Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[toto]

Wrong.

- wiki

- Secret London

- Time Out

- English Legal History


So plaingale's claim it 'was just a debtors prison' is obviously not true.

I can't see any proof that executions were held at Marshalsea from the evidence you provide. The word "just" does not appear in the post. You might be right for all I know, but you have not proved it in this particular post; I certainly could not find the proof by looking up Wikipedia.

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't bother Stacyhs. Vixen has also said that the documentary was edited to make Mignini look silly, but he came out of it looking sincere and credible anyway.

I guess I'll just have to toss that question into the ever growing pile of " questions never answered by Vixen despite several requests".

 

[Stacyhs]

You misunderstand. Chiefi's point is that had Vecchiotti & Conti decided in their professional opinion that a sample did not need to be tested, as directed by a court; they should have made an application to the court to decline.

ETA LCN testing had come a long way since 2007. In addition, Vecchiotti was found guilty of professional misconduct by negligence and fined heavily. She swapped a DNA sample around in the Ogliata case. That's not an honest person. She is someone who will bend the rules.

Unsurprisingly, your description is inaccurate. The 3 scientists were instructed by the prosecutor to take random samples and analyze them. The three did that. They did not make the decision of what needed or did not need to be tested except for choosing which "random" samples they should analyze. But that's what "random" means. From Vecchiotti's testimony during the first appeal trial when asked about the Olgiata case:

"

Vecchiotti : Yes, if it’s relevant, the Presidente will decide : I’ve decided to answer, and I presume that it will be. So, the Olgiata case that was brought forth as an example, is a mistaken example and I’ll explain why. It’s not true that nothing was found, you have to start from a premise in my opinion, of knowing what the problem that was set. The problem that was set was this : take random samples….

Hellmann : But, sorry Dottoressa…

Vecchiotti : Sorry, excuse me, it’s not true that I found low DNA, it’s not like that, anyway there were three consultants from the Pubblico Ministero, and we had, the task was given to us by the Procuratore of making limited and random samples, and we have this formulated and written down in the thing ; another exhibit was to be left in suspense and not examined unless he gave his explicit authorization, so in agreement with the parties, we also have the films, we filmed and swabbed the traces, certain traces, as they had said, certain limited traces. It was our misfortune that we didn’t take the trace that contained the DNA of the person who later confessed to having been the assassin, but it was chance, it wasn’t that I had extracted a little DNA, I want this to be clear, it wasn’t that there was a profile or someone else obtained a profile, it wasn’t like that. But that trace…

Comodi : No, you didn’t even find the trace."

So, unlike what Vixen claims, there was no charge of "swapping DNA samples" or , as Machiavelli also claimed, of Vecchiotti "lying". Why am I not surprised?

 

[LondonJohn]

Unsurprisingly, your description is inaccurate. The 3 scientists were instructed by the prosecutor to take random samples and analyze them. The three did that. They did not make the decision of what needed or did not need to be tested except for choosing which "random" samples they should analyze. But that's what "random" means. From Vecchiotti's testimony during the first appeal trial when asked about the Olgiata case:

"

Vecchiotti : Yes, if it’s relevant, the Presidente will decide : I’ve decided to answer, and I presume that it will be. So, the Olgiata case that was brought forth as an example, is a mistaken example and I’ll explain why. It’s not true that nothing was found, you have to start from a premise in my opinion, of knowing what the problem that was set. The problem that was set was this : take random samples….

Hellmann : But, sorry Dottoressa…

Vecchiotti : Sorry, excuse me, it’s not true that I found low DNA, it’s not like that, anyway there were three consultants from the Pubblico Ministero, and we had, the task was given to us by the Procuratore of making limited and random samples, and we have this formulated and written down in the thing ; another exhibit was to be left in suspense and not examined unless he gave his explicit authorization, so in agreement with the parties, we also have the films, we filmed and swabbed the traces, certain traces, as they had said, certain limited traces. It was our misfortune that we didn’t take the trace that contained the DNA of the person who later confessed to having been the assassin, but it was chance, it wasn’t that I had extracted a little DNA, I want this to be clear, it wasn’t that there was a profile or someone else obtained a profile, it wasn’t like that. But that trace…

Comodi : No, you didn’t even find the trace."

So, unlike what Vixen claims, there was no charge of "swapping DNA samples" or , as Machiavelli also claimed, of Vecchiotti "lying". Why am I not surprised?

Vixen's claims about Vecchiotti "swapping DNA samples" was in regard to a totally separate case (a purely civil action, incidentally, in which the word "guilty" is never applicable....). But since she only provided an illegible and indecipherable facsimile of a document in support of her claim, it's still hard to fathom whether the claim has any substance at all.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen's claims about Vecchiotti "swapping DNA samples" was in regard to a totally separate case (a purely civil action, incidentally, in which the word "guilty" is never applicable....). But since she only provided an illegible and indecipherable facsimile of a document in support of her claim, it's still hard to fathom whether the claim has any substance at all.

LJ, Vecchiotti was talking about the Olgiati case in the excerpt I posted. See here for a more complete transcript: http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=2480&start=4000

I found clear copies of the Olgiati civil judgment against Vecchiotti and two co-defendants. It was posted by Machiavelli so take his commentary with a grain of salt. From what I google translated, there is no mention of Vecchiotti "lying". Perhaps someone who speaks Italian can take a look and verify that.

https://twitter.com/machiavelli_aki/status/724402237569654784

 

[LondonJohn]

I read 10 Rillington Place years ago.


It really matters not a jot who said what to whom, for in Italy, there is no jurisdiction against press speculation during a murder investigation. On the one hand there were lurid salacious claims by a spiritualist clairvoyant, on the other there were mafia inspired calumnies against the police and prosecutors.

Sure, we can argue its morality. But there is no law against it in Italy.

"Mafia-inspired calumnies against the police and prosecutors"? I'm intrigued. Tell us more, please.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, Vecchiotti was talking about the Olgiati case in the excerpt I posted.

Ah yes, sorry. It would still be more informative and definitive to read first-hand evidence from the Olgiati case itself, in order to understand exactly what that court DID conclude. Like you say, though, this excerpt from the Hellmann trial certainly suggests that no such "DNA swapping" ever happened.......

 

[LondonJohn]

I have a couple of questions about the short video of Kercher at the Eurochocolate Festival that was taken by Knox on her camera (which had a video function too):

Does anyone know whether that video file was present on Knox's camera memory when the police seized the camera (presumably on or around 6th November 2007)? And had Knox sent that video file to anyone else at any point in-between the time it was filmed (some time in the week of 13th-21st October 2007) and the date of her detention (5th November 2007)?

If it transpires that the film was indeed still sitting in the memory of Knox's camera, then this of course raises further clear issues around discovery and disclosure (and/or the competence of the police technology teams on this case). Because if that was the case, then either the police never even discovered this video clip (= incompetent), or they discovered it and failed to provide it to the defence as the law requires (= unlawful).

Something tells me that if Knox had sent that video file electronically to friends/family prior to her detention (and subsequent trials), it would have come to the attention of the defence somehow, and would very probably have been used as a small part of Knox's defence. The apparent fact that the defence never introduced this video in any of the trials leads me to the provisional belief that Knox's camera was the only place where this video resided from the time it was taken until the time the police finally returned Knox's belongings to her.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have a couple of questions about the short video of Kercher at the Eurochocolate Festival that was taken by Knox on her camera (which had a video function too):

Does anyone know whether that video file was present on Knox's camera memory when the police seized the camera (presumably on or around 6th November 2007)? And had Knox sent that video file to anyone else at any point in-between the time it was filmed (some time in the week of 13th-21st October 2007) and the date of her detention (5th November 2007)?

If it transpires that the film was indeed still sitting in the memory of Knox's camera, then this of course raises further clear issues around discovery and disclosure (and/or the competence of the police technology teams on this case). Because if that was the case, then either the police never even discovered this video clip (= incompetent), or they discovered it and failed to provide it to the defence as the law requires (= unlawful).

Something tells me that if Knox had sent that video file electronically to friends/family prior to her detention (and subsequent trials), it would have come to the attention of the defence somehow, and would very probably have been used as a small part of Knox's defence. The apparent fact that the defence never introduced this video in any of the trials leads me to the provisional belief that Knox's camera was the only place where this video resided from the time it was taken until the time the police finally returned Knox's belongings to her.

I can't answer your question, but I can say that it was very interesting reading a PGP's view of that video taken by Amanda of Meredith. This poster said that Meredith was obviously upset that Amanda was sticking her phone in her face and told her to stop filming her but Amanda, being a jerk, just ignored her. Amazing. I saw something completely different.

 

[Welshman]

I can't answer your question, but I can say that it was very interesting reading a PGP's view of that video taken by Amanda of Meredith. This poster said that Meredith was obviously upset that Amanda was sticking her phone in her face and told her to stop filming her but Amanda, being a jerk, just ignored her. Amazing. I saw something completely different.

The nutjobs at TJMK claim that Amanda had a pathological hatred of Meredith. If this was the case, why was Amanda hanging around with Meredith as can be seen in the video.

 

[Mr Fied]

The nutjobs at TJMK claim that Amanda had a pathological hatred of Meredith. If this was the case, why was Amanda hanging around with Meredith as can be seen in the video.

And why would Meredith go out with someone she didn't like?

 

[Mr Fied]

First of all, I do not dispute that many people believe what they see and hear in the media - and that includes their perception from the Amanda Knox Netflix that Nick Pisa and Giuliano Mignini were a couple of sexist ***** who succeeded in getting a wrongful conviction on an innocent person and her boyfriend.

However, there are plenty of people who have no illusions about the SUN, FOX or the DAILY MAIL.

Re the point about Rudy covering for Amanda, the Supreme Court - whom BiWi agrees with wholeheartedly - stated Amanda likewise covered up for Rudy, when she fingered Patrik.

It has nothing to do with either Pisa nor Mignini, but everything to do with the trial and everything that the prosecution and defence put forward as evidence or defence.

I know what you mean, some people are just so gullible.

I mean, who would believe stuff like:
Amanda showered in a blood soaked bathroom
Amanda was caught outside the cottage with a mop and bucket
Police found bleach receipts
Amanda bombarded Meredith with texts on Halloween
Amanda had sex on a train
Amanda was caught on CCTV going to the cottage
Amanda bought "sexy" underwear and boasted about having hot sex

Some people just believe anything they read.

 

[zooterkin]

Thread too long, continuation here.

Posted By: zooterkin