Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

ROFL Was this the fake letter written by Raff himself?


You are so gullible.

Ahahahahahahahaha let's talk about "gullible", shall we?

I presume that you - like all the other idiot pro-guilt commentators who leaped to the wrong conclusion on this matter based on a combination of sheer ignorance and wanton bias - wrongly presumed that since a file posted by Sollecito on his site which contained his ID in the metadata meant that it was necessarily actually originated by Sollecito himself. WRONG!

It is genuinely funny watching the blizzard of bat guano and ignorance spewing forth though. I particularly admired the classic Reverse Ferret on the police height issue and the Met vs City of London Police matter. Lovely stuff!

 

[LondonJohn]

PS I presume - from your continued posting of ignorant and unresearched nonsense - that we don't have a deal as per the other day.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you, very nice written drama in that chapter.

The problem is, that it is completely fictional and even self-contradictory.
Long story short, it is quite clear from this document that the people who were there were:
- Lawyers Maori and Benigni for Sollecito + expert Prof. Potenza
- Lawyer Costa for Knox
- Lawyer Pacelli and expert Pascali for Lumumba

No sign of Maresca or Torricelli. It should be noted that only Prof. Potenza stayed until the end of that day...

This is exactly why I have problems with quotes from the books. The scenario above is made up, so why should I think that the authors didn't make up the dialogue as well?

It's interesting that you dismiss Dr. Gill because he didn't testify in court, but love to quote Garofano who also didn't testify in court.

Yep. "Darkness Descending" genuinely is a dreadful pile of crap, written in an embarrassing faux-noir style and containing numerous wholesale inventions. It self-evidently cannot ever serve as a reliable or credible source on this case.

Still, at least it's not quite as bad as vdLeek's execrable effort......

 

[Numbers]

On IIP, european neighbour called attention to this article:


http://www.umbria24.it/omicidio-meredith-rudy-chiede-la-revisione-del-processo/409997.html

A Google translation (with no attempt to improve the English clarity):

2 August 2016
Meredith killed, Rudy Guede is seeking review of the process to the Court of Appeal of Florence

Filed this morning the instance. According to the defense's irreconcilability with the judgment which acquitted of murder Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

Rudy Guede officially asks for retrial. The application was lodged with the Court of Appeal of Florence by his defenders, Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi. Confirmation of the press office dell'ivoriano sentenced to 16 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The motivation of the request is given to the contrast between the ruling that sentenced him and the acquittal by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.

Irreconcilable judgments The revision of a process you can ask it or if there is new evidence or if the irreconcilability of two convictions. For the legal team of Guede, in this case, marks the second assumption. It will now be the Court of Appeal of Florence, asked for the sentences handed down by the Perugia to consider the request. The Assize Court of Appeal of Florence had already condemned Amanda and Raffaele, condemnation that was later overturned by the Supreme Court without adjournment.

THIRTY-SIX HOURS OF FREEDOM '

Revision of judgment "As is known - had explained the press office of Rudy Guede - Article 630, paragraph 1, lett. a) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that may be applied for the revision of a judgment if the facts on which it can not be reconciled with those established by other irrevocable penal sentence. In the present case, it is necessary to ask whether, for absolution effect definitively Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the crimes being prosecuted in competition with Rudy Guede, should also achieve a revision of the sentence imposed in the latter judgment. Totally eliminating the competition of Knox and Sollecito - said the press office of Guede - as established by the Supreme Court against them, in fact it would explain more the role of Rudy. "

 

[Bill Williams]

ROFL Was this the fake letter written by Raff himself?


You are so gullible.

Not so much gullible than a newbie - a newbie to this letter. I'd not seen it before; and was taken aback that some inside-anonymous source had addressed the Hellmann court in July 2011 with the very issues which others were (back then) saying plagued this case.

There are many reasons to distrust an anonymous source - but it is typical guilter drivel that you'd immediately cite Raffaele as the author - writing this from prison! Where would Raffaele have obtained detailed knowledge of lab-procedure?

If I'm gullible, I have an extra piece of humble pie; it looks like you need a bite yourself.

 

[Methos]

Yep. "Darkness Descending" genuinely is a dreadful pile of crap, written in an embarrassing faux-noir style and containing numerous wholesale inventions. It self-evidently cannot ever serve as a reliable or credible source on this case.

Still, at least it's not quite as bad as vdLeek's execrable effort......

There was a time when I was naive enough to believe that a book, as a quality product, would have been thoroughly fact checked before publishing.
Darkness Descending was published even before Massei's motivations report. I think the authors simply tried to "re-tell" the story how it could have happened and just filled in the blanks when they had to. The thing about vdL is, that he makes things up despite all the information that is available.

 

[Bill Williams]

On IIP, european neighbour called attention to this article:


http://www.umbria24.it/omicidio-meredith-rudy-chiede-la-revisione-del-processo/409997.html

A Google translation (with no attempt to improve the English clarity):

2 August 2016
Meredith killed, Rudy Guede is seeking review of the process to the Court of Appeal of Florence

Filed this morning the instance. According to the defense's irreconcilability with the judgment which acquitted of murder Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

Rudy Guede officially asks for retrial. The application was lodged with the Court of Appeal of Florence by his defenders, Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi. Confirmation of the press office dell'ivoriano sentenced to 16 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The motivation of the request is given to the contrast between the ruling that sentenced him and the acquittal by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.

Irreconcilable judgments The revision of a process you can ask it or if there is new evidence or if the irreconcilability of two convictions. For the legal team of Guede, in this case, marks the second assumption. It will now be the Court of Appeal of Florence, asked for the sentences handed down by the Perugia to consider the request. The Assize Court of Appeal of Florence had already condemned Amanda and Raffaele, condemnation that was later overturned by the Supreme Court without adjournment.

THIRTY-SIX HOURS OF FREEDOM '

Revision of judgment "As is known - had explained the press office of Rudy Guede - Article 630, paragraph 1, lett. a) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that may be applied for the revision of a judgment if the facts on which it can not be reconciled with those established by other irrevocable penal sentence. In the present case, it is necessary to ask whether, for absolution effect definitively Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the crimes being prosecuted in competition with Rudy Guede, should also achieve a revision of the sentence imposed in the latter judgment. Totally eliminating the competition of Knox and Sollecito - said the press office of Guede - as established by the Supreme Court against them, in fact it would explain more the role of Rudy. "

Will Rudy ask for another fast-track trial? Or will he allow an "evidence phase" this time!?

One cannot help but think that Rudy risks a lot here, allowing actual evidence to determine his fate. Yet again, the Kerchers are dragged through this.

 

[Methos]

Will Rudy ask for another fast-track trial? Or will he allow an "evidence phase" this time!?

One cannot help but think that Rudy risks a lot here, allowing actual evidence to determine his fate. Yet again, the Kerchers are dragged through this.

Guede risks nothing:
Art. 597 - Cognizione del giudice di appello

3. Quando appellante è il solo imputato, il giudice non può irrogare una pena più grave per specie o quantità, applicare una misura di sicurezza nuova o più grave, prosciogliere l'imputato per una causa meno favorevole di quella enunciata nella sentenza appellata né revocare benefici, salva la facoltà, entro i limiti indicati nel comma 1, di dare al fatto una definizione giuridica più grave, purchè non venga superata la competenza del giudice di primo grado.

google:

3. When the appellant is the only defendant, the court may not impose a heavier penalty for the species or quantity, apply a new security measure, or more serious, acquit the accused for a cause less favorable than that set out in the decision being appealed or revoked benefits, save the right, within the limits indicated in paragraph 1, give the fact a more serious legal definition, as long as you do not exceed the competence of the court of first instance.

 

[Numbers]

Will Rudy ask for another fast-track trial? Or will he allow an "evidence phase" this time!?

One cannot help but think that Rudy risks a lot here, allowing actual evidence to determine his fate. Yet again, the Kerchers are dragged through this.

A very good question.

I think that the revision review will first look at whether or not there is any contradiction between the verdict of conviction for Guede and the verdict of acquittal for Knox and Sollecito, based only on the final motivation reports.

If the revision review finds no contradiction, and that is upheld on any appeal to the CSC that may be launched, then that ends the matter for the present.

If the revision review finds a contradiction, then Guede might be acquitted. I am unsure if there would be a rehearing of the evidence against Guede.

And as Methos points out, according to Italian Procedural Law, no heavier penalty may be imposed.

 

[Bill Williams]

There was a time when I was naive enough to believe that a book, as a quality product, would have been thoroughly fact checked before publishing.
Darkness Descending was published even before Massei's motivations report. I think the authors simply tried to "re-tell" the story how it could have happened and just filled in the blanks when they had to. The thing about vdL is, that he makes things up despite all the information that is available.

If D.D. was before the publication of the Massei report in 2010, then it was like what happened to many guilters - all they had were the lurid reports from the courtroom, through such prosecution-biased shills like Andrea Vogt or Barbie Nadeau.

I should publish again my list of the 13 guilters myths that even the Massei report trashed, even in convicting the pair. Massei had put an end to the myths:

- the climb in through Filomena's window was impossible
- Amanda and Meredith had a strained relationship
- there'd been a clean up **in the murder room**
- there'd been mixed blood
- Raffaele had called the Carabinieri after the arrival of the Postal police
- etc.

Massei put an end to (or should have) major guilter talking points. Things like Nadeau's slutty little book and Darkness Descending should have been rendered to the trash in 2010.

That Vixen quotes from it in 2016 is all one needs to know about Vixen's firmly held opinions.

 

[Stacyhs]

They cleaned up AND THEN TROD OVER IT.

Oh, good lord. So they mopped the floor, then Guede came back and left his bloody shoeprints going down the clean hallway and out the door?

 

[Stacyhs]

As you can see, I stated my source. Any objections?

As it happens, google was not a good source, as the answer turned out to be the Honourable Artillery Company.

Yes, I do object. You ridiculed using Google to search for information.
Google is a great way to find sources, but it's up to the researcher to verify the credibility and accuracy of those sources. Something you apparently failed to do.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen wrote "Gill submitted no report to the court. He could have been appointed by the defence to set out his stall to the court. However, he wasn't. He had no part in the proceedings." and "So, what stopped Gill from turning up at the trial? Not confident, eh?"

Dr. Gill did not publish his review of the case until several months after the Nencini verdict in Jan. 2014. Even if Maori reviewed his work, it doesn't mean he did it before the trial. The defense lawyers may not have been aware Gill was even looking at the case.

 

[Planigale]

Not so much gullible than a newbie - a newbie to this letter. I'd not seen it before; and was taken aback that some inside-anonymous source had addressed the Hellmann court in July 2011 with the very issues which others were (back then) saying plagued this case.

There are many reasons to distrust an anonymous source - but it is typical guilter drivel that you'd immediately cite Raffaele as the author - writing this from prison! Where would Raffaele have obtained detailed knowledge of lab-procedure?

If I'm gullible, I have an extra piece of humble pie; it looks like you need a bite yourself.

FWIW. As someone who has worked in a number of laboratories and been peripherally involved with investigating a failing laboratory. What the author rights is entirely believable. As soon as I read this I felt it was someone speaking the truth and I felt for them. The phrase that applies is normalisation of deviancy (which originates from NASA's errors). I doubt if Sollecito could come up with such an appropriate letter. Now even badly run labs with incompetent technicians will turn out the right answer most of the time, (You have to be seriously bad to get it wrong most of the time). But it is the difficult cases that you screw up.

 

[Methos]

If D.D. was before the publication of the Massei report in 2010, then it was like what happened to many guilters - all they had were the lurid reports from the courtroom, through such prosecution-biased shills like Andrea Vogt or Barbie Nadeau.

"Darkness Descending" has a publication date of Jan 7th, 2010, "Angel Face" came out on April 6th, 2010, judge Massei's report was published on March, 4th 2010 so I don't think it had any influence on both of the books.

The "thank you's" at the end of "Darkness Descending"(which was also published in Italian) are quite telling...:

A number of people contributed to this book. One journalist in particular, Andrea Vogt. Her accurate reporting was an inspiration. Together with Barbie Nadeau, she provided advice, perspective and humour at times when the intricacies and troubles of the case seemed insurmountable. Barbie and Andrea are the living memory of this extraordinary case. Andrea Vogt writes for the Seattle PI and the Independent, Barbie for Newsweek and The Daily Beast.
Another journalist, Giuseppe Castellini, editor of the Umbrian Journal and his reporters, Antioco Fois and Francesca Bene, eagerly supplied local background and insight non-Perugians would never have had access to otherwise. Their ability to sniff out key pieces of information was remarkable and they willingly put their work at the disposal of the authors of this book.
Nick Pisa, for his prolific and accurate court reporting.
The authors also owe an enormous debt to three barristers: Francesco Maresca, representing the Kerchers, and Valter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile, representing Rudy Guede. They provided insight, material help of every kind and supported the book with documents and information. Their untiring search for the truth has been impressive.
The authors also wish to thank Dr Giuliano Mignini for his friendly and open discussions with the authors, within the bounds set by confidentiality laws. The authors have admired his calm and thoroughness, although do not necessarily agree with the whole case as brought to court.

What an I missing here?

Massei put an end to (or should have) major guilter talking points. Things like Nadeau's slutty little book and Darkness Descending should have been rendered to the trash in 2010.

That Vixen quotes from it in 2016 is all one needs to know about Vixen's firmly held opinions.

"Darkness Descending" and "Angel Face" were the second generation of "cash in on the case books". Sarzanini's "Amanda e gli altri" and Castellini's "Meredith, Luci e ombre a Perugia" (the one with the DVD containing a 9MB, walkable 3D rendering of the cottage that was advertised as a "3D recreation of the crime") were the first generation, published in January 2009, before the trial had even started.
You might want to forgive even the third generation authors like Follain (who cashed in after the Hellmann verdict and then once again after Chieffi) for filling in the blanks with made ups because they didn't have the information, but with all the primary sources being available since after Nencini's show trial/trial show, there's no excuse for fourth generation authors like NvdL or Hodges to make things up. (just my 0.02 Euro )

 

[LondonJohn]

FWIW. As someone who has worked in a number of laboratories and been peripherally involved with investigating a failing laboratory. What the author rights is entirely believable. As soon as I read this I felt it was someone speaking the truth and I felt for them. The phrase that applies is normalisation of deviancy (which originates from NASA's errors). I doubt if Sollecito could come up with such an appropriate letter. Now even badly run labs with incompetent technicians will turn out the right answer most of the time, (You have to be seriously bad to get it wrong most of the time). But it is the difficult cases that you screw up.

As you say, the tone and content of the letter make it pretty clear that whoever wrote it a) was very familiar with the knowledge and vocabulary of forensic science, and b) had intimate knowledge of the forensic work in this case and its disgraceful shortcomings. There's a hugely slim chance that it was faked by Sollecito himself, or even by someone close to him. In fact, it's vastly, vastly more likely that it is exactly what it purports to be.

But it's nonetheless highly amusing - and very telling - to see how the pro-guilt idiots looked at the electronic copy of the letter that Sollecito had downloaded and then republished of his own volition, saw that Sollecito's details were embedded in the metadata, and jumped to the bone-headed conclusion that Sollecito was undoubtedly the original author of the letter. It was a useful illustration of the toxic combination of ignorance, science/technology semi-literacy and wanton bias that are the hallmarks of the pro-guilt commentator community.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Darkness Descending" has a publication date of Jan 7th, 2010, "Angel Face" came out on April 6th, 2010, judge Massei's report was published on March, 4th 2010 so I don't think it had any influence on both of the books.

The "thank you's" at the end of "Darkness Descending"(which was also published in Italian) are quite telling...:

What an I missing here?

That certainly is a most interesting and illuminating list of acknowledgements and credits!

I happened to be particularly struck by the Mignini credit:

"The authors also wish to thank Dr Giuliano Mignini for his friendly and open discussions with the authors, within the bounds set by confidentiality laws."

I found it somewhat strange and interesting to read the last clause of that sentence above. Especially given that there was intimate information in that book which could only have emanated from one of a very select number of state participants - including, of course, Mignini. Knowing the way Mignini has a) actively manipulated the media to his own ends, and b) provably run his mouth to various journalists in an inappropriate manner in the past, I wouldn't find it all all surprising if (just as a hypothetical of course.....) Mignini called the DD authors in for a number of "finger tapped against nose" conversations, on the condition that they made it clear in the book that Mignini had acted scrupulously within the rules in his dealings with them. Sort of "You didn't hear it from me right, lads, but............."

ETA: and let's further not forget that at the time Mignini was talking with the authors, the case was still extremely live and at the appeal stage....

 

[Vixen]

That certainly is a most interesting and illuminating list of acknowledgements and credits!

I happened to be particularly struck by the Mignini credit:

"The authors also wish to thank Dr Giuliano Mignini for his friendly and open discussions with the authors, within the bounds set by confidentiality laws."

I found it somewhat strange and interesting to read the last clause of that sentence above. Especially given that there was intimate information in that book which could only have emanated from one of a very select number of state participants - including, of course, Mignini. Knowing the way Mignini has a) actively manipulated the media to his own ends, and b) provably run his mouth to various journalists in an inappropriate manner in the past, I wouldn't find it all all surprising if (just as a hypothetical of course.....) Mignini called the DD authors in for a number of "finger tapped against nose" conversations, on the condition that they made it clear in the book that Mignini had acted scrupulously within the rules in his dealings with them. Sort of "You didn't hear it from me right, lads, but............."

ETA: and let's further not forget that at the time Mignini was talking with the authors, the case was still extremely live and at the appeal stage....

Not like Waiting to be Heard, written before the legal process was over, and designed to try to pervert justice.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen wrote "Gill submitted no report to the court. He could have been appointed by the defence to set out his stall to the court. However, he wasn't. He had no part in the proceedings." and "So, what stopped Gill from turning up at the trial? Not confident, eh?"

Dr. Gill did not publish his review of the case until several months after the Nencini verdict in Jan. 2014. Even if Maori reviewed his work, it doesn't mean he did it before the trial. The defense lawyers may not have been aware Gill was even looking at the case.

Courts are all about meeting deadlines. Dr Gill 'the Father of All Genetics' missed a deadline?


Whoops! There goes another rubber tree plant (whoops there goes another rubber tree plant...)

 

[bagels]

Not like Waiting to be Heard, written before the legal process was over, and designed to try to pervert justice.

I think everyone expected Hellmann's confirmation to be a formality. Nobody expected someone as dumb as Chieffi to be on the Supreme Court and point out that Quintavalle saw blue eyes and a heroin junkie was able to point out the two defendants in court, assisted by them being two defendants in court, and that Hellmann's verdict was incompatible with a separate trial neither defendant participated in.

I remember the release of the State Department cables showed they considered the matter "case closed." So did the rest of the thinking world.

Most PIP were so shocked at the Chieffi decision they never fully comprehended it, and assumed it must have been procedural silliness with the Italian system. After all, why would you bother to retry someone clearly innocent of the charges and for which there is no evidence to sustain a conviction? What would you possibly hope to accomplish? Apparently the answer is, nothing.