body had been found (another officer mentions getting the phone numbers of all the people present there).

I also don't see the logic in saying "They certainly wouldn't bother bugging his bar after he was arrested". My guess is that this is exactly what they did - that they bugged it at the same time they searched it. They had no idea how the investigation was going to play out, after all.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think this is a big leap, Rose. If Patrick's bar were one of just two places they bugged on the 3rd November (the other being the police station) it's very hard to believe this wouldn't have surfaced before now and that the defence wouldn't have jumped on it. The wiretaps they started on the 3rd were most likely those of the people who were outside the cottage after Meredith's body had been found (another officer mentions getting the phone numbers of all the people present there).

I also don't see the logic in saying "They certainly wouldn't bother bugging his bar after he was arrested". My guess is that this is exactly what they did - that they bugged it at the same time they searched it. They had no idea how the investigation was going to play out, after all.

They closed his bar when he was arrested, why would they bug a closed bar?

 

[Dan O.]

You know Desertfox, I was flabbergasted by this post today by The Machine, and I can only post this because I read all threads. Many here have dissociated, but I am relatively new, one calendar year, so still assimilating the madness. My apologies in advance to those who deplore the transportation of bizarre crime theories, but if it is trench warfare, it is not sensible to deny the existence of the opposing army.

Courtesy of The Machine.
Here goes.
Here is the unedited version of Mignini's timeline. Please be warned that there is some extremely graphic content below:

Why does the machine get credited? The prosecutions timeline had been presented here before the machine was born.


Of course, that timeline ignores completely the autopsy evidence for time of death. Is there any history of Meredith being bulimic? Did Meredith stick a finger down her throat to vomit out the home cooked pizza meal prepaired by her English friends and then binge on leftover pizza when she got back to the cottage?

The prosecutions timeline also leaves out Meredith lying on her bed fiddling with the buttons on her cell phone at 22:00 where two aborted calls are initiated and the quick trip out of the cottage so the phone will be in position to receive the incomming Internet message at 22:13 from the distant cell tower.

 

[RoseMontague]

For that matter, why would they bug Patrick's phone after they already had it in their possession?

 

[Samson]

Why does the machine get credited? The prosecutions timeline had been presented here before the machine was born.


Of course, that timeline ignores completely the autopsy evidence for time of death. Is there any history of Meredith being bulimic? Did Meredith stick a finger down her throat to vomit out the home cooked pizza meal prepaired by her English friends and then binge on leftover pizza when she got back to the cottage?

The prosecutions timeline also leaves out Meredith lying on her bed fiddling with the buttons on her cell phone at 22:00 where two aborted calls are initiated and the quick trip out of the cottage so the phone will be in position to receive the incomming Internet message at 22:13 from the distant cell tower.

He is a player, most aggressive. Ignore him like Hitler because he is obviously wrong? No. He is the most aggressive and assiduous promoter of lies I have seen in my lifetime. Has he attributed comfort to Mignini and Nencini, no. But has Quennell. Has Ganong. Are they in a detached orbit. God knows.

 

[katy_did]

They closed his bar when he was arrested, why would they bug a closed bar?

Even assuming the officers who searched it were the same ones who sealed it off, how did they know how long it would be closed for? Or whether Patrick might be released pending charges or pending trial; or whether his wife or friends might be allowed to enter the bar, despite it being closed to the public? My guess is they would have bugged it as a matter of course, and they had every opportunity to do so as they searched it.

For that matter, why would they bug Patrick's phone after they already had it in their possession?

Why would they bug Rudy's phone when he didn't even have one? As I recall, they don't specify that in either case it was their cell phones which were bugged (and again, if Patrick were released pending trial he would probably have had access to his cell phone then anyway).

 

[Desert Fox]

I was reading something. They had the space to store the "Knife" is a box, reads like it had some volume to the box?
Yet, they don't have the space to properly dry a bra clasp?

 

[christianahannah]

I think this is a big leap, Rose. If Patrick's bar were one of just two places they bugged on the 3rd November (the other being the police station) it's very hard to believe this wouldn't have surfaced before now and that the defence wouldn't have jumped on it. The wiretaps they started on the 3rd were most likely those of the people who were outside the cottage after Meredith's body had been found (another officer mentions getting the phone numbers of all the people present there).

I also don't see the logic in saying "They certainly wouldn't bother bugging his bar after he was arrested". My guess is that this is exactly what they did - that they bugged it at the same time they searched it. They had no idea how the investigation was going to play out, after all.

They closed his bar when he was arrested, why would they bug a closed bar?

For that matter, why would they bug Patrick's phone after they already had it in their possession?

Even assuming the officers who searched it were the same ones who sealed it off, how did they know how long it would be closed for? Or whether Patrick might be released pending charges or pending trial; or whether his wife or friends might be allowed to enter the bar, despite it being closed to the public? My guess is they would have bugged it as a matter of course, and they had every opportunity to do so as they searched it.



Why would they bug Rudy's phone when he didn't even have one? As I recall, they don't specify that in either case it was their cell phones which were bugged (and again, if Patrick were released pending trial he would probably have had access to his cell phone then anyway).

Interesting discussion. Do either of you have the link to the original transcript (not google translated) and the pages of this transcript that talks about the bugging of the phones and Patrick's bar?

 

[Samson]

Do we have a timeline of what we do know?

Caper, I am the least authority. What intrigues me is that there was a crime opportunity from 8 40 till 11 40 in 2009. This has been compressed to 9 26 to10 30 now, but the phone activity at 10 and 10 13 is impossible to place in an exciting slaughter scenario. The intriguing question to me is will Nencini accept the 9 26 computer evidence and the Crini TOD of about 10, or will he certify Massei, or will he never get around to writing the motivation? I wish Ladbrokes were running a book.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Hopefully a non-controversial question. In the context of the extradition process, would the US Department of Justice act on Italy’s behalf or Amanda’s?

 

[christianahannah]

Why does the machine get credited? The prosecutions timeline had been presented here before the machine was born.

~snip~

That timeline is interesting. I don't remember reading of a cell phone record for Amanda at 6 p.m. on November 1 (away from Raffaele's flat).

I wonder how accurate this timeline is with the actual prosecution closing arguments? I have not seen a transcript of the prosecution closing arguments anywhere. Do you have a copy of those?

 

[RoseMontague]

Interesting discussion. Do either of you have the link to the original transcript (not google translated) and the pages of this transcript that talks about the bugging of the phones and Patrick's bar?

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-conten...anti-Cieri-Tacconi-Latella-Sisani-Buratti.pdf

 

[RoseMontague]

Even assuming the officers who searched it were the same ones who sealed it off, how did they know how long it would be closed for? Or whether Patrick might be released pending charges or pending trial; or whether his wife or friends might be allowed to enter the bar, despite it being closed to the public? My guess is they would have bugged it as a matter of course, and they had every opportunity to do so as they searched it.

Why would they bug Rudy's phone when he didn't even have one? As I recall, they don't specify that in either case it was their cell phones which were bugged (and again, if Patrick were released pending trial he would probably have had access to his cell phone then anyway).

I wish we had the dates to go along with the names. Which is the bigger leap? I would agree there is some doubt either way.

 

[platonov]

Oh dear. More incomprehension I see......

I hadn't realised that you wouldn't be able to understand my post. I was addressing the following issue: you were suggesting that a desire to see a bad outcome for a person who was black (while at the same time desiring a good outcome for people who were white) was somehow inherently indicative of a racist mindset.

So I gave another example, using the hypothetical of someone desiring a bad outcome for a white person, to show just how logically flawed your "argument" was. In other words, someone desiring a bad outcome for Charles Manson - a white man - cannot by any logical reasoning be considered an anti-white racist based on that datum point alone.

Does it make a little more sense to you now (possibly not, but I gave it a shot at making it simpler, so that's perhaps the best I can do)?

No I understood your post – your analogies (and arguments ) are not overly complicated
The point is that they are seldom applicable & certainly not in this case as as my description of the issue makes clear.

Do you really want to revisit the 'lets put the incarcerated black guy on trial again' issue - your response to Cassation overturning the H/Z acquittal of the white kids.

It went on for several pages last time - I thought it was finished when you opposed stiffer sentences for convicted killers in Italy (unless you could personally rewrite the Italian penal code w.r.t 2 particular white convicts)

Better to let sleeping dogs lie. No

Now to more important matters.....

So have another go if you wish[It may be wise to read the original exchange lest you think my summation is incorrect]

I will let you know should you find an apposite analogy.

Not that one is required – my summation covers the essentials in a succinct manner, as is my wont.

ps Before trying again be aware that you may be called 'an ignorant ****' by Grinder for trying to defend your argument. Apparently the spirit of departed Withnail [he of the long ignore list in his sig] lives on.

Actually on this point - if the ever spinning cartwheel of innocence/global conspiracy argument is too tender to be subject to the occasional examination would it not be wiser to decamp to IIP or similar en masse.

 

[platonov]

Understatement & the oval office.

A kind of left field question about the DNA experts that appeared in the BBC 3 TV programme (Balding) and BBC radio 4 programme (Gill); did either of them actually examine anything from the crime scene, it wasn’t clear from either programme?

It’s just that I think it has been mentioned once or twice about the lack of EDF’s being released.

At least 4 times IIRC – apparently Obama was appraised of the possible situation.

We await his response.

 

[anglolawyer]

Interesting discussion. Do either of you have the link to the original transcript (not google translated) and the pages of this transcript that talks about the bugging of the phones and Patrick's bar?

It's on AmandaKnox.com 20th March 2009 hearing. P.207 IIRC.

Look under Merdith Kercher Murder for the transcripts. Stefano Buratti is the witness. He is being examined by reference to one of more documents, being lists of wire taps and such.

We need that/those document(s)!​