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

[Charlie Wilkes]

Dan O. On the lamp quote..Filomena's testimony, human translation..(roteoctober)



Interesting she didn't see it when the door was busted open or hear any of them mention it.

The lamp was pushed behind the door, and the dead body was what everyone noticed.

This lamp is dangerous and unusual. It sucks light out of the room instead of shedding light. It kills brain cells.

 

[anglolawyer]

The lamp was pushed behind the door, and the dead body was what everyone noticed.

This lamp is dangerous and unusual. It sucks light out of the room instead of shedding light. It kills brain cells.

No, it was not and it does not kill any cells. It is all here.

Funny how you and Dan cling to this idea the lamp was already in the room. It has a grip on you like it does the guilters. Dan imagines the lamp was broken and fantasises about broken necks and you assert something for which there is not a shred of evidence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No, it was not and it does not kill any cells. It is all here.

Funny how you and Dan cling to this idea the lamp was already in the room. It has a grip on you like it does the guilters. Dan imagines the lamp was broken and fantasises about broken necks and you assert something for which there is not a shred of evidence.

You're right. There's not a shred of evidence. Your theory could be right, but there is no real evidence either way, and it doesn't matter in the slightest in terms of the crime or the guilt/innocence of anyone.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O. On the lamp quote..Filomena's testimony, human translation..(roteoctober)

Q - Do you remember if in the course of the investigation you were shown a lamp for identification?
A - I did not understand
Q - The police did show to you a lamp to identify?
A - It seems to me the asked me about a lamp, they asked me about this lamp with a red button, (they asked me) where I could place it, I said I saw it (i.e. remember it ) in AManda's room, I don't remember if they showed it to me, I remember about the day they asked me about the lamps, how was the lamp in Amanda's room and I said that the lamp in Amanda's room had a red button to turn it on and off.
Q - Amanda's one?
A - Yes
Q - Hence in Meredith's room there was just one lamp?A - Yes, the one she kept near the bed
Q - Near the bed.
A - Not on the night table, on the floor.
Q - Ok, on the floor. So you don't remember if you have been shown those lamps for identification.
A - No

Interesting she didn't see it when the door was busted open or hear any of them mention it.

This would be the prosecution's redirect. I can tell from the style of using leading questions to direct the answers he wants. The section I posted was from the defense cross. Filomena seemed confused which is understandable because when she pictures the lamp on Meredith's desk she pictures the one with the red button which she knows belongs in Amanda's room. It's also likely that she has seen Meredith's lamp on the desk since Meredith has this lamp on an extension cord allowing it to move to where it is needed.

It seems that Meredith did keep here lamp on the floor next to the bed. This is a bit strange and all I can think of is either she uses it as a night light or it's a habit because she used to have cats.
(or somebody showed her the crime scene photos and further contaminated her memory).

 

[anglolawyer]

You're right. There's not a shred of evidence. Your theory could be right, but there is no real evidence either way, and it doesn't matter in the slightest in terms of the crime or the guilt/innocence of anyone.

This is not correct either, with (great) respect. The lamp may have influenced the Massei court, which was shown A or R bringing it into the room. Michael at PMF refuted my argument by asserting it was IN the room (block capitals his). People believe this. It's more damaging than the laughable bank deposit because it actually featured in the trial.

Mignini and I understand the point even if nobody else does. The photographs are not proof of anything more than the state of things when they were taken. If he wanted to prove the lamp was IN the room he needed to do more than show some pictures. And it would have been easy to do so, even weeks or months later. Ergo, he couldn't and beyond that, it proves he is a dirty liar. That is what the lamp really means. It's a point which should feature in the ECHR appeal as a detail in the larger argument on the unfairness of the court seeing the cartoon at all. Please tell her.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is not correct either, with (great) respect. The lamp may have influenced the Massei court, which was shown A or R bringing it into the room. Michael at PMF refuted my argument by asserting it was IN the room (block capitals his). People believe this. It's more damaging than the laughable bank deposit because it actually featured in the trial.

Mignini and I understand the point even if nobody else does. The
photographs are not proof of anything more than the state of things when they were taken. If he wanted to prove the lamp was IN the room he needed to do more than show some pictures. And it would have been easy to do so, even weeks or months later. Ergo, he couldn't and beyond that, it proves he is a dirty liar. That is what the lamp really means. It's a point which should feature in the ECHR appeal as a detail in the larger argument on the unfairness of the court seeing the cartoon at all. Please tell her.

Operating from the theory that what Massei writes in his motivations report is the same as what, 90 days earlier, caused his court to wrongfully convict AK and RS....

... the issue of the lamp, played no role in Massei's ultimate reasoning.

As for the black lamp discovered in Meredith’s room, (Amanda) couldn’t give an explanation. She remembered that she had an identical lamp, but she didn’t know if it was still there, since she didn’t pay attention to it. She had heard that the guys downstairs had wanted to ‚celebrate Halloween in some way-- but I didn’t understand, I didn’t know where they were going and how long they would be away‛ (page 65). On the morning of November 2, she nevertheless went to see if they were there because she didn’t know if they were there or not. As for Meredith, she stated that on the morning of November 2 she was worried; she had thought that
she might be in her room and have injured herself-- in her house, there were some very strange things, it’s possible she wasn’t even at home. She didn’t know what to think, but she was worried and wanted to break down the door. She denied that she wanted to break down the door to get her lamp back. Anyway, they (ie. RS and AK) did not even know that the lamp was missing from her room.

She recalled that on the morning of November 2 she had taken a shower and had used the sink; she had not used the bidet. She cleaned her ears using a cotton swab. She didn’t remember having turned on the bathroom light. As for her own room, she hadn’t taken note of the missing table lamp. The main light didn’t work. In order to get dressed she didn’t need to turn on the light because it was late morning and natural light came in from the front balcony to her room.

(Napoleoni) specified that during the search she touched various objects with the same gloves without stopping to change gloves each time an individual object was touched. She insisted on having searched Meredith’s room: that she was in the corridor and left without going into any other rooms, adding that "every time we entered and left the house we changed shoe covers and gloves" (page 261). She recalled that when she entered Meredith’s room "there was a black lamp that had fallen behind the door. Then there was Meredith’s lamp, which was by the bedside; it was on the floor between her bedside table and bed"

This is the sum total of Massei talking about the lamp. I was about to say that Massei found it as factual that the lamp plays no role in his reasoning, even though Massei tried to sex-it-up at trial during Amanda's cross examination....

.... but I tried that with psychopathology. It appears that just because Massei writes over 400+ pages on soup to nuts, just because he writes that something is normal (their psychology) or irrelevant (the lamp), guilter posters here will make a big deal about why one shouldn't assume that about Massei.

 

[Dan O.]

No, it was not and it does not kill any cells. It is all here.

Funny how you and Dan cling to this idea the lamp was already in the room. It has a grip on you like it does the guilters. Dan imagines the lamp was broken and fantasises about broken necks and you assert something for which there is not a shred of evidence.

I agree with everything you say about how Mignini used the lamp. It is despicable. But Mignini would have done the same whether the lamp was there from before the crime or one of his boys brought the lamp in afterwards.

My goal is simply to search for the truth. It doesn't always have to do with innocence or guilt. My reconstruction from limited photos available early in the case showed that the neck of the lamp had significantly shifted between photos where there was no explanation other that the lamp moving slightly due to the door pushing on the base. This suggested to me that the neck was no longer mechanically intact. Since I showed the later photo from the 18th where the lamp is physically intact, an alternate explanation for the neck bending is now needed. It could be that one of the inspectors manipulated the lamp. Perhaps the one that placed it on the floor in the first place and he was checking that the lamp was still okay after being kicked around.

 

[anglolawyer]

I agree with everything you say about how Mignini used the lamp. It is despicable. But Mignini would have done the same whether the lamp was there from before the crime or one of his boys brought the lamp in afterwards.

My goal is simply to search for the truth. It doesn't always have to do with innocence or guilt. My reconstruction from limited photos available early in the case showed that the neck of the lamp had significantly shifted between photos where there was no explanation other that the lamp moving slightly due to the door pushing on the base. This suggested to me that the neck was no longer mechanically intact. Since I showed the later photo from the 18th where the lamp is physically intact, an alternate explanation for the neck bending is now needed. It could be that one of the inspectors manipulated the lamp. Perhaps the one that placed it on the floor in the first place and he was checking that the lamp was still okay after being kicked around.

Dan, your quest for the truth is why I love you.

 

[Grinder]

Operating from the theory that what Massei writes in his motivations report is the same as what, 90 days earlier, caused his court to wrongfully convict AK and RS....

... the issue of the lamp, played no role in Massei's ultimate reasoning.

This is the sum total of Massei talking about the lamp. I was about to say that Massei found it as factual that the lamp plays no role in his reasoning, even though Massei tried to sex-it-up at trial during Amanda's cross examination....

.... but I tried that with psychopathology. It appears that just because Massei writes over 400+ pages on soup to nuts, just because he writes that something is normal (their psychology) or irrelevant (the lamp), guilter posters here will make a big deal about why one shouldn't assume that about Massei.

Well at least you have a source

We don't know from the written motivations what moved the the various judges to think one way or the other. Just because he didn't write about the bloody bathroom as represented by the picture recently shown on CNN doesn't mean it didn't play a part in the verdict.

As I read Massei as quoted he was just recounting what Amanda had said about the lamp, oh and Raf too.

The other aspect that Anglo left out was the impact the lamp had on the investigation. The bank statement may have also influenced the PLE if they too were told the deposit was trivial and the defense didn't explain it to them.

ETA - I was only referring to what Anglo said here.

 

[anglolawyer]

Operating from the theory that what Massei writes in his motivations report is the same as what, 90 days earlier, caused his court to wrongfully convict AK and RS....

... the issue of the lamp, played no role in Massei's ultimate reasoning.


This is the sum total of Massei talking about the lamp. I was about to say that Massei found it as factual that the lamp plays no role in his reasoning, even though Massei tried to sex-it-up at trial during Amanda's cross examination....

.... but I tried that with psychopathology. It appears that just because Massei writes over 400+ pages on soup to nuts, just because he writes that something is normal (their psychology) or irrelevant (the lamp), guilter posters here will make a big deal about why one shouldn't assume that about Massei.

How do you know what role the lamp played in Massei's reasoning? Putting it another way, how do you know the motivation states the whole of the reasoning, liminal and subliminal? Did the pink bathroom shot affect anything? It's not in the motivation, after all.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This is not correct either, with (great) respect. The lamp may have influenced the Massei court, which was shown A or R bringing it into the room. Michael at PMF refuted my argument by asserting it was IN the room (block capitals his). People believe this. It's more damaging than the laughable bank deposit because it actually featured in the trial.

Mignini and I understand the point even if nobody else does. The photographs are not proof of anything more than the state of things when they were taken. If he wanted to prove the lamp was IN the room he needed to do more than show some pictures. And it would have been easy to do so, even weeks or months later. Ergo, he couldn't and beyond that, it proves he is a dirty liar. That is what the lamp really means. It's a point which should feature in the ECHR appeal as a detail in the larger argument on the unfairness of the court seeing the cartoon at all. Please tell her.

I agree the prosecution and their Internet cult are making an issue out of it. Their working method is to assign an incriminating hypothesis to any unexplained fact, and insist it is the benchmark hypothesis that must be disproved.

One of the things the police found was Meredith's fingerprint on Amanda's closet door. How did it get there? Who knows. It could be anything. But if it had been the other way around - as it easily could have been - of course the prosecution would attach some wild incriminating claim and the guilters would insist it is the only believable explanation. We would be scrambling to defend against that claim.

I am through with that game, especially where there is no real proof either way. I sacrifice credibility if I insist on a claim that might be true, but I don't really know is true. Even worse, I allow idiots to define what is important in this case.

 

[anglolawyer]

I agree the prosecution and their Internet cult are making an issue out of it. Their working method is to assign an incriminating hypothesis to any unexplained fact, and insist it is the benchmark hypothesis that must be disproved.

One of the things the police found was Meredith's fingerprint on Amanda's closet door. How did it get there? Who knows. It could be anything. But if it had been the other way around - as it easily could have been - of course the prosecution would attach some wild incriminating claim and the guilters would insist it is the only believable explanation. We would be scrambling to defend against that claim.

I am through with that game, especially where there is no real proof either way. I sacrifice credibility if I insist on a claim that might be true, but I don't really know is true. Even worse, I allow idiots to define what is important in this case.

You can't afford to be through with anything, not if you occupy a position of influence over her or her advisers as you seem to do. You might be able to make a difference. I envy you. If you have that position then exasperation at the nonsense of it all is not allowed. Leave that to us. The lamp can be used as an item in the ECHR appeal and my article sets out the framework for the plea. The more items the better. One of them might swing it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well at least you have a source

We don't know from the written motivations what moved the the various judges to think one way or the other. Just because he didn't write about the bloody bathroom as represented by the picture recently shown on CNN doesn't mean it didn't play a part in the verdict.

As I read Massei as quoted he was just recounting what Amanda had said about the lamp, oh and Raf too.

The other aspect that Anglo left out was the impact the lamp had on the investigation. The bank statement may have also influenced the PLE if they too were told the deposit was trivial and the defense didn't explain it to them.

ETA - I was only referring to what Anglo said here.

Yes, there's a source, but it's not as if quoting it did a lot of good!!!!! Both you and AngloLawyer are trying to say it's not saying what it says, or that there's something else in play.

Why quote sources, then?

Masse wrote 400+ pages about everything from soup to nuts. People are trying to make hay out of the lamp, Mignini brings it up during Amanda's cross examination not so much because he's got any evidence, but just to do what all "asserters" do...

.... they get it on the record as something asserted. After a while, the assertion is remembered as if it had substance.

Witness the assertions, and "I believes" here on JREF.

Long and the short of it is - speculate all you want. Massei said all he wanted to say about the lamp, quoting mainly Amanda's testimony. He also recounts what Napoleoni said. He quotes it in a section which seems to be Massei, himself, casting doubt on Napoleoni's forensic cleanliness....

But why quote sources... it still means the absolute opposite in the minds of many.

Shall I bring up Machiavelli's many assertions?

 

[Desert Fox]

Next thing you know, there will be some spot of the ceiling pointed to as an argument for Amanda and Rafffaele's guilt.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, there's a source, but it's not as if quoting it did a lot of good!!!!! Both you and AngloLawyer are trying to say it's not saying what it says, or that there's something else in play.

Why quote sources, then?

Masse wrote 400+ pages about everything from soup to nuts. People are trying to make hay out of the lamp, Mignini brings it up during Amanda's cross examination not so much because he's got any evidence, but just to do what all "asserters" do...

.... they get it on the record as something asserted. After a while, the assertion is remembered as if it had substance.

Witness the assertions, and "I believes" here on JREF.

Long and the short of it is - speculate all you want. Massei said all he wanted to say about the lamp, quoting mainly Amanda's testimony. He also recounts what Napoleoni said. He quotes it in a section which seems to be Massei, himself, casting doubt on Napoleoni's forensic cleanliness....

But why quote sources... it still means the absolute opposite in the minds of many.

Shall I bring up Machiavelli's many assertions?

Does Massei mention the cartoon? You know, the cartoon the world is not allowed to see. The popular judges saw it. Why doesn't the motivation say: we were shown a crap film but we completely disregarded it? Who knows what effect it had? Do you?

 

[Bill Williams]

How do you know what role the lamp played in Massei's reasoning? Putting it another way, how do you know the motivation states the whole of the reasoning, liminal and subliminal? Did the pink bathroom shot affect anything? It's not in the motivation, after all.

Well, did Massei believe in psychopathology? Acc. to Machiavelli he didn't necessarily rule it out, and therefore didn't need to say anything other than how bloody normal the kids were.....

... yet, Machiavelli can 5 years after that trial still claim that Massei means the opposite of what he wrote at motivations.... or maybe perhaps Machiavelli is simply a grammar Nazi, going for the double-negative, that Massei didn't rule out psychopathology just because he said they were basically normal kids, "caught up in a choice for evil" because of soft drugs.

This dietrology is catching... I just may wear a mask and use disinfectant on my hands like at a hospital when coming to JREF. Things don't mean what they mean and the double negative cannot be ruled out if something is expressed in the positive.

Which, by the way, is not to say that I don't disagree with your assessment that the pink bathroom shot didn't necessarily influence Massei's thinking even if he failed to omit a non-mention of it in the motivations report.

How'd I do?

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, did Massei believe in psychopathology? Acc. to Machiavelli he didn't necessarily rule it out, and therefore didn't need to say anything other than how bloody normal the kids were.....

... yet, Machiavelli can 5 years after that trial still claim that Massei means the opposite of what he wrote at motivations.... or maybe perhaps Machiavelli is simply a grammar Nazi, going for the double-negative, that Massei didn't rule out psychopathology just because he said they were basically normal kids, "caught up in a choice for evil" because of soft drugs.

This dietrology is catching... I just may wear a mask and use disinfectant on my hands like at a hospital when coming to JREF. Things don't mean what they mean and the double negative cannot be ruled out if something is expressed in the positive.

Which, by the way, is not to say that I don't disagree with your assessment that the pink bathroom shot didn't necessarily influence Massei's thinking even if he failed to omit a non-mention of it in the motivations report.

How'd I do?

Badly. Please stop using that word.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does Massei mention the cartoon? You know, the cartoon the world is not allowed to see. The popular judges saw it. Why doesn't the motivation say: we were shown a crap film but we completely disregarded it? Who knows what effect it had? Do you?

You're right. I failed to omit not mentioning it. And it must have had an effect because Massei failed to omit not mentioning it.....

Oh never mind.

 

[Bill Williams]

Badly. Please stop using that word.

I will when guilters stop making up all sorts of diagnoses about Amanda, her family, you and me.

 

[Kaosium]

One of the "insiders" here should alert the defense team and get a youtube out asap showing the bathroom shot from CNN and the real picture demonstrating how this case has been misrepresented from the beginning.
This CNN show is a great opportunity for Amanda's case. It out there now after all this time and is easily proved to be completely misleading.

Make the video on this and maybe one or two other evidence based mistakes the media has perpetuated and use Marriott to contact all media about this.

I'm sure Fox, MSNBC, as well as the big three would love to bash CNN.

Time is of the essence.

A Youtube was created for this issue long ago.


One wonders how anyone at CNN could have made that mistake, even the most ferocious bunnies have been running away like scalded vermin from that Daily Mail article and pic for years now.

Can anyone think of a recent article or PMF/TMJK/False Wiki post where this mistake was made? It would be nice to know who the CNN guys were cribbing from for their 'guilt perspective' news or if they just came across the Daily Mail article by googling and made the error on their own. Even that would be unlikely as the archived Daily Mail article doesn't include the picture anymore which is why I linked the wayback machine version above.