Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Actually I thought of that and appreciated it but couldn't resist

How would the hyphen have helped

Because in grammar, interlinked adjectives (or groups of words which act together as a single adjectival qualifier to the noun) should be indicated in writing by the use of a hyphen(s). Thus if a man drives a black cab, he is a black-cab driver, not a black cab driver (which would imply grammatically that the man is black, not the cab). If a child is three years old, he/she is a three-year-old child, not a three year old child. And if a journalist works in the print media, he/she is a print-media journalist.

It's just good (and proper) use of grammar, that's all. And it's very useful because it minimises the chance of misinterpretation by the recipient.

Raffaele Sollecito was a wrongfully-convicted man. Mignini is a full-of-hubris magistrate. Nadeau is a good-for-nothing "journalist"..........

 

[Bill Williams]

Just curious if you know Egan's background? How do you know what his frame of mind was?

There is non doubt that CD was not objective from very, very early on. The problem is that reporters can make an error in judgment, become vested and no longer can see the emperor has no clothes.

If I can find that piece by Egan, he was very plain as to what his professional frame of mind was when he discovered the level of "journalism" in Perugia. That dynamic was one of the things Winterbottom covered in his (failed) film.

About CD.... it is one thing to say "can", it is quite another to imply that it is a "must" just because someone moves from being "objective" to not hiding their conclusions.

Almost everyone I've had a personal conversation with about this regards themselves as "objective". I've come to think that that is a meaningless criterion when something is obvious.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill I remember Barbie's issues with the family but don't recall her saying anything about the prosecution. Could you provide her making the statements you claim?

Follain's angle were the british girls and the Kerchers as well as the PLE.

I can't provide those at this time, and if we get into a real dust-up about this maybe I'll go look.

And you are quite correct about Follain. The problem with Follain was that he considered himself objective. He wrote "the definitive account".

 

[Grinder]

I would concur that some of Vogt's straight-up reportage of the trials and other judicial matters was good and informative. But whenever she added an editorial angle, she was simply dreadful IMO. And, just as with virtually every other printed media reporter who covered this case, she was also clearly and undoubtedly tainted by the desire to create sensationalist, juicy, volatile copy, in order to try to sell it to any publisher who would actually pay.

Because in grammar, interlinked adjectives (or groups of words which act together as a single adjectival qualifier to the noun) should be indicated in writing by the use of a hyphen(s). Thus if a man drives a black cab, he is a black-cab driver, not a black cab driver (which would imply grammatically that the man is black, not the cab). old child. And if a journalist works in the print media, he/she is a print-media journalist.

It's just good (and proper) use of grammar, that's all. And it's very useful because it minimises the chance of misinterpretation by the recipient.

Raffaele Sollecito was a wrongfully-convicted man. Mignini is a full-of-hubris magistrate. Nadeau is a good-for-nothing "journalist"..........

printed-media reporter fixes it?

 

[Grinder]

If I can find that piece by Egan, he was very plain as to what his professional frame of mind was when he discovered the level of "journalism" in Perugia.

Bill I was asking if you know who Egan is vis-à-vis Amanda.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill I was asking if you know who Egan is vis-à-vis Amanda.

You mean, has he ever met her? Has he ever met any of the family? I haven't a clue.

 

[acbytesla]

printed-media reporter fixes it?

Is there such a thing any more?

 

[Bill Williams]

Because in grammar, interlinked adjectives (or groups of words which act together as a single adjectival qualifier to the noun) should be indicated in writing by the use of a hyphen(s). Thus if a man drives a black cab, he is a black-cab driver, not a black cab driver (which would imply grammatically that the man is black, not the cab). If a child is three years old, he/she is a three-year-old child, not a three year old child. And if a journalist works in the print media, he/she is a print-media journalist.

It's just good (and proper) use of grammar, that's all. And it's very useful because it minimises the chance of misinterpretation by the recipient.

Raffaele Sollecito was a wrongfully-convicted man. Mignini is a full-of-hubris magistrate. Nadeau is a good-for-nothing "journalist"..........

Nadeau was in full form on Anderson Cooper tonight on CNN.

For one thing, she used the "E" word about Amanda Knox, "Yes, in the Ashley Olsen investigation it is the same investigator who declared 'case closed' in the Knox arrest," namely Profazio, "and seven years later she was exonerated."

"An arrest has been made of an African, but he's being held in an undisclosed location." Made me wonder if the guy is allowed a lawyer.

"The Italian media is playing up the sex-game angle, because she was strangled in what is rumoured to be an auto-erotic game of some sort," acc. to the released autopsy, "and there was no sign of a struggle."

"The difference is that the victim here is not around to tell us what happened, and Knox was able to defend herself from that kind of talk."

 

[Planigale]

Well I can't help but disagree.

You say the police would have gone through the CCTV looking for Knox, Sollecito, Guede, Lumumba, Kercher et al. I totally agree. But wouldn't you say that NOT seeing any of those people on the CCTV footage where/when you would expect to see them if your narrative of the case was accurate would be.... rather significant? I would.

In this instance, the police/PM had a witness who stated she had heard a loud scream of terror, followed shortly afterwards by the sound of people running up the iron staircase by the car park. And the witness put the timing of these noises at around 11.00-11.45pm. The police had CCTV footage covering the iron staircase. Don't you think that it's a total slam-dunk that the police would/should have examined the CCTV footage to see whether they could a) corroborate Capezzali's account and b) potentially identify who - if anyone - was running up those iron stairs? I do.

And I also think that the police could/would have checked the CCTV footage for that entire evening. From 9pm to midnight. To see exactly who had (and who hadn't) gone up those stairs, who (if anyone) had run up those stairs, whether people had run up the stairs but outside Capezzali's timeline (at which point they could have at least tried to decide whether these were the people Capezzali must have heard, and that she must have been mistaken on the timing), and to try to identify all the people they saw going up those stairs.

And if the police did that - as I cannot believe they didn't do - then (if the brief allegation on the other website is accurate) they would have found that nobody ran up those steps later than 11pm that night. And that immediately calls into question Capezzali's timings and her credibility in general. I also had a working presumption that nobody was on that footage running up the stairs anywhere near 11pm (e.g. 10.45pm or even 10.15pm), since I can't believe the police wouldn't have pounced on that and altered Capezzali's timings accordingly.

I see what you say about it being easy to miss the significance of something that isn't there. But in this case, the police were using the account of Capezzali as part of their case. The police were effectively telling the court that Capezzali heard Kercher scream as she was murdered, and then heard more than one of her attackers run up the iron staircase. Capezzali's evidence was used to support the multiple-attacker theory, and the timing of the murder. So I contend that the police HAD to know that not seeing anyone running on that iron staircase later than 11pm that night was of extreme relevance.

To take the issue to extremes: imagine that there had been a CCTV camera covering the front door of the cottage, and that the police had the footage covering 10.30pm to midnight on the night of the murder. Imagine the police were saying (as they did indeed say) that Knox and Sollecito had arrived at the cottage at around 10.30pm, that they'd teamed up with Guede to kill Kercher, and that they'd left the cottage some time around 11.40pm. Would you suggest, in those circumstances, that it would be understandable for the police to "miss the significance of something that's not there" if they had examined the CCTV footage and had seen nobody enter or leave the cottage between 10.30pm and midnight?

The example is of course more extreme than that in respect of the iron staircase CCTV and Capezzali's account. But the underlying principle is exactly the same.

I agree in theory. But in practice did the investigator reviewing hours of cctv know of Capezalli's statement? Had it been made at the time that the cctv was reviewed? We know she came forward about a month later, by which time the cctv may have been reviewed and labelled 'nothing of interest'. Mignini may only have decided the shape of the prosecution case months later after the other witnesses had been found. Certainly, I doubt that the investigator reviewing cctv initially would know what Mignini would say in court more than a year in the future. Mignini would have had no interest in reviewing evidence that weakened his case. Consciously or unconsciously I am sure he would have ignored this. It is why discovery is essential. Only the defence will know what evidence is necessary for their case.

 

[Sonia]

Apparently, Rudy Guede will give his first interview on a TV program called "Storie maledette" one week from tonight on RAI3. The title of the episode is "Nero trovato, colpevole trovato," which hints at what the substance of his interview might be.

Apologies if this has been posted before.

 

[LondonJohn]

Apparently, Rudy Guede will give his first interview on a TV program called "Storie maledette" one week from tonight on RAI3. The title of the episode is "Nero trovato, colpevole trovato," which hints at what the substance of his interview might be.

Apologies if this has been posted before.

If that's really the title of the episode, then (as you say) it clearly tends to suggest that Guede will be sticking firmly and unwaveringly to his minimisation and blame-shifting lies. As I wrote previously, IMO this was always going to be the way things were going to pan out. If Guede was the sole attacker - as I strongly believe he was - then there's nothing for Guede to gain (save for absolution or some form of cathartic enlightenment) by admitting to that now. This is made all the more strange and unusual by the fact that the prosecutors in his case, the convicting courts in his case, and the authorities to this day, have all decided (erroneously IMO) that others were involved.

As a connected matter: if Guede ever were to come out and state that he alone committed this attack and murder (and I repeat that I don't think this will ever actually happen...), then the same factors which IMO make that so unlikely also mean that it would be all the more believable if it happened. After all, if Guede has nothing to gain by making such an admission (whether material gain or any gain in the way he's viewed by society etc), one would have to be inclined to conclude that he was making the admission by way of catharsis/redemption/inner peace.

 

[Desert Fox]

Why say anything at all then?

 

[Sonia]

Why say anything at all then?

No doubt he's getting paid for the interview, regardless of what he says. So he'll probably stick to the same old guff.

If he ever spills his guts, it'll probably happen when he's hammered in some bar or nightclub. Not on prime time TV.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. Any reporter who a) gets too close to one of the "sides" in any given case* (in this instance the prosecutor and the victim's family lawyer) and/or b) identifies with, quotes from and liases with a partisan source of information on the case (in this instance the PMF websites and the fake wiki) can never be described as being "in the realms of excellence".

<snip>

It's liaises.

 

[Vixen]

Bruno-Marasca Copy'n Paste of Avv Giulia Bongiorno

Bruno-Marasca Copy'n Paste of Avv Giulia Bongiorno

To recap, the two main headers for the anullment of the verdict and dropping of charges of murder and sexual assault were (1) "stunning defects in the investigation" and (2) too much media attention. (cf Reuters and AP press releases widely quoted in the media.)

Let's start with the first.

Bongiorno told the Bruno-Marasca-led ISC that "international standards had been breached" in the collection and analysis of DNA.

This is a direct quote from the officially discredited Vecchiotti & Conti report as presented at the Hellmann court which was voided by Chieffi ISC.

As a barrister, Bongiorno's first duty is to the court. It is a serious disciplinary offence for a barrister to knowingly and deliberately lie to a court with the aim of perverting the course of justice. It shows Bruno-Marasca's shortcomings as criminal law Supreme Court judges that they lapped up this calculated tissue of lies.

 

[Vixen]

Nadeau was in full form on Anderson Cooper tonight on CNN.

For one thing, she used the "E" word about Amanda Knox, "Yes, in the Ashley Olsen investigation it is the same investigator who declared 'case closed' in the Knox arrest," namely Profazio, "and seven years later she was exonerated."

"An arrest has been made of an African, but he's being held in an undisclosed location." Made me wonder if the guy is allowed a lawyer.

"The Italian media is playing up the sex-game angle, because she was strangled in what is rumoured to be an auto-erotic game of some sort," acc. to the released autopsy, "and there was no sign of a struggle."

"The difference is that the victim here is not around to tell us what happened, and Knox was able to defend herself from that kind of talk."

It's interesting how the story is developing from the press POV. First it was a "creepystalker", then heavy hints about a row with boyfriend who didn't check on her for three days and then reports of a sleazy nightclub full of sordid fetishists and druggies, who supposedly helped feed the victims cocaine habit and partying. Now enter stage left, the African drug dealer.

When will the Syrian migrant make an appearance?

 

[Vixen]

If that's really the title of the episode, then (as you say) it clearly tends to suggest that Guede will be sticking firmly and unwaveringly to his minimisation and blame-shifting lies. As I wrote previously, IMO this was always going to be the way things were going to pan out. If Guede was the sole attacker - as I strongly believe he was - then there's nothing for Guede to gain (save for absolution or some form of cathartic enlightenment) by admitting to that now. This is made all the more strange and unusual by the fact that the prosecutors in his case, the convicting courts in his case, and the authorities to this day, have all decided (erroneously IMO) that others were involved.

As a connected matter: if Guede ever were to come out and state that he alone committed this attack and murder (and I repeat that I don't think this will ever actually happen...), then the same factors which IMO make that so unlikely also mean that it would be all the more believable if it happened. After all, if Guede has nothing to gain by making such an admission (whether material gain or any gain in the way he's viewed by society etc), one would have to be inclined to conclude that he was making the admission by way of catharsis/redemption/inner peace.

There are lots of pointers in Rudy's own testimony and depositions there were others involved. Whilst he's a liar, he's a good liar (like Amanda and Raff) in that they chuck in truth as an effective wool-puller. If he's going to claim he did it alone we'll know he's lying.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's liaises.

For ages (I just checked and it doesn't do it any more so they must have fixed it) liaise used to get "auto-corrected" to "liase" in Microsoft Word. I can't even imagine how that sort of error would have got introduced but I'm sure I'm right about this.

 

[Methos]

Il Messagero just published this:
«I poliziotti mi hanno maltrattata» nuova assoluzione per Amanda Knox

 

[sept79]

Il Messagero just published this:
«I poliziotti mi hanno maltrattata» nuova assoluzione per Amanda Knox

My reading via Google Translate seems to say that the court ruled against Mignini on the case of the police against Knox for slander/whatever when she declared that she had been slapped during the interrogation.

Am I right? Wrong?

Google Translate:

PERUGIA - Pressures and mistreatment. "Forced" to tell that she was in the house of the crime the night he was killed Meredith Kercher. A story, including a "slap" that Amanda Knox was worth a complaint for slander by the police who, according to her, had abused during one of the first interviews after the crime. But suspicion fell today before the court of Florence (the file opened by the prosecutor of Perugia has been transferred to the involvement of the then pm Giuliano Mignini as victim), who has been the young American, already acquitted by a final Mez's death along with former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. The prosecutor had requested a sentence of two years and eight months, but the court upheld the Florentine, the idea of lawyers Carlo Dalla Vedova, Luciano Ghirga and Tommaso Ducci.