Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

......

She should have had a lawyer way before then. Further, she should have had one when she signed the statement, which is why the Court of Cassation threw it out for the murder and rape charges (although, because of Italy's unfair dual civil and criminal trial system, it was allowed in anyway for the calunnia charge), and why the ECHR threw it out for the calunnia charge.


....

SpitfireIX, the reason that Knox's 5 - 6 November interrogation statements were allowed for the calunnia trial was NOT because of the civil trial for calunnia taking place at the same time (essentially) and before the same panel of judges (professional and popular). I point this out because prior to 2019 I thought this might be true myself - the Italian judicial system being different in many ways from that of the US.

What I found out in 2019 was that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) had ruled in a case prior to Knox's that a statement made by a person questioned or interrogated without a lawyer, while unusable against that person in court as evidence of another crime, is indeed usable against that person if the statement itself is a crime. I found this out because that is what the Italian government told the ECHR, as described in the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, paragraph 142. This is the statement of the Italian government as presented by the ECHR; Google Translation; I've added the 3 words of text in square brackets:

142. The Government observed that the statements made by the applicant on 6 November 2007 in the absence of legal counsel had been declared unusable in relation to the offences under investigation, namely the murder of M.K. and the sexual violence committed against him. They [the Italian Government] explained, however, that according to the settled case-law of the Court of Cassation (judgments nos. 10089 of 2005, 26460 of 2010 and 33583 of 2015), spontaneous statements made by a person under investigation in the absence of legal counsel could in any event be used where, as in the present case, they constituted an offence in themselves. In their view, this was compounded by the fact that the applicant had had the assistance of a lawyer from the moment the first indications of her responsibility for the murder of M.K. appeared.

The ECHR did not accept the reasoning of the Italian Government. Indeed, the fact that the use of Knox's statements were due to a general case law provision weighed against that use in terms of ECHR case law, as explained in paragraphs 152 - 157 of the ECHR judgment (Google Translation; short texts in square brackets are mine):

153. The Court [ECHR] notes that, although the domestic courts concluded that the impugned statements could not be used against the applicant for the offences of murder and sexual assault, as the Government indicated, in accordance with domestic case-law (see paragraph 142 above), those same statements could have been used, in the absence of counsel, insofar as they themselves constituted a criminal offence.

154. It [the ECHR] further reiterates that restrictions on access to a lawyer for compelling reasons are permitted during the pre-trial phase only in exceptional cases, and that they must be temporary in nature and based on an individual assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case (see Beuze, cited above, § 142).

155. In the present case, however, the Government refers to a case-law interpretation permitting the use of spontaneous statements made by a person subject to investigation in the absence of legal counsel when they constitute an offense in themselves.

156. Even if this argument were to be interpreted as a "compelling reason" within the meaning of its case-law, the Court notes, however, that the case-law interpretation relied on has general application. Moreover, the Government have not established the existence of exceptional circumstances that could have justified the restrictions imposed on the applicant's rights. It is not for the Court to seek them on its own initiative (Simeonovi, cited above, § 130).

157. The Court therefore finds no compelling reason that could justify the above-mentioned restrictions in the present case.

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

 

[Myriad]

Does Mignini actually believe in witchcraft, or does he just believe that people who believe in (or pretend to believe in) witchcraft and Satanism periodically commit brutal, ritualistic murders? If the latter, that does happen occasionally, but far less frequently than someone who mainly gets information from tabloids, movies, and social media might imagine.

I don't think that distinction makes any difference at any level. Whether Filet believed AK and RS believed or he believed AK and RS only acted as if they believed, or whether he only acted as if he believed that they believed, or he only acted as if he believed that they only acted as if they believed... it's still Filet positing acts of witchcraft as the motivation for the crime. There was never any evidence of any such motivation.

 

[Numbers]

SpitfireIX, the reason that Knox's 5 - 6 November interrogation statements were allowed for the calunnia trial was NOT because of the civil trial for calunnia taking place at the same time (essentially) and before the same panel of judges (professional and popular). I point this out because prior to 2019 I thought this might be true myself - the Italian judicial system being different in many ways from that of the US.

What I found out in 2019 was that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) had ruled in a case prior to Knox's that a statement made by a person questioned or interrogated without a lawyer, while unusable against that person in court as evidence of another crime, is indeed usable against that person if the statement itself is a crime. I found this out because that is what the Italian government told the ECHR, as described in the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, paragraph 142. This is the statement of the Italian government as presented by the ECHR; Google Translation; I've added the 3 words of text in square brackets:



The ECHR did not accept the reasoning of the Italian Government. Indeed, the fact that the use of Knox's statements were due to a general case law provision weighed against that use in terms of ECHR case law, as explained in paragraphs 152 - 157 of the ECHR judgment (Google Translation; short texts in square brackets are mine):




Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

I should add that this seems unusual - a court rather than a parliament decides that something the Italian parliament apparently generally prohibited (made inadmissable, in accordance with ECHR case law) as evidence of a crime becomes admissable in a specific circumstance solely because of a judgment by 5 judges in a CSC panel. Perhaps a judge will some day refer the issue to the Italian Constitutional Court, or the Italian parliament will clarify if that is its intent: to enact a law contrary to ECHR case law.

 

[Numbers]

I should add that this seems unusual - a court rather than a parliament decides that something the Italian parliament apparently generally prohibited (made inadmissable, in accordance with ECHR case law) as evidence of a crime becomes admissable in a specific circumstance solely because of a judgment by 5 judges in a CSC anel. Perhaps a judge will some day refer the issue to the Italian Constitutional Court, or the Italian parliament will clarify if that is its intent: to enact a law contrary to ECHR case law.

I have found some relevant information on the Brocardi law firm website CPP pages*. The point is that those lawyers recognize that the protection against self-incrimination does not extend to calunnia under their understanding of current Italian law. Here is their explanatory essay on CPP Article 63 (Google Translation; text in square brackets is 1. a translation of a Latin legal phrase and 2. my help in completing a sentence; the bold and italics are my emphasis; I don't translate calunnia because it is here an Italian legal term for malicious false accusation directed to an Italian judicial authority, not its ordinary English equivalent "calumny" or "slander"):

Articles 62 to 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure all concern statements made by individuals of various kinds in criminal proceedings, and all aim to ensure correct relations with the prosecuting authority, from the beginning of the investigations.

Following the principle nemo tenetur edere contra se [no one may be compelled to testify against himself], the rule in question regulates the protection of self-incriminating statements, an expression of the freedom of the defense strategy to be adopted.

The scope of the principle is rather broad, being able to include both statements made before the judge, to complete the rule according to which no one can be called to testify on facts from which their own responsibility could emerge (art. 198, paragraph 2), and statements made to the public prosecutor for the information he has gathered, and, above all, in reference to the summary information acquired by the judicial police pursuant to art. 351.

In any case, in the above cases, if the statements reveal evidence of guilt, the judicial authority must interrupt the examination and inform the declarant that from that moment investigations may be carried out against him, inviting him to appoint a lawyer.

The protection offered by the article would not be complete without the principle according to which the previous statements cannot be used (except obviously to direct the investigations). The rule, established to protect the freedom of self-determination, obviously does not refer to the guilt inherent in the statements themselves (e.g. calunnia, false information, etc.), which are perfectly usable.

The inadmissibility extends to anyone, whether an accused or under investigation. Let him be heard from the beginning without the judicial authority demonstrating the capacity [to use the information against him against his will].

Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-primo/titolo-iv/art63.html

* I've been able to access the website again; for some time, some kind of registration was required that I couldn't understand.

 

[Vixen]

There's more to be learned from Knox having been charged with calunnia against the police and Mignini.

We should recall (it's been posted here previously) that Knox was charged with continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini, not "merely" calunnia.

What does the phrase continuing aggravated calunnia mean generally and in this case?

1. Knox had complained - contrary to the repetitive falsehoods of guilters - to the authorities, officially complaining of mistreatment and procedural violations by the police, interpreter, and prosecutor during her 5 - 6 interrogation. She had done this most prominently, in a way that led Mignini to take legal criminal action - possibly because the complaint was made in public and the complaint would be in the public court transcript - during her testimony before the Massei court. Mignini's first legal criminal action was to file a charge against Knox of aggravated calunnia against the police.

The term "aggravated" here refers to one of several "aggravating factors" that can be applied to some crimes under Italian criminal law. In this case, the aggravating factor was the allegation by the prosecutor that the intent of Knox's (alleged) calunnia against the police was to cover up her own alleged crime of aggravated calunnia against Lumumba. For the latter allegation, the prosecutor had alleged that not had Knox knowingly falsely accused Lumumba during the interrogation, but that she had done that to cover up her (alleged) knowledge that Guede had committed the crime of the murder/rape of Kercher, which the prosecutor further alleged that she and Sollecito had participated in.

2. Because there was a realization on the part of the Italian judiciary (as called to their attention by the defense) that Mignini's charging of Knox with calunnia against the police involved a conflict of interest - Mignini was proposing to conduct a case against Knox involving claims against police that he had supervised in his role as prosecutor of the Kercher murder/rape case - the case was transferred from the Perugia judicial district to the Florence judicial district. With that transfer, a Florence judicial district prosecutor took over the case, and the case was expanded to be aggravated calunnia and the police and Mignini.

3. Knox and Sollecito were provisionally convicted on the murder/rape charges and Knox was provisionally convicted of the aggravated calunnia against Lumumba charge by the Massei court. Knox and Sollecito appealed on the murder/rape charges, and Knox appealed on the aggravated calunnia against Lumumba charge. In Knox's appeals, she repeated her allegations against the conduct of the police, interpeter, and Mignini during the 5 - 6 November interrogations.

4. Because Knox (with the help of her lawyers) had repeated her allegations against the police, the interpeter, and Mignini in her appeal documents, the Florence prosecutor incremented the charge against Knox to continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini. Each subsequent appeal by Knox which included her allegation of mistreatment or misconduct by the police, interpreter, and Mignini led to another incremental incident charge of the "continuing" aggravating factor, until she was finally acquitted of the calunnia against the police and Mignini charges by the Boninsegna court.

5. The Boninsegna court acquitted Knox of continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini. The acquittal, under CPP Article 530 paragraph 2, was because there was no information in the record, nor in any independent credible testimony before the court, that could refute Knox's claims of mistreatment and misconduct by the police. The circumstances of the interrogation, the court found, could have led Knox to sincerely believe that her rights were being violated; thus, she could not be said to have "known" that the police were innocent of mistreatment or misconduct. For Mignini, the court stated that any responsibility could not be assigned to him merely because he was the supervisor of the police. Thus, the elements of the crime of calunnia were not present in the case. Neither Knox nor the Florence prosecutor (nor the civil parties, including the Perugia police and Mignini) appealed the Boninsegna court acquittal, and thus it became a final acquittal.

Yes, you could look at it from the viewpoint of the parents: draconian slapping down of expressing rage at the police for arresting our sweet little daughter, translates as seeing the prosecutor in the same way someone getting a parking ticket might rage at a traffic warden. From the cops POV, the suspect claiming he was beaten up and tortured is using a strategy to win public opinion and to sway the courts. It wouldn't surprise me if AK was persuaded to play up the 'I was shouted at and cuffed all night long' element and if this is a lie (and it does seem to be the case the interview was terminated within 90mins and did not go on all night, as claimed, and no formal complaint was lodged by her counsel or the US Embassy who had a chap visiting her). Lies have legs so now AK has to bring out books and interviews keeping up the story of how she was the victim of Italian police and prosecutors. But the public prosecutors and police don't make the laws. The calunnia laws are draconian in Italy because politicians were eager to stamp out Mafia corruption - which included attempting to pervert or obstruct justice, and indeed judges were even assassinated - so whilst AK and her family and 'friends' perceive Mignini as going after them with the Calunnia and the Aggravated Calunnia charges, he didn't have the remit to NOT prosecute. What people don't understand is that he was constitutionally obliged to apply the law as handed down by the government, he was not in a position to pick and choose who got charged, although that might be the perception of those slapped with the charges, or the parking ticket by that horrid officious traffic warden.

From the cops POV, they would have seen it as a cynical PR ploy to try to evade justice. Mignini did see AK as highly manipulative. She in turn had many schemes up her sleeve to try to outfox justice.

And it looks like the pair did succeed in this. But are they happy?




.

 

[Vixen]

Do you notice how I quoted and cited my evidence whereas you repeatedly make claims that someone said or did something but fail to quote or cite it? Then when asked to do so, you ignore it. Could it possibly be because you can't? As for the claim above, once again it's false. Chiacchiera never claimed to have found "a pile of comics" that were "all horror and porn." This is what he said:


So, no. There were several comics and books that were NOT pornographic and only FOUR that were. Two of which Chiacchiera testified he could have opened . Sollecito says there were a collectors set from the 1960's given to him by his friend whom he names and that they were, indeed, sealed until Chiacchiera opened them. Collector comics are not opened from their sealed covers because it devalues them.

Additionally, this claim that the manga "murder" victim was in the same position as Meredith is often repeated by the PGP yet I've never once seen any evidence of this nor which comic specifically it was in. Unless you can quote and cite evidence of it, then I'll toss it into the garbage can along with the many other unsupported claims.



Duh...because Chiacchiera opened them.

"- but it could be, but it absolutely could be. It could be that I opened them even if they were wrapped in cellophane."


Exactly. Millions of these manga comics are sold around the world. Comics and many video games intended for adults/teenagers are often violent and have sexual content. That doesn't mean their readers are inclined to violent acts themselves and especially not murder.


I think a better insight into RS's character is his history of non-violence (despite the discredited "scissors" lie you repeated), committing no crimes other than smoking weed and very brief narcotics experimentation when he was 17-18 years old, and friends who knew him. Nor has he committed any crimes since his release 14 years ago...unlike Rudy Guede.

That you keep trying to equate "extreme experiences" with murder is all you. 'Thrill seeking' is a common male trait. That's why teenagers and young men are known for doing dangerous and (often) stupid things.

Page 156 of your link:

PUBBLICO MINISTERO – c’è un gradino come questo? TESTE - un paio di gradini? Non ci giurerei, un paio di gradini, due, tre gradini, sfalsato. Abbiamo fatto la perquisizione, abbiamo acquisito varie cose, tra cui un coltello da cucina Ricordo ancora adesso che l’ispettore Finzi è venuto da me e mi ha detto: “dotto’, qui ci sono alcuni coltelli”, ma quello che ritengo… cioè quello che, insomma, come deduzione investigativa poteva apparire immediatamente come compatibile alla ferita era quello. Ho detto: “prendilo, sequestralo”, tra le altre cose che abbiamo sequestrato. Dopodiché, se posso continuare, mi hanno colpito particolarmente dei fumetti che abbiamo trovato all'interno della stanza da letto, non ricordo particolarmente dove, però trovati all’interno della stanza da letto. Sinceramente sti fumetti mi hanno colpito molto, perché insomma sono un po' lontani da una valutazione…. PRESIDENTE - Sì, si può dire che fumetti sono senza le valutazioni sugli stessi, stiamo ai dati oggettivi. TESTE - Molto bene. Sono fumetti che diciamo mescolano pornografia ad horror. Questo io non l'ho mai visti, per cui mi hanno immediatamente abbastanza impressionato. Poi dopo ho scoperto che si chiamano manga, non so che diffusione ci hanno però… PRESIDENTE – come si chiamano? TESTE – manga, mi sbaglio? Son fumetti giapponesi son fumetti strani. PRESIDENTE - Quanti erano? PUBBLICO MINISTERO - Sono già agli atti della Corte, comunque. TESTE - Non mi ricordo. PRESIDENTE – uno solo? TESTE – no, erano alcuni, alcuni, non una collezione ma alcuni. Li abbiamo acquisiti perché ci sembravano, come dire, strani. Varie altre cose, insomma non so quali, quali possono essere di interesse per la corte, insomma, però questi sono gli elementi che ritengo di dover riferire in questa sede. PUBBLICO MINISTERO - In quale momento della perquisizione, avete acquisito il coltello?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - Is there a step like this? WITNESS - A couple of steps? I wouldn't swear to it, a couple of steps, two, three steps, staggered. We searched, we acquired various things, including a kitchen knife. I still remember now that Inspector Finzi came to me and said: "Doctor, here are some knives", but what I believe... that is, what, in short, as an investigative deduction could immediately appear compatible with the wound was that one. I said: "take it, seize it", among other things that we seized. After that, if I may continue, I was particularly struck by some comics that we found inside the bedroom, I don't remember where in particular, but found inside the bedroom. Honestly, these comics struck me a lot, because in short they are a bit far from an evaluation... PRESIDENT - Yes, you can say that they are comics without the evaluations on them, let's stick to the objective data. WITNESS - Very good. They are comics that, let's say, mix pornography with horror. I've never seen these, so they immediately impressed me quite a bit. Then I discovered that they are called manga, I don't know how widespread they are though... PRESIDENT - What are they called? WITNESS - Manga, am I wrong? They are Japanese comics, they are strange comics. PRESIDENT - How many were there? PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - They are already in the Court's records, in any case. WITNESS - I don't remember. PRESIDENT - Just one? WITNESS - No, there were some, some, not a collection but some. We acquired them because they seemed, how shall I say, strange. Various other things, I don't know which ones, which ones might be of interest to the court, but these are the elements that I feel I should report here. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - At what point during the search did you acquire the knife?

 

[Vixen]

This was pretty much how Mez was found, from RS' manga comic titled, Blood the Last Vampire, chapter 2.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"Pretty much" apart from all the glaring differences, and the fact that you don't even know if he ever took that Japanese horror comic out of its wrapper.

I do not think that anyone claiming the murder was an attempt to recreate that tableau could make a serious case.

 

[Vixen]

"Pretty much" apart from all the glaring differences, and the fact that you don't even know if he ever took that Japanese horror comic out of its wrapper.

I do not think that anyone claiming the murder was an attempt to recerate that tableau could make a serious case.

It must have been an opened copy because Mignini offered it up as evidence.

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini claimed a "manga" magazine, featuring vampires and found in Mr Sollecito's house, inspired the murder.

Manga comics are often associated with science fiction and fantasy, commonly with violent or explicitly sexual content.

BBC NEWS | UK | Comic 'inspired' Kercher murder

news.bbc.co.uk

23 Oct 2008


It was a very sophisticated crime scene. Two suspects who believed themselves extremely clever and outside of normal social mores. It was halloween/all souls and they mentioned Mez still had vampire paint on her chin 'the last time' they claim they saw her, the same afternoon.




.

 

[Welshman]

Yes, you could look at it from the viewpoint of the parents: draconian slapping down of expressing rage at the police for arresting our sweet little daughter, translates as seeing the prosecutor in the same way someone getting a parking ticket might rage at a traffic warden. From the cops POV, the suspect claiming he was beaten up and tortured is using a strategy to win public opinion and to sway the courts. It wouldn't surprise me if AK was persuaded to play up the 'I was shouted at and cuffed all night long' element and if this is a lie (and it does seem to be the case the interview was terminated within 90mins and did not go on all night, as claimed, and no formal complaint was lodged by her counsel or the US Embassy who had a chap visiting her). Lies have legs so now AK has to bring out books and interviews keeping up the story of how she was the victim of Italian police and prosecutors. But the public prosecutors and police don't make the laws. The calunnia laws are draconian in Italy because politicians were eager to stamp out Mafia corruption - which included attempting to pervert or obstruct justice, and indeed judges were even assassinated - so whilst AK and her family and 'friends' perceive Mignini as going after them with the Calunnia and the Aggravated Calunnia charges, he didn't have the remit to NOT prosecute. What people don't understand is that he was constitutionally obliged to apply the law as handed down by the government, he was not in a position to pick and choose who got charged, although that might be the perception of those slapped with the charges, or the parking ticket by that horrid officious traffic warden.

From the cops POV, they would have seen it as a cynical PR ploy to try to evade justice. Mignini did see AK as highly manipulative. She in turn had many schemes up her sleeve to try to outfox justice.

And it looks like the pair did succeed in this. But are they happy?




.

Guilters being lapdogs and mouthpieces for the prosecution means they will go to any lengths to defend the prosecution's actions regardless of how vile their actions are. Saying it was acceptable to charge Amanda and her parents with Calunia for speaking out against abuses committed during the interrogation is an example of this. There were no lawyers present and the interrogation was not recorded and Amanda and her parents had no recordings to provide a definite account to prove or disprove what happened in the interrogation and to charge people with Calunia in these circumstances is an abuse of power. Vixen argues Mignini had a legal obligation to charge Amanda with Calunia but forget Mignini had a legal obligation to provide Amanda with a lawyer which was not done. Guilters cherry pick which laws Mignini should follow.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It must have been an opened copy because Mignini offered it up as evidence.


It was a very sophisticated crime scene.

So it had been opened by the time it was offered in evidence. The point stands that you don't know if it had been opened before the crime.

When you say 'sophisticated' do you mean a louche gang of vampires were found languidly sitting around the body, smirking at the uncovered corpse of their latest victim?

 

[Myriad]

This was pretty much how Mez was found, from RS' manga comic titled, Blood the Last Vampire, chapter 2.

View attachment 60903

What an uncanny resemblance to the Perugia crime scene! Well, except the actual crime scene had...

- Only one body on the floor
- Body partially clothed instead of naked
- Body covered by blanket instead of exposed
- Limbs not in the same position
- Wounds on body completely different
- No upholstered armchair or couches present
- Desk chair that is present is at desk, not turned to face body as in the comic scene
- Room too small for comic scene to have occurred
- No evidence of additional naked tied up gagged victims present
- Clothing, bedding, and device cords scattered around
- No actual vampires present

As I was saying, what an uncanny non-resemblance to the Perugia crime scene!

 

[Numbers]

Yes, you could look at it from the viewpoint of the parents: draconian slapping down of expressing rage at the police for arresting our sweet little daughter, translates as seeing the prosecutor in the same way someone getting a parking ticket might rage at a traffic warden. From the cops POV, the suspect claiming he was beaten up and tortured is using a strategy to win public opinion and to sway the courts. It wouldn't surprise me if AK was persuaded to play up the 'I was shouted at and cuffed all night long' element and if this is a lie (and it does seem to be the case the interview was terminated within 90mins and did not go on all night, as claimed, and no formal complaint was lodged by her counsel or the US Embassy who had a chap visiting her). Lies have legs so now AK has to bring out books and interviews keeping up the story of how she was the victim of Italian police and prosecutors. But the public prosecutors and police don't make the laws. The calunnia laws are draconian in Italy because politicians were eager to stamp out Mafia corruption - which included attempting to pervert or obstruct justice, and indeed judges were even assassinated - so whilst AK and her family and 'friends' perceive Mignini as going after them with the Calunnia and the Aggravated Calunnia charges, he didn't have the remit to NOT prosecute. What people don't understand is that he was constitutionally obliged to apply the law as handed down by the government, he was not in a position to pick and choose who got charged, although that might be the perception of those slapped with the charges, or the parking ticket by that horrid officious traffic warden.

From the cops POV, they would have seen it as a cynical PR ploy to try to evade justice. Mignini did see AK as highly manipulative. She in turn had many schemes up her sleeve to try to outfox justice.

And it looks like the pair did succeed in this. But are they happy?

Vixen, I have struggled to find any rational way to understand or respond to your post quoted above.

First of all, the calunnia and autocalunnia laws - and the Codice Penale (Italian Criminal Code - the list of crimes and their punishments) itself - date from 1930, when Italy was a kingdom but was controlled by a dictator, Benito Mussolini, who ran the country with the help of associates under an ideology they called fascism. This is the current title of the Codice Penale*:

Codice penale Testo del Regio Decreto 19 ottobre 1930, n. 1398​

Here's how the enactment date is shown by the CSC (Supreme Court of Cassation)**:

REGIO DECRETO 1 ottobre 1930, n. 1398​

Approvazione del testo definitivo del Codice Penale. (030U1398)​

note: Entrata in vigore del provvedimento: 1/7/1931.
Il Codice Penale in allegato al presente decreto è stato pubblicato nel vol. VI della Raccolta Ufficiale delle leggi e dei decreti del Regno d'Italia del 1930.

Second, in Italy, every complaint of a crime must be investigated. Amanda Knox complained of a crime in an Italian court and her several appeals but the Italian authorities chose not to investigate those credible complaints. That is why the ECHR found that Italy had violated Convention Article 3 in its procedural limb in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy. Italy, even after being made aware of this lapse by the ECHR judgment, has not conducted any investigation. Italy will remain in violation of international law until it redresses that violation of Convention Article 3 as well as the other violations found by the ECHR.

* Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/codici-altalex/2014/10/30/codice-penale

** Source: https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398

 

[Stacyhs]

Page 156 of your link:

Yes, I already read that quote and it does NOT support your claim that

You fail to mention that earlier he testified that he found the pile of comics in RS' bedroom which he found strange as they were all horror and porn.

There was no "PILE" of comics that were "ALL HORROR AND PORN". As I pointed out, they found FOUR at least TWO (or all four) of which were still in sealed cellophane in RS's closet meaning he had not seen them.

 

[Stacyhs]

This was pretty much how Mez was found, from RS' manga comic titled, Blood the Last Vampire, chapter 2.

View attachment 60903

Sheesh. You've got to be kidding. A naked, murdered rape victim on the floor with her legs spread. HOW UNUSUAL! To claim that Meredith was "lying in the same position as Mez surrounded by three slayers" is yet another mischaracterization. This is how Meredith was found:



Was Meredith completely naked? No.
Was Meredith left uncovered? No.
Did the comic 'victim' have her throat cut? No.
Were there victims other than Meredith? No.
Are there "three slayers"? No.
There are two slayers: the one in the chair and the one standing next to her. The other 4-5 are victims.

If they wanted to 'stage' the same scene, then Meredith's right knee would be bent up and her straight left arm and hand would be down by her side not bent at the elbow with her hand next to her head.

There is no evidence that RS ever saw that drawing. This is a classic example of interpreting the evidence to fit your bias.

ETA: Do you see a sheet under her body in that photo? So much for another one of your false claims you repeatedly failed to back up with any evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

It must have been an opened copy because Mignini offered it up as evidence.

Duh. The question is whether it was opened when the police found it or opened by them? See Chiacchierra's testimony already presented.

BBC NEWS | UK | Comic 'inspired' Kercher murder

news.bbc.co.uk

23 Oct 2008

That article only mentions Mignini's theory:

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini claimed a "manga" magazine, featuring vampires and found in Mr Sollecito's house, inspired the murder.

MIgnini claimed a lot of nonsense including it was a "satanic rite". So which is it? A " ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” on Halloween OR inspired by a manga vampire comic? OR was it jealousy, OR theft, OR a sex game gone wrong?

It was a very sophisticated crime scene. Two suspects who believed themselves extremely clever and outside of normal social mores.

I see you're indulging in yet more "mind reading".

It was halloween/all souls and they mentioned Mez still had vampire paint on her chin 'the last time' they claim they saw her, the same afternoon.

They reported what they saw. Unsurprisingly, for you, that is evidence of guilt.
Meredith stumbled home at dawn after a night of partying and likely fell into bed immediately.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, we're still waiting for you to provide evidence of your claim that Amelie was downloaded in late October and not the night of Nov. 1.

 

[Numbers]

Any reader interested in a very detailed explanation (in Italian) of the Italian crime of calunnia, including summaries of CSC jurisprudence on some cases, should take a look at this site from an Italian law firm:

Calunnia: che cos'è e quando si configura il reato previsto dall'art. 368 c.p.​

https://www.avvocatodelgiudice.com/articoli/calunnia-guida-completa-al-reato-previsto-dall-art-368-del-codice-penale

Here are two excerpts from the website (Google Translation; I've kept the Italian word "calunnia" for the name of the crime, since using "slander" instead is confusing because of the different meaning of that word in English):

In particular, the crime of calunnia punishes, alternatively, the following conduct:

accusing a person of a crime by means of a report, complaint, request or petition (direct or formal calunnia), with the clarification that the "concept of report" must be understood in a broad sense, therefore not limited to the formal report provided for by art. 331 c.p.p., but also including simple insinuation, anonymous report or under a false name, as expressly specified by art. 368 c.p.;

simulating traces of a crime against a person (indirect or material calunnia).

As previously stated, in order for the crime of calunnia to be constituted, pursuant to art. 368 of the Criminal Code, the agent's [person committing calunnia] conduct must consist of accusing a person of a crime or simulating the traces of a crime against him, through "a report, complaint, request or request, even if anonymous or under a false name, addressed to the judicial authority or to another authority that has an obligation to report to it", already knowing at that moment the innocence of the accused, or the extraneousness to the fact (which actually occurred) or the non-existence of the fact itself.

One point relevant to Knox's case: she could not have known that Lumumba was or was not innocent at the time she made the statements against him since she was at Sollecito's apartment at the relevant time, a claim he supports and no crdible evidence contradicts. In the MR of her retrial and re-conviction, the judges assume that she was at the cottage at the time of the murder/rape, and therefore knew who had committed the crime. If I'm understanding the MR correctly, the assumption is based on a selective reading of the ambiguities and dream-scenes she describes in the English-language Memoriales she wrote. The MR calls the dream scenes more "seductive" an account and thus more convincing than a mere recitation of events claimed to be facts, IIUC.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, we're still waiting for you to provide evidence of your claim that Amelie was downloaded in late October and not the night of Nov. 1.

In Waiting to be Heard 2013 Amanda Knox resolutely omits the detail of ‘going into the old town’:

The afternoon of Thursday 1 November 2007

P61

“Sometime between 4:00pm and 5pm we left to go to his place.”



There then follows filler sentences about how “we wanted a quiet cozy night in.



As we walked along, I was telling Raffaele that Amélie was my all time favourite movie.

‘Really?’ he asked. ‘I’ve never seen it.”



[Forgetting completely, forensic police discovered he’d downloaded the movie way back on 28 Oct 2007].



“Oh my God,’ I said, unbelieving. ‘You have to see it right this second. You’ll love it.”
So here are the forensic police logs proving that Sollecito already knew about Amelie and had downloaded it on HIS Macbook 28 Oct 2007. It is next recorded as playing 18:27 - 21:10 1 Nov 2007, as a CD-Rom.








.

• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito.zip
• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito-Macbook.pdf
• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito-Macbook-Fastweb-logs.pdf

 

[Vixen]

What an uncanny resemblance to the Perugia crime scene! Well, except the actual crime scene had...

- Only one body on the floor
- Body partially clothed instead of naked
- Body covered by blanket instead of exposed
- Limbs not in the same position
- Wounds on body completely different
- No upholstered armchair or couches present
- Desk chair that is present is at desk, not turned to face body as in the comic scene
- Room too small for comic scene to have occurred
- No evidence of additional naked tied up gagged victims present
- Clothing, bedding, and device cords scattered around
- No actual vampires present

As I was saying, what an uncanny non-resemblance to the Perugia crime scene!

There is more than one frame to a comic strip!

Room not too small. When the jury visited, seven people (including 'larger' middle-aged types) fit in easily, milling around as Comodi explained where was what.



.

 

[Vixen]

Duh. The question is whether it was opened when the police found it or opened by them? See Chiacchierra's testimony already presented.

That article only mentions Mignini's theory:

MIgnini claimed a lot of nonsense including it was a "satanic rite". So which is it? A " ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” on Halloween OR inspired by a manga vampire comic? OR was it jealousy, OR theft, OR a sex game gone wrong?

I see you're indulging in yet more "mind reading".

They reported what they saw. Unsurprisingly, for you, that is evidence of guilt.
Meredith stumbled home at dawn after a night of partying and likely fell into bed immediately.

Police and the prosecutor are not allowed to mislead the court, so if Mignini brought up the issue of the manga magazine, it was completely bona fide. Contrary to the fond belief of the AK/RS CT-er's, none of the evidence was faked, tampered with or contaminated.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

In Waiting to be Heard 2013 Amanda Knox resolutely omits the detail of ‘going into the old town’:

The afternoon of Thursday 1 November 2007

P61

“Sometime between 4:00pm and 5pm we left to go to his place.”



There then follows filler sentences about how “we wanted a quiet cozy night in.



As we walked along, I was telling Raffaele that Amélie was my all time favourite movie.

‘Really?’ he asked. ‘I’ve never seen it.”



[Forgetting completely, forensic police discovered he’d downloaded the movie way back on 28 Oct 2007].



“Oh my God,’ I said, unbelieving. ‘You have to see it right this second. You’ll love it.”
So here are the forensic police logs proving that Sollecito already knew about Amelie and had downloaded it on HIS Macbook 28 Oct 2007. It is next recorded as playing 18:27 - 21:10 1 Nov 2007, as a CD-Rom.

View attachment 60911

View attachment 60909

View attachment 60910


.

• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito.zip
• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito-Macbook.pdf
• 2009-03-13-Slides-Postal-Police-computer-Sollecito-Macbook-Fastweb-logs.pdf

For god's sake, PLEASE learn to reduce the size of you photos! It's not hard. Just click on a corner of it until a blue box appears and drag it inward to a more appropriate size.

What does it matter that it was downloaded on Oct. 29 when it was WATCHED on Nov. 1 just as they both claimed? How does that change anything? So she didn't remember she might have mentioned it to him earlier. She may not even have known he already downloaded it when they were walking home so she mentioned it again.

You expect them to have perfect playback memories of casual conversations or events when, at the time, they were not important. Any deviation or imperfect recollection is assumed to be a lie or other sign of guilt.

 

[Vixen]

For god's sake, PLEASE learn to reduce the size of you photos! It's not hard. Just click on a corner of it until a blue box appears and drag it inward to a more appropriate size.

What does it matter that it was downloaded on Oct. 29 when it was WATCHED on Nov. 1 just as they both claimed? How does that change anything? So she didn't remember she might have mentioned it to him earlier. She may not even have known he already downloaded it when they were walking home so she mentioned it again.

You expect them to have perfect playback memories of casual conversations or events when, at the time, they were not important. Any deviation or imperfect recollection is assumed to be a lie or other sign of guilt.

Heh heh. How did I KNOW you would rationalise a blatant lie and find an 'alternative explanation', as usual


So, so predictable!

A reasonable objective person can see a mile off the pair were setting up Amelié as a fake alibi for the evening, whilst they dealt with Mez.




.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Police and the prosecutor are not allowed to mislead the court,

I never said they did.
But would misleading the court include NOT reporting the "Good night" portion of Amanda's text to Lumumba?
From Matteini's MR pg. 8:

In her answer, she told him that they would meet later, then she left after telling Mr. Sollecito she was going to work.

so if Mignini brought up the issue of the manga magazine, it was completely bona fide.

Please stop moving the goalposts. No one here has said it wasn't bona fide to bring it up. The question is, and always has been, whether RS had even seen the graphic drawing in a comic that RS said was in sealed cellophane and that Chiacchiera testified could have been sealed and which he opened.

Contrary to the fond belief of the AK/RS CT-er's, none of the evidence was faked, tampered with or contaminated.

I've never said it was 'fake' or 'tampered with" but it was contaminated per the report of the forensic experts appointed by the court. Oh, wait....I forgot: they're 'bent'.

 

[Stacyhs]

Heh heh. How did I KNOW you would rationalise a blatant lie and find an 'alternative explanation', as usual

So, so predictable!

Heh heh. How did I KNOW you would claim to know it was a 'blatant lie'? Because every single error in memory must be a lie rather than simply a poor memory? So, so predictable!

I guess Filomena was telling a 'blatant lie' when she got the time of a phone call wrong. Were the postales telling a 'blatant lie' when they claimed they arrived at 12:35 when the logs prove they arrived later?

A reasonable objective person can see a mile off the pair were setting up Amelié as a fake alibi for the evening, whilst they dealt with Mez.

Hahahahahaha! So now you, despite every court finding the murder was NOT premeditated, being a "reasonable and objective person" can see that they were planning the murder two days earlier! Not only were they planning on killing Meredith, they watched Amelie between 6:27 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. and Meredith didn't even arrive home until 9:00! Some alibi! A 'reasonable, objective person' can see a mile off what's wrong with your theory.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is more than one frame to a comic strip!

Room not too small. When the jury visited, seven people (including 'larger' middle-aged types) fit in easily, milling around as Comodi explained where was what.

And there was more than ONE example of how the comic drawing and Meredith's body were NOT in the same position or otherwise similar. Which you ignore.

A reasonable, objective person would see and acknowledge that.

 

[Myriad]

There is more than one frame to a comic strip!

If there were a frame that resembled the crime scene any more closely, Filet (and you) would have pointed it out.

Room not too small. When the jury visited, seven people (including 'larger' middle-aged types) fit in easily, milling around as Comodi explained where was what.

Having seen the photos of the crime scene, I don't believe you. The room is far smaller than the room depicted in the comic panel. As for the jurors, maybe they all managed to cram into the room like it was a subway train, or maybe they fit easily and milled around in the entire apartment. I don't know what the truth is, but I know from experience how unlikely it is that you're telling it.

 

[Vixen]

Heh heh. How did I KNOW you would claim to know it was a 'blatant lie'? Because every single error in memory must be a lie rather than simply a poor memory? So, so predictable!

I guess Filomena was telling a 'blatant lie' when she got the time of a phone call wrong. Were the postales telling a 'blatant lie' when they claimed they arrived at 12:35 when the logs prove they arrived later?

Hahahahahaha! So now you, despite every court finding the murder was NOT premeditated, being a "reasonable and objective person" can see that they were planning the murder two days earlier! Not only were they planning on killing Meredith, they watched Amelie between 6:27 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. and Meredith didn't even arrive home until 9:00! Some alibi! A 'reasonable, objective person' can see a mile off what's wrong with your theory.

Once again, you are failing to keep track. The thrust of the discussion was a poster announcing he was reading WTBH to get familiar with the case. I pointed it that it was hardly an accurate account and cited the key alibi of staying home all evening and watching Amélie. Given the film Le Monde d'Amélie was the pair's key alibi, it is rather striking Knox blatantly lies about this in her book. She knowingly and disrespectfully deceives her reader and this is clearly deliberate as she had, at that stage, over five years to establish all of the facts, major and minor, of the alibi she would be relying on in court. So your claim about people's causal memory of past events being naturally faulty is a laughable attempt to defend the indefensible. Or more likely, you know perfectly well Knox is deliberately misleading her readers but you somehow think this type of criminal is to be admired, rather like a lot of Brits idolise the escaped Great Train Robber, Ronnie Biggs (yes, there was a railway worker left dead directly as a result of the audacious heist but, like Mez, everybody's forgotten about him, and Biggs is their hero because he screwed the police).






.

 

[Vixen]

I never said they did.
But would misleading the court include NOT reporting the "Good night" portion of Amanda's text to Lumumba?
From Matteini's MR pg. 8:





Please stop moving the goalposts. No one here has said it wasn't bona fide to bring it up. The question is, and always has been, whether RS had even seen the graphic drawing in a comic that RS said was in sealed cellophane and that Chiacchiera testified could have been sealed and which he opened.

I've never said it was 'fake' or 'tampered with" but it was contaminated per the report of the forensic experts appointed by the court. Oh, wait....I forgot: they're 'bent'.

Rubbish, that was just Bongiorno for Sollecito trying to catch Chiacchiera out in the witness box. He was the joint prosecutor with Mignini originally, so quite high up and experienced in giving testimony. When Bongiorno asked if the mags were still shrink-wrapped, he realised it was a trap so gave a noncommital answer rather than say, 'No they were not shrink wrapped' aware that some might have been and hence the 'AHA!' moment so instead said some might have been. It doesn't follow that they were ALL shrink wrapped and unread. Whilst witness testimony counts as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, the judges and jury is still entitled to take it or leave it as they see fit. Please read more carefully in future. Chiacchiera did NOT confirm the magazines were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread', he was being non-committal - i.e., it was possible that some might have been - rather than fall in to Bongiorno's 'GOTCHA!'. (i.e., that none were.)



.

 

[Vixen]

If there were a frame that resembled the crime scene any more closely, Filet (and you) would have pointed it out.



Having seen the photos of the crime scene, I don't believe you. The room is far smaller than the room depicted in the comic panel. As for the jurors, maybe they all managed to cram into the room like it was a subway train, or maybe they fit easily and milled around in the entire apartment. I don't know what the truth is, but I know from experience how unlikely it is that you're telling it.

You 'saw the photos of the crime scene'. Let's go over the the actual fact of the matter:

From Death in Perugia, John Follain, p 298:

Holding her torch up by her head, Comodi led the group down the corridor. The others followed her gingerly and stopped briefly to look inside Amanda's tiny room. Then Comodi went next door into Meredith's room. Using her torch, she walked across it avoiding the pool of blood on the floor and opened the window and shutters. The sunlight streamed in. The view over the rolling hills was at its spring best - a view Meredith had never seen.
The blood on the floor had caked completely dry. It was a dark colour. The splashes and streaks of blood on the walls had also darkened with time. The judges and jurors gazed for a long time at the photographs of Meredith and her friends still on the walls.
Looking around the room, a juror commented: 'But this isn't a small room like Amanda's. How many of us are in here now?"
Quick as a flash, Comodi replied: 'Seven.' She was secretly delighted by the question, as the defence had claimed Meredith's room was too small for three killers to attack her in it.

Please stop trying to rewrite history to fit in with the 'story you tell yourself'. Yes, it causes cognitive dissonance to realise the 'story we tell ourselves' is wrong and a form of rationalisation of unsavoury or unwanted information. For example, "Smoking is not dangerous, my old aunt lived to 99 and she smoked forty cigarettes a day from age of eleven; and drank two bottles of vodka every day". Get rid of the rationalisation and face up to the fact you have been deceived into believing AK's fairy tale of the wicked prosecutor.



.

 

[Vixen]

And there was more than ONE example of how the comic drawing and Meredith's body were NOT in the same position or otherwise similar. Which you ignore.

A reasonable, objective person would see and acknowledge that.

The courts ruled - including the final Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court of 2015 - that the crIme scene was staged. It was a heavily theatrical scenario in which a super-large small boulder weighing almost 10lbs /4kg had been used to smash Filomena's window from the inside, Filomena's clothes having first been scattered about the floor. A DNA mixture of AK/MK is scientifically conclusive of having been found in the room. Bits of paper and cards - one with Knox's shoe print - had been scattered about, including a couple on top of the duvet which was placed over the body AFTER* the murder - i.e., the murder happened before the paper scattering - the body being returned to AFTER the murder to undress it. This was ascertained by a forensic examination of expirated blood, which was on the bra some distance away from the body but not on the key points of the parts of the breasts it covered. Someone had either torn or cut off with a knife, the bra from the body. The bra claps with Sollecito's full DNA profile inside the bent hook was UNDER the body UNDER the pillow, which did have a ladies size 37 trainer imprint in the victim's blood.

The prosecution had no duty to provide a motive so it didn't persist with the 'vampire-slaying fantasy' , but given the thrill kill element, it seems plausible to me. As in the Brianna Ghey killing by a couple of teens, calling their victim 'It', made it easy to do. Dehumanising the victim makes it easier to comprehend how people could do such a thing for such futile motive.

*Given it is scientifically conclusive the murder happened before the mise-en-scène it follows that the shard of glass trailed into the murder room from Filomena's room is that of one of the murderers, who had the key to lock the room afterwards.



Has the penny dropped yet..?



.




.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rubbish, that was just Bongiorno for Sollecito trying to catch Chiacchiera out in the witness box. He was the joint prosecutor with Mignini originally, so quite high up and experienced in giving testimony. When Bongiorno asked if the mags were still shrink-wrapped, he realised it was a trap so gave a noncommital answer rather than say, 'No they were not shrink wrapped' aware that some might have been and hence the 'AHA!' moment so instead said some might have been. It doesn't follow that they were ALL shrink wrapped and unread. Whilst witness testimony counts as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, the judges and jury is still entitled to take it or leave it as they see fit. Please read more carefully in future. Chiacchiera did NOT confirm the magazines were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread', he was being non-committal - i.e., it was possible that some might have been - rather than fall in to Bongiorno's 'GOTCHA!'. (i.e., that none were.)



.

LOL In her latest risible post attempting to "educate and enlighten" others, Vixen is still clearly ignorant regarding the definition of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, and the difference between the two.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Once again, you are failing to keep track. The thrust of the discussion was a poster announcing he was reading WTBH to get familiar with the case. I pointed it that it was hardly an accurate account and cited the key alibi of staying home all evening and watching Amélie. Given the film Le Monde d'Amélie was the pair's key alibi, it is rather striking Knox blatantly lies about this in her book. She knowingly and disrespectfully deceives her reader and this is clearly deliberate as she had, at that stage, over five years to establish all of the facts, major and minor, of the alibi she would be relying on in court. So your claim about people's causal memory of past events being naturally faulty is a laughable attempt to defend the indefensible. Or more likely, you know perfectly well Knox is deliberately misleading her readers but you somehow think this type of criminal is to be admired, rather like a lot of Brits idolise the escaped Great Train Robber, Ronnie Biggs (yes, there was a railway worker left dead directly as a result of the audacious heist but, like Mez, everybody's forgotten about him, and Biggs is their hero because he screwed the police).

You just can't help yourself, can you? I never said I was reading WtBH "to get familiar with the case." I have mentioned that there are people who know a lot more about the case than I. And I also pointed out that no one gives a damn about your opinion of WtBH (or any of Amanda's other writings, for that matter). See my post #3874 and those following.

As for the rest of your dreck, everyone can see that we're back to your absurd, worn-out "Amanda is obviously lying" schtick.

 

[Myriad]

You 'saw the photos of the crime scene'. Let's go over the the actual fact of the matter:

From Death in Perugia, John Follain, p 298

Just as I thought. No "easily" entering the room or "milling around." Enough space for seven people to carefully stand, but not nearly enough to resemble the manga scene with people (and vampires) spread around on upholstered chairs and couches.

I never said the room was too small for Guede to murder MK in there. Nor that it was too small for the jury to enter. The point remains that the scene does not resemble the manga picture you claimed it does. Not the victim's condition or position, not the seating, not the number of killers, not the number of victims, not the injuries, not the clutter, and not (on top of all of that) the size of the room.

Please stop trying to rewrite history to fit in with the 'story you tell yourself'. Yes, it causes cognitive dissonance to realise the 'story we tell ourselves' is wrong and a form of rationalisation of unsavoury or unwanted information. For example, "Smoking is not dangerous, my old aunt lived to 99 and she smoked forty cigarettes a day from age of eleven; and drank two bottles of vodka every day". Get rid of the rationalisation and face up to the fact you have been deceived into believing AK's fairy tale of the wicked prosecutor.

"Witches did it to imitate vampires! Now stop telling fairy tales!!

 

[SpitfireIX]

Note: I'm leaving on vacation for about the next week, so my posting will be sporadic.

 

[Numbers]

In Italian trials, the verdict (the short form operative verdict) is issued by the judges soon after the conclusion of the adversarial debate and final summation parts of the trial. Then, after some months, a motivation report is issued with the reasoning justifying the verdict. Therefore, one shouldn't be surprised if the some "judicial facts" in a motivation report are constructed after the verdict is reached to support that verdict.

Similarly, when the Italian prosecutor - and in particular, Mignini in this case - formulates reasoning for arresting persons - the suspicion of the persons may come first, and the reasons for the suspicions come after, to justify those suspicions. Furthermore, the initial suspicions could actually have been the recognition of the persons most convenient and vulnerable to prosecution. See, for example, Giobbi's testimony in the Massei trial - his reasons for suspicions related firstly to his negative perceptions of the innocent noncriminal behavior of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Vixen]

LOL In her latest risible post attempting to "educate and enlighten" others, Vixen is still clearly ignorant regarding the definition of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, and the difference between the two.

Witness testimony is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which we can infer a thing. For example, forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence*. So, as the witness was describing the act of he himself finding the porno-horror fantasy comics n RS' bedroom when the police search was carried out, it does count as both direct evidence and also circumstantial insofar we can deduce RS had a liking for this type of stuff.

AI Overview
Learn more

Witness testimony, when direct, is firsthand account of events observed by a witness, while circumstantial evidence is indirect and requires inference to connect facts to a conclusion.

Witness Testimony:

• Definition:
  A witness's testimony directly relates to what they personally saw, heard, or felt during an event.

*The circumstantial evidence of DNA is a powerful one, yet because it is invisible to the naked eye, some people can't quite believe it is possible it really was Mez' DNA on the knife blade or RS' full profile on the bra clasp. They seriously try to claim it was 'contaminated', as if a grotty dusty student digs should be akin to a sterile hospital ward in the first place. By that criterion, all crime scene DNA should be impermissible. They can understand the footprint on the bathmat because 'seeing is believing' - the mantra of the 'stands-to-reason' brigade- but despite extremely fine analysis by highly skilled engineers with PhD's, using the technical drawing skill to record the parameters of the minutest measurements, angles and dimensions, of every toe, 'hammer' defect, ball of foot ratio to other parts, width, depth and thickness, still insist that somehow, the imprint on the bathmat, in the victim's blood, can be shoehorned (pun intended) to also fit Guede's foot!!! And LondonJohn epitomises this 'true believer's unbelievers' mindset. "No science, today, thanks! It's Fantasy Island Day today."




.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

Hahahahahaha! So now you, despite every court finding the murder was NOT premeditated, being a "reasonable and objective person" can see that they were planning the murder two days earlier! Not only were they planning on killing Meredith, they watched Amelie between 6:27 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. and Meredith didn't even arrive home until 9:00! Some alibi! A 'reasonable, objective person' can see a mile off what's wrong with your theory.

As the Murder charge was already that of 'Aggravated Murder' (equivalent to US First Degree Murder, where there is premeditation) due to the cruelty element and sexual assault, there was no requirement for the prosecution to prove premeditation, just as it didn't need to prove motive. Why would they make it more difficult than needed to succeed in a conviction?

Truth is, the fact of AK tearing out the pages in her diary, switching off their phones, cunningly planning to make it look like they were snug at home watching Amelié - which they could prove as they had seen it a few days before and could quote key scenes from it! - plus a naurato automatic download, either preplanned or someone sent it unwittingly. The fact of both AK and RS trying to conceal from police what they did and where they went after Mez left the cottage shows they were stalking Mez and went to great lengths to conceal this behaviour.

Whether the premeditation took half an hour or a few days, it doesn't matter, there is no time limit in what constitutes premeditation. What starts as fantasy can turn into reality at any time, especially when high on drugs or triggered.



.

 

[Vixen]

Just as I thought. No "easily" entering the room or "milling around." Enough space for seven people to carefully stand, but not nearly enough to resemble the manga scene with people (and vampires) spread around on upholstered chairs and couches.

I never said the room was too small for Guede to murder MK in there. Nor that it was too small for the jury to enter. The point remains that the scene does not resemble the manga picture you claimed it does. Not the victim's condition or position, not the seating, not the number of killers, not the number of victims, not the injuries, not the clutter, and not (on top of all of that) the size of the room.



"Witches did it to imitate vampires! Now stop telling fairy tales!!

Oh dear, Myriad. Car screeches past, two guys jump out, throw dynamite at the bank doors, the pair make off with a heist of gold bars and money bags. Myriad: (for it is he). I can't see anything suspicious about that. <shrugs>


.

 

[Myriad]

Oh dear, Myriad. Car screeches past, two guys jump out, throw dynamite at the bank doors, the pair make off with a heist of gold bars and money bags. Myriad: (for it is he). I can't see anything suspicious about that. <shrugs>

Not unless the two guys are wearing black and white horizontal striped shirts, and the money bags have big black $ signs printed on them.

"Stop telling fairy tales! We're doing cartoons now instead!"