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

[Stacyhs]

I see Vixen has still not produced a single forensic expert aside from Stefanoni that corroborated 36B is a "near full 15-allele" profile.
OTH, I've produced 3 well known forensic experts, not even including C&V, who say it is NOT anywhere near a "near full 15-allele" profile.

The question now is: "Despite being presented with multiple evidence it is not a "near full 15-allele profile" and unable to provide any evidence it is, will Vixen continue to claim it is?" Intellectual honesty would require she would not.

 

[Numbers]

Not being a forensic expert on DNA, this still stood out at me: All the samples from the knife blade, including 36B, tested negative for human tissue. How can it be Kercher's DNA if it's neither blood nor human tissue?

Yes, that's one of the reasons that the profile claimed by Stefanoni to be from sample 36 B is unreliable. If sample 36 B tested negative for blood and negative for the human species (tissue of any kind), then it's logical to acknowledge that the LTN-LCN DNA profile obtained from 36 B is the result of contamination. It seems to me - although I am not an expert in DNA profiling - that from the facts as discussed in the C&V report, the contamination likely occurred in Stefanoni's lab.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I don't believe it. Delfo looks head and shoulders in the photo taller than everyone else so certainly is not under six feet tall as you claim.

Your theories about race are rubbish. There are at least 87 distinct ethnicities in Europe alone, not to mention numerous subgroups. Your claim Guede must be naturally good at climbing walls because he's African is MAGA-style nonsense. You might as well claim Finns are good at long distance running and ice hockey, Swedes at high jump, French and Ukrainians at pole vault, African-Americans at power sprints, the English at hurdles and relay, the Italians at triple jump: in reality the vast majority of Europeans (and Africans and Asians) are nothing of the sort.

At various times today, I've mulled over how I should respond to your mind-bogglingly evasive and dishonest post. I've concluded that the best response is just to let it stand without further comment, in all its mind-boggling evasiveness and dishonesty, for all to see.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't believe it. Delfo looks head and shoulders in the photo taller than everyone else so certainly is not under six feet tall as you claim.

Your theories about race are rubbish. There are at least 87 distinct ethnicities in Europe alone, not to mention numerous subgroups. Your claim Guede must be naturally good at climbing walls because he's African is MAGA-style nonsense. You might as well claim Finns are good at long distance running and ice hockey, Swedes at high jump, French and Ukrainians at pole vault, African-Americans at power sprints, the English at hurdles and relay, the Italians at triple jump: in reality the vast majority of Europeans (and Africans and Asians) are nothing of the sort.


.

Spitfire never claimed anything about Delfo Berretti's height. YOU did.

Vixen said:
No sorry, you said despite Guede, being at least four to three inches shorter that Delfo, the tall gangly defence guy who tried to climb in Filomena's window but failed, that he would somehow make up for it in having longer arms by virtue of being an African gentleman, and yes, I called BS on you but it WAS your comment and people can call out on that type of outrageous claim based on someone's personal characteristics.

YOU conflated Berretti with Panella.

Your use of "extraordinarily long arms" and "Guede is African so of course, he is a natural athlete," are yet more examples of your dishonestly mischaracterizing what is said.

Vixen said:
Great logic! "Guede is African so of course, he is a natural athlete and surely has extraordinarily long arms, so of course he is better at scaling twelve-and-half-feet walls than any accomplished rock climber four inches taller. Stands to reason, don't it? Case closed, M'Lud."

Spitfire never said anything of the kind.

 

[Numbers]

Spitfire never claimed anything about Delfo Berretti's height. YOU did.



YOU conflated Berretti with Panella.

Your use of "extraordinarily long arms" and "Guede is African so of course, he is a natural athlete," are yet more examples of your dishonestly mischaracterizing what is said.



Spitfire never said anything of the kind.

I'd like to interject at this point that, as evidenced by many instances in the Knox - Sollecito case, incompetence and dishonesty (or misconduct) are often joined, sometimes with imperceptible boundaries. Take, for example, the Massei court MR, where in many instances wove evidence into an imagined arbitrarily probabilistic but in reality unlikely "judicial fact", contrary to CPP Article 192 paragraph 2, suggesting guilt, and then concluded all its bogus "judicial facts" summed to a verdict of guilt in accordance with CPP Article 533. However, that article of Italian law requires that guilt is to be determined by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not by summing up arbitrarily inferred "judicial facts". Was that judicial activity the result of incompetence or misconduct or a combination of both?

The same kind of analysis applies to the interrogations of Sollecito and Knox on 5 - 6 November 2007. Did the police plan beforehand not to make the lawfully required written documentation of the questions and answers? Or did they simply forget in their eagerness to "solve" the crime? Why did Knox's second interrogation begin with the phrase indicating she wanted to make a "spontaneous declaration", an Italian legal term of procedural importance - had she been studying Italian criminal law, or did Mignini instruct her to include this wording? Was she made aware of its significance? And before that happened, why was her attempt to text to Lumumba an Italian translation of "see you later, have a good evening" taken as setting up an immediate meeting, although she attempted to explain her meaning, and the Italian interpreter, Donnino, according to the Boninsegna court MR, testified that Donnino understood the meaning of a farewell with no indication of setting a meeting during the interrogation?

So, when one poster mischaracterizes another poster's statements, it may be simply an attempt to model the impugned behavior of the Italian authorities in the Knox - Sollecito case, behavior that is some combination of incompetence and intellectual dishonesty (which in the case of the Italian authorities, may have also included unlawful or even criminal acts).

 

[Numbers]

....

Your use of "extraordinarily long arms" and "Guede is African so of course, he is a natural athlete," are yet more examples of your dishonestly mischaracterizing what is said.
....

Just to clarify the mischaracterization in Vixen's post as pointed out by Stacyhs, there are published objectively verified differences in some physical characteristics between ethnic groups. Such variations in, for example, average height have been reported. These differences may result from genetic and environmental factors (for example, nutrition). There are also sex-linked differences (as most persons may be aware) in physical characteristics including height that result from genetic and hormonal differences. The study of such differences, which can be important for designing equipment, housing, clothing, or furnishings and some medical issues, is called anthropometry.

One summary* of average height by country states the following for average heights of males:

Netherlands: 184 cm
Italy: 174 cm
Ivory Coast: 168 cm

It's important to remember that there may be considerable variation between individuals from one country, so it would be a logical error to believe that all males from any country have the height given by the average (calculated from some sample at some given historical or recent time; heights of populations are believed to have changed over time probably due to nutritional differences during growth). The height of an individual also changes with age, reaching some steady state at physical maturity (typically by about 19 years) but sometimes decreasing with advanced age or physical disorder.

For any reader interested in the complexity of human height issues (for example, distinguishing "normal" shortness for certain individuals or ethnic groups from any of several medical disease conditions (such as growth hormone deficiency), see: Short Stature: Understanding the Stature of Ethnicity in Height Determination***.

We know that Rudy Guede, when he played basketball (the relevant time for the Kercher murder/rape) was 5 feet 11 inches = 180 cm tall**.

* https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-height-by-country

** https://basketball.eurobasket.com/player/Rudy-Hermann-Guede/74129

*** https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8923322/

 

[Numbers]

Just to clarify the mischaracterization in Vixen's post as pointed out by Stacyhs, there are published objectively verified differences in some physical characteristics between ethnic groups. Such variations in, for example, average height have been reported. These differences may result from genetic and environmental factors (for example, nutrition). There are also sex-linked differences (as most persons may be aware) in physical characteristics including height that result from genetic and hormonal differences. The study of such differences, which can be important for designing equipment, housing, clothing, or furnishings and some medical issues, is called anthropometry.

One summary* of average height by country states the following for average heights of males:

Netherlands: 184 cm
Italy: 174 cm
Ivory Coast: 168 cm

It's important to remember that there may be considerable variation between individuals from one country, so it would be a logical error to believe that all males from any country have the height given by the average (calculated from some sample at some given historical or recent time; heights of populations are believed to have changed over time probably due to nutritional differences during growth). The height of an individual also changes with age, reaching some steady state at physical maturity (typically by about 19 years) but sometimes decreasing with advanced age or physical disorder.

For any reader interested in the complexity of human height issues (for example, distinguishing "normal" shortness for certain individuals or ethnic groups from any of several medical disease conditions (such as growth hormone deficiency), see: Short Stature: Understanding the Stature of Ethnicity in Height Determination***.

We know that Rudy Guede, when he played basketball (the relevant time for the Kercher murder/rape) was 5 feet 11 inches = 180 cm tall**.

* https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-height-by-country

** https://basketball.eurobasket.com/player/Rudy-Hermann-Guede/74129

*** https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8923322/

Regarding the issue brought about about arm length variation among ethnic groups, I found little relevant information in a very brief online search. The medical research I found seems to concentrate on possible relationships between arm span, height, and respiratory function.

It should be understood that arm span, as for other physical characteristics, may vary between ethnic groups and within ethnic populations. Someone such as Guede, who was a semipro basketball player, would not be likely to have an inadequate arm span, since length of arms, as well as height, are important factors for players in the game, in making shots at the basket, catching rebounds, and blocking the shots or passes of opposing players, and passing or shooting by evading the blocking attempts by opposing players.

Another point is that when the "average" of a quantity is discussed, it's important to know what kind of average is to be understood: the arithmetic mean, the median (50% point), or the mode (most common value), and without a measure of the variation (such as the standard deviation or range) the average of a value is not that useful in understanding the differences in populations. Nor can the average be considered as the value to be taken (assumed) with certainty for an individual from the population.

I suggest not indulging in any inappropriate use of averages.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Vixen, some other old business that I didn't get to earlier, partly because I was on vacation and partly because I had to refresh my memory about the case¹, is addressing your ridiculous attempt to assert that there's any kind of equivalence between the murders of Meredith Kercher and of Bobby Franks. When the latter took place, Leopold and Loeb had known each other for four years, and had been lovers for more than three. During that time, the pair had committed numerous crimes together, starting with minor ones, such as petty theft and cheating at bridge, but eventually working their way up to more serious ones, including vandalism, burglary, and arson. They also seem to have made, but never actually attempted², plans to murder a young man who had been spreading rumors about their homosexuality, the exposure of which would have been ruinous for both of them. The blog Loeb and Leopold (Warning: Explicit descriptions of the pair's sex lives) has an excellent page about their teenage years that discusses all this in some detail.

The murder of Bobby Franks was conceived as an attempt by these two extremely intelligent, precocious, and spoiled individuals to prove that they could plan and carry out the perfect crime, as a sort of capstone to their relationship before they split up. And even then, unsurprisingly, Leopold stated that, while he wasn't morally opposed to murder, he tried to talk Loeb out of the idea because he didn't think it was worth the risk for no worthwhile reward. (They demanded a ransom, but they didn't need the money.)

Conversely, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Amanda had only known Raffaele for one week. And she'd only met Rudy a few times. Yet you (and Mignini) would have us believe that she recruited both of them to help her carry out this premeditated murder? And she just somehow knew they were both going to agree, instead of turning her in to the police? Further, Bobby Franks was a convenient target because he was a smaller boy, whom L&L believed they could easily overpower, and who had rich parents. But you claim that Amanda wanted to murder Meredith out of jealousy.
_____________
¹When I was getting my mostly worthless history degree, a professor with whom I never had a class gave a talk about the case one evening, but that was a long time ago, and I didn't remember a lot of the particulars.
²There have been claims, which Leopold vehemently denied, that the pair attempted to drown the young man and make it look like an accident, but these were never substantiated. They did, however, obtain materials similar to those they eventually used to murder Bobby Franks.

 

[Stacyhs]

From Number's post above: "... guilt is to be determined by proof beyond a reasonable doubt." IOW: innocent unless proven guilty BARD.
According to many PGP here and elsewhere, this is the 'legal loophole' that got AK and RS 'off'. And here I thought 'guilty BARD' was the very foundation of the Italian (US, UK, etc.) judicial system.

 

[Welshman]

Vixen, some other old business that I didn't get to earlier, partly because I was on vacation and partly because I had to refresh my memory about the case¹, is addressing your ridiculous attempt to assert that there's any kind of equivalence between the murders of Meredith Kercher and of Bobby Franks. When the latter took place, Leopold and Loeb had known each other for four years, and had been lovers for more than three. During that time, the pair had committed numerous crimes together, starting with minor ones, such as petty theft and cheating at bridge, but eventually working their way up to more serious ones, including vandalism, burglary, and arson. They also seem to have made, but never actually attempted², plans to murder a young man who had been spreading rumors about their homosexuality, the exposure of which would have been ruinous for both of them. The blog Loeb and Leopold (Warning: Explicit descriptions of the pair's sex lives) has an excellent page about their teenage years that discusses all this in some detail.

The murder of Bobby Franks was conceived as an attempt by these two extremely intelligent, precocious, and spoiled individuals to prove that they could plan and carry out the perfect crime, as a sort of capstone to their relationship before they split up. And even then, unsurprisingly, Leopold stated that, while he wasn't morally opposed to murder, he tried to talk Loeb out of the idea because he didn't think it was worth the risk for no worthwhile reward. (They demanded a ransom, but they didn't need the money.)

Conversely, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Amanda had only known Raffaele for one week. And she'd only met Rudy a few times. Yet you (and Mignini) would have us believe that she recruited both of them to help her carry out this premeditated murder? And she just somehow knew they were both going to agree, instead of turning her in to the police? Further, Bobby Franks was a convenient target because he was a smaller boy, whom L&L believed they could easily overpower, and who had rich parents. But you claim that Amanda wanted to murder Meredith out of jealousy.
_____________
¹When I was getting my mostly worthless history degree, a professor with whom I never had a class gave a talk about the case one evening, but that was a long time ago, and I didn't remember a lot of the particulars.
²There have been claims, which Leopold vehemently denied, that the pair attempted to drown the young man and make it look like an accident, but these were never substantiated. They did, however, obtain materials similar to those they eventually used to murder Bobby Franks.

As this post points out Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating a week. I have noticed Vixen never mentions this fact. To commit a crime like murder a very high level of trust is needed and how could this level of trust be established in a couple who had only been dating a week? If Amanda planned a pre meditated murder, when in the short period Amanda and Raffaele had been dating, did Amanda tell Raffaele she wanted to kill Meredith? How much did Amanda and Raffaele discuss the murder of Meredith?

Amanda and Raffaele had no history of violence, criminality or any hint of a dark side. Testimony showed a good relationship between Amanda and Meredith and there was no evidence Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Why exactly would Amanda wish to carry out a pre meditated murder of Meredith?

 

[Stacyhs]

As this post points out Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating a week. I have noticed Vixen never mentions this fact. To commit a crime like murder a very high level of trust is needed and how could this level of trust be established in a couple who had only been dating a week? If Amanda planned a pre meditated murder, when in the short period Amanda and Raffaele had been dating, did Amanda tell Raffaele she wanted to kill Meredith? How much did Amanda and Raffaele discuss the murder of Meredith?

Amanda and Raffaele had no history of violence, criminality or any hint of a dark side. Testimony showed a good relationship between Amanda and Meredith and there was no evidence Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Why exactly would Amanda wish to carry out a pre meditated murder of Meredith?

1. She needed a to kill her in a "sacrificial rite"
2. Jealousy
3. Money
4. To "teach her lesson" for being such a prude
5. Just for evil's sake

Take your pick. /s

 

[Numbers]

Why did the Italian police and prosecutor fabricate evidence* - through coercion of statements* from Knox and Sollecito - to enable them to arrest Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher? Some people may call this "framing" (I do, for example) but others who seem to agree there was fabrication and/or coercion by the police don't want to use this term for reasons not clear to me.

* If you don't agree it was framing, do you agree or not that there was fabrication of evidence through coercion of statements?

At any rate, here's an account from the US of police allegedly making false statements to arrest allegedly sober drivers (0.0 alcohol on a breathalyzer test, but officer reports a "smell of alcohol") for driving under the influence of alcohol,** allegedly for the perceived need by the police to meet a quota of arrests to secure their chances for promotions as well as the benefit of going off-duty after each DUI arrest (excerpts from the news account follow the online citation link to CBS News):

Honolulu police arresting sober drivers to rack up DUI arrests, ACLU alleges

The Honolulu Police Department says it will review all impaired driving arrests after the ACLU sued, alleging officers are arresting sober drivers in an overzealous focus on making drunk-driving arrests.

www.cbsnews.com

The Honolulu Police Department said it will review all impaired driving arrests after the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging officers are arresting sober drivers in an overzealous focus on making drunk-driving arrests.

In recent years, Honolulu officers have arrested "scores" of drivers who show no outward signs of impairment, perform well on field sobriety tests and whose breath tests often show no alcohol, the lawsuit said.
....
Supervisors give officers incentives, including telling night enforcement officers they can go home and still get paid for an entire shift if they make a DUI arrest, which results in officers taking investigative shortcuts or making arrests without probable cause, the ACLU said.

Police are attempting to show that officers are protecting the public, using arrest numbers to secure federal funding and to meet quotas, the organization said.

"Each of our clients blew a 0.000. None of them were intoxicated. Yet they endured lasting damage to their records, their reputation, traumatic arrests, and unlawful detention," said Jeremy O'Steen, an attorney with a firm that is working on the lawsuit with ACLU Hawaii. "What we are demanding today is simple: Stop arresting innocent people. Stop manipulating the system."
....
The class-action lawsuit is on behalf of three plaintiffs who were arrested and represents hundreds of other drivers. All three were included in the HNN series.

All three drivers had breath test results of 0.00 either before or after they were taken to the police station, HNN [Hawaii News Now] says. ....

** I would call this allegation an accusation that the police were framing the arrested drivers. If a police officer made a false statement to justify arresting someone, that police officer was framing that person. (In Italy, that would be an offense called "calunnia" - knowingly making a false statement alleging someone committed a crime to a criminal justice official, which official would include a superior officer, prosecutor, or judge.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda and Raffaele had no history of violence, criminality or any hint of a dark side. Testimony showed a good relationship between Amanda and Meredith and there was no evidence Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Why exactly would Amanda wish to carry out a pre meditated murder of Meredith?

Add to this that none of the courts, NONE of the courts, not even the convicting ones, found that this had been a premeditated murder. Not one.

That left the convicting courts with some problems - one of them was accounting for their claim that the murder weapon had been carried (innocently) from Raffaele's to the cottage, and then returned pristine. The evidence was that it had been cleaned with bleach, but the prosecution claimed that some of the victim's biological material was preserved in an unobservable striation, a striation in the metal of the blade that no one, other than Stefanoni (the scientific police who reported to the fist trial) saw.

The convicting courts further offered motivations for innocently transporting that knife, and returning it. All of which were stretches of both logic, as well as observations of behaviour patterns - meaning that Knox had never, not once, carried a knife - not for the innocent reasons that the convicting courts claimed. They just asserted it, and found it to be judicially-true, with no evidence to support it.

Those courts went to all that trouble BECAUSE THEY CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO PREMEDITATION! Yet guilters have for the last 18 years filled in the blanks, where not even the convicting courts left blanks.

 

[Numbers]

Add to this that none of the courts, NONE of the courts, not even the convicting ones, found that this had been a premeditated murder. Not one.

That left the convicting courts with some problems - one of them was accounting for their claim that the murder weapon had been carried (innocently) from Raffaele's to the cottage, and then returned pristine. The evidence was that it had been cleaned with bleach, but the prosecution claimed that some of the victim's biological material was preserved in an unobservable striation, a striation in the metal of the blade that no one, other than Stefanoni (the scientific police who reported to the fist trial) saw.

The convicting courts further offered motivations for innocently transporting that knife, and returning it. All of which were stretches of both logic, as well as observations of behaviour patterns - meaning that Knox had never, not once, carried a knife - not for the innocent reasons that the convicting courts claimed. They just asserted it, and found it to be judicially-true, with no evidence to support it.

Those courts went to all that trouble BECAUSE THEY CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO PREMEDITATION! Yet guilters have for the last 18 years filled in the blanks, where not even the convicting courts left blanks.

This clause should read: The claim of the prosecutor, made without any supporting evidence, was that the knife had been cleaned with bleach.

 

[Bill Williams]

This clause should read: The claim of the prosecutor, made without any supporting evidence, was that the knife had been cleaned with bleach.

That clause, which if more accurate, puts another level of disbelief into the prosecution's case. They simply made the evidenceless claim that the knife had been cleaned with bleach, adding to the evidentiary burden they, themselves, were placing upon that knife as having had anything to do with the crime.....

.... adding to the burden to their claim that that knife had been the murder weapon. Why? Because no biological material could survive that kind of thorough clean - yet, their further claim was that the victim's biological material had been found on it.

They further than had to invent, once again an evidenceless assertion, that the victim's biological material had somehow survived a bleach-clean, by hiding in a striation in the metal of the blade, a striation that no one else other than Stefanoni was purportedly to have seen.

I once met a man as I was on my way to St. Ives. The man had seven wives, each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats, each cat had seven kits. Kits, cats, sacks, wives, how many were going to St. Ives?

 

[Numbers]

There's a recent ECHR case against Armenia that may illustrate how in some countries (I'm not excluding the US or Italy) the police and prosecution use lies and false charges to cover up their unlawful and/or criminal acts. The case is GEVORGYAN v. ARMENIA 231/16 published 22/05/2025*.

Ms. Gevorgyan, a journalist, was present at a peaceful political protest, some distance from the protestors and near a crowd of onlookers. She was taking photos or videos with a hand-held camera. Counter-protesters arrived at the scene, as did police, perhaps to avert violence. A police officer approached Gevorgyan and asked her to surrender her camera. She declined; under Armenian law, the police are not allowed to interfere with the legitimate news-gathering activities of journalists. After a repeated demand by the police officer for the camera, which the journalist did not obey and she shouted "Let go of my camera, I am a journalist", he attempted to take the camera from her, in that action inflicting a minor injury to her arm. She was then arrested for the Armenian crime of hooliganism and brought to a police station, where she was subjected to a search and her camera taken; after 3 hours, she was released from the police station and her camera returned. However, she alleges one of her camera's memory cards had not been returned and the others had been damaged. The next day, charges of hooliganism were lodged against her on the grounds that "a group of persons, including the applicant, had been involved in an altercation, thereby deliberately and grossly disrupting public order and demonstrating flagrant disrespect towards the public". She in turn filed a criminal complaint against the police. About 4 months after she had lodged the complaint, it was dismissed on the grounds that the police had not committed a crime. About 6 months after the charge of hooliganism was lodged against her, it was dismissed on the grounds that there was no evidence of intent on her part.

Here's the interesting part: other journalists, who had been positioned a bit farther away from the protesters and the interaction between Gevorgyan and the police, had not only witnessed the events, but had recorded them on video. Their statement and the video was entered into evidence for Gevorgyan's complaint against the police, but the testimony was ignored and the first-instance court claimed, falsely, that the video supported the police account. The falsehoods of the court survived through a full appeals process.

Gevorgyan lodged an application with the ECHR, claiming violations of Convention Articles 3 and 10. The video was included as evidence of her claims against Armenia. The Armenian government, in its response, claimed that the video contradicted Gevorgyan's allegations. The ECHR viewed the video and found her allegations fully supported. The ECHR judgment found that Armenia had violated Gevorgyan's rights under Convention Article 10. However, the ECHR judgment found that the harm inflicted upon her arm by the police officer was, under the circumstances, not sufficient to justify a finding of a violation of Convention Article 3 in either branch.

* https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-243188

 

[Stacyhs]

Logic has never been a strength of the pro-guilt. They think it was logical for Knox and Sollecito to point out the bathmat footprint to the police when, if guilty, they would have known it was RS's. My favorite guilter 'explanation' is that they thought themselves so clever they wanted to 'pull one over' on the police.

They think it would be logical for RS to give AK an 18-inch unguarded chef's knife instead of one of his safer flip knives to carry around in her book bag for 'protection'. As we all know, there was ZERO evidence of any knife being carried in the cloth bag and ZERO evidence that AK ever carried a knife of any kind. The Massei court just made up the entire story out of think air.

The guilters think it's logical that AK and RS cleaned up the crime scene when it's obvious there was no cleaning. Why clean the bathroom and leave blood in several places, including your own? Why not mop down the floors in the bathroom and corridor/kitchen? Why not flush the feces in FR's and LM's bathroom if Guede were their accomplice? Add to that the illogical claim that they were trying to cover for Guede by accusing Lumumba when they would have knowingly left his feces and his bloody shoeprints? If they had cleaned up anything, they'd have cleaned it ALL with the exception of the bedroom. Then there's the idiotic belief that they could selectively clean up ONLY their own forensic evidence while leaving Guede's. The entire guilter logic is just, well....illogical.

 

[Numbers]

Logic has never been a strength of the pro-guilt. They think it was logical for Knox and Sollecito to point out the bathmat footprint to the police when, if guilty, they would have known it was RS's. My favorite guilter 'explanation' is that they thought themselves so clever they wanted to 'pull one over' on the police.

They think it would be logical for RS to give AK an 18-inch unguarded chef's knife instead of one of his safer flip knives to carry around in her book bag for 'protection'. As we all know, there was ZERO evidence of any knife being carried in the cloth bag and ZERO evidence that AK ever carried a knife of any kind. The Massei court just made up the entire story out of think air.

The guilters think it's logical that AK and RS cleaned up the crime scene when it's obvious there was no cleaning. Why clean the bathroom and leave blood in several places, including your own? Why not mop down the floors in the bathroom and corridor/kitchen? Why not flush the feces in FR's and LM's bathroom if Guede were their accomplice? Add to that the illogical claim that they were trying to cover for Guede by accusing Lumumba when they would have knowingly left his feces and his bloody shoeprints? If they had cleaned up anything, they'd have cleaned it ALL with the exception of the bedroom. Then there's the idiotic belief that they could selectively clean up ONLY their own forensic evidence while leaving Guede's. The entire guilter logic is just, well....illogical.

There is evidence that there was no cleaning: there were no swirl marks detected. Selective cleaning of DNA is impossible without the equipment (large and expensive) and the expertise to operate the equipment needed to identify each person's DNA.

 

[Bill Williams]

How do police botch on investigation? In Ottawa recently, despite a suspect known to police having illegal and prohibited items plainly visible in his car....

.... they proceeded with an impaired driving ruse, thus avoiding having to 'read him his rights'.

No system to track, train lying police...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/no-system-to-track-train-lying-police-lawyer-says-after-another-scathing-decision-1.7547366

So much for the claim touted in this thread, that police have 'no reason to lie'.... when they do the courts should hold them to account.

 

[Numbers]

How do police botch on investigation? In Ottawa recently, despite a suspect known to police having illegal and prohibited items plainly visible in his car....

.... they proceeded with an impaired driving ruse, thus avoiding having to 'read him his rights'.

No system to track, train lying police...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/no-system-to-track-train-lying-police-lawyer-says-after-another-scathing-decision-1.7547366

So much for the claim touted in this thread, that police have 'no reason to lie'.... when they do the courts should hold them to account.

Here's a 1970 Boston case where a police officer lied about being assaulted with a brick by a 19-year-old physics student. Turns out the student had books in his hand as he was watching an anti-war demonstration; while watching the protest, the student had been attacked without rational (reasonable) cause by the police officer. However, the student was convicted, sentenced to 6 months in jail (suspended) and to 3 years of probation, but lost his scholarship, job, and security clearance, and had to drop out of Northeastern University. He was exonerated in a 1990 hearing after he was allowed by the Boston Globe to find among their photos of the demonstration one of him - arms full of books - being dragged away by police.

I reject the claims that police or prosecutors never frame people, that Knox and Sollecito were not framed, that there must be a widespread conspiracy for police or prosecutor to frame someone (it's just teamwork), that the police or prosecutor must have some extraordinary "rational" motive (for example, protecting an informant) to frame someone, or that it's not "framing" if the police are "sincerely" convinced that the person is guilty. My definition of framing is very similar (but not identical) to the Italian definition of the crime of calunnia - it's a knowingly false accusation against someone made to a person in authority and/or fabricating false evidence against someone - for example, by coercing a false confession or false statement from someone, and/or suppressing exculpatory evidence favoring someone.

On January 29, 1970, 19-year-old Malcolm Emory, a student studying physics on a full scholarship at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, left the campus library after studying for a Russian mid-term exam. The University Quadrangle was jammed with about 3,000 students demonstrating against the war in Vietnam.

Emory was curious because he had never personally seen a protest. As he looked on, clutching an armload of books, Boston police charged into the crowd to break up the demonstration, and a melee erupted. Officer Vincent P. Logan arrested Emory because, according to Logan, Emory had a brick in one hand and a concrete block in the other and threw the brick, striking him in the chest.

In 1985, Emory took a job in a machine shop in Peabody, Massachusetts. While visiting friends in Boston, he went to the Boston Library to look at microfiche of the front page of the Boston Globe newspaper for January 30, 1970, the day after he was arrested. Emory saw himself, barely visible, in a photograph accompanying an article about the demonstration. His books were obscured, however. Emory decided to see if the newspaper had other photographs of the demonstration that would show him carrying the books and support his claim of innocence.
....
Emory faced a dilemma: He could not get a subpoena [to force the Globe to allow him to see their unpublished photos of the demonstration] without filing a motion for new trial, yet without evidence of innocence, he could not file a motion for new trial. He asked the Globe to be allowed to view the photographs to see if there were others in which he could be seen and explained how he believed a photograph could exonerate him.

In January 1989, after years of negotiating with Emory's attorneys, the Globe allowed Emory to view the unpublished images without a subpoena. On a contact sheet, he found an image of himself being dragged away by police, still clutching his books.

Armed with the photograph, Emory filed a motion for a new trial and a hearing was held. On April 6, 1990, the motion was granted. On May 24, 1990, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office dismissed the case. The following day, Northeastern University, where Emory had been taking night classes since returning to the Boston area, granted Emory a full scholarship to complete his studies. In 1991, Emory graduated with a bachelor's degree in physics.

Source: https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/11302

 

[Mojo]

Here's the interesting part: other journalists, who had been positioned a bit farther away from the protesters and the interaction between Gevorgyan and the police, had not only witnessed the events, but had recorded them on video. Their statement and the video was entered into evidence for Gevorgyan's complaint against the police, but the testimony was ignored and the first-instance court claimed, falsely, that the video supported the police account. The falsehoods of the court survived through a full appeals process.

Did they say something like, "this is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say: It cannot be right that these actions should go any further"?

 

[TomG]

Logic has never been a strength of the pro-guilt. They think it was logical for Knox and Sollecito to point out the bathmat footprint to the police when, if guilty, they would have known it was RS's. My favorite guilter 'explanation' is that they thought themselves so clever they wanted to 'pull one over' on the police.

They think it would be logical for RS to give AK an 18-inch unguarded chef's knife instead of one of his safer flip knives to carry around in her book bag for 'protection'. As we all know, there was ZERO evidence of any knife being carried in the cloth bag and ZERO evidence that AK ever carried a knife of any kind. The Massei court just made up the entire story out of think air.

The guilters think it's logical that AK and RS cleaned up the crime scene when it's obvious there was no cleaning. Why clean the bathroom and leave blood in several places, including your own? Why not mop down the floors in the bathroom and corridor/kitchen? Why not flush the feces in FR's and LM's bathroom if Guede were their accomplice? Add to that the illogical claim that they were trying to cover for Guede by accusing Lumumba when they would have knowingly left his feces and his bloody shoeprints? If they had cleaned up anything, they'd have cleaned it ALL with the exception of the bedroom. Then there's the idiotic belief that they could selectively clean up ONLY their own forensic evidence while leaving Guede's. The entire guilter logic is just, well....illogical.

Also, if the climb to the window was so unlikely, why would anyone want to stage a break-in at such an unlikely location? Maybe that was another attempt to 'pull one over' on the cops.

 

[Stacyhs]

How do police botch on investigation? In Ottawa recently, despite a suspect known to police having illegal and prohibited items plainly visible in his car....

.... they proceeded with an impaired driving ruse, thus avoiding having to 'read him his rights'.

No system to track, train lying police...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/no-system-to-track-train-lying-police-lawyer-says-after-another-scathing-decision-1.7547366

So much for the claim touted in this thread, that police have 'no reason to lie'.... when they do the courts should hold them to account.

What some people fail to consider is that the police had a strong motive to lie about the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. Both Amanda and Raffaele claimed they were threatened and abused. Naturally, whether true or not, the police would deny this because admitting it would likely end their careers. As Marasca said, they were under a lot of pressure to solve the case ASAP.

We also know that Napoleoni, Zugarini, and several other officers were willing to break the law, including abusing their police powers, to get what they wanted and cover for each other.

 

[Stacyhs]

Also, if the climb to the window was so unlikely, why would anyone want to stage a break-in at such an unlikely location? Maybe that was another attempt to 'pull one over' on the cops.

Why go to all the trouble of breaking the window when all they had to do was leave the door standing wide open? A burglary motive wasn't even necessary when a girl was sexually assaulted and murdered.
But I still ask: why would anyone stage a robbery and then tell the police nothing was taken? It makes zero sense.

 

[Myriad]

It makes zero sense.

It makes no sense, which just shows how entitled and superior AK and RS were acting to think they could get away with it!

It's the Chewbacca Prosecution.

 

[Numbers]

Here's a 1970 Boston case where a police officer lied about being assaulted with a brick by a 19-year-old physics student. Turns out the student had books in his hand as he was watching an anti-war demonstration; while watching the protest, the student had been attacked without rational (reasonable) cause by the police officer. However, the student was convicted, sentenced to 6 months in jail (suspended) and to 3 years of probation, but lost his scholarship, job, and security clearance, and had to drop out of Northeastern University. He was exonerated in a 1990 hearing after he was allowed by the Boston Globe to find among their photos of the demonstration one of him - arms full of books - being dragged away by police.

I reject the claims that police or prosecutors never frame people, that Knox and Sollecito were not framed, that there must be a widespread conspiracy for police or prosecutor to frame someone (it's just teamwork), that the police or prosecutor must have some extraordinary "rational" motive (for example, protecting an informant) to frame someone, or that it's not "framing" if the police are "sincerely" convinced that the person is guilty. My definition of framing is very similar (but not identical) to the Italian definition of the crime of calunnia - it's a knowingly false accusation against someone made to a person in authority and/or fabricating false evidence against someone - for example, by coercing a false confession or false statement from someone, and/or suppressing exculpatory evidence favoring someone.

Source: https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/11302

There are some other ways to frame someone that I realize I should have included: falsely interpreting or translating a statement from one language to another to give the appearance of guilt and falsely interpreting or reporting the results of a forensic test. This falsity would include incomplete reporting of relevant statements or forensic results that are favorable to the person being framed. Examples of falsifying statements in the Knox - Sollecito case are Mignini leaving out the closing "have a good evening" (in Italian) from Knox's text responding to Lumumba and the interpreter not informing her police colleagues that she understood that Knox's text could have simply been an attempt at a casual farewell by someone with an imperfect knowledge of Italian. Examples of falsifying test results by falsely interpreting results would include Stefanoni's failure to include any mention of the DNA of two other males besides Sollecito in the (alleged) bra clasp DNA result.

As readers here may be aware from previous posts (from a quite awhile ago), in 2016, after Knox and Sollecito had been finally acquitted of the murder/rape charges in a 2015 CSC judgment that included, in its MR, criticism of the investigation conducted by the police as supervised by prosecutor Mignini, Italy passed a criminal law that entered into the Codice Penale as CP Article 375. That article is titled "Frode in processo penale e depistaggio" translating to "Fraud or Misdirection in Criminal Proceedings", a law which attaches criminal penalties to acts by police or other public officials that include any falsification or remaining silent in a criminal case; the law is general in that it would apply to official acts making someone innocent appear guilty or someone guilty appear not guilty.

Here's a Google translation of the first part of CP Article 375; I'm leaving out the remainder because it goes into great detail on the various levels of punishment applied depending on what kind of crime is being falsified, with aggravating and extenuating circumstances.

Art. 375.
Fraud or misdirection in criminal proceedings

Unless the act constitutes a more serious crime, a public official or person in charge of a public service who, in order to prevent, hinder or divert an investigation or a criminal trial:
a) artificially alters the corpus delicti or the state of the places, things, or people connected to the crime;
b) requested by the judicial authority or the judicial police to provide information in a criminal proceeding, states something false or denies the truth, or keeps silent, in whole or in part, about what he knows about the facts on which he is being questioned, is punishable by imprisonment for three to eight years.
If the act is committed by destroying, suppressing, concealing, damaging, in whole or in part, or by creating or artificially altering, in whole or in part, a document or object to be used as evidence or in any case useful for discovering or ascertaining the crime, the penalty is increased by one third to one half.

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/n...itti-contro-l-amministrazione-della-giustizia

Note: corpus delicti may be defined in the context of the law as the "body of evidence, including physical objects" that shows that a crime has been committed and who may have committed the crime. In a murder case, it would include, of course, the body of the victim as well as other evidence.

 

[Numbers]

There are some other ways to frame someone that I realize I should have included: falsely interpreting or translating a statement from one language to another to give the appearance of guilt and falsely interpreting or reporting the results of a forensic test. This falsity would include incomplete reporting of relevant statements or forensic results that are favorable to the person being framed. Examples of falsifying statements in the Knox - Sollecito case are Mignini leaving out the closing "have a good evening" (in Italian) from Knox's text responding to Lumumba and the interpreter not informing her police colleagues that she understood that Knox's text could have simply been an attempt at a casual farewell by someone with an imperfect knowledge of Italian. Examples of falsifying test results by falsely interpreting results would include Stefanoni's failure to include any mention of the DNA of two other males besides Sollecito in the (alleged) bra clasp DNA result.

As readers here may be aware from previous posts (from a quite awhile ago), in 2016, after Knox and Sollecito had been finally acquitted of the murder/rape charges in a 2015 CSC judgment that included, in its MR, criticism of the investigation conducted by the police as supervised by prosecutor Mignini, Italy passed a criminal law that entered into the Codice Penale as CP Article 375. That article is titled "Frode in processo penale e depistaggio" translating to "Fraud or Misdirection in Criminal Proceedings", a law which attaches criminal penalties to acts by police or other public officials that include any falsification or remaining silent in a criminal case; the law is general in that it would apply to official acts making someone innocent appear guilty or someone guilty appear not guilty.

Here's a Google translation of the first part of CP Article 375; I'm leaving out the remainder because it goes into great detail on the various levels of punishment applied depending on what kind of crime is being falsified, with aggravating and extenuating circumstances.


Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/n...itti-contro-l-amministrazione-della-giustizia

Note: corpus delicti may be defined in the context of the law as the "body of evidence, including physical objects" that shows that a crime has been committed and who may have committed the crime. In a murder case, it would include, of course, the body of the victim as well as other evidence.

There's also an Italian criminal law, CP Article 373, that provides for criminal penalties for a court-appointed technical expert or interpreter who provides a false report or makes false statements (Google translation):

Article 373 of the Criminal Code
(R.D. 19 October 1930, n. 1398)
[Updated 24/04/2025]

False expert opinion or interpretation
The expert or interpreter, who, appointed by the judicial authority, gives false opinions or interpretations, or states facts that are not true, is subject to the penalties established in the previous article.

The conviction entails, in addition to the disqualification from holding public office, the disqualification from the profession or from the art.

Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iii/capo-i/art373.html

 

[Numbers]

There's also an Italian criminal law, CP Article 373, that provides for criminal penalties for a court-appointed technical expert or interpreter who provides a false report or makes false statements (Google translation):



Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iii/capo-i/art373.html

It may help to know what the text and penalty of the preceding CP Article 372, is, in order to understand fully CP Article 373. Here's a Google translation of CP Article 372:

Art. 372.
False testimony.

Anyone who, testifying as a witness before a judicial authority or the International Criminal Court, affirms something false or denies the truth, or conceals, in whole or in part, what he knows about the facts about which he is being questioned, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

This article, in the original 1930 text of the CP, was amended in 1992 and 2012; adding the ICC was of course part of the amendments.

 

[Numbers]

There's also an Italian criminal law, CP Article 373, that provides for criminal penalties for a court-appointed technical expert or interpreter who provides a false report or makes false statements (Google translation):



Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iii/capo-i/art373.html

The "court-appointed" may also include prosecution or police appointed.

 

[Numbers]

I searched through the cases against Italy pending before the CoM to find the oldest one involving a criminal case. The one that met those criteria was Sud Fondi SRL and others v. Italy 75909/01 published 20 January 2009 and final 20 April 2009. It's a case that illustrates the high levels of confusion and dysfunction that can be found in Italian law and the Italian judicial system.

Note that this case has a CSC reversal of an appeals court decision without referral. Such reversals are not uncommon in Italian judicial practice.

One other point: the values in 2007 of the land and the buildings confiscated by Italy in this case were estimated as no less than about 300 and 20 million euros, respectively. Considering the Italian government would not be eager to pay such sums to the applicants, it is not surprising that so far Italy has not taken measures to address the violations of the Convention found in the case. I suggest that potential financial losses to the Italian treasury are a motivation for the slowness of Italian responses to findings of violations of the Convention by the ECHR.

A brief summary: Sud Fondi SRL was a relatively large company that owned land on the seashore in the Bari municipality. The others are two smaller companies that also owned land next to the Sud Fondi property. The three companies in a partnership sought permission from Bari to develop the land. The Bari municipality checked in laws and land development regulations and found no issues, so it permitted the development in 1995. However, in 1996 started an investigation and came to the view that the development was not legal, resulting in a temporary order seizing the property. Then, in response to an appeal by the companies, the CSC returned the property, since the CSC could find no illegality. However, in 1999 a criminal court found that there had been illegality, but that the three companies and their respective owners had not committed any crime - that is, they were acquitted - because the Bari municipality had informed them that the development was legal. On the other hand, it ordered the transfer of ownership of the land and buildings of the development to the Bari municipality. An appeal court in 2000 agreed with the acquittal but quashed the confiscation of the land and buildings. However, in 2001 the CSC reversed that appeal court decision without referral. The CSC found that the development and buildings on the land of the property were illegal because of national laws relating to a ban on buildings in such areas and environmental protection laws.

Thus, the CSC acquitted the accused on the grounds that they had not been guilty of negligence and had had no unlawful intent to commit the offences, which were the result of an “inevitable and excusable error” in the interpretation of “vague and poorly formulated” regional regulations which interfered with the national law. The Court of Cassation also took into account the conduct of the administrative authorities. It noted, in particular, that (i) on obtaining the planning permission the applicant companies had received assurances from the director of the municipal office; (ii) that the covenants protecting the site did not appear on the development plan; and (iii) that the competent national authority had not intervened. Lastly, the Court of Cassation urged against conjecture in the absence of an inquiry into the reasons for the authorities’ conduct. It also ordered the confiscation of all the buildings and land.

The ECHR found two violations of the Convention: Article 7 and Article 1 of Protocol 1. The reasons were, respectively,

Since the statutory basis for the offence did not satisfy the criteria of clarity, accessibility and foreseeability, it had been impossible to foresee that a penalty would be inflicted. Further, for the purposes of Article 7, a legislative framework that did not enable an accused to know the meaning and scope of the criminal law was deficient not only as regards the general conditions pertaining to the “quality” of the “law”, but also as regards the specific requirements of legality in the criminal law. Consequently, the confiscation of the properties had not been prescribed by law for the purposes of Article 7 and amounted to an arbitrary penalty.

and

...the fact that the applicant companies had acted in good faith and without negligence had not been seen as relevant and the applicable procedures had taken no account of the degree of responsibility or recklessness or, at least, of the relationship between the companies’ conduct and the offence. Further, confiscation on that scale without compensation was not justified by the stated aim of bringing the land concerned into conformity with the urban development regulations. Lastly, it was the very municipality which had granted the illegal planning permission which, paradoxically, had become the owner of the confiscated land. In the light of these considerations, a fair balance had not been struck.

Sources:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

 

[Stacyhs]

Update on Guede's charges for raping and beating his former girlfriend:

The preliminary hearing for Rudy Guede, who risks trial in Viterbo for sexual violence, mistreatment and injuries towards his ex-girlfriend, has been postponed to July 11 due to a failure to notify. The Ivorian, after the girl's complaint, was also subjected to a year of special surveillance in addition to the measure of the prohibition of approaching with an electronic bracelet. Guede has always denied the accusations. The violence would also be evidenced by some photos that the 24-year-old kept on her cell phone and that were searched for by a computer expert during the evidentiary incident.

He and his lawyer are complaining that the there's a negative atmosphere regarding him and that it goes against an assumption of innocence. You know, like Knox and Sollecito faced.

Rudy Guede denounces "a climate of morbidity and prejudice mounted against him" in view of the preliminary hearing before the GUP of Viterbo in which he is accused of mistreatment and sexual violence against his ex-girlfriend (charges that he denies).

He did so through a note from his defense attorney, Carlo Mezzetti, released by ANSA. The lawyer emphasized that the climate toward Guede "clearly clashes with the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence and with the respect that is due to all the people involved in the matter under investigation"."Mr. Guede and the defense attorney - it is further stated in the note from lawyer Mezzetti - have always observed a behavior marked by confidentiality during all the preliminary investigations, which appears all the more necessary when discussing particularly delicate matters.

I wonder if his lawyer, Carlo Mezzetti, is related to Laura Mezzetti who is now a lawyer.

 

[Numbers]

Update on Guede's charges for raping and beating his former girlfriend:



He and his lawyer are complaining that the there's a negative atmosphere regarding him and that it goes against an assumption of innocence. You know, like Knox and Sollecito faced.


I wonder if his lawyer, Carlo Mezzetti, is related to Laura Mezzetti who is now a lawyer.

Stacyhs, thanks for posting this news.

I found this in Perugia Tomorrow dated 4 June 2025 (Google translation):

The preliminary hearing against Rudy Guede, accused of sexual violence, mistreatment and personal injury against his ex-girlfriend, was held yesterday morning at the Viterbo court. The 37-year-old Ivorian, known for his involvement in the Meredith Kercher murder case, is now once again at the center of a judicial affair with a strong media impact.

Rudy Guede di nuovo a processo: accuse di violenza dalla ex compagna - Perugia Tomorrow

Rudy Guede torna davanti al giudice con l'accusa di violenza e maltrattamenti all'ex compagna. Udienza preliminare a Viterbo, con foto dei lividi agli atti.

www.perugiatomorrow.it

And this in Civonline.it dated 4 June 2025:

The preliminary hearing for Rudy Guede, the 38-year-old Ivorian accused of sexual assault by his ex, has been postponed until July.The young man, who served a 16-year sentence for the murder of English student Meredith Kercher, was released from prison in the summer of 2023 and began a relationship with a 25-year-old woman from Viterbo who then reported him for mistreatment, injuries and sexual assault. On 6 December 2023, Guede was ordered not to approach the injured party. The prosecutor's office has requested that he be sent for trial. Yesterday morning, his lawyer Carlo Mezzetti noted a defect in notification, which is why the preliminary hearing was postponed until July. In the meantime, the lawyer has released a note in which, referring to the media treatment reserved for the young man, he speaks of "a climate of morbidity and prejudice" in contrast with the presumption of innocence.

....

According to the lawyer Mezzetti: “in this context, however, in the past few days, some press articles have been published in which serious conduct is attributed to Mr. Guede, without even using the conditional, with many scandalous details. All this at a time when the suspect has not even been sent for trial yet”. The lawyer concludes by saying that: “At this point we are therefore forced to specify that in relation to these publications and other future ones that may have the same tenor, Mr. Guede reserves the right to take legal action to protect his honor”.

Rudy Guede: «Contro di me clima morboso e pregiudizievole»

E’ accusato dall’ex di maltrattamenti, lesioni e violenza sessuale. L’udienza preliminare di ieri mattina è stata rinviata a luglio per un difetto di notifica

www.civonline.it

 

[Numbers]

Some (PGP) have posted that law enforcement officials are only interested in searching for criminals and had no reason to coerce false statements from Knox and Sollecito. That view, however, ignores the complexity of human motivations or non-reasoning that may occur even in law enforcement professionals under some circumstances, for example, pressure to close a notorious case quickly. Sometimes motivations even of law enforcement may not seem rational, for example, as in the US satanic cult ritual child abuse panic*.

Recently, Los Angeles County, California probation officers allegedly permitted or instigated beatings of detained juvenile offenders by other detained juvenile offenders at a detention center. This misconduct was recorded on video surveillance cameras in the detention facility, although according to press reports, the surveillance recordings were only looked at after a particularly severe beating and complaint led to an investigation. I can only speculate that the probation officers allegedly involved were staging these "gladiator fights" for their entertainment.

The point is that the purity of intent or even the rationality of law enforcement officers and other justice system officials should not be assumed. If one has an open mind about the intent and rationality of justice system officials, the events of the Knox - Sollecito case become more understandable.

Here's an excerpt from a news report on this alleged misconduct by the LA County probation officers:

Los Angeles County on Monday agreed to pay $2.7 million to a teenager who was attacked by at least six other young people at a juvenile detention center in so-called “gladiator fights” that were allegedly facilitated by probation officers.

The boy's beating in 2023 at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall was captured on surveillance video that also showed several officials standing idly by and some of them shaking hands with the participants in the beating.

A state grand jury in March charged 30 correctional officers for their role in allowing and sometimes encouraging nearly 70 fights to take place between July and December 2023. The officers face charges including child endangerment and abuse, conspiracy, and battery.

More than 140 victims between the ages of 12 and 18 were involved, according to authorities.

Attorney General Rob Bonta said after the charges were announced that it seemed the attacks were planned.

“They often wanted them to happen at the beginning of the day, in a certain time, in a certain place. A space and a time was created for the fights, and the plan was for the fights to happen,” he said.

The investigation began after the Los Angeles Times first obtained and published video footage that shows a then-16-year-old being attacked by at least six other young people, who came at him one by one as officers stand by watching. ....

Source: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...adiator-fights-at-detention-facility/3715012/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic

 

[Numbers]

An ECHR judgment published today, 5 June 2025, may have relevance in understanding the defects of the Chieffi CSC panel judgment and the Nencini Court of Appeal provisional judgment.

In Anna Maria Ciccone v. Italy 21492/17, the ECHR found a violation of Convention Article 6.1 in a case where an Italian Court of Appeal convicted a radiologist who had been accused, with others, of complicity in involuntary manslaughter for the death of a patient who had been misdiagnosed. She had failed to detect a broken femur in a patient who had been assaulted.

In the first instance trial, Ciccone had been acquitted largely based on statements by experts (appointed by the prosecutor). The Court of Appeals, however, convicted her without hearing testimony from those experts, but instead relying on written reports.

In the Knox - Sollecito case, did the Nencini Court of Appeal hear the testimony of all the experts, including Conti & Vecciotti? If not, its provisional conviction would, if it had become final, be subject to the same ECHR case law as the case of Anna Maria Ciccione v. Italy, among many other issues.

Whether or not it heard C&V, if the Nencini Court of Appeal dismissed their criticisms of the police lab's evidence collection and DNA testing of the knife blade and bra in wording that was contrary to scientific principles or in any way arbitrary or unreasonable, there would also be a violation of Convention Article 6.1 if the Nencini conviction judgment was final.

See:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

Press release (English)

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

Judgment (French)

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs, thanks for posting this news.

I found this in Perugia Tomorrow dated 4 June 2025 (Google translation):

Rudy Guede di nuovo a processo: accuse di violenza dalla ex compagna - Perugia Tomorrow

Rudy Guede torna davanti al giudice con l'accusa di violenza e maltrattamenti all'ex compagna. Udienza preliminare a Viterbo, con foto dei lividi agli atti.

www.perugiatomorrow.it

And this in Civonline.it dated 4 June 2025:

Rudy Guede: «Contro di me clima morboso e pregiudizievole»

E’ accusato dall’ex di maltrattamenti, lesioni e violenza sessuale. L’udienza preliminare di ieri mattina è stata rinviata a luglio per un difetto di notifica

www.civonline.it

" Mr. Guede reserves the right to take legal action to protect his honor”.

He has no honor. He's a convicted murderer and rapist who continues to implicate two innocent people for his own crime. For his lawyer to even make such a statement shows his own intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Numbers]

" Mr. Guede reserves the right to take legal action to protect his honor”.

He has no honor. He's a convicted murderer and rapist who continues to implicate two innocent people for his own crime. For his lawyer to even make such a statement shows his own intellectual dishonesty.

Yes. Although I believe the lawyer was referring to a presumed "honor" under the Italian criminal and civil laws against defamation and libel.

 

[Stacyhs]

Some (PGP) have posted that law enforcement officials are only interested in searching for criminals and had no reason to coerce false statements from Knox and Sollecito. That view, however, ignores the complexity of human motivations or non-reasoning that may occur even in law enforcement professionals under some circumstances, for example, pressure to close a notorious case quickly. Sometimes motivations even of law enforcement may not seem rational, for example, as in the US satanic cult ritual child abuse panic*.

Recently, Los Angeles County, California probation officers allegedly permitted or instigated beatings of detained juvenile offenders by other detained juvenile offenders at a detention center. This misconduct was recorded on video surveillance cameras in the detention facility, although according to press reports, the surveillance recordings were only looked at after a particularly severe beating and complaint led to an investigation. I can only speculate that the probation officers allegedly involved were staging these "gladiator fights" for their entertainment.

The point is that the purity of intent or even the rationality of law enforcement officers and other justice system officials should not be assumed. If one has an open mind about the intent and rationality of justice system officials, the events of the Knox - Sollecito case become more understandable.

Here's an excerpt from a news report on this alleged misconduct by the LA County probation officers:



Source: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...adiator-fights-at-detention-facility/3715012/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic

I find it incredibly dishonest to accuse the acquitting judges, defense lawyers, defense experts, and defense witnesses of being bent, on the take, or otherwise dishonest but defend the police in the Kercher investigation, several of whom (Napoleoni, Zugarini, et al), were convicted of crimes themselves. That includes Mignini who was initially convicted of abuse of office and was made to release Mario Spezi by court order for being illegally arrested and detained for 3 weeks. Then there's his co-prosecutor Comodi who was convicted of illegally hacking into the Public Prosecutor's records and was demoted and transferred to Milan as a civil judge.

 

[Numbers]

Yes. Although I believe the lawyer was referring to a presumed "honor" under the Italian criminal and civil laws against defamation and libel.

Here's a Google translation of the Italian criminal law on defamation and libel (defamation through publication) - not to be confused with the crime of calunnia (false accusation against someone to the police, prosecutor, or judge):

Art. 595.
Defamation.

Anyone who, outside the cases indicated in the previous article, while communicating with several people, offends the reputation of others, is punished with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 1,032 euros.
If the offense consists in the attribution of a specific fact, the penalty is imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to 2,065 euros.
If the offense is made through the press or any other means of publicity, or in a public document, the penalty is imprisonment of six months to three years or a fine of not less than 516 euros.
If the offense is made to a political, administrative or judicial body, or to one of its representatives or to an authority constituted as a college, the penalties are increased.

 

[Numbers]

I find it incredibly dishonest to accuse the acquitting judges, defense lawyers, defense experts, and defense witnesses of being bent, on the take, or otherwise dishonest but defend the police in the Kercher investigation, several of whom (Napoleoni, Zugarini, et al), were convicted of crimes themselves. That includes Mignini who was initially convicted of abuse of office and was made to release Mario Spezi by court order for being illegally arrested and detained for 3 weeks. Then there's his co-prosecutor Comodi who was convicted of illegally hacking into the Public Prosecutor's records and was demoted and transferred to Milan as a civil judge.

Stacyhs, thanks again for the important information you post. I had not been aware that Comodi had been convicted of a crime in a fast-track trial before a court in Florence. The CSM (High Council of the Magistrates) then, in part as a precaution but also as a demotion, transferred her to the Milan court district and limited her to civil cases. IIRC, during the Massei trial, she raised some suspicions among some observers when it was learned that she had arranged for the contract for the graphics - the cartoon claiming to illustrate the murder - to be fulfilled by a relative of hers.

 

[Stacyhs]

Comodi was acquitted in the case regarding the cartoon so she didn't have to pay for it. The fact that the prosecution had a cartoon created that cost 182,000 euros paid for by the state is yet another example of the prosecution having access to funds that the defense does not have. Knox and Sollecito had to pay for their own expert witnesses, etc.