Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

The sources are absolutely clear: the police was searching him.
Multiple Italian sources agree on this and report the same thing. News reports such as Il Corriere, as well as Paul Russell (who I consider an Italian source since he lives in Parma).
The police were seeking to locate the professor in Zurich, and they also leaked information about this to the press, they only refused to provide the name of the professor.
Paul Russell alone reports that prof. Mero was told by a friend that the police was searching him (note: not about just the arrest of Lumumba, but about the fact that the police was looking for a Swiss professor), and reportedly his friend told him "the police is looking for you", so much that Mero got scared at the beginning.

So, you see, we are talking about the police searching someone.

We can't know if Paul Russell's version is the most accurate one, and we can't know details like for example who dialled the phone number first, who called whom (if it was Mero calling as a response to the plice looking for him, or if the Swiss police found his wife). But what we can certainly say is that several sources agree that it was not an initiative of Mero, they all report that it was the police who initiated the search after the Swiss professor, and that the Italian newspapers reported that he "did not refuse to testify".
They did not reported that he offered to testified. They reported that he was detected, and he did not refuse.

Well now, that's interesting......

Because this is what my copy of "Darkness Descending" has to say, verbatim, on the matter:


...a conscientious university professor called Roman Mero received a phone call. The voice at the other end of the line made him jump, even though it was a friend.

"I've just seen the news," the prof's pal exclaimed. "The Italian police are looking for you."

"Are you sure?" exclaimed the professor, sightly panicked. "What for?"

"A man called Patrick Lumumba", the pal explained, "has just been arrested for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the student who was killed in Perugia when you were there. He says he's looking for a Swiss professor who spent some time in his bar discussing Congolese politics. That sounds like you, doesn't it?"

"Yes, it was," the professor replied with zero hesitation.

"Well, it sounds like you're his alibi then," the friend added.

Five minutes later, after Googling the phone number for the Perugia police, Professor Mero was talking to a detective. The officer told him he'd have to call back the next day when the case officers were at their desk. But the Swiss professor couldn't wait. Efficient and full of initiative, he called again and told them he was on his way down to Italy to explain in person.


Now, several clear inferences can be drawn from this passage:

1) Mero was alerted by his Italian friend, and not by the Italian (or Swiss) police.

2) The Italian police almost certainly didn't know Mero's name and identity (as neither, probably, did Lumumba), since otherwise they clearly would have been able to contact him easily rather than via the extremely odd and inefficient manner of planting hints in the Italian media.

3) The context (specifically the passage saying "he (i.e. Lumumba) says he's looking for a Swiss professor...) implies that it was more likely Pacelli (Lumumba's lawyer) who was appealing on Lumumba's behalf than it was the police who were appealing on Lumumba's behalf.

4) The book explicitly states that Mero looked up the phone number of the Perugia police online, and initiated the contact himself.

5) The book further explicitly states that Mero was rebuffed in his first attempt, but that he persevered and called back to say he was coming to Perugia anyhow. The book is explictly clear that it was Mero who initiated and instigated his travel to Perugia.


Now, it's obviously very easy for the police and PM to make earnest ex-post-facto declarations that they were actively seeking Mero, and even that they were literally minutes (or whatever) from reaching him and whisking him off post-haste to Perugia, but he just pipped them to the post. It's easy to claim that. But is it the truth....?

Anyhow, that's what my copy of "Darkness Descending" has to say on the issue, and it's very different in several critical respects from Machiavelli's version. But who knows: perhaps Machiavelli's copy of "Darkness Descending" has a different collection of words in it than my copy.......

 

[Dan O.]

When the guilt-folk don't have anything to say about the subject, they play the ad hominem card. Then they arrest the ad homenim card. Then they try to take the conversation from the issue at hand into those four places.

It's all they have, really.

Do they realize that Frank was following this case in Perugia and online from day 1?

 

[LondonJohn]

I left out several sentences because I was typing it out. Apparently addressing the jury, Comodi said, "No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn't even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says that the scientific police have to produce all that is requested. It's not proof, and we didn't need it to support our case. The prosecutor's office decides what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police how they found the hooker on line. The important thing is that they found the hooker!"

And, as you are alluding to, the part where Comodi said "you can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree" makes virtually no sense unless the question of Stefanoni's level of academic qualification had come up in argument. And the only context in which that makes sense is if there was some sort of claim that Stefanoni wasn't sufficiently qualified. And if that's the case, then it's a near-certain inference that the specific issue under argument was related to Stefanoni holding merely a Laurea degree and not a Dott. Ric. (or Ph.D) qualification.

Perhaps Machiavelli himself would like to ask the fragrant Comodi what exactly she meant (and implied) by saying "you can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree".....

 

[Mr Fied]

No, the standard is onus probandi incumbit qui dicit: you say Stefanoni is less qualified than Vecchiotti - it's your argument - you prove it.

Stefanoni says that Meredith Kercher's DNA was on the knife, it's her argument, let her prove it.

All we need is someone independent to re-test the knife. Oh, it was re-tested.

Stefanoni says that Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp, it's her argument, let her prove it.

All we need is someone independent to re-test the clasp. OOPS.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, the standard is onus probandi incumbit qui dicit: you say Stefanoni is less qualified than Vecchiotti - it's your argument - you prove it.

Stefanoni says that Meredith Kercher's DNA was on the knife, it's her argument, let her prove it.

All we need is someone independent to re-test the knife. Oh, it was re-tested.

Stefanoni says that Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp, it's her argument, let her prove it.

All we need is someone independent to re-test the clasp. OOPS.

Exactly.

Somewhat less important than your observation, is Machiavelli's double standard.

There is NO ONE who says Stefanoni HAS a Ph.D. other than Machiavelli. I have just posted a la Repubblica piece which says her educational background is as a "laurea" only.

Machiavelli is now the ONLY one pushing his lie about Stefanoni's credentials. Yet he says it's up to others to prove him wrong on his simple assertion.

This is the way it works in Machiavelli's mind. Prosecutors get to assert things, and if a judge agrees with that evidence-less assertion, then it becomes judicial fact.

Stefanoni is not a Ph.D. La Repubblica doesn't think she is. Over to you Machiavelli..... care to make another assertion?

 

[Bill Williams]

When the guilt-folk don't have anything to say about the subject, they play the ad hominem card. Then they arrest the ad homenim card. Then they try to take the conversation from the issue at hand into those four places.

It's all they have, really.

Do they realize that Frank was following this case in Perugia and online from day 1?

.... and do they realize that of all the early journalist/bloggers, when Michael Winterbottom buys Barbie Nadeau's horrid book - as an entry point into one of the other early journalists - Michael Winterbottom in his film "The Face of an Angel",........

..... trashes ALL the early journalists including Nadeau, except for Frank Sfarzo? Sfarzo in the film is the Oracle at Delphi. One simply cannot understand how such a case got so out of hand unless one hears the refrain, as the Sfarzo-character says, "That is because you are stupid and do not read my blog."

It was a coup of major proportions, and a rear-guard defensive action, when Mignini had Sfarzo's blog shut down. This attracted the attention of the Committee to Protect Journalists. But Mignini pretty well HAD TO do it, because (as Winterbottom found out) Sfarzo was about the only one telling the truth about the case.

All the guilters have left is ad hominem. What marks them as a pro-guilt lobby, is that whenever a salient point is made and made by Sfarzo, all they have is ad hominem in response.

That's all you really need to know.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly.

Somewhat less important than your observation, is Machiavelli's double standard.

There is NO ONE who says Stefanoni HAS a Ph.D. other than Machiavelli. I have just posted a la Repubblica piece which says her educational background is as a "laurea" only.

Machiavelli is now the ONLY one pushing his lie about Stefanoni's credentials. Yet he says it's up to others to prove him wrong on his simple assertion.

This is the way it works in Machiavelli's mind. Prosecutors get to assert things, and if a judge agrees with that evidence-less assertion, then it becomes judicial fact.

Stefanoniis not a Ph.D.

Oh Bill! Bill, Bill, Bill!

Don't you realise that saying this is a capital offence?! Be very afraid of an Italian extra-jurisdiction hit squad knocking on your door in the dawn hours sometime very soon. And don't even THINK of ever travelling to Italy again!

 

[LondonJohn]

.... and do they realize that of all the early journalist/bloggers, when Michael Winterbottom buys Barbie Nadeau's horrid book - as an entry point into one of the other early journalists - Michael Winterbottom in his film "The Face of an Angel",........

..... trashes ALL the early journalists except for Frank Sfarzo? Sfarzo in the film is the Oracle at Delphi. One simply cannot understand how such a case got so out of hand unless one hears the refrain, as the Sfarzo-character says, "That is because you are stupid and do not read my blog."

All the guilters have left is ad hominem. What marks them as a pro-guilt lobby, is that whenever a salient point is made and made by Sfarzo, all they have is ad hominem in response.

That's all you really need to know.

Oh well, with few exceptions, the pro-guilt commentators tend to be unpleasant, vindictive, misanthropic bullies. As far as I'm concerned, the ugly combination of a) the personal attacks on anyone connected to the pro-acquittal point of view, and b) the maudlin, cloying cloak of fake morality by claiming to be "doing it all for Meredith" - a person whom none of them ever met and with whom they had no connection whatsoever before they started commentating on this case - is a huge red flag for me. As I've said before, I believe many of them are using this case to project their own failings and victimisations, as well as a nasty streak of schadenfreude and a pathetic need for group approval (and I sincerely think that this would make a fascinating sociological/psychological study area in itself).

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh Bill! Bill, Bill, Bill!

Don't you realise that saying this is a capital offence?! Be very afraid of an Italian extra-jurisdiction hit squad knocking on your door in the dawn hours sometime very soon. And don't even THINK of ever travelling to Italy again!

This part didn't make it to your quoted piece.....

La Repubblica doesn't think she is. Over to you Machiavelli..... care to make another assertion?

I will be tied up in a 10-year, 3-trial level legal process. I'll be convicted, acquitted, then reconvicted.... Machiavelli will blog endlessly about how it is really the Masonic conspiracy behind this slander against Stefanoni.... but still will not post anything resembling proof of her educational level....

And I'll have to share a cell with someone from la Repubblica.....

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh well, with few exceptions, the pro-guilt commentators tend to be unpleasant, vindictive, misanthropic bullies. As far as I'm concerned, the ugly combination of a) the personal attacks on anyone connected to the pro-acquittal point of view, and b) the maudlin, cloying cloak of fake morality by claiming to be "doing it all for Meredith" - a person whom none of them ever met and with whom they had no connection whatsoever before they started commentating on this case - is a huge red flag for me. As I've said before, I believe many of them are using this case to project their own failings and victimisations, as well as a nasty streak of schadenfreude and a pathetic need for group approval (and I sincerely think that this would make a fascinating sociological/psychological study area in itself).

..... and those exceptions are..... !?

 

[sept79]

Posted by Chris_Halkides:

I left out several sentences because I was typing it out. Apparently addressing the jury, Comodi said, "No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn't even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says that the scientific police have to produce all that is requested. It's not proof, and we didn't need it to support our case. The prosecutor's office decides what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police how they found the hooker on line. The important thing is that they found the hooker!"



The highlighted part is the problem with the Italian Prosecutors in this case, in a nutshell. The arrogance, the hubris, the ignorance of defence rights, indeed, of human rights. It is why we need the ECHR - to tell people like Commodi that she needs to get herself re-educated.

The Italian Judges need to be lumped right along with the Italian Prosecutors.

 

[platonov]

Oh well, with few exceptions, the pro-guilt commentators tend to be unpleasant, vindictive, misanthropic bullies. As far as I'm concerned, the ugly combination of a) the personal attacks on anyone connected to the pro-acquittal point of view, and b) the maudlin, cloying cloak of fake morality by claiming to be "doing it all for Meredith" - a person whom none of them ever met and with whom they had no connection whatsoever before they started commentating on this case - is a huge red flag for me. As I've said before, I believe many of them are using this case to project their own failings and victimisations, as well as a nasty streak of schadenfreude and a pathetic need for group approval (and I sincerely think that this would make a fascinating sociological/psychological study area in itself).

Let me see if I have this right.
You don’t like these people

Who are these rascals that have occasioned such upset and what have they done now? Let me guess – they are from one of those sites [PFM or the like] that are the target of the many impromptu and emotional arguments that disturb the peace of cartwheel world. What is to be done?

 

[platonov]

..... and those exceptions are..... !?

Good Q.
Well leaving aside any mention of the MA I like to flatter myself that the name platonov would be near the top of that list. My many patient explanations of several of the more vital issues surrounding this case have not gone unnoticed I fancy.
Mach should be in there too if slightly further down.
No thats not right - Come to think of it I may have been brusque on 1 or 2 occasions.

 

[sept79]

Good Q.
Well leaving aside any mention of the MA I like to flatter myself that the name platonov would be near the top of that list. My many patient explanations of several of the more vital issues surrounding this case have not gone unnoticed I fancy.
Mach should be in there too if slightly further down.
No thats not right - Come to think of it I may have been brusque on 1 or 2 occasions.

Why is it that the word 'arrogance' comes to mind ?

 

[Samson]

Good Q.
Well leaving aside any mention of the MA I like to flatter myself that the name platonov would be near the top of that list. My many patient explanations of several of the more vital issues surrounding this case have not gone unnoticed I fancy.
Mach should be in there too if slightly further down.
No thats not right - Come to think of it I may have been brusque on 1 or 2 occasions.

In the time I have spent watching the case, Fiona is the only name that qualifies as an exception.

 

[Machiavelli]

Exactly.

Somewhat less important than your observation, is Machiavelli's double standard.

There is NO ONE who says Stefanoni HAS a Ph.D. other than Machiavelli. I have just posted a la Repubblica piece which says her educational background is as a "laurea" only.

I had posted at least two newspaper sources reporting she was a researcher at Naples University for years before joining the Scientific Police. I put researcher in italic fonts because ths title has a specific contextual meaning in the Italian academic rules.

Machiavelli is now the ONLY one pushing his lie about Stefanoni's credentials. Yet he says it's up to others to prove him wrong on his simple assertion.

It is only and solely on others to prove their assertion. Why? But it is obvious. For two reasons. First, and foremost, because it is an innocentisti argument.
The innocentisti are the ones who brought the theory "Stefanoni is less qualifies than Vecchiotti and COnti" on internet forums.
They brought it, they stated the theory first, it has been discussed only because they build this argument out of their own initiative.
Second, because it is a potentially defamatory argument. It it's false, you are guilty of defamation. Since it's information potentially detrimental to someone's reputation, and may be false, you have an intrinsic duty to verify that before stating it.

This is the way it works in Machiavelli's mind. Prosecutors get to assert things, and if a judge agrees with that evidence-less assertion, then it becomes judicial fact.

Not exactly. Indeed there are some people who are more credible than others or presumed truthful, but there are also statements that carry a burden of proof because of their nature, there are rules, and this is the part you need to learn.

 

[Machiavelli]

And, as you are alluding to, the part where Comodi said "you can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree" makes virtually no sense unless the question of Stefanoni's level of academic qualification had come up in argument. And the only context in which that makes sense is if there was some sort of claim that Stefanoni wasn't sufficiently qualified. And if that's the case, then it's a near-certain inference that the specific issue under argument was related to Stefanoni holding merely a Laurea degree and not a Dott. Ric. (or Ph.D) qualification.

Perhaps Machiavelli himself would like to ask the fragrant Comodi what exactly she meant (and implied) by saying "you can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree".....

It's up to you, to find a passage in the trial papers where you think Stefanoni's expertise qualification were questioned by the defence, if you think such instance exists.

 

[carbonjam72]

Just ran across this:



http://translate.google.com/transla...E-PER-IL-QUARTO-UOMO-3_134032.php&prev=search

So, they had some information that made them pull Guede's prints--likely Stefano Bonassi's tip. Then they matched the print to the pillow. But, there was also a fingerprint on the toilet paper?

Really old post from DC about 20 pages upthread, but looks like the Perugia police were struck by Bonassi's identification of the "The Baron" who left a turd in their house previously, and spoke to 'many people to reconstruct his identity'.

So it was police work based on Bonassi's comments from Nov 3/4(?), that led them to identify Rudy Guede, and seek out his ID card from Perugia, which was then taken to Rome and matched against the prints from the case.

Fascinating detail. Does make you wonder though, why the police were so determined to blame Amanda, Raf and Patrick, while they were actively pursuing a viable, and as it proved out, genuine suspect and true perp.

Why the rush to interrogate Amanda and Raf, when they were already tracking the real perp?

It doesn't make sense, unless Mignini was deliberately protecting Guede.

 

[tsig]

Frank doesn’t have to follow the law.
IIRC in Italy, Canada, Seattle and Hawaii the law came to Frank.

That was Frank's Felony Tour of America and Canada.

 

[tsig]

Wannaknow,

Some of us provided links showing some of Vecchiotti's publications and her CV. No one has shown that Stefanoni's qualifications are comparable, and some of us have provided evidence (in one case from Comodi's own mouth) that Stefanoni does not have an advanced degree. It was Machiavelli's claim that Stefanoni has a doctorate, but he has not backed this up. IMO the publications on which Stefanoni is listed as a coauthor are meager in both quantity and quality.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. All of the papers and all of the degrees in the world don't guarantee that someone is a good scientist. Based on everything i have seen, I wouldn't trust Stefanoni to do a competent job washing test tubes.

If you can prove that Vecchiotti's qualifications are better than Sefanoni's Amanda goes free?