Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:56 pm
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:56 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 31 of 34 [ 8462 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next
Author Message

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

My review of the documentary (and the history of reporting in the US) is up:

Rescuing Amanda

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

this is the tweet:
https://twitter.com/pataz1/status/784491941320876032
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:27 pm   Post subject: AMANDA KNOX CREDITS   

pataz1 wrote:
My review of the documentary (and the history of reporting in the US) is up:

Rescuing Amanda

Pat

Great review, Pat. This find of yours re credits Facebook too.

Quote:
And a big thank you Stephen Robert Morse for pointing us in the direction of this story, THANK YOU.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:13 am   Post subject: Re: NETFLIX REVIEW   

Jackie wrote:
Which reminds me, whatever happened to Reid Schepis??? (One minute you're an American exchange student getting high and partying in Italy, and the next, you're stabbing your roomie and can't remember any of it.)

What did the Italian courts end up doing with young Reid???


A quick scan of the newsfeeds shows nothing beyond the initial arrest for attempted murder.

Lack of news-worthiness could be due to:
- If he chose a fast-track trial, that would be behind closed doors (but the reasons for judgment would be public).
- ? Maybe the trial hasn't happened yet.
And conjecturally:
- It was just another drugs/Halloween thing
- He's not a girl
- He's not the first
- He did it himself (= no pack attack)
- It was not a powerplay-motivated murder
- There were near-witnesses (including the victim), so not a planned 'hit'
- Basically, just another drunk/addict off his head
- No anti-prosecution PR campaign ramping the story up (even though similar British tabloid headlines)


ETA
- Oh, and no Spezi character trying to protect his MoF friends from investigation by running a smear campaign against Mignini (and not even a Preston-dupe coincidentally holidaying in an appropriate villa)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:50 am   Post subject: Drizin's once chance at fame   

Jackie wrote:
What makes someone feel the need to express the same uninformed, lay opinion over TEN THOUSAND times across 2 different boards???


Northwestern put out a request asking them to stop interfering with the legal case (which also has the by-product of stopping them interfering with Drizin's one shot at fame).

Why they think repeating "2+2=5" makes it true is a mystery. Maybe they believe in the power of ads. The continual ritual incantation has a religious fervour about it (as well as the inability to read or interact with others).
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In a Jacques Tati-type film, the forgetful dancing witness actress would have alleged that she had received snacks, rather than smacks, from dyslexic detectives.

surp-)



= = =
On another note, Bongiorno might be right after all about Raffaele being on a leash. By Raffaele's own account of how he met up with Amanda at that free concert (after Meredith left), in his story, Amanda comes out as picking up a stray puppy.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

An interesting article where a reporter interviews perugians on what they think of the new film:
http://www.vice.com/it/read/cosa-pensan ... etwitterit

A few of them make comments similar to what our critics have said; parts of the criminal trial process are left out, Guede is only in the film for about 10 seconds, netflix wanted a nice packaged story, it was said the film was going to focus on the media's role but then only talks about Nick Pisa...

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:02 pm   Post subject: AN IMMODEST MOVIE PROPOSAL FOR OLIVER STONE   

Catnip wrote:
In a Jacques Tati-type film, the forgetful dancing witness actress would have alleged that she had received snacks, rather than smacks, from dyslexic detectives.

surp-)



= = =
On another note, Bongiorno might be right after all about Raffaele being on a leash. By Raffaele's own account of how he met up with Amanda at that free concert (after Meredith left), in his story, Amanda comes out as picking up a stray puppy.

There was Bongiorno making the very funny cultural references, but then, Gemini's are good at that, from Venus In Furs, 'Amelie from Seattle' to Jessica Rabbit and I'm sure Giulia was also referencing the 'bunny' vibrator besides "I'm not bad, I'm drawn that way" but really, watching these drabs now try to hold on to public attention as the "most famous exonerees in the world" is sad, pathetic. A documentary? How original wan-)

I was thinking an Oliver Stone movie instead, Catnip. Imagine the protagonists, not as they are now and always remembered through this dreary documentary

Attachment:
Knox As Is.jpg


but the best Natural Born Killers they can be, with Knox and Sollecito hooking up again, rampaging across America and Mexico, Mignini the detective who pursues them (played by Tom Sizemore in the movie) and Nick Pisa as the tabloid journalist (Robert Downey Jr. then) .

See List of Natural Born Killers characters to get their back story which is quite apropos to the real life characters.

Mickey Knox :) is portrayed by Woody Harrelson.

As a child, Mickey was abused by both his parents and witnessed his father commit suicide when he was ten.

Mallory Knox is portrayed by Juliette Lewis.

As a child, Mallory suffered physical, verbal, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of her father (played by Rodney Dangerfield). Mallory devotes herself to Mickey, stating he is her one true love. Mallory often tells stories and fantasies about her and Mickey.

Jack Scagnetti is portrayed by actor Tom Sizemore.

Scagnetti is a successful detective who is revealed to be a tragic villain when he describes how he witnessed his mother being killed by University of Texas at Austin sniper Charles Whitman when he was eight years old, assumingly making him from Austin, Texas, and making him 36 years old at the time of the plot. Obsessed with taking revenge against criminals, he became a police officer, and eventually a public hero for his actions against criminals.

Wayne Gale is portrayed by actor Robert Downey, Jr.

Gale is a Golden Globe Award-winning Australian journalist who claims to be a personal friend of Bill Clinton. Early in his career, Gale was a more respected and moral journalist who covered international stories such as the Invasion of Grenada. Eventually, he settled for hosting American Maniacs, a sensationalistic tabloid news show focusing on mass murderers. A vain, obnoxious, opportunistic narcissist, Gale has nothing but contempt for his audience ("Repetition works; Do you think the morons out there in zombie land actually remember anything?") and does his job only for perks such as fame and money.

I would of course play

Warren Red Cloud, Sr., also known as The Navajo Man, is portrayed by Russell Means.

The Navajo man is an elderly and reclusive Navajo Native American, whom resides with his pre-adolescent grandson in a wooden hut in the New Mexico desert. Mickey and Mallory encounter the Navajo man on his ranch while the two are lost in the desert. While the two are there, the Navajo man tries to expel the demons inside Mickey and Mallory's souls, before Mickey awakens in a fit of rage and fatally shoots the Navajo man with a .45 Colt Commander pistol. Mickey unintentionally murdered him, and regrets killing him and feels remorse for doing so, believing him to be his only victim worthy of life. Mallory tearfully tells Mickey off for killing the old man, and as she walks away from him, she is bitten by a rattlesnake. Mickey is also bitten in the process of rescuing Mallory from further bites..

And this, my most favourite character of all:

Owen Traft is portrayed by Arliss Howard.

Owen is a mysterious prisoner and Mickey and Mallory's guardian angel/demon. He is first seen at the roadside café where Mickey and Mallory Knox perpetrate their first massacre seen in the film, although he fades away while the camera is focusing on him. He first encounters Mickey and Mallory during the prison riot, where he assists them by killing prison guards firing at Mickey and Mallory. He assists them in their escape, and treats Mickey and Mallory as if they were good friends of his. After Warden McClusky is seen being taken into a sea of angered prisoners, Owen is not seen or heard from again for the rest of the film (though in the alternate ending for the film he acts as a form of "Karma" killing both Mickey and Mallory after they mocked him).

Knox and Sollecito should perhaps retire from public life, instead of er, constantly mocking their karma.

And as a coincidental aside, I met producer Don Murphy at a Hollywood party in the early 1990's before the movie came out, and we talked about spirituality, and yes, there was a Native American shaman there too. So, bring them all together once again?

Ergon (Naseer Ahmad)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

pataz1 wrote:
My review of the documentary (and the history of reporting in the US) is up:

Rescuing Amanda

Pat


Not bad. I can like any review that calls Preston's MOF book a "novel".

We have the evidence conclusively proving that Preston was trying to frame an innocent man. His article in The Atlantic before MOF was key - it was before he went crackers and is quite apologetic to Dr Mignini before whom he melted down into a blubbering mass.

Spezi was sued again and again by Giuttari etc in follow-up trials and lost them all. Maybe mention that too.

In Italy Mignini & Giuttari are widely seen as having got the MOF case right, broke the code. The Giuttari autobiography finishes the narrative he began in Il Mostro.

By the way Pisa reported well. Just straight stuff. I'd reduce the cracks at him. You make him sound like Frank Sforza but he was miles from that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Apropos of nothing, I was thinking about the famous hair test. Follain, p.143:--

'Mignini suspected that on the night of the murder Amanda and Raffaele had taken drugs stronger than the marijuana they had admitted to: maybe cocaine, he thought. But no such traces were found in either Amanda or Raffaele's hair.'

Unfortunately, as neither Mignini nor John Follain seems to have known, the result was meaningless in that context. When Dr Lalli, or the woman doctor assisting him, cut the sample strand of Knox's hair on 6 November, the previous week's growth was still below the skin of Knox's scalp.

The hair test is normally only used to establish whether there is or is not a history of use of the specified drugs (generally cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, opiates, PCP and a few others) within the last few months. The various labs that perform the tests according to their own methods all like to claim that their results are 'absolutely accurate', but, if you think about it for a moment, there is no likely way they could know that, unless they tested control groups of people who (a) definitely had been using the scheduled illegal drugs and (b) definitely hadn't. Bit tricky to arrange. In addition, each lab likes to claim that its own patent method is more reliable than those of other labs, so a certain margin of error seems to be a given.

And the drug metabolites are thought to attach to the melanin in hair, so a person with light-coloured hair, such as Knox, is more likely to produce a false negative.

But mainly, as we do not know exactly how close to the scalp Dr Lalli, or the female doctor assisting him, cut the sample strand of Knox's hair, the result is quite useless for the investigation of Meredith's murder. Not only did the hair test tell us nothing about the week of the murder, because the potential evidence was still below the skin of Knox's scalp, but, if the scissors left even a 1cm stump -- a month's worth, as is a quite normal minimum -- the test can tell us nothing about Knox's drug use for the whole of the time she was in Perugia.

This may make it more relevant that she hooked up with mature student and cocaine trafficker Federico Martini on that Milan-Florence train in August, and remained in regular phone contact with Lorenzo, a fellow member of Martini's subsequently convicted coke syndicate, throughout the period of the murder -- her phone records forming evidence in the syndicate's convictions.

So why would she need the services of Rudy Guede, well known to students in Perugia as someone who wasn't a dealer, but knew the dealers' spots and could get you drugs?

Because the whole point of Rudy, and the way he kept in with the student crowd, was that he spared you having to do the run yourself. Even if you happened to know a big-time coke dealer, you didn't necessarily want to speak to his lowlife street pushers, or even show your face to them. Many students are snobby, and Knox certainly is.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:54 pm   Post subject: THE AMANDA KNOX TONGUE AFFAIR   

Thanks for the reminder how I first became infamous with the Knoxii and Skeptics debating club, hugo. October 16, 2011 though Bruce Fischer's first book also played a part :)
THE KNOX TONGUE AFFAIR
Quote:
Speaking of her mouth, with Chinese medicine her tongue tells us she definitely abuses alcohol and/or drugs. Kidney deficiency, swollen tongue, shiny, no coating, water retention around the tongue. It stays for a while until her body detoxifies, which may not be possible since she also appears to have digestive problems. This would be another indice of a learning disorder.

Which I revisited, Sep 15, 2014

THE KNOX TONGUE AFFAIR II
Quote:
Amanda Knox supporter @Annella asked me very nicely on Twitter to provide a picture of the Knox tongue with which I made my now famous, it seems, TCM diagnosis of Knox. I said sure, it was a while back, give me a day to find it. Instead of waiting, she located (an earlier, different) picture than what I used for my diagnosis and cc'd it to FBI profiler Jim Clemente as proof of my all round nuttiness, ahem :)

Around the time the original picture was taken in the student residence, Knox was heavily into drugs and alcohol. The earlier one, where she looks 14-15 yrs old, shows some imbalance but not as bad as later.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

McGinn and Blackhurst have changed their tune on being neutral and impartial documentary-makers, in a conversation (if you can call it that) with Chelsea Handler.
Doing damage control, I guess:

Quote:
"Both men said they filmed the documentary under the assumption that Knox, now 29, is indeed innocent."


Watch it here:

http://people.com/crime/amanda-knox-net ... a-handler/

Other quotes from the interview:

Quote:
“I think what was important for us to do was to ground the end of the film in the final Italian legal conclusion, which was the Italian Court of Cassation — their version of the Supreme Court — ruled in 2015 that they were to be acquitted of the charge,” Blackhurst explains. “And so that freed us up to remove any personal speculation.”


There was a point, though, when the Amanda Knox star subject wasn’t on board for the on-camera sit-down, directors Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn tell Chelsea Handler in the latest episode of Chelsea.

Quote:
“We kind of gave her the decision to make on her own,” Blackhurst says of asking Knox to participate. “We said, ‘This is the film we’d like to make,’ and we then were hands-off. And she decided she didn’t want to do it at first.”

“It took her two years to decide that she was ready to tell her story,” Blackhurst tells Handler in the Friday episode. “She called us up and said, ‘I would like to talk.’


PEOPLE
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

October 7, 2016
People believed Amanda Knox was capable of murder because of her 'crazy eyes'
By Jethro Nededog

The "Amanda Knox" filmmakers Brian McGinn and Rod Blackhurst appeared on Netflix's "Chelsea" on Friday and discussed what they found were the hardest things for Knox to overcome during the trials.

In "Amanda Knox," Knox herself mentions how impactful her eyes were on people's judgment of her. Host Chelsea Handler referred to them as "crazy eyes." [...]

In the documentary, Knox addressed the judgment of her based on her eyes:

"You're trying to find the answer in my eyes when the answer is right over there [referring to the lack of DNA evidence placing her in the victim's room]. You're looking at me, why? These are my eyes. They're not objective evidence."


BUSINESS INSIDER

Yeah, her eyes speak volumes that her tongue tries to hide....
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
Apropos of nothing, I was thinking about the famous hair test. Follain, p.143:--

'Mignini suspected that on the night of the murder Amanda and Raffaele had taken drugs stronger than the marijuana they had admitted to: maybe cocaine, he thought. But no such traces were found in either Amanda or Raffaele's hair.'

Unfortunately, as neither Mignini nor John Follain seems to have known, the result was meaningless in that context. When Dr Lalli, or the woman doctor assisting him, cut the sample strand of Knox's hair on 6 November, the previous week's growth was still below the skin of Knox's scalp.

The hair test is normally only used to establish whether there is or is not a history of use of the specified drugs (generally cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, opiates, PCP and a few others) within the last few months. The various labs that perform the tests according to their own methods all like to claim that their results are 'absolutely accurate', but, if you think about it for a moment, there is no likely way they could know that, unless they tested control groups of people who (a) definitely had been using the scheduled illegal drugs and (b) definitely hadn't. Bit tricky to arrange. In addition, each lab likes to claim that its own patent method is more reliable than those of other labs, so a certain margin of error seems to be a given.

And the drug metabolites are thought to attach to the melanin in hair, so a person with light-coloured hair, such as Knox, is more likely to produce a false negative.

But mainly, as we do not know exactly how close to the scalp Dr Lalli, or the female doctor assisting him, cut the sample strand of Knox's hair, the result is quite useless for the investigation of Meredith's murder. Not only did the hair test tell us nothing about the week of the murder, because the potential evidence was still below the skin of Knox's scalp, but, if the scissors left even a 1cm stump -- a month's worth, as is a quite normal minimum -- the test can tell us nothing about Knox's drug use for the whole of the time she was in Perugia.

This may make it more relevant that she hooked up with mature student and cocaine trafficker Federico Martini on that Milan-Florence train in August, and remained in regular phone contact with Lorenzo, a fellow member of Martini's subsequently convicted coke syndicate, throughout the period of the murder -- her phone records forming evidence in the syndicate's convictions.

So why would she need the services of Rudy Guede, well known to students in Perugia as someone who wasn't a dealer, but knew the dealers' spots and could get you drugs?

Because the whole point of Rudy, and the way he kept in with the student crowd, was that he spared you having to do the run yourself. Even if you happened to know a big-time coke dealer, you didn't necessarily want to speak to his lowlife street pushers, or even show your face to them. Many students are snobby, and Knox certainly is.


GREAT work Hugo except only maybe the last para. Knox was bringing the guy home! No snob about that. I dont have strong opinions about Kokomani but I dont see a delivery role for him.

I long knew about the lag in the test but that is the "missing post" on TJMK we need. If okay we put it there as today's post raises the issue of cocaine.

We also dont have a post on psychotic episodes caused by skunk marijuana and cocaine though the Machine & I have often mentioned that in comments. Feel free...

Mignini wanted everything drug-relevant in at trials. Micheli said no, taking a harder line and not wanting anything they could use as an excuse to get off the hook.

The two defenses seemed to want the drug use of both to be in. The families seemed to want the drug use of the other cherub to be in but not their own.

Most of the machinations between the two teams were for the purpose of making the attack on Meredith's the other's fault rather than neither was there and Guede did it alone.

The Guede lone-wolf theory was laugh-out-loud to anyone who actually looked at the house and the easy other ways in. Or followed the autopsy plus the reconstruction of the attack.

That is why Alessi and Aviello were positively leaped upon like a log to a drowning man. Both witnesses did considerable harm. See Aviello here.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... the_apple/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Guermantes

Thanks for the sharp eyes on McGinn and Blackhurst. So you think they are backing off the no-guilt thing a bit.

Do say if you spot any more?

The Supreme Court ruling was hardly an exoneration that put all questions to bed.

What I think fooled them and many people and most media is that between the Fifth Chambers' March 2015 panel, the findings of which were much ridiculed not least by the First Chambers guys and the Florence Court guys, and the issuing of the report (three months late) Marasca & Bruno tried to do some climbing back.

Knox etc KNEW but sort of kept it to themselves.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
McGinn and Blackhurst have changed their tune on being neutral and impartial documentary-makers, in a conversation (if you can call it that) with Chelsea Handler.
Doing damage control, I guess:

Quote:
"Both men said they filmed the documentary under the assumption that Knox, now 29, is indeed innocent."


Watch it here:

http://people.com/crime/amanda-knox-net ... a-handler/

Other quotes from the interview:

Quote:
“I think what was important for us to do was to ground the end of the film in the final Italian legal conclusion, which was the Italian Court of Cassation — their version of the Supreme Court — ruled in 2015 that they were to be acquitted of the charge,” Blackhurst explains. “And so that freed us up to remove any personal speculation.”


There was a point, though, when the Amanda Knox star subject wasn’t on board for the on-camera sit-down, directors Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn tell Chelsea Handler in the latest episode of Chelsea.

Quote:
“We kind of gave her the decision to make on her own,” Blackhurst says of asking Knox to participate. “We said, ‘This is the film we’d like to make,’ and we then were hands-off. And she decided she didn’t want to do it at first.”

“It took her two years to decide that she was ready to tell her story,” Blackhurst tells Handler in the Friday episode. “She called us up and said, ‘I would like to talk.’


PEOPLE


I think any notion of objectivity is out the window at this point...particularly when one of the directors started talking about "guilters".

ETA: I'm curious about what they told her about 'the kind of film they'd like to make.' I'm also curious about how Morse pitched the story to the film production company and got them on board.

pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Knox was bringing the guy home! No snob about that.


If you mean Rudy, he was considered OK. According to Leila Schneps's son-in-law, a student in Perugia at the time, everyone knew Rudy because he could get stuff for you. Usually just a few joints, but... You might not want to go out in the dark, specially if you were a girl, and meet the actual street pushers at their hangouts to do the deal, even if you'd booked some coke from the boss guy -- but that was the kind of thing good old Rudy would go and do for you, and that was how he hung on with the student crowd that he thought he belonged to despite being a high-school dropout.

This -- and the fact that Sollecito might not want Rudy coming round to his own apartment -- could possibly explain what Rudy was even doing with Knox and Sollecito at 7 via della Pergola that night. (Kokomani... wasn't he only done for a fairly small amount of coke? People think he was a pusher but I'm not sure. Maybe he was just passing by, maybe he was a 'connection' of some kind.)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Actually, its kinda egotistical for the directors to say determine for the world "the case is settled.." I mean, the ending image of Meredith's mom is one of confusion!

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Guermantes
Thanks for the sharp eyes on McGinn and Blackhurst. So you think they are backing off the no-guilt thing a bit.


Thanks Pete and Pat. I have "sharp eyes", and Knox has "crazy eyes". ;)

Thank you, too, for your tireless efforts to bring out the truth. Yeah, the two directors are backpedaling on their earlier claims that they were unbiased and wanted the viewer to decide on the pair's guilt or innocence. Now, they are saying that "they filmed the documentary under the assumption that Knox ... was indeed innocent", because the Supreme Court said so. Well, that's called bias. They have told so many versions about the making of this documentary in their numerous interviews that it's hard to figure out the sequence of events leading up to its conception. Unexpected fame has probably gotten to their heads really quickly, and they are enjoying it too much, blabbering on and on.

Documentary Bias - Rearranging the Truth

Quote:
“Like journalism, documentary filmmaking involves reduction, simplification, rearrangement and re-creation — all hazardous to the truth.”


VIDEOMAKER
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:32 am   Post subject: MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI STATS   

I know Alexa rankings, like Book Reads or the ones used for Netflix viewership, are logarithm based - therefore any figures given are statistical extrapolations. So do we know how many hard cover books Knox sold or how many viewers for the documentary? No, though I think 50,000 books is about right given library sales and 398,000 views somewhat exaggerated, JMO, but if that is correct then it actually is quite a respectable figure for a one time documentary, not a series, and that within one week of release.

But as tools for measuring growth trends or losses, sure, why not? Esp. when you have a handy page counter on site to match it with, which is hard data, not a guesstimate.. Once the documentary came out (and we posted links to the Wiki on major news sites and film reviews) we have had 3, 000 views a day. People want to read the other side of the story, and here we are:

Alexa Global Rank

Oct.06, 2016 639, 578

Oct. 08, 2016 576,636 (less is much better)

which is a substantial improvement for the site of a person who many thought should be forgotten while the story of an 'exoneree' should be promoted.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Pat,

A potential book to add to the shelf.

From the perspective of the history of (Western) art, the figure of the reclining woman, the odalisque in the harem, dovetails with the methods of representation of other imaginings of types of women, such as the femme fatale, and the angelic. There’s a useful book in this context that examines “the rules and procedures for the representation [of the odalisque]” — Jean-Pierre Brodier, L'odalisque, ou la représentation de la femme imaginaire, (2005) [L'Harmattan, 2009], p 12. ISBN 9782747597074


This slots inside a bigger-picture tradition of treating those east of oneself (US: south of oneself) as, on the whole, less rational, more excitable, more emotional, more affected by the heat: the English on the French, the French on the Ottoman Empire, the ancient Greeks on the ancient Persians.


Quote:

Attachment:
Orientalism.jpg


"the emotional nature of the orientals"
-- JA Bewer, Jonah (International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, 1912, p 54
(image from GoogleBooks snippet view)

— quoted in Jack M Sasson, The Anchor Yale Bible - Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation, (1990) [Yale University Press, 2010], p 244. ISBN 9780300139709

(This is in the context of scholars searching for a plausible explanation of why, in the Jonah story, the inhabitants of Nineveh, both (hu)man and beast, were so quick to heed Jonah’s warning and repent, the 'Orientals' in this case being Middle Eastern.)




There’s an underlying current in Netflix and the other PR, drawing on this old tradition.

To the question, ‘Why would the Italians indulge in such legal quackery?’,* the unspoken answer is: ‘Because they’re Italians”.

The heat of the climate leads to heat in the blood and temperament, so the ‘theory’ goes (and also explains why Rudy is being targeted; and Patrick before him). Moral: hot-bloodedness doesn’t work. Passion is not sober and rational.

Evidence continually reinforces that view.

Quote:
“The Russian Revolution and its aftermath have strengthened the belief, deeply entrenched in the Anglo-Saxon outlook, that a passionate interest in ideas is a symptom of mental and moral disorder.”


Aileen Kelly,
‘Introduction: A Complex Vision’
in
— Isaiah Berlin (edited by Henry Hardy and Aileen Kelly), Russian Thinkers, 2nd edition, (1978) [Penguin Books, 2013], p xxiv.
ISBN 9780141442204


It's possible that the Netflix crew (from their point of view) might be thinking that confusion and any other reaction by "them" on the other side of the border is entirely natural. That is, birds of a lack-of-empathy feather flock together.


= = =
ETA:
* Of course, legal outcomes going the way the producers/directors prefer are not legal quackery, so there is a cognitive dissonance in play: How could even one judge find them not guilty (of murder) when the whole system is geared against fresh-faced American girls? Obviously, being found guilty of calunnia is one of those "Italian things of no consequence", so why mention it (not)?


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2016 3:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Documentary Bias - Rearranging the Truth

Quote:
“Like journalism, documentary filmmaking involves reduction, simplification, rearrangement and re-creation — all hazardous to the truth.”


VIDEOMAKER



Add in, for real journalists and documentary-makers:


Quote:
“there is no public interest in inaccuracy”

— Mark Hanna and Mike Dodd,
McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, 23rd edition, (2016)
[Oxford University Press, 2016], p 17.
ISBN 9780198748359



The category label for documentary-makers making documentaries that are not documentaries would be fake-umentary, but no-one's going to click the Download button on that one, are they?
(Other than students of PR wanting to see how not to do it, I suppose. And maybe psychology PhDs.)

Also, to be technical for a moment, there's no definition in a free-for-all market on how much of a documentary has to be documented: one frame or one word would be enough to fit the bill: the word "Perugia", for example. The rest can be filler.

(No-one's compared the Netflix project to the Blair Witch Project yet, have they? We could open a book on how long it will take.)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

“A history of constantly re-writing history.”

That was in a commercial tonight (about cars, I think), and used in the sense of:
‘innovative’, ‘continually breaking records’.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:53 pm   Post subject: STEPHANIE KERCHER   

Stephanie Kercher interview in the Daily Mail

Response: Meredith Kercher is NOT forgotten.
This website, The Murder Of Meredith Kercher http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page
Is based on the specialities of many volunteers from the Perugia Murder Files and the True Justice For Meredith Kercher websites.
Mission Statement:
Were Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede responsible for the death of Meredith Kercher? This wiki style site was created by a group of volunteer editors to inform the public about the case, by providing a unique collection of translations of original documents and evidence presented at trial. We now have almost the complete case file.
Disclosure: I am one of the editors of the Wiki and Perugia Murder File sites.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."
Malcolm X

We live in a society where I believe I'm justified in saying a majority of people are easily swayed by the material they see on TV or read in the newspapers.

Recently I have witnessed a mass of new posters on Twitter and other social media forums who after watching the Amanda Knox Netflix documentary have formed a cast iron, unshakable opinion on the case.
It is clear after engaging with them very briefly that they frankly have very limited knowledge and understanding of the facts relating to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I will credit the producers of the documentary Blackhurst and McGinn on what I consider to be a quite clever (but ever so sneaky) disguising of their absolute bias towards Amanda Knox which will not be evident to those who are not acquainted with the case. They have obviously correctly banked on the ignorance of the majority of their audience.

I get the impression that Nick Pisa is used as a "filler" and a distraction. I come to this conclusion as I feel the producers would be hard pushed to make a 90 minute documentary, favourable to Knox, while addressing the real facts of the case without getting themselves in to serious legal trouble.
I also know from first hand experience that it is a long term strategy of Knox and her little band of PR hate mongers to vilify others in order to distract attention away from the real villains.
It is my impression that the intended main target for vilification was Perugian Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, but try as they might even with their selective editing, they could not produce enough material to achieve their goal due to Mignini's humility and integrity.
For me personally the documentary raised a few questions which I will share with you.
We have Knox herself stating words to the effect of "either i am a psychopath, a Wolf in sheep's clothing or I am you" Well she certainly isn't me or anyone else, she is her, so is this an involuntary but frank admission?
The documentary shows a clip of Diane Sawyer's interview with Knox in which Amanda is asked “Were you there that night?” She replies "No" but nods yes.

It is my opinion that Knox gets a real power kick out of the notoriety afforded to her and revels in the "Did I or didn't I" mystery.

She then goes from being the wolf in sheep's clothing to being a "Warrior Princess like Xena". An ultimate and powerful fantasy figure.

Knox maintains that she was at Sollecito's address at 110 Corso Garibaldi watching Amelie at the time of Meredith's murder.
Not even Raffaele supports this version of events and it begs the question why Blackhurst and McGinn have omitted the fact that Marasca and Bruno who acquitted the pair state in their motivation report "her (Knox) presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial."
The acquitting Judges go on to explain their reasoning that Knox was the first person to offer a sexual motive before there was any cadaver or autopsy reports available.
They also make mention of Amanda's description of "the victim's terrible scream" which was confirmed some time later by witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others.
How could a person who wasn't present know these details of the crime?
Knox goes on to describe an idyllic evening, smoking pot and making love yet makes no mention of who was listening to music on Sollecito's computer at 05:32 in the morning, a time that both Knox and Sollecito claim to be blissfully sleeping.

Knox can't comprehend why there is a knife with her DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade.
There is no mention in the documentary of Amanda's recorded prison conversation with her parents in which she says "I am very worried about this thing with the knife, because there is a knife of Raffaele's"
*Reference Massei report page 292.
Neither do they address Sollecito's claim that the reason Meredith's DNA is on the blade is because he "accidentally pricked her while cooking."
He later admitted this was a total fabrication, Meredith had never attended his home.

Knox claims that she accused Diya Lumumba after long hours of questioning yet we know that due to the time recorded on her signed voluntary statement that she had fabricated a story swapping Guede for Lumumba in under 2 hours and only did so upon learning Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi.

There is no mention in the documentary that Amanda had provided Diya Lumumba's name to Rita Ficarra in a list of persons of interest prior to learning Raffaele was not corroborating her version of events.
There is no mention of the sample of Knox's blood recovered from the faucet of the bathroom she shared with Meredith which Amanda herself dated in her court testimony to the night of Meredith's murder.

There is no mention of the mixed DNA sample of Knox and Meredith, recovered from a luminol revealed bloodstain in Filomena Romanelli's room. This is where the alleged point of entry for the burglary occurred It is worth noting there is no biological trace of Rudy Guede in this room.

Addressing the bra clasp, the Netflix documentary fails to address the fact that the only other sample of Sollecito's DNA identified in Via Della Pergola 7 was on a cigarette butt in an ashtray in the kitchen. This was a mixed sample containing Raffaele and Amanda's DNA.

The documentary emphasises the farcical views of the so called "independent experts" Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti. It fails to mention that Vecchiotti confirmed that contamination at Dr Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory was not possible if there was a six day gap in the testing of materials during cross questioning at the Hellmann appeal hearing.

PROSECUTOR COMODI: "Is six days a sufficient interval to rule out contamination?"

CARLA VECCHIOTTI: "Yes absolutely"

Neither to they address Conti's explanation (or lack of) as to how and why Sollecito's DNA was located on the hook of Meredith's bra clasp

PROSECUTOR COMODI: "How would Sollecito's DNA accidentally arrive on the hook of Meredith's bra?"

STEFANO CONTI: "Anything is possible"

During his input in the documentary Conti implies that DNA is easily transferable, he gives an example of running his fingers along his arm and magically shedding DNA. If this is the case I would like to pose a few of questions to him.

1, Why is the only other sample of Sollecito's DNA located on a cigarette butt in the kitchen?

2, Why is there no genetic trace of Guede in the small bathroom or in Filomena Romanelli's room?

3, Can you provide a figure for the statistical probability of Sollecito's solitary sample of DNA (other than the mixed trace on the cigarette butt) innocently finding it's way on to Meredith's bra clasp?

Blackhurst and McGinn predictably make use of Rudy Guede's Skype conversation with Giacomo Bendetti in which he states Knox wasn't there, yet do not address the letter Guede wrote to his lawyers in which he refers to "a horrible murder of a splendid, beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox"

Why have the documentary makers chosen to ignore these facts?
The answer in my opinion is simple and evidenced perfectly by Blackhurst and McGinn's long standing support of Amanda Knox.

Their production was never intended to be an objective documentary.
It is nothing more than a PR exercise, it does exactly what it says on the tin and tells the Amanda Knox story while omitting key facts.
It is a blatant attempt to influence their targeted "banked on" audience and create sympathetic feelings towards Knox and completely ignores the real victim Meredith Kercher.
Ironically in the closing stages of the documentary there is an interview with Curt Knox, he states "I'm not looking at her (Amanda Knox) as a hot property."
Yet Curt enlisted David Marriott of Seattle based PR firm Gogerty Marriott within days of his daughters arrest.

And nine years later Amanda Knox is still attempting to be "hot property"
Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher


Last edited by SwanseaJack on Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:21 pm   Post subject: Re: STEPHANIE KERCHER   

Ergon wrote:
Stephanie Kercher interview in the Daily Mail


Thank you for the link, Ergon. A very moving interview with Stephanie Kercher.

Quote:
Stephanie said: 'Everyone seemed to say they wanted to try to rebuild their lives, including Knox and Sollecito, and yet we constantly see programs and interviews.

'I don't understand why they want to keep reliving this nightmare.

'I guess it might seem contradictory me giving an interview criticizing them and Netflix but if they so desperately want to find a way to move on with their lives as much as we are trying to, as hard as it is for all involved, I struggle to see why they participate?

'Surely they want to separate themselves from this tragic experience?

'I know it's going to be hard for them to move on with their lives because of the experience and how people see them; we are in a similar situation - I've gone for job interviews and I sit there waiting when you say your name, thinking, "Are they going to recognize me?" and it can be an unnerving feeling.

'But as the case finished last year it would be nice to try and be able to remember Mez for Mez."


DAILY MAIL

Stephanie: 'I don't understand why they want to keep reliving this nightmare.' - We don't understand it either; probably, because they feed off of attention and like to keep the spotlight on themselves. As long as there are people out there, who believe in their guilt, they cannot rest and relax. Because just a cursory glance at court documents and sentencing reports reveals the baselessness of the assumption of innocence that makes up the dominate narrative being pushed by their PR and loyal documentary-makers.
Top Profile 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: STEPHANIE KERCHER   

guermantes wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Stephanie Kercher interview in the Daily Mail


Thank you for the link, Ergon. A very moving interview with Stephanie Kercher.

Quote:
Stephanie said: 'Everyone seemed to say they wanted to try to rebuild their lives, including Knox and Sollecito, and yet we constantly see programs and interviews.

'I don't understand why they want to keep reliving this nightmare.

'I guess it might seem contradictory me giving an interview criticizing them and Netflix but if they so desperately want to find a way to move on with their lives as much as we are trying to, as hard as it is for all involved, I struggle to see why they participate?

'Surely they want to separate themselves from this tragic experience?

'I know it's going to be hard for them to move on with their lives because of the experience and how people see them; we are in a similar situation - I've gone for job interviews and I sit there waiting when you say your name, thinking, "Are they going to recognize me?" and it can be an unnerving feeling.

'But as the case finished last year it would be nice to try and be able to remember Mez for Mez."


DAILY MAIL

Stephanie: 'I don't understand why they want to keep reliving this nightmare.' - We don't understand it either; probably, because they feed off of attention and like to keep the spotlight on themselves. As long as there are people out there, who believe in their guilt, they cannot rest and relax. Because just a cursory glance of court documents and sentencing reports reveals the baselessness of the assumption of innocence that makes up the dominate narrative being pushed by their PR and loyal documentary-makers.


Agreed it is still heartbreaking to sense the sadness of Meredith's extremely dignified family on the rare occasions they do speak to the press.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thank you, SwanseaJack. Great review and analysis of the Amanda Knox docu. cl-)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for your review, Swansea. Well done!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thank you both. It's always a pleasure
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

SwanseaJack wrote:
"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."
Malcolm X

We live in a society where I believe I'm justified in saying a majority of people are easily swayed by the material they see on TV or read in the newspapers.

Recently I have witnessed a mass of new posters on Twitter and other social media forums who after watching the Amanda Knox Netflix documentary have formed a cast iron, unshakable opinion on the case.
It is clear after engaging with them very briefly that they frankly have very limited knowledge and understanding of the facts relating to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I will credit the producers of the documentary Blackhurst and McGinn on what I consider to be a quite clever (but ever so sneaky) disguising of their absolute bias towards Amanda Knox which will not be evident to those who are not acquainted with the case. They have obviously correctly banked on the ignorance of the majority of their audience.

I get the impression that Nick Pisa is used as a "filler" and a distraction. I come to this conclusion as I feel the producers would be hard pushed to make a 90 minute documentary, favourable to Knox, while addressing the real facts of the case without getting themselves in to serious legal trouble.
I also know from first hand experience that it is a long term strategy of Knox and her little band of PR hate mongers to vilify others in order to distract attention away from the real villains.
It is my impression that the intended main target for vilification was Perugian Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, but try as they might even with their selective editing, they could not produce enough material to achieve their goal due to Mignini's humility and integrity.
For me personally the documentary raised a few questions which I will share with you.
We have Knox herself stating words to the effect of "either i am a psychopath, a Wolf in sheep's clothing or I am you" Well she certainly isn't me or anyone else, she is her, so is this an involuntary but frank admission?
The documentary shows a clip of Diane Sawyer's interview with Knox in which Amanda is asked “Were you there that night?” She replies "No" but nods yes.

It is my opinion that Knox gets a real power kick out of the notoriety afforded to her and revels in the "Did I or didn't I" mystery.

She then goes from being the wolf in sheep's clothing to being a "Warrior Princess like Xena". An ultimate and powerful fantasy figure.

Knox maintains that she was at Sollecito's address at 110 Corso Garibaldi watching Amelie at the time of Meredith's murder.
Not even Raffaele supports this version of events and it begs the question why Blackhurst and McGinn have omitted the fact that Marasca and Bruno who acquitted the pair state in their motivation report "her (Knox) presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial."
The acquitting Judges go on to explain their reasoning that Knox was the first person to offer a sexual motive before there was any cadaver or autopsy reports available.
They also make mention of Amanda's description of "the victim's terrible scream" which was confirmed some time later by witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others.
How could a person who wasn't present know these details of the crime?
Knox goes on to describe an idyllic evening, smoking pot and making love yet makes no mention of who was listening to music on Sollecito's computer at 05:32 in the morning, a time that both Knox and Sollecito claim to be blissfully sleeping.

Knox can't comprehend why there is a knife with her DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade.
There is no mention in the documentary of Amanda's recorded prison conversation with her parents in which she says "I am very worried about this thing with the knife, because there is a knife of Raffaele's"
*Reference Massei report page 292.
Neither do they address Sollecito's claim that the reason Meredith's DNA is on the blade is because he "accidentally pricked her while cooking."
He later admitted this was a total fabrication, Meredith had never attended his home.

Knox claims that she accused Diya Lumumba after long hours of questioning yet we know that due to the time recorded on her signed voluntary statement that she had fabricated a story swapping Guede for Lumumba in under 2 hours and only did so upon learning Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi.

There is no mention in the documentary that Amanda had provided Diya Lumumba's name to Rita Ficarra in a list of persons of interest prior to learning Raffaele was not corroborating her version of events.
There is no mention of the sample of Knox's blood recovered from the faucet of the bathroom she shared with Meredith which Amanda herself dated in her court testimony to the night of Meredith's murder.

There is no mention of the mixed DNA sample of Knox and Meredith, recovered from a luminol revealed bloodstain in Filomena Romanelli's room. This is where the alleged point of entry for the burglary occurred It is worth noting there is no biological trace of Rudy Guede in this room.

Addressing the bra clasp, the Netflix documentary fails to address the fact that the only other sample of Sollecito's DNA identified in Via Della Pergola 7 was on a cigarette butt in an ashtray in the kitchen. This was a mixed sample containing Raffaele and Amanda's DNA.

The documentary emphasises the farcical views of the so called "independent experts" Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti. It fails to mention that Vecchiotti confirmed that contamination at Dr Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory was not possible if there was a six day gap in the testing of materials during cross questioning at the Hellmann appeal hearing.

PROSECUTOR COMODI: "Is six days a sufficient interval to rule out contamination?"

CARLA VECCHIOTTI: "Yes absolutely"

Neither to they address Conti's explanation (or lack of) as to how and why Sollecito's DNA was located on the hook of Meredith's bra clasp

PROSECUTOR COMODI: "How would Sollecito's DNA accidentally arrive on the hook of Meredith's bra?"

STEFANO CONTI: "Anything is possible"

During his input in the documentary Conti implies that DNA is easily transferable, he gives an example of running his fingers along his arm and magically shedding DNA. If this is the case I would like to pose a few of questions to him.

1, Why is the only other sample of Sollecito's DNA located on a cigarette butt in the kitchen?

2, Why is there no genetic trace of Guede in the small bathroom or in Filomena Romanelli's room?

3, Can you provide a figure for the statistical probability of Sollecito's solitary sample of DNA (other than the mixed trace on the cigarette butt) innocently finding it's way on to Meredith's bra clasp?

Blackhurst and McGinn predictably make use of Rudy Guede's Skype conversation with Giacomo Bendetti in which he states Knox wasn't there, yet do not address the letter Guede wrote to his lawyers in which he refers to "a horrible murder of a splendid, beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox"

Why have the documentary makers chosen to ignore these facts?
The answer in my opinion is simple and evidenced perfectly by Blackhurst and McGinn's long standing support of Amanda Knox.

Their production was never intended to be an objective documentary.
It is nothing more than a PR exercise, it does exactly what it says on the tin and tells the Amanda Knox story while omitting key facts.
It is a blatant attempt to influence their targeted "banked on" audience and create sympathetic feelings towards Knox and completely ignores the real victim Meredith Kercher.
Ironically in the closing stages of the documentary there is an interview with Curt Knox, he states "I'm not looking at her (Amanda Knox) as a hot property."
Yet Curt enlisted David Marriott of Seattle based PR firm Gogerty Marriott within days of his daughters arrest.

And nine years later Amanda Knox is still attempting to be "hot property"
Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher


Jack, excellent review: succinct and straight to the point.

One comment: re Sollecito admitting Meredith had never been to his house. It was Knox who threw him under the bus, unwittingly telling police this fact, and Sollecito not being aware of the statement when he wrote his excuse for the DNA being there.

It illustrates the lengths Sollecito will go, and never once does he bat an eyelid as he lies through his teeth. It demonstrates a steely hard nature and icy heart. Sollecito chills the blood.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:32 pm   Post subject: STEPHANIE KERCHER   

In the Daily Mail article she says she doesn't know if any members of the family were approached by the film makers. This in response to Brian McGinn and Rod Blackhurst saying they had..

Some Friends of Amanda are now saying the Kerchers were advised not to comment on documentaries because "understandable PR tactic, protects from uncomfortable questions etc".
@Scotland_Lass

NOT answering that disgusting insinuation, but I know Michael Winterbottom showed his "Face Of An Angel" movie to Lyle Kercher then afterwards said "the Kerchers approved of it". No, Lyle approved the memorial at the end, which said Meredith Kercher RIP. Likewise, even though the directors in the "Amanda Knox" doc Q & A told the UCLA audience they approached the Kerchers but didn't get a reply (Stephanie isn't sure that's even true) this is twisted by the FOA to say they approve the documentary. Common sense dictate they not comment on any movie or book, but they knew what it was about and how disturbing the images were because friends told them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:56 am   Post subject: SQUIRRELS EVERYWHERE   

Apropos of nothing:


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Further to Odalisques:

The persistence of iconic imagery through time is interesting.


In what is now the Centocelle Archaeological Reserve near Rome (and once an airfield where Wilbur Wright helped inaugurate the first flights of the Italian air force), there were excavated three Roman-era villas, one of which, an imperial residence where Helena the mother of Constantine used to live, was so large it was nicknamed “Centum Cellae” ([Wikipedia]), meaning ‘Hundred Chambers’ or ‘Hundred Cellars’.

In 1865, a marble mosaic, now titled “Love Scene”, was unearthed and found its way in 1874 into the Antiquities Collection of the KHM in Vienna. (Susan Walker’s Ancient Faces, p 15, per GoogleBooks).



[Wikimedia]


The mosaic makes it onto the cover of an Italian high-school Latin textbook:

Attachment:
reclining_lady.jpg

“Centocelle marble mosaic from the first century AD in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna”
— Sergio Nicola, Liliana Garciel and Laura Tornielli, Codex corso di Latino: Teoria, (2016) [Petrini, 2016], p 276. ISBN 9788849420906


If the reclining woman is indeed Saint Helena (who was, interestingly, from the odalisque point of view, either wife or concubine of Empreror Chlorus, the historians are not sure which), the mosaic could then be a biographical representation of the Emperor Constantine the Great’s life at the proverbial “twinkle in his mother’s eye” stage.
pp-(


That whole story would make an interesting documentary series. It's not often that one person so significantly changes the course of history of the entire world.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi Jamie, thanks for reading. Maybe I could have written that a little more clearly. I wasn't insinuating that Sollecito admitted Meredith had never been in attendance at his home, I was merely stating the fact that Meredith had never attended 110 Corso Garibaldi. Alas a seasoned writer I am not.
I agree whole heartedly with your point about Sollecito and Knox is very much cut from the same cloth. They both disgust me, they are both pathological liars.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 308

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Excellent review Jack.

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Heatstreet still has the teensiest suspicion that the makers of the Netflix flick have not been entirely honest about their background or agenda.

http://heatst.com/world/did-netflix-mis ... knox-film/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Side-topic:

Nightstand Coincidence:

On Pointless tonight, the final-round question required naming the novels of three Booker Prize winners, one being Ian McEwan, and Enduring Love was a pointless answer.

The jackpot was £3,265, and the contestants missed it by just one word.


= = =
By more coincidence:

In the novel, one of the characters, says [W], suffers from “de Clerambault's syndrome, a disorder that causes the sufferer to believe that someone is in love with him or her”.

Denials are dismissed as a ploy to conceal the forbidden love from the rest of the world. [W]

There could be the basis of conspiracy theorising in that, where the object is knowledge and secrets and the power of knowing. Someone who is important because they know all the answers will be the centre of attention.
Top Profile 

Offline SwanseaJack


User avatar


Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:26 am

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thank you Jhansi
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Apropos of nothing. ;)

August 17, 2016
Sollecito at the Caffè della Versiliana

Raffaele Sollecito reacts to Guede’s request for a review and he does so at the Caffè della Versiliana [in Versilia, province of Lucca - ed.], responding to Luccaindiretta.it . The young man, acquitted along with Amanda Knox, accused of killing the British student, does not believe that Rudy Guede's request will be approved, but, if it were, he is not worried about a possible new trial.


viewtopic.php?style=6&p=131153#p131153
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I checked the program of Caffè della Versiliana, where Sollecito made a presentation of his book in August, and - surprise, surprise - Bruno Vespa and Vittorio Feltri were also there that month. Could it be a coincidence, or did they help the poor, "unjustly convicted boy" from Puglia to get a gig at the same festival they were attending? Just a speculation.

Caffè della Versiliana, il programma di agosto

Thursday, 4

Power, love and secrets

Bruno Vespa, author of "The Power of Secrets. Romance of Maria Angiolillo. Love and power in the last drawing room [salon] of Italy"

Moderated by Concita Borrelli

Friday, 5

We, Islam and Fear

Vittorio Feltri, Director of "Libero", author of "We don't have enough fear"

Mario Mori, Carabinieri General, former Head of Sisde

Moderated by Marco Ventura

Tuesday, 16

The case Meredith, with Raffaele Sollecito (author of "A step out of the night")

Moderated by Francesca Fialdini

http://www.versiliatoday.it/2016/07/30/ ... ma-agosto/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incontri al Caffé de La Versiliana
http://versilianafestival.it/incontri-al-caffe/

Festival La Versiliana
http://versilianafestival.it/
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito has announced that he will be attending the SUN Rimini Fiere [Fair] on Oct. 13-15. His company will have a booth there, advertising their services in booking beach umbrellas / parasols with the help of a drone.

He has a new logo for his "Memories" company which is now called "MEMORIES IT company" (Application & Software Development). I guess he couldn't make a lot of money with his "funeral and graveside services." ;)

Suntickets

http://www.memoriesoffices.com/en/suntickets/

He should really think about hiring a professional translator for his website, though. ("Book your sun shade, book your relax"???)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Interesting:

What Do People from Perugia Think of the New Amanda Knox Documentary?
By Leon Benz

This article originally appeared on VICE Italy.
October 12, 2016

...
Michela, 30, Art History Graduate

VICE: Have you seen the latest documentary on Amanda Knox?
Michela: Yes, I saw it a few days ago. I had the impression that, in trying to tell this story, the writers made these ridiculous caricatures of the people featured in the film. Like Raffaele Sollecito, who smokes joints but is a good boy in the end. Or Amanda—the strange, pretty girl who breaks into a smile when she remembers that Sollecito said he wanted to get her some perfume.

How close do you think they kept to the facts?
I don't think they went deep enough. The fact that Rudy Guede appears for ten minutes out of an hour and half—while he is one of the main players in the case and was convicted—shows how Netflix was mostly focused on getting the ingredients of the story they wanted to tell: youth, the "bella Italia" stereotype, sex, drugs, and murder.
...
Marco, 30, Social Media Marketing Manager

In 2007, you were studying at the University of Perugia. Do you have any personal memories of Kercher's murder?
Marco: I do—Meredith was in a class with me. I didn't know her, and we never spoke, but the morning after the murder the professor asked where the "Erasmus group" was, and I replied that they weren't there because one of them had died. That's what I had heard. The class then just went on as normal.

What did you think of the documentary?
I read some time ago about a meeting between Netflix Italy, the documentary makers, and someone from [Italy's national public broadcasting company] RAI. Netflix said the documentary would concentrate on the role of the media in the story, and I would have found that interesting. But then I saw the documentary, and the only focus on the role of the media is when they talk to a journalist, Nick Pisa, from the Daily Mail who—in his own words—was someone who'd do anything to get his story on the front page.
...


Read more: VICE
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:

What did you think of the documentary?
I read some time ago about a meeting between Netflix Italy, the documentary makers, and someone from [Italy's national public broadcasting company] RAI. Netflix said the documentary would concentrate on the role of the media in the story, and I would have found that interesting. But then I saw the documentary, and the only focus on the role of the media is when they talk to a journalist, Nick Pisa, from the Daily Mail who—in his own words—was someone who'd do anything to get his story on the front page.
...[/border]

Read more: VICE


I think this comment was the most telling about their approach to getting people into the film.

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 118

PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Sollecito has announced that he will be attending the SUN Rimini Fiere [Fair] on Oct. 13-15. His company will have a booth there, advertising their services in booking beach umbrellas / parasols with the help of a drone.

He has a new logo for his "Memories" company which is now called "MEMORIES IT company" (Application & Software Development). I guess he couldn't make a lot of money with his "funeral and graveside services." ;)

Suntickets

http://www.memoriesoffices.com/en/suntickets/

He should really think about hiring a professional translator for his website, though. ("Book your sun shade, book your relax"???)


Now there's an idea for a book. "Murder by Drone" by Raffaele Sollecito.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Actress and model Lodovica Rogati, back in 2009, reported a sexual assault on her by two men, and she accused one of them, her ex-boyfriend, of being a drug dealer as well. Both accusations proved totally false, and the prosecution is asking for six years’ imprisonment on charges of stalking her ex and for defamation. Sentencing will be on 3 November.
[CorriereAdriatico], 13 October 2016

In a turn of phrase in the report:

quelle accuse si rivelarono un boomerang per la donna
(“those accusations revealed themselves to be a boomerang for the woman”)
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

On the second episode of Code of a Killer here tonight, the real ‘DNA Guy’, Alec Jeffreys (played by Jeremy Simm) was asked by the police to analyse the genetic fingerprint left on a victim. A dramatic moment. Visually, the samples arrive, they are unpacked from an impressive bio-case by the doctor, and checked off and catalogued, clipboard and pen, by a female assistant.

Putting on the latex gloves and protective eye-wear was iconically dramatic.

But a close-up of the female assistant instinctively touching the tip pf her nose with the back of a finger of a gloved hand (the left index finger) rather spoiled the effect: images of Maori/Bongiorno-types jumping to their feet in court and shouting ‘Contamination! Contamination!’ sprang to mind.



[BBCAus]
[ABC]
Top Profile 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 102

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Sollecito has announced that he will be attending the SUN Rimini Fiere [Fair] on Oct. 13-15. His company will have a booth there, advertising their services in booking beach umbrellas / parasols with the help of a drone.

He should really think about hiring a professional translator for his website, though. ("Book your sun shade, book your relax"???)


He should also figure out that mid-October isn't a good time to sell beach umbrella rentals. All my intelligent pop-ups are recommending wood-burning stoves. Sigh.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I was just going through old links posted in this thread and updating the Links subforum when I was struck by this phrase from Knox's chat with JuJu Chang on Nightline:

“My reaction is that he [Rudy Guede - ed.] wasn’t found guilty of everything that he was guilty of,” Knox said. “And that’s just because in the criminal justice system, they allowed him to be tried separately from me, and that is something that he needs to answer to.”


It's hard to make sense of. Rudy Guede "wasn't found guilty of everything he was guilty of..." - how could she know what "he was guilty of" if she wasn't there (at the crime scene)?
"...and that is something that he needs to answer to..." - that his lawyers chose an abbreviated trial for him?

It is little slips of the tongue like that that betray her (guilt). By the way, as time goes by, both her and Sollecito's lies are getting bigger which is quite normal for pathological liars. Now Knox is blaming Mignini for focusing too much on her and "forgetting" Meredith. Sollecito saying that his family had to sell almost everything, when in truth they had sold only a couple of apartments that they were renting out, to cover the costs of his defense. Etc. I wonder what they will say next. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In the same article by JuJu Chang et al. (Amanda Knox on Her Life as an Exoneree, New Netflix Doc: 'There's No Way I Can Go Back to Being the Person Who I Was Before' ), there is another "blooper":

Quote:
In January 2014, her acquittal was reversed by determined prosecutor Mignini.


"Her acquittal was reversed by determined prosecutor Mignini"??? Mignini had nothing to do with it; it was Alessandro Crini who represented the prosecution at the Florence appeal trial. Stop vilifying prosecutor Mignini, people at ABC! And, certainly, he alone couldn't "reverse" Knox's acquittal even if he wanted to. It could only be done by an Appeals court, don't you know that? :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In 2015
  • 4,463 applications concerning Italy
    • 4,438 declared inadmissible or struck out
    • 24 judgments
    • 20 of which found at least one violation

The 4k ‘floodgates’ cases might have to do with one successful case of prison overcrowding – see the Country Profile:

Quote:
Torregiani and Others v. Italy
08.01.2013
The case concerned overcrowding in prisons in Italy.
The Court decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in view of the growing number of persons potentially concerned in Italy and of the judgments finding a violation liable to result from the applications in question.
Following up on Torregiani case, the Court received more than 4,200 similar applications which were declared inadmissible or struck out.


ETA:


Pilot judgments are ones directed towards a systemic or structural component of a member state’s legal system, one where a large number of people are or could be affected. Instead of hundreds or thousands of repeat cases, individual by individual, pilot judgments impose an obligation on States to address the problem causing the common dysfunction.
[Factsheet]


Last edited by Catnip on Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
I was just going through old links posted in this thread and updating the Links subforum when ...


These ECHR ones might be helpful if they're not already there:

[ECHR Country Profile - Italy] mention in 'Notable Pending Cases' section

[HUDOC] Details

Application 76577/13: status
Link address:
Code:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/#{"appno":["76577/13"]}]



KNOX c. ITALIE

76577/13 | Available only in French | Communicated Case | 29/04/2016
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 253

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Don't know if this is of any significance whatsoever, but searched the Wikileaks database and the only instances - apart from one - AK's name is mentioned are automatic breaking news releases sent to subscribers. The one exception is a NYT article written by Julie Bosman about the AK book deal that a Clinton aide Nora Toiv sent to another Clinton aide, chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who then forwarded it to HRC.

And then there are of course the + 30.000 emails Clinton deleted. Would be interesting to know if AK's case was mentioned in any of them.

The email:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23135

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-email ... 790667.pdf

The search:

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=%22 ... te#results

I'm just wondering why was it forwarded? Where they looking for new donors for the Clinton Foundation? Bill Clinton had earlier used the same lawyer to cut a book deal for him, so was it forwarded because of that connection? Is it possible that they had somehow - via AK's PR agency - recommended this lawyer to AK? I'm obviously just speculating. Maria Cantwell did speak about her publicly but it was dismissed as something all senators do for all convicts of their states in similar circumstances. Do they really?




(Sorry for the size - I can't get the smaller youtube tags to function so am using the youtube8000 tag. Is there a problem with the normal size youtube tags or is it just me?)

Btw: what did she mean by "we will be talking to the European Union"? What does an Italian criminal case got to do with the EU? Is she implying that she expects politicians from other European countries to lean on Italian politicians so that they would influence the judicial process? Which would be illegal, of course, although they probably do it all the time.

-----
Cantwell's letters to Italian and American officials:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/S ... a_Cantwell
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:04 am   Post subject: THEY STILL SLUR JOHN KERCHER   

Amanda Knox supporter @Justice4Knox

still claims Internet poster "Harry Rag" is John Kercher in disguise, and that he's "obsessed with Amanda Knox". No matter how many times the Knox PR campaign has been told he suffered two strokes and could not be the prolific Harry, they continue this campaign against the Kerchers.

Since @Justice4Knox claims the site "Amanda Knox Case" is "our" site, perhaps they need to get their act together? Attacking the victim's family goes beyond the bounds of decency.

Will post on the Wiki, which, whether they like it or not, does get read by the press.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 4:18 am   Post subject: KNOX ENTRY CANADA   

Re the question how Knox entered Canada: anyone with an American felony conviction is flagged at the border Can I Go to Canada with a Felony?

since the US shares its data with us. Italy, apparently, did not.

So all she had to do was fill this simple form at the border and she was in :)

Customs Declaration Card
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:32 am   Post subject: Re: THEY STILL SLUR JOHN KERCHER   

Ergon wrote:
Amanda Knox supporter @Justice4Knox





He (I'm assuming a Don clone) should be more worried about the topic of concealment as an aggravating factor.

Or whether the ‘cuffs on the head’ claim is a false memory, like Amanda claims her memory of Patrick as being the murderer is a false memory.

And why does Amanda hit herself on the head at all? She calls it ‘hysterics’ – if it is, it’s a rather extreme form. What is being done about it? A doctor knows that leaving unexamined things untreated is not wise.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:44 am   Post subject: Re: THEY STILL SLUR JOHN KERCHER   

Ergon wrote:
Amanda Knox supporter @Justice4Knox

still claims Internet poster "Harry Rag" is John Kercher in disguise, and that he's "obsessed with Amanda Knox".



A third party, independent, impartial cannot logically exist if his worldview is to remain valid: therefore, to protect his view from falling to pieces, it must by reason be an interested party, therefore it must be ...

But didn't DonA come to that conclusion long ago, based on an anagram and a fevered imagination (literally)?

DonA making accusations and assertions is not going to salve his regret for not speaking up in the case where he was an expert witness years ago. His setting up sights on Amanda as a proxy for that miscalculation is what the lawyers call 'transferred malice' - he's attempting to punish the system now, for what it should have done correctly (in his opinion) years ago.

The regret can be dealt with by some sort of therapy. The lack of respect not so much, since it seems to be part of his character. He wants to be punished for his error of judgment.
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: THEY STILL SLUR JOHN KERCHER   

Catnip wrote:

DonA making accusations and assertions is not going to salve his regret for not speaking up in the case where he was an expert witness years ago. His setting up sights on Amanda as a proxy for that miscalculation is what the lawyers call 'transferred malice' - he's attempting to punish the system now, for what it should have done correctly (in his opinion) years ago.



Do you mean Prof David Anderson? Because as James pointed out a while back, when I got it all wrong, Anderson was about the least to blame in the terrible Stefan Kiszko case. It's still not clear what happened, except that police did bully Mr Kiszko into a false confession.

The police surgeon then took a sample which showed that Mr Kiszko could not produce sperm, because of his hypogonadism, for which Anderson was giving him testosterone injections.

Ron Outteridge, the FSS scientist, had slides of sperm samples from the crime scene, which could not be Mr Kiszko's. But when Outteridge collated the forensic reports, that one seemed to go missing. The police surgeon, meanwhile, had no idea about the crime-scene find. Even one of the detectives who got the false confession, Dick Holland, told the Observer in 1992 that the police wouldn't have charged Mr Kiszko if the mismatch between samples had been known. He would say that, perhaps. But Outteridge refused even to comment.

Anderson has said that he was visited before the trial by a couple of detectives who asked if someone with Mr Kiszko's condition could produce sperm, so some of the police may have known about the problem. Anderson, like the police surgeon, was in the dark about the crime-scene find (though that question from the police might have been a clue).

When Outteridge gave evidence in court, he mentioned the semen stains found on the victim's body, but not the finding of sperm heads by his own assistant who examined the sample slides. Of course, that finding, which proved the killer was fertile, only became significant in light of the analysis of the semen sample taken from Mr Kiszko by the police surgeon, which proved Mr Kiszko was sterile. The police surgeon had sent that sample to Outteridge's own lab in Harrogate, so it would be... rather odd... if Outteridge did not know about the mismatch. But he didn't mention it.

Anderson was eventually called to the trial by Mr Kiszko's counsel, David Waddington QC (later Home Secretary), who against Mr Kiszko's plain not-guilty plea (he'd withdrawn his confession) was trying to argue diminished responsibility. Anderson says he was then not required to take the stand after all, because he would not say that the injections could have made Mr Kiszko violent.

It was a terrible business and it's still not really known who sat on the crucial evidence. But it is probably true that Anderson's misguided advocacy for Knox and Sollecito stems from unease over Mr Kiszko, whose case was not in fact like theirs at all.

http://raymondhewlett.blogspot.co.uk/19 ... -lost.html

Edit: Incidentally, much later, in 2007, when Ronald Castree was on trial for the murder, as the sperm samples had proved to contain his DNA, the by-now-retired Outteridge, who had personally collected the samples at the crime scene, gave evidence that it wasn't a sexual attack, because the little girl's semen-stained knickers were still in place and had not been disarranged, so the semen stains might have nothing to do with the murder and Castree might have ejaculated on the victim's knickers in some quite innocent scenario.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... hears.html

Further edit: The court did not accept Outteridge's extraordinary argument and Castree is now serving life for the murder of Lesley Molseed.


Last edited by hugo on Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: THEY STILL SLUR JOHN KERCHER   

Catnip wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Amanda Knox supporter @Justice4Knox

still claims Internet poster "Harry Rag" is John Kercher in disguise, and that he's "obsessed with Amanda Knox".



A third party, independent, impartial cannot logically exist if his worldview is to remain valid: therefore, to protect his view from falling to pieces, it must by reason be an interested party, therefore it must be ...

But didn't DonA come to that conclusion long ago, based on an anagram and a fevered imagination (literally)?

DonA making accusations and assertions is not going to salve his regret for not speaking up in the case where he was an expert witness years ago. His setting up sights on Amanda as a proxy for that miscalculation is what the lawyers call 'transferred malice' - he's attempting to punish the system now, for what it should have done correctly (in his opinion) years ago.

The regret can be dealt with by some sort of therapy. The lack of respect not so much, since it seems to be part of his character. He wants to be punished for his error of judgment.

Yeah, David Anderson did something with anagrams, Catnip. And wrote letters to the BBC telling them to investigate John Kercher Jr. But I think the story spread from when Steve and Michelle Moore, and the Mellases, stayed at his B&B while waiting for Knox to be acquitted in 2011. FWIW, I think Steve Moore did his FBI profiley thing to start the whole story, motivated in part by the grief he was getting from Harry Rag. The Moores certainly were the worst in promoting it, see comments at Deadline Hollywood

Anderson seems a decent, if easily misled person, and he charmed some with his English goofiness as he toured various Rotary functions with Judge Heavey in the 2012 Knox Innocence Tour. But the ones motivated by malice, based on blame they attached for SteveO losing his job, are Steve and Michelle Moore.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

That's David Anderson, Ergon. He has done something wrong, though: he's collaborated on a 'book' about 'wrongful prosecutions' with Nigel Scott. Nigel Scott escorted Sollecito to gloat over Meredith's grave, and, even if you really thought Sollecito was innocent, you just wouldn't do that unless you were a massive, toxic jerk.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:28 pm   Post subject: NIGEL SCOTT   

hugo wrote:
That's David Anderson, Ergon. He has done something wrong, though: he's collaborated on a 'book' about 'wrongful prosecutions' with Nigel Scott. Nigel Scott escorted Sollecito to gloat over Meredith's grave, and, even if you really thought Sollecito was innocent, you just wouldn't do that unless you were a massive, toxic jerk.

Corrected, thanks, hugo. Fog of the moment when I read "DonA" :)

Yeah, David Anderson and Nigel Scott Wrote A Book based on their proximity to the Kiszko and Knox case. Not a book I'm inclined to read since they said it all already, but as to the toxic jerkiness of Nigel Scott:


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:44 pm   Post subject: MOORES SLUR KERCHERS   

No one has more of a history of slurs against the Kerchers over the years than the Moores, though Anne Bremner's brother Doug was a close second. (The Kerchers are like the Nazis? A thousand dollar reward for the identity of 'Harry Rag'!!?)

From Deadline Hollywood
Quote:
Mark Saha • on Feb 12, 2014 1:57 pm

Mt(y) email to the BBC:
RE: Your Amanda Knox documentary by Andrea Vogt and Paul Russell.

The BBC has for many years enjoyed a stellar international reputation for responsible journalism. I regret to say a reputation once tarnished is not easily reclaimed, and this expedition into the gutter both astonishes and appalls me.

This documentary will poison the British public against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Andrea Vogt is a biased freelance journalist who actively promote a fake wiki created by Amanda Knox hate site members. Her cards have long been on the table. Paul Russell authored an anti-Amanda Knox book.

The BBC has been displaying astonishing bias on this case. They have funded filmmaker Michael Winterbottom’s film based on Barbie Nadeau’s horrendous anti-Knox book; and featured Leila Schneps who is a prime member of hate site PMF, and Andrea Vogt, a journalist with connections to the prosecution.

It is also known that Meredith Kercher’s brother John Kercher Jr. works for the BBC.

The BBC and its reputation are poised at the Rubicon.

What has gone so wrong with your organization that this appears to you worth the irreparable damage to your name and reputation?

Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher when she walked in on the robbery of her apartment.

Everything else is a cover-up by Italian authorities for the arrest of three innocent people and subsequent prosecution of two of them. That is Italy’s problem, not the BBC’s.

You are about to make it the BBC’s problem as well.

Mark Saha, AKA Carlofab, recently wrote a glowing review of the Amanda Knox documentary after seeing a Screen Writers Guild presentation at UCLA, calling it and the directors 'unbiased'. :)

Michelle Moore responds:
Quote:
Michelle Moore • on Feb 13, 2014 4:37 pm

I don’t know who wrote this but I agree with everything you say.

The bias in this trial is beyond obvious and laughable. It’s their (big) problem in the end.

Some unknowingly believe a lie, a conspiracy theory-actually there are several to choose from- pick one, any one.

The truth will be what goes down in the history books however. And they will be the ones called “modern day witch hunters”.

There are some people at the BBC I really respect, but whoever allowed this? Oh wow….whatever, it’s really hurt their cause.

Quote:
Steve Moore, FBI Special Agent (Retired) • on Feb 12, 2014 2:56 pm

With Andrea Vogt’s years of (published) anti-Knox statements available to everyone, and with her bias as historically documented (and as appropriate) as Silvio Berlusconi’s dating life; foisting her as an unbiased “director” of a documentary has not gone unnoticed–especially as Kercher’s real killer, Rudy Guede, prepares to go free. Vogt’s “grasp” of criminal evidence and the complicated nature of forensics is rivaled only by her expertise in interplanetary travel. I would think it fair to assume that a number of attorneys will be reviewing every second of the tape of this “piece,” especially in light of the UK’s aggressive libel laws. What Vogt has gotten away with in Italy may not “fly” in Britain.

Now, if history is any indicator, this comment will now be followed by a long line of vitriolic comments aimed at this writer and his views, surely questioning his motives, parentage and intelligence. Likely, the counterfeit “Wiki” site created by Knox-haters will also surface as a link, probably at the hands of “Harry Rag,” (see comment above.) When you see it, ask yourself this question: Which side needs to create counterfeit websites? The party which believes truth is on their side, or the party which wants a particular result regardless of truth? Then, visit “injusticeinperugia” to learn the real truth.

Quote:
Steve Moore, FBI Special Agent (Retired) • on Feb 12, 2014 3:01 pm

Then, ask yourself why the anti-Knox haters refuse to identify themselves, and the people who happen to believe the evidence points only to Rudy Guede, are willing to put their names next to their opinions. Finally, ask Harry Rag who he is. You might be surprised.

The missus again:
Quote:
Michelle Moore • on Feb 13, 2014 4:42 pm

We all know who he is, and the BBC should be slightly (slightly???)concerned but no one wants to out the poor guy.

However, as sorry as I feel, he has been a very mean person, to us personally, especially! I do feel for him, but what hate has turned into, is not acceptable in any circumstance. No one can be born with that much hate. If it gets to the point where you have to out and out knowingly lie just to win a case, well then there really hasn’t been ANY justice done for Meredith at all then. :(

It’s a lose lose situation.

Doesn’t add to how I’m starting to feel about the BBC. Stay Classy BBC and… K, I’ll just end with that.

These people ought to be ashamed of themselves. It was in the past, but as we see, the attacks on the Kerchers seem to be surfacing again as the Knoxii try to promote their failed documentary.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks, Hugo, Ergon.

The retirement touches a raw nerve with the ex-FBI agent (Why was he retired, anyway? That seems to be a State Secret from his point of view. FOI could reveal the answer. Declaring himself to be ex-Agent at such a young age only invites the question. And hiding the answer invites suspicion.)


David Anderson's regret at not speaking up at the time was mentioned by him about 3-4 years ago, (somewhere, either an interview, or a post, I didn't mark it down) and he explained it away as his being naïve about procedure back then. But not this time round, quite definitely. Although the bee in his bonnet pales by comparison to the beehive the Moores have in theirs.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In a landscape where the media create the map, previous media-mediated events become landmarks giving context to current events. Sort of like the common media equivalent of precedent.


In a murder case where the wife of a prominent Ravenna dermatologist was found beaten to death and the husband is the prime suspect, one of the defence experts, Adriano Tagliabracci, is described as “consultant for Raffaele Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher, while the prosecution has genetist Carlo Previderè, who took part in the trial concerning the death of 13-year-old Yara Gambirasio” – [RavennaToday], 14 October 2016.

Hidden Content: show
Image

The couple, Giulia Balllestri, left, and Matteo Cagnoni.
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:

David Anderson's regret at not speaking up at the time was mentioned by him about 3-4 years ago, (somewhere, either an interview, or a post, I didn't mark it down) and he explained it away as his being naïve about procedure back then. But not this time round, quite definitely. Although the bee in his bonnet pales by comparison to the beehive the Moores have in theirs.


Perhaps he assumed Mr Kiszko was guilty, or might well be, and that's what's eating him. Something clearly is. He says, 'I was never cross-examined,' which suggests, since Waddington could hardly advance that defence without Anderson's evidence, that his police statement was read out and the Crown decided not to contest him, seeing little worth contesting. Which may imply that his statement did not help Mr Kiszko much. And perhaps he could have said more to indicate that Mr Kiszko was medically unlikely to have committed such a crime and that no, the testosterone boosters could not really have made him go round stabbing little girls. Then Waddington might not have embarked on such a disastrous defence. So Anderson may have been in a critical position to help his patient, and he didn't try very hard.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The possibility of a physical eating, as opposed to a moral one, might have to be ruled out, too. The build up of something in the brain can lead to obsessive/repetitive thoughts/actions, and with bacterial toxins in the blood throwing a spanner in how the liver works, in turn affecting what are called the emotions, a post-hoc rationalisation of the feeling of vague and general malaise could be 'explained' by something attributed to regret.

In any case, on a significant matter, something that requires considered thought is not going to be helped by some wonky dialectic, whatever has brought it on.

Raffaele likes to self-medicate even though he is not medically trained; David Anderson likes to self-logicate, if I can call it that, to ruminate and reason without being trained, or continue after having lost the training.

It's difficult without any impediments to start with: even long-sitting experienced professional thinkers like judges need the occasional Court of Appeal to tell them where they got it wrong. What hope a mere bystander?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Found a case in Queensland in 1906 which is authority for the proposition that “The fact that the accused burnt the body is not necessarily evidence that he committed the murder”.(1)

Haven’t read the report (yet), and since “no two [legal] libraries are the same”(2) and the case isn’t online yet (it might be on GoogleBooks, although not under Snippet View or Free Book), there’s a potentially corresponding Victorian case from 1867 to read instead, with a missing person, burnt remains, and circumstantial evidence: pencils, a piece of paper, a belt, the width of dray wheel tracks, and so on. What Wills on Circumstantial Evidence (3rd ed, 1850 – which is on GoogleBooks) would call “mechanical coincidences” (p 165).

The court handles the evidence quite well. Worth a read.



Quote:
"In many instances circumstances afford as good a proof as the most direct evidence."

Regina v Dennis Murphy, Supreme Court of Victoria (04 April 1867), [1867] VicWWABRp 30; (1867) 4 Wyatt W & A'B 63 at [p 87] (Barry J).


The way for Bruno to handle the blood on Amanda’s hands is to view it in light of all the other evidence: the closed door, the denial about knowing whether Meredith was alright, etc.

= = =

In England, it happened more than once that a missing person supposed murdered had, in fact, been captured by pirates or sold into slavery, and turned up two or three years later.

In Australia, the defence in a murder trial would not uncommonly put the submission that the person who has never been seen since might, just supposedly, be ‘still alive in some unknown part of the world’ (or even Australia).

But it all depends on how reasonable that is.





(1) R v Ryan [1906] St R Qd 15 — M J Shanahan, P E Smith and S Ryan, Carter's Criminal Law of Queensland, 17th edition, (2009) [LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009], [s 300.10] (p 379). ISBN 9780409326321. In that case, “charred human bones and articles identified as belonging to the missing man were found.” — [s 300.15] (p 380).

(2) Nigel Duncan and Allison Wolfgarten (eds), Opinion Writing and Case Preparation, 2nd edition, (2012) [Oxford University Press, 2012], [4.1] (p 25). ISBN 9780199657353
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In the Giulia Balllestri murder case, the husband has also been charged with concealment of a body, in that his wife had been dragged down into the cellar. The house where it happened belonged to his grandfather and was empty, but it did have some paintings that could form part of the divorce settlement, so a line of enquiry is that she was lured there on that pretext.

Locking Meredith's door, and denying all knowledge of her condition and whereabouts, could count as concealment.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It's the details that matter.

On the [Explore Forensics] site, the case of the first DNA usage and mass-screening (as dramatized in Code of a Killer) also had an alert member of the public: “a woman overheard a colleague, Ian Kelly, boasting that he had given a sample posing as a friend of his, Colin Pitchfork”.
[link]


In another case, a dog collar, twine and cable ties were traced.
[link]


And in another case: the murderer used tape purchased by his girlfriend and originating from the Tate Gallery.
[link]
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
In a landscape where the media create the map, previous media-mediated events become landmarks giving context to current events. Sort of like the common media equivalent of precedent.


In a murder case where the wife of a prominent Ravenna dermatologist was found beaten to death and the husband is the prime suspect, one of the defence experts, Adriano Tagliabracci, is described as “consultant for Raffaele Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher, while the prosecution has genetist Carlo Previderè, who took part in the trial concerning the death of 13-year-old Yara Gambirasio” – [RavennaToday], 14 October 2016.

Hidden Content: show
Image

The couple, Giulia Balllestri, left, and Matteo Cagnoni.


Tagliabracci is the guy who accused Stefanoni of being 'suspect'-centric. So no doubt he'll be manoevering for a sympathetic judge.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
Found a case in Queensland in 1906 which is authority for the proposition that “The fact that the accused burnt the body is not necessarily evidence that he committed the murder”.(1)

Haven’t read the report (yet), and since “no two [legal] libraries are the same”(2) and the case isn’t online yet (it might be on GoogleBooks, although not under Snippet View or Free Book), there’s a potentially corresponding Victorian case from 1867 to read instead, with a missing person, burnt remains, and circumstantial evidence: pencils, a piece of paper, a belt, the width of dray wheel tracks, and so on. What Wills on Circumstantial Evidence (3rd ed, 1850 – which is on GoogleBooks) would call “mechanical coincidences” (p 165).

The court handles the evidence quite well. Worth a read.



Quote:
"In many instances circumstances afford as good a proof as the most direct evidence."

Regina v Dennis Murphy, Supreme Court of Victoria (04 April 1867), [1867] VicWWABRp 30; (1867) 4 Wyatt W & A'B 63 at [p 87] (Barry J).


The way for Bruno to handle the blood on Amanda’s hands is to view it in light of all the other evidence: the closed door, the denial about knowing whether Meredith was alright, etc.

= = =

In England, it happened more than once that a missing person supposed murdered had, in fact, been captured by pirates or sold into slavery, and turned up two or three years later.

In Australia, the defence in a murder trial would not uncommonly put the submission that the person who has never been seen since might, just supposedly, be ‘still alive in some unknown part of the world’ (or even Australia).

But it all depends on how reasonable that is.





(1) R v Ryan [1906] St R Qd 15 — M J Shanahan, P E Smith and S Ryan, Carter's Criminal Law of Queensland, 17th edition, (2009) [LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009], [s 300.10] (p 379). ISBN 9780409326321. In that case, “charred human bones and articles identified as belonging to the missing man were found.” — [s 300.15] (p 380).

(2) Nigel Duncan and Allison Wolfgarten (eds), Opinion Writing and Case Preparation, 2nd edition, (2012) [Oxford University Press, 2012], [4.1] (p 25). ISBN 9780199657353


The blood must have been wet at the time, to transfer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
In the Giulia Balllestri murder case, the husband has also been charged with concealment of a body, in that his wife had been dragged down into the cellar. The house where it happened belonged to his grandfather and was empty, but it did have some paintings that could form part of the divorce settlement, so a line of enquiry is that she was lured there on that pretext.

Locking Meredith's door, and denying all knowledge of her condition and whereabouts, could count as concealment.



...and with no sign of blood on the door or the hallway outside, the perps could claim to be completely unaware of what might lie behind it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 102

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

There is another clamorous case due to receive judgement today in Ragusa, Sicily. This is Veronica Panarello, who is accused of having strangled her 8 year old son, Loris Stival in November 2014. The prosecution is asking for 30 years, claiming premeditation and adding on occultamento del cadavere. (Concealing the body.)

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/10 ... o/3103395/

There is some wonderful language from the prosecution here - it seems to be a description of someone else we know...

Hidden Content: show
Attachment:
1screen001.jpg


Edited to update that Veronica Panarello was convicted, and condemned to thirty years in jail, (although the judge did not accept the aggravation of premeditation, and there is no mention in the article I have read of the charge of concealing the body).
She now faces a calumny charge for having accused her father in law (with whom she had claimed to have been having an affair) of the murder of Loris.
An interesting parallel in this case is that (again) 'motive' was never convincingly established, but (again) the prosecution argued that this wasn't anything vital. The (trial) verdict is being appealed.

http://palermo.repubblica.it/cronaca/20 ... 91573/?rss


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Causing the death of another requires an intention to bring about that result.

The reason (motive) for bringing about that result could be anything: greed, kindness, nothing in particular, 'felt like it', etc.

The crime attaches to the intention, not the motive.

The stock scriptwriting motif in detective shows of "means, motive and opportunity" is probably the source of the newspaper-ised way publicity-hungry defence teams might present things to the media in the PR battle.

If there is no death-causing implement (a gun in the US, a lead pipe or falling gargoyle in the UK), no reason to bring about the death (greed for the inheritance, both sides of the Atlantic), and no physical contact for time and space (except in ghost stories), then the TV-show detective has to rely on "a hunch" ("it just doesn't fit" etc), otherwise it would be too simple.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:

...and with no sign of blood on the door or the hallway outside, the perps could claim to be completely unaware of what might lie behind it.


Hence the potential for a concealment charge - under Bruno's reasoning, if Amanda has blood on her hands which she is washing off (thus explaining the bathroom tap stain, for example), then Bruno's reasoning must go on to explain what that implies: was Amanda aware of where the blood came from (therefore claiming to be unaware of what is behind door number 2 amounts to concealment), or maybe she forgot (drugs?) or maybe she was in a zombie state (more drugs; inherent brain impairment), or maybe she thought she imagined it (the American student who stabbed his friend multiple times says he has no memory of the event).

Bruno does none of that. Therefore his reasoning is incomplete. Therefore, potentially, it can go to the ECHR as an example of not getting a fair trial: the whole of the evidence was not weighed in a reasonable manner.


===
The last couple of days, here, distribution of a bad batch of something synthetic has hospitalised a bunch of people. Hallucinations, uncompliant with medical staff, bizarre behaviour (like running out into the traffic). End-of-exams period is coming up ("Schoolies Week"), so authorities are worried and putting out advice: if you don't know what's in it, don't risk your life on it.
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

At least one of the graphic headlines shown in the Netflix film is actually a quote from what Lumumba's lawyer reportedly said in trial, the "witch of deception." If audiences knew that it was a charge by the lawyer of the man Amanda slandered, they might think about the film (and Knox) differently. Not surprised it was left out.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/am ... vil-156204

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

What’s this recent psychology book with a picture of a hand pulling strings on the front cover?

Being classified under ‘mental health: personality disorder’ and ‘memoir: law enforcement’ is not inapt.

Per Amazon:
Quote:

Three False Convictions, Many Lessons: The Psychopathology of Unjust Prosecutions Paperback – September 14, 2016

by David C Anderson (Author), Nigel P Scott (Author)



About the Author

David Anderson is a former Professor of Medicine in Manchester and Hong Kong who awoke to miscarriages of justice in connection with a former patient of his, Stefan Kiszko, wrongly convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed.

Nigel Scott is a writer and researcher who has worked extensively with David Anderson on the Knox/Sollecito case.



#458 in Books > Health, Fitness & Dieting > Mental Health > Personality Disorders
#772 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Professionals & Academics > Law Enforcement



Candace Dempsey is described as “Author and champion for justice”. So is Bruce Fisher. John Follain is described as “used”.

Hidden Content: show
Attachment:
aacfi.jpg

{GoogleBooks}



Nick Pisa “Changed his stance” after meeting David Anderson in November 2010.
Hidden Content: show
Attachment:
who_is_nick_pisa.jpg

{GoogleBooks}


Makes him sound weak-minded.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Facebook can contaminate evidence.

Quote:
"The internet, social media and social networking websites all give access to a huge amount of information and enable their users to themselves create and disseminate information. Needless to say, all such information varies greatly in accuracy and reliability and it takes little imagination to see how these advances in technology together with the concurrent changes in social behaviour greatly magnify the traditional problems associated with identification evidence."

Strauss v Police, Supreme Court of South Australia (18 Jan 2013), [2013] SASC 3 at [12] (Peek J).



A similar thing can be said about using the Internet for identifying the issues of a case, the protagonists and their roles, and the significance of any decisions they make and the outcomes.


Read the plot summaries written by ten different fans of a fictional show and there won't be a single story appearing from them showing that everyone has seen that episode the same way (or even heard it the same way).

For non-fiction, treating it that way will lead to error.

And for legal cases, which by definition deal with (re)constructed reality, and multiple overlapping versions thereof, it leads to a hall of mirrors.

Some minds cannot cope with that, so they retreat into simplification hypotheses; and some of those cannot handle more than one thing a time, so perforce they can only digest the evidence one item at a time, not as a whole.

It's not surprising they make such howlers. (And that's the ones without malice or ulterior motives.)
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Slight correction to James' comment at TJMK: Girolamo Bongiorno, Giulia's father, b.1937, is not a professor of medical law at La Sapienza (that's 'Sapienza' as in homo sapiens, not 'Spienza'), but a specialist in bankruptcy law. This is him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgv94xOHKwk

Not that it makes much odds. Conti and Vecchiotti are associate professors of medical law at La Sapienza and therefore not strangers to the law faculty.

La Sapienza is the most prestigious university in Italy. And, for that very reason, the most notoriously corrupt university in Italy, particularly since the recent 'Parentopoli' or 'Relative-gate' scandal. The rector had appointed his wife, formerly a high-school history teacher, as a professor of history, his daughter as a professor of legal medicine though she had neither medical nor legal qualifications, and his son, who admittedly was an actual doctor, as the youngest professor of cardiology in Italy at the age of 30. This used to appear on the university's English Wikipedia page, but it's been airbrushed out. As a result of Parentopoli, Italian law was changed so that university department heads may no longer hire their own relatives, not that the law ever makes any difference in Italy, and besides all those nepotistic hirings will remain in post for decades to come.

I did find this reference to the same old stuff still going on at La Sapienza, though Luigi Frati is no longer rector:-
http://www.italianinsider.it/?q=node/2642

And there's this:--
https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... rev=search

I forget in which criminal case it happened -- was it the Cosenza case that Hellmann forbade Comodi to talk about? -- but there was a case where Carla Vecchiotti tried to convince investigators that a certain wanted man was dead, so they could call off the search. They didn't call off the search (because Vecchiotti is a byword for corruption in Italy) and they later found him, very much alive. He was, as it happens, the nephew of a La Sapienza colleague of Vecchiotti's.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:27 pm   Post subject: HELLMANN-VECCHIOTTI   

hugo wrote:
...
I forget in which criminal case it happened -- was it the Cosenza case that Hellmann forbade Comodi to talk about? -- but there was a case where Carla Vecchiotti tried to convince investigators that a certain wanted man was dead, so they could call off the search. They didn't call off the search (because Vecchiotti is a byword for corruption in Italy) and they later found him, very much alive. He was, as it happens, the nephew of a La Sapienza colleague of Vecchiotti's.

If it's the Olgiata case then Hellmann did allow the question, hugo.

From Math On Trial-Injustice In Perugia
Leila Schneps, May 23, 2013
VECCHIOTTI QUESTIONED ABOUT OLGIATA, July 30 2011, p. 169
Quote:
Hellmann : Let’s go to the next question.

Comodi : A new examination, one which in our opinion could have been done, a new analysis, a new amplification…

[voices in the background]

Vecchiotti : Absolutely –

Comodi : That the professor…

Vecchiotti : ...absolutely not, and I can decide whether I’ll do it or not do it, I take the responsibility…

Comodi : Oh, you decide.

Vecchiotti : Certainly I decide, because I’m the one who signs.

Comodi : But at least point out to the Court the possibility.

Vecchiotti : I’m the one, I’m the one who says.

Hellmann : Okay, no, just answer the questions, Dottoressa.

Vecchiotti : Sorry.

Hellmann : Just answer the questions.

Comodi : Fine, so you decide. No other questions. Sorry…has it happened to you, in your experience – this is the last question – in your actual forensic experience, has it ever happened to you that one or more samples that you decided were not analyzable were subsequently analyzed and DNA was extracted from them, which was useful to arrest a person guilty of murder ?

Conti : There she goes, there she goes.

Vecchiotti : I don’t know, probably you know it, because once I’ve delivered my work, I don’t know what…

Comodi : You’re not interested any more, yes.

Vecchiotti : No, look…

Comodi : I think you know about the Olgiata crime.

Vecchiotti : There, yes, so look…

Hellmann : Are you aware that this event occurred ?

Vechiotti : No, the question isn’t exact, Presidente, I’d like to make a clarification.

Hellmann : No, wait, repeat the question to her.

Vecchiotti : The question…the point is very clear.

Hellmann : Answer to me.

Vecchiotti : But it isn’t…the question is erroneous.

Hellmann : The Publicco Ministero asked you whether it has ever happened to you that at a certain point in your investigations, you said « No, the value is too low »…

Vecchiotti : No.

Comodi : Or, « I didn’t find anything », she simply didn’t find anything

Vecchiotti : So, let’s say, look it isn’t relevant, but I would like to answer if you permit me.

Hellmann : Yes, answer.

Comodi : The Presidente will decide about the relevance.

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.


Though if I recall correctly, the Cosenza case was brought up in the Nencini court?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:04 pm   Post subject: OLGIATA MURDER   

Corriere Della Sera
Olgiata Murder - Contessa’s Servant Arrested Twenty Years On
Filipino Manuel Winston charged with 1991 murder of Alberica Filo della Torre
March 30, 2011
Quote:
LAWYER – “I am very satisfied. What looks certain even now is that we did the right thing to ask for new DNA tests on the evidence. At last, we have some answers”. The comment came from Giuseppe Marazzita, the lawyer representing Alberica Filo della Torre’s husband, Pietro Mattei, when news was released about the detention of Filipino Winston Manuel Reves. He added: “We did well to object to requests for dismissal made years ago on the basis of technical examinations we view as being flawed and inadequate. Luckily, we found an investigating magistrate who listened to our position”.

So, Olgiata was about the "flawed and inadequate" Vecchiotti. Cosenza would therefore be about the "falsification of evidence" Vecchiotti?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It came up about 4.30 on 30 July 2011, the last question in Comodi's cross of Vecchiotti, and she asked, 'Has it ever happened that you were appointed by a judge, and the judge failed to follow your findings? I can give you the ruling of the Cosenza court...' And then defence lawyers made a lot of noise and Hellmann ruled the question out of order and Comodi said she had no further questions. (It's in Follain pp411-12, so it should be near the end of that transcript.)

There have been a number of cases, which Yummi once went through at .org, where Vecchiotti has done strange things and the courts have had to go 'Eh?' and get someone else in or just disregard her. Including the case where she falsely claimed the suspect was dead. I only read about that one again a few months ago, but I can't remember the details now.

And in one of those cases, perhaps the Olgiata case, it was Patrizia Stefanoni who was brought in and exposed the inadequacy of Vecchiotti's work.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
It came up about 4.30 on 30 July 2011, the last question in Comodi's cross of Vecchiotti, and she asked, 'Has it ever happened that you were appointed by a judge, and the judge failed to follow your findings? I can give you the ruling of the Cosenza court...' And then defence lawyers made a lot of noise and Hellmann ruled the question out of order and Comodi said she had no further questions. (It's in Follain pp411-12, so it should be near the end of that transcript.)

There have been a number of cases, which Yummi once went through at .org, where Vecchiotti has done strange things and the courts have had to go 'Eh?' and get someone else in or just disregard her. Including the case where she falsely claimed the suspect was dead. I only read about that one again a few months ago, but I can't remember the details now.

And in one of those cases, perhaps the Olgiata case, it was Patrizia Stefanoni who was brought in and exposed the inadequacy of Vecchiotti's work.

You're right, hugo, I checked further and confirmed that. Now it seems a Rome judge rejected her work and ordered DNA to be retested:
Machiavelli_Aki
Quote:
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki Feb 27
#Vecchiotti's DNA test on Andrea Ghira was unreliable: "suspicious" & "possibly manipulated" #meredithkercher
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:41 am   Post subject: CARLA VECCHIOTTI   

For those who haven't seen it before, here's a series of posts by Yummi Nell put up a while back:
CARLA VECCHIOTTI
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Earlier today, Sollecito posted this on his Facebook:

Raffaele Sollecito wrote:
Raffaele Sollecito was feeling happy at Grand Visconti Palace Milano.


He was / is in Milan today for the StopSecret magazine's seminar / workshop. As a "poor" boy from a "financially ruined" family, he is living a pretty good life, isn't he? ;)

Program of today's seminar:

StopSecret Seminar
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
You're right, hugo, I checked further and confirmed that. Now it seems a Rome judge rejected her work and ordered DNA to be retested:
Machiavelli_Aki
Quote:
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki Feb 27
#Vecchiotti's DNA test on Andrea Ghira was unreliable: "suspicious" & "possibly manipulated" #meredithkercher


Having located Yummi's 2012 post by the simple ruse of putting 'vecchiotti olgiata cosenza wtf' into the search box, because I knew the expression 'wtf' came into it rather a lot, I see I got various things wrong. The fugitive rapist-murderer (nephew of the professor who gave Vecchiotti her job) hasn't turned up, but the Carabinieri were not convinced of his death and Vecchiotti's identification of a corpse as his was not believed. In the Olgiata case, both Vecchiotti and her good friend Vincenzo Pascali (who introduced Peter Gill to Vecchiotti) messed up. It was in the infamous Elisa Claps case (where the killer was eventually caught in England) that Stefanoni was called in and it was Pascali's work, not Vecchiotti's, that she criticised -- but the way these things go, it would make her an enemy of Vecchiotti's too. And the Cosenza case was the one where Vecchiotti more or less declined to say whether or not a certain body was that of a missing mafia turncoat, believed the victim of a mafia murder. The court threw out her findings as useless.



Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 15, 2012 -

Unread postby Yummi » Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:17 am


Maybe you have not entirely clear yet who Vecchiotti is.
Just a few quick notes about Vecchiotti.

In 2005 Vecchiotti analysed some bone DNA picked from the alleged exhumated corpse of Andrea Ghira, a murderer wo was claimed to be dead since 1994. Vecchiotti declared that - based on confrontation with his relatives - the corpes belonged to Andrea Ghira.
However the Carabinieri claim they have a 1995 photo of Andrea Ghira alive in Rome. By the way, Andrea Ghira happens to be the nephew of prof. Matilde Angelini Rota (a professor of Vecchiotti, to whom Vecchiotti owes her post). Victims of Ghira rapes Daniela Colasanti and Letizia Lopez (sister of deceased Rosaria, a victim) are convinced that the DNA analysis was bogus. Journalists Federica Sciarelli and Giuseppe Rinaldi wrote a book in 2006 in which they maintain that Ghira is alive; the book has the title (not a joke) “Tre bravi ragazzi” (Three Godfellas), meaning three serial killers, three friends from the same environment of wealthy Roman families, who were involved in gang rapes and murders, among them Ghira. Federica Sciarelli and her boyfriend, prosecutor H.J. Woodcook, subsequently were among the targets of a conspiracy organized by a group of corrupt judges in the city of Potenza.

In 2001 a priest found a human skull under the althar in a small church by the Vatican. The magistrate had suspicion it could belong either to Emanuele Orlandi, who disappeared in 1983 aged 15, or to another girl who disappeared two months later. The skull was analysed by Vecchiotti, who didn't perform DNA tests but made a computer rendering of face features and medico-legal analysis, and came to the conclusion that it was compatible with Emanuela Orlandi, although it belonged to a woman aged 25-30 who died recently. Emanuela Orlandi is related to a very ugly story of cover-ups in environments close to the Vatican.
The judge, after reading Vecchiotti's report, said "WTF"? And she gave the skull to Garofano of the Carabinieri RIS laboratory of Parma. The fact is the skull was also roughly analysed by the priest who found it, who exhumated thousans of skulls in his life, and he said rather confidently "it's about 100 years old". The RIS confirmed that had nothing to do with the story.

In 2008 Vecchiotti and his boss Albarello were appointed together with their friend Pascali by the judge, as DNA experts on the cold case known as Olgiata murder. They were asked to test a small number of items since the prosecutors had detected a suspect and they wanted a comparison. That was possible the worse DNA testing in the history of criminal investigation: they found DNA belonging to Samuele Lorenzi, a victim of a case on which Pascali had worked years before. But they didn't found the DNA of the suspect, Winston. In fact, they even failed to test the most important ones among the few items. The judge red the Vecchiotti-Pascali-Albarello report and said: "WTF"? And they appointed new experts, this time it was the RIS laboratory of Rome. The RIS found DNA of Winston everywhere. Winston confessed.

In 2008 Pascali was appointed by a judge on another case, the murder of Elisa Claps. Pascali didn't found the DNA of the main suspect, Danilo Restivo. The judge - in the city of Potenza - red the report of his own appointed judge and said: "WTF"? And he appointed another person as a consultant to scrutinize the work of Pascali: the person appointed was Patrizia Stefanoni. As for Stefanoni response, the the work of Pascali was appalling. Obsolete techniques, discharged items, insensitive materials, failure to compare profiles. The judge ordered a new test, this time they appointed another Carabinieri laboratory. They found Restivo's DNA everywhere. In 2011, on the testimony of Patrizia Stefanoni, Pascali was indicted by the public minister of Potenza for false report.

In 2011 Vecchiotti and her boss Albarello both testified in the case of the death of Stefano Cucchi, who died after a police beating. Vecchiotti's work was minimal, she only testified about blood stains. I thought because her work was so irrelevant, maybe she was not bribed; in fact, she said she thought Stefano Cucchi suffered a beating. The dirty job was made by her boss Albarello, who talked about the autopsy report and concluded that he didn't die because of the beating. Everybdy said: "WTF"?

In 2010 in Cosenza a person was on trial for the alleged murder of a turncoat of Calabrian mafia called Santo Panzarella. The body was missing; as some bones were found in the countryside, Carla Vecchiotti was appointed for a second perizia, meaning as judge-appointed expert for a second DNA test, in order to attribute the bones. She concluded that maybe the body was not that one of Santo Panzarella, but who knows. The judge in Cosenza red the report and said: "WTF"? After deciding that the report was bunk, the judge acquitted the defendant for lack of proof, but considered the body found was that of Santo Panzarella.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 12:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Update on Andrea Ghira: Vecchiotti actually seems to have been right for once. (But she confused the issue by saying her findings weren't all that conclusive; she has a habit of being wrong; and she was connected to Ghira's 'important' family.) Just in June this year, Professor Alcudi and Professor Novelli -- who was a prosecution consultant in Knox-Sollecito and is now rector of Rome Tor Vergata University -- having been asked to re-test the bones from the Spanish graveyard, found that the bone marrow DNA was indeed that of Andrea Ghira. He had supposedly hid out as an NCO in the Spanish Foreign Legion for 18 years after the terrible far-right rampage crime for which he was wanted in Italy, and he was found to have died of a drug overdose.

http://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca ... 2361.shtml
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
Update on Andrea Ghira: Vecchiotti actually seems to have been right for once. (But she confused the issue by saying her findings weren't all that conclusive; she has a habit of being wrong; and she was connected to Ghira's 'important' family.) Just in June this year, Professor Alcudi and Professor Novelli -- who was a prosecution consultant in Knox-Sollecito and is now rector of Rome Tor Vergata University -- having been asked to re-test the bones from the Spanish graveyard, found that the bone marrow DNA was indeed that of Andrea Ghira. He had supposedly hid out as an NCO in the Spanish Foreign Legion for 18 years after the terrible far-right rampage crime for which he was wanted in Italy, and he was found to have died of a drug overdose.

http://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca ... 2361.shtml



All this stuff goes on in Italy? Makes the Godfather look like a children's film.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:

All this stuff goes on in Italy? Makes the Godfather look like a children's film.


Yes, I'm afraid it does rather.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito Compensation Hearing Update. From Ansa today, this looks interesting:

'The judges agreed to rule on all actions relating to the various levels of courts. After the hearing in January the court will have five days to decide on the request for compensation which has been opposed by the general prosecutor of Florence and the Ministry of Finance.'

So all aspects of Matteini, Massei, Hellmann, Chieffi, Nencini, Marasca, will be fair game. So that's five days in chambers.

Perhaps Sollecito should be careful what he wishes for.

Anyone know who the judge will be?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Having a browse of local tertiary courses on forensic science, forensic mental health, forensic digital analysis, etc. I should make a list of them.

Typical example: Bachelor of Forensic Science (Crime Scene Examination), consisting of 6 semesters full-time (approx. 25 hours per week). Entry requirement: majors in maths, science and English (the latter presumably because it is the local jurisdictional language, and also sci/maths communication language).

Three years of study. No wonder the trolls/FOA/PR persist in repeating such superficial and naïve claims, ideas and concepts. Literally unprofessional. Trolls understandably so (because of their boredom blahs), but anyone wanting to help Amanda still being stuck on headline #1 old news?

On the other hand, some of them have spent getting on for 8-9 years repeat posting their pet claims. That amount of time invested and they could have learned two languages to expert-user level through an Arts degree, gained a law degree, and the bachelor of forensic science degree, one after the other, and still have had time to spare for other things to fill up the week. So time management is not part of their skillset either.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:14 pm   Post subject: Florence News Digest, 20 October 2016   

@Jamie,
Good pick-up.


= = =


Florence News Digest, 20 October 2016



The Florence Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for next January on the merits of Raffaele Sollecito's half-million euro (€ 516 k) compensation claim for unjust detention for almost four years of imprisonment.1

The hearing will be held on 27 January.2

Arguing against the claim,3 through their legal representatives,4 will be the Prosecutor General and the Ministry of Finance,5 arguing, amongst other things, that various statements made by Raffaele to the police and the fact that he was carrying a flick-knife in his pocket led to his arrest.6

Raffaele Sollecito was not present at today's hearing.7

His lawyers, Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno, 8 have repeated their compensation claim, reminding the Appeal Court of the Court of Cassation's judgment reasons, which criticised the conduct of the investigation.9 In particular the part criticizing the way the investigation had been handled by the police.10

Advocate Bongiorno, amongst other things, highlighted how, early in the investigation, a shoe print came to be attributed to the young Apulian when in reality it was Rudy Guede's.11

Giulia Bongiorno also described the climate after the murder, speaking of "spasmodic delays" and "an anxiety to find a guilty party".12

The lawyers are confident their claim will be accepted.13

The Court has ordered the acquisition of the contents of the investigation file14 to 'study' it.15 All documents relating to the various stages of the proceedings will be acquired.16

After the January hearing, the Court will have five days to decide the merits of the claim17



Notes

1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2: 2
3: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
4: 4
5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
6: 4
7: 5
8: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
9: 1, 3, 4
10: 4
11: 4
12: 3, 4, 5
13: 2
14: 2
15: 2
16: 3, 4, 5
17: 3, 5




References

1: Francesco Manigrasso, "Risarcimento Sollecito, decisione rimandata a Gennaio" – [AgenParl], 20-Oct-2016.

2: En. Ber., "Firenze, la Corte «studia» l’inchiesta su Amanda prima di risarcire Raffaele con mezzo milione" – [Umbria24], 20-Oct-2016.

3: "Decisione gennaio risarcimento Sollecito" – [ANSA], 20-Oct-2016.

4: "Omicidio Meredith, a gennaio la decisione sul risarcimento a Sollecito" – [Nazione], 20-Oct-2016.

5: "Omicidio Meredith Kercher. Rinviata a gennaio decisione risarcimento Sollecito" – [Faro di Roma], 20-Oct-2016.
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Bongiorno seems confident anyway. I also sense some sort of hidden intimation in her reminder of Cassations ruling re these alleged flaws. One wonders if compo courts can be bought the way one wonders if Cassation courts can be. Or otoh how loathe the finance ministry is to part with its moolah or how determined to Prosecutor General is. Is there prescrizione for compo claims? That would be funny if they stretched things out on account of his blatant cheek.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

If the compensation claim allows the court to line up Massei, Pratillo-Hellmann, Chieffi, Nencini and Marasca with each other, it allows an opportunity for the court to see how out-of-line the Marasca decision is in terms of its rationality (e.g., Bruno writing that Amanda having the victim's blood on her hands does not prove she committed the murder is logically true as far as it goes, but is not discussed in the context of the evidence as a whole, such as the locked door, and Amanda's denial of knowledge of Meredith's condition, and so on; in fact, Bruno didn't examine the evidence in total, which would make the decision a breach of the fair trial rule; and Bruno being in trial mode in the first place is bordering on the bizarre: in fact, the whole Bruno production shows, in the kindest view, all the characteristics of being the output of a fevered mind).

The Florence court is bound by a law to make up its own mind on the matter, which is where its view of Marasca will be pertinent.

If the compensation claim is going to look at the investigation file, and whether preventive detention was valid at the time based on the evidence as then understood, then the chances of it being different to the due processes hearings (e.g., Matteini) and the committal hearing (Micheli) will, I submit, be low. That's working forwards in time. Working backwards in time, starting with the Marasca murder acquittal, retrospective application of hindsight will be an interesting (in the sense of convoluted, at the least) logical exercise.

It depends on whether Marasca is to be taken as a starting point, on the assumption that its reasoning is logical, coherent and valid, or whether those reasons enter into the picture.

If Amanda and Raffaele are separated, that allows a hypothetical third path, of Amanda properly detained the for murder trial and Raffaele not, or alternatively, for the same reasons as the calunnia conviction was confirmed, Amanda's speculations that Raffaele pressed the knife into her hand while she was sleeping, and so on, can enter the picture.

If the grounds of detention (as opposed to arrest) were found to be Raffaele telling lies, carrying a flick-knife at the police station (and one potentially compatible with one of the wounds), and wearing shoes seemingly similar to those that left a print in Meredith's room (and which turned out to be Rudy's, a ground later corrected), then would the court consider a fractional compensation, covering the time from the arrest up to when the shoeprint was de-allocated from Raffaele and allocated to Rudy? Don't know.

The treatment of what is "true", and from what perspective to apply that view, will have to drive the answer.

Bongiorno seems to think, and it looks like she might actually believe herself, that "truth" is what Cassation says (Rudy stays in; Amanda and Raffaele can go walk; except for Amanda's calunnia = 4 years), and that the reasons are either totally irrelevant or only what she says they are, as if the court doesn't need to read the reasons for themselves. Same with the reasons for detention, inferable from the investigation file.*

So the court asking for the reasons is an inkling.



---
*(Bongiorno's claim that the collecting of DNA evidence 42 days later invalidated it, invited the question from a journalist once, 'Then what about the many months of delay in collecting the DNA in the Yara case?'. That question left Bongiorno speechless, literally without an answer. Bongiorno does not think through the consequences of her claims. Her approach is 'piecemeal', in fact.)
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for your insightful post Catnip, it's given me some understanding as to how things might play out.
Here's the problem I have though and it's not something I like saying. I'm aware that this isn't a Cassation court. But after Cassations ruling, after Hellman's second level appellate court, I have no idea if Italian courts be they criminal or civil will follow their own procedure or else engage in 17 grave reversible errors or indeed if they'll simply act like God and do what they like..it's not just the Cassation acquittal. I read your very interesting timeline if Alberto Stasi's due process and while I dunno if he's guilty or innocent as I don't know enough about the case, judicially it doesn't sit right with me especially when even the prosecution didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. Again I'm speaking judicially here, my gf knows more about it and thinks he did it
There are other examples of this in the due process of Pietro Pacciani alleged Monster of Florence .
The problem is that from what I can see there doesn't appear to be any "rules" ( if you will) to the Italian courts. May go one way or another with possibly no justification for the verdict, as Cassation showed
So normally I'd say he hasn't a hope but these don't strike me as normal courts I'm sorry to say

Oh and something funny- I asked a Knox supporter to name the worldwide body which regulates international standards for DNA gathering and testing. I said that none existed.
He claimed it was irrelevant that none existed re the unreliability od the DNA as long as credible experts who never testified said so...after he justified the knife being thrown out via citing cassation and ContiVechiotti and international standards. I thought the disqus foakers were stupid. IMDB foakers would give the disqus ones a run for their money...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 152

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello Corpusvile, as i understood the appeal of the prosecution in the murdercase Alberto Stasi, the prosecution wanted higher sentence for the crime and that's why they appealed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

A good outline by Catnip of the defence case claiming money for Sollecito's 'wrongful imprisonment'.

The prosecution (State) case will argue that Sollecito 'asked for it' - he acted sufficiently suspiciously for prosecutor to have had good enough reason to arrest him.

The incorrectly attributed shoeprints are important, and they will be made centre stage; (the attribution was definitively corrected iirc in January 2008), and while I don't recall what Massei said about this, Nencini spent about five pages on a grovelling apology for the mistake.

The changing 'computer' alibi, the claim of speaking to his father, his carrying of his clasp knife, (all known before the arrest); his fingerprint in Mezzetti's room identified just a few days into the investigation; his comments on pricking Meredith with the kitchen knife known in November 2007, and the identification of the bathmat footprint and luminol footprints, plus the bra clasp finding made in December 2007, are all solid reasons for him to have remained in detention. (I expect others can add to this list.)

This is why the investigation files are important for the court to examine - they'll also demonstrate the enormous vigour with which Maori (in particular) and Vinci bombarded the prosecution with often nit-picking demands in the early part of the analysis.

It seems incorrect (to me) that the court should start with Marasca and work backwards. I cannot see how a claim for compensation for wrongful imprisonment could look at issues after the imprisonment had ceased - that is, after the Hellmann verdict. It seems to me the Chieffi, Nencini and Marasca decisions are quite irrelevant. (It's a pity that Sollecito isn't claiming 'reputation damage' for when his passport was taken by Nencini, that, I think, would leave him in a much weaker position.)
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
If the compensation claim allows the court to line up Massei, Pratillo-Hellmann, Chieffi, Nencini and Marasca with each other, it allows an opportunity for the court to see how out-of-line the Marasca decision is in terms of its rationality (e.g., Bruno writing that Amanda having the victim's blood on her hands does not prove she committed the murder is logically true as far as it goes, but is not discussed in the context of the evidence as a whole, such as the locked door, and Amanda's denial of knowledge of Meredith's condition, and so on; in fact, Bruno didn't examine the evidence in total, which would make the decision a breach of the fair trial rule; and Bruno being in trial mode in the first place is bordering on the bizarre: in fact, the whole Bruno production shows, in the kindest view, all the characteristics of being the output of a fevered mind).

The Florence court is bound by a law to make up its own mind on the matter, which is where its view of Marasca will be pertinent.

If the compensation claim is going to look at the investigation file, and whether preventive detention was valid at the time based on the evidence as then understood, then the chances of it being different to the due processes hearings (e.g., Matteini) and the committal hearing (Micheli) will, I submit, be low. That's working forwards in time. Working backwards in time, starting with the Marasca murder acquittal, retrospective application of hindsight will be an interesting (in the sense of convoluted, at the least) logical exercise.

It depends on whether Marasca is to be taken as a starting point, on the assumption that its reasoning is logical, coherent and valid, or whether those reasons enter into the picture.

If Amanda and Raffaele are separated, that allows a hypothetical third path, of Amanda properly detained the for murder trial and Raffaele not, or alternatively, for the same reasons as the calunnia conviction was confirmed, Amanda's speculations that Raffaele pressed the knife into her hand while she was sleeping, and so on, can enter the picture.

If the grounds of detention (as opposed to arrest) were found to be Raffaele telling lies, carrying a flick-knife at the police station (and one potentially compatible with one of the wounds), and wearing shoes seemingly similar to those that left a print in Meredith's room (and which turned out to be Rudy's, a ground later corrected), then would the court consider a fractional compensation, covering the time from the arrest up to when the shoeprint was de-allocated from Raffaele and allocated to Rudy? Don't know.

The treatment of what is "true", and from what perspective to apply that view, will have to drive the answer.

Bongiorno seems to think, and it looks like she might actually believe herself, that "truth" is what Cassation says (Rudy stays in; Amanda and Raffaele can go walk; except for Amanda's calunnia = 4 years), and that the reasons are either totally irrelevant or only what she says they are, as if the court doesn't need to read the reasons for themselves. Same with the reasons for detention, inferable from the investigation file.*

So the court asking for the reasons is an inkling.



---
*(Bongiorno's claim that the collecting of DNA evidence 42 days later invalidated it, invited the question from a journalist once, 'Then what about the many months of delay in collecting the DNA in the Yara case?'. That question left Bongiorno speechless, literally without an answer. Bongiorno does not think through the consequences of her claims. Her approach is 'piecemeal', in fact.)



There is statute in Italy which entitles a person who has been held on remand to claim compensation if not convicted. That seems fair, given it can take a year to go to trial, and then some more as it goes through the two automatic appeals. The get-out clause for the prosecution is if the defendant 'told lies'. So, while it's OK for defendants to lie throughout the trial, OTOH if they want compensation, this can be reduced because of their own contributory liability.

Marasca-Bruno ruled the prosecution failed to prove their case, which does legally entitle the pair to petition for compensation. Knox will wait to see if ECHR upholds her claim, and many think it will, over the lawyer issue and because ECHR requested to see the Boninsegna motivation report. The question then, is will Italy vacate the calunnia verdict? If so, Knox could get the full four years compensation, maybe not for a couple more years.

Marasca-Bruno seem to want their cake and eat it. Acquit the pair, yet it realises that the wrongful acquittal will also reward them for time spent, so it 'fixed' the motivation report to try to prevent this, saying the pair were guilty, but because of the 'flawed' investigation and the press clamour, they had to be freed. Whichever way you look at it, corrupt decisions by courts lead to all sorts of chaos further down the line.

Bongiorno seizing on Massei's kindness in letting the defence 'have' that it was Guede's rather than Sollecito's shoeprint, despite Vinci for the defence obviously having photo-shopped the images to fit Guede's shoe size, and the fact of Sollecito having bleached the soles of his Nikes; letting the defence 'have' that Sollecito rang the police before they arrived, letting the defense 'have' that it was Guede who instigated the attack, all means that due to its misguided 'kindness', probably due to the evidence against the couple being overwhelming anyway, even if the defence is given these concessions, to block their appealing against them, these findings will now be used as weapons by the former perps against the courts. Rather than walk away and lead quiet lives, grateful to have been freed, thanks to the mercy of very elderly judges, instead, they are now going to use this act of mercy as vengeance against the system that did rightfully jail them for the horrible crimes they committed.

As the remedy hearing is predicated on previous court hearings, the issue for the State is not, 'How much compensation?' but 'How little?'

Sollecito's compensation will be decreased, but he will still get a significant sum, because by law, he is entitled to it. Unpalatable though that will be to the judiciary that knows perfectly well he did it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

elisa wrote:
Hello Corpusvile, as i understood the appeal of the prosecution in the murdercase Alberto Stasi, the prosecution wanted higher sentence for the crime and that's why they appealed.

Hi Elisa and good to see you, thanks for the clarification. I had thought that the prosecution didn't wish for a cistodial sentence due to Stasis trial and second level appellate acquittal?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for your post Jamie. If the prosecution can show how he lied though and it's in his own statement, then how will that entitle him to compensation, even if the law allows for the right to claim at least? I'm not sure I actually understand how it could work both ways.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

One more question. If Knox committed her calunnia spontaneously, how can the ECHR rule a rights violation? Lets say that when either Anna Donino or Mignini arrived and Knox attacked them physically. She wouldn't have had a lawyer present when committing her spontaneous crime, so would the ECHR rule in her favour then? A lawyer isn't there to prevent you from committing crimes nor does the law exist to protect you in advance from committing spontaneous crimes, surely?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline JohnQ


Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rumpole wrote:
Don't know if this is of any significance whatsoever, but searched the Wikileaks database and the only instances - apart from one - AK's name is mentioned are automatic breaking news releases sent to subscribers. The one exception is a NYT article written by Julie Bosman about the AK book deal that a Clinton aide Nora Toiv sent to another Clinton aide, chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who then forwarded it to HRC.

And then there are of course the + 30.000 emails Clinton deleted. Would be interesting to know if AK's case was mentioned in any of them.

The email:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23135

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-email ... 790667.pdf

The search:

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=%22 ... te#results

I'm just wondering why was it forwarded? Where they looking for new donors for the Clinton Foundation? Bill Clinton had earlier used the same lawyer to cut a book deal for him, so was it forwarded because of that connection? Is it possible that they had somehow - via AK's PR agency - recommended this lawyer to AK? I'm obviously just speculating. Maria Cantwell did speak about her publicly but it was dismissed as something all senators do for all convicts of their states in similar circumstances. Do they really?




(Sorry for the size - I can't get the smaller youtube tags to function so am using the youtube8000 tag. Is there a problem with the normal size youtube tags or is it just me?)

Btw: what did she mean by "we will be talking to the European Union"? What does an Italian criminal case got to do with the EU? Is she implying that she expects politicians from other European countries to lean on Italian politicians so that they would influence the judicial process? Which would be illegal, of course, although they probably do it all the time.

-----
Cantwell's letters to Italian and American officials:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/S ... a_Cantwell


Maria Cantwell wrote these letters as if Italy has no due process. She is an ignorant, condescending fool. Amanda Knox's PR firm contributed to her campaign, something less than $10,000, IIRC.

"Some people in the publishing industry have questioned the prospects of a book written by Ms. Knox, who to some members of the public is not a wholly sympathetic figure. But others were convinced that it would be a huge best seller,..."

We know who won this argument. The American people have had Amanda Knox foisted on us. She is not popular and her endless lies (exonerated?) feel like a bad, stale act.

I remember reading a question from someone in Europe asking if Amanda Knox had been an election topic. It was a well meaning question but it was misinformed about just what a non-entity Amanda Knox is here. She is a local Seattle news story, at best, when you take away the insidious PR.

I don't know why Hillary Clinton got involved (wrote to Mignini?) but I don't doubt she is far and away too intelligent and busy to waste her time on Amanda Knox again.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
Thanks for your post Jamie. If the prosecution can show how he lied though and it's in his own statement, then how will that entitle him to compensation, even if the law allows for the right to claim at least? I'm not sure I actually understand how it could work both ways.



Imagine there is a murder and you have someone in custody who is a compulsive liar - a bit like you know who - but yet consistently claims innocence. It is still up to the prosecution to secure a conviction. Lying is not actually against the law per se in Italy.

What the prosecution will have to demonstrate is that it was reasonable to keep the suspect in custody, as a dangerous person. That they did with Matteini. However, ultimately, that person spent X years in prison whilst all the time technically, 'not guilty', which, under Italian statute, entitles them to compensation. If the law says he can have it, then it looks like he may get it.

In the UK it is just considered 'tough luck' to spend time in jail on remand, even if cleared later:

Quote:
Each year around 54,000 people are remanded in prison awaiting trial. When their case reaches court, up to one in five will be acquitted, usually with no compensation. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Pre ... Id/59/vw/1


That's ten thousand remand prisoners a year acquitted with no compensation. However, in the UK, the trial process is much, much shorter than Italy's, usually finishing at the end of the trial (first instance court, in Italy).

Does anyone have anything on Italian case law which points to how this will likely be settled? If almost 50% end up acquitted, that's an awful lot of compensation Italy is paying out, not to mention secure prison costs for the time spent in custody out of tax payers' money.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
One more question. If Knox committed her calunnia spontaneously, how can the ECHR rule a rights violation? Lets say that when either Anna Donino or Mignini arrived and Knox attacked them physically. She wouldn't have had a lawyer present when committing her spontaneous crime, so would the ECHR rule in her favour then? A lawyer isn't there to prevent you from committing crimes nor does the law exist to protect you in advance from committing spontaneous crimes, surely?



Problem is, Boninsegna found in Knox' favour, and that's what ECHR have asked to look at.

It was very critical of the police, so maybe a peek at what it wrote will give a clue as to what the ECHR will see. I understand Italy have responded, but seem to be on the back foot, with Marasca rubbishing the police investigation all together.

It does say Knox committed the crime of calunnia to cover up for Guede, which does imply her collusion in the crime of murder.

How is the ECHR going to be impressed with motivational reports that contradict each other?

OTOH Dalla Vedova, as her attorney, did not file a complaint through the proper channels, nor did the US embassy ever lodge a protest, nor did Knox complain to them, so it remains to be seen if the application clears the first hurdle of being accepted at all.

If accepted, all the other factors come into play.

A finding by ECHR does not establish innocence or guilt, just whether there was a fair trial in favour of the defendant.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks again for your info Jamie. This may sound dumb but would the fact that he's currently facing trial for calunnia have any bearing on a separate compensation case?
It's the same in Ireland btw, you're on remand and then acquitted, theen tough if you were on remand, but luckily you were acquitted, really.
The last thing Knox can claim is that her trial was unfair, considering she never would have even gotten two appeals in most other countries including European ones.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:28 pm   Post subject: Boninsegna ruling   

corpusvile wrote:
One more question. If Knox committed her calunnia spontaneously, how can the ECHR rule a rights violation? Lets say that when either Anna Donino or Mignini arrived and Knox attacked them physically. She wouldn't have had a lawyer present when committing her spontaneous crime, so would the ECHR rule in her favour then? A lawyer isn't there to prevent you from committing crimes nor does the law exist to protect you in advance from committing spontaneous crimes, surely?

It could if they conclude a rights violation of "slaps to the head" led to an involuntary confession, and therefore an unlawful arrest, corpusvile. Not allowing her appointed lawyer to see her for three days IIRC would factor in the verdict.

Therefore, if the cops sue her for lying about that, and the Boninsegna court throws out the case Umbria24

then I wouldn't assume what the verdict will be, sorry.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
Thanks again for your info Jamie. This may sound dumb but would the fact that he's currently facing trial for calunnia have any bearing on a separate compensation case?
It's the same in Ireland btw, you're on remand and then acquitted, theen tough if you were on remand, but luckily you were acquitted, really.
The last thing Knox can claim is that her trial was unfair, considering she never would have even gotten two appeals in most other countries including European ones.



As Andrea Vogt said, these are just side shows. You saw how the police calunnia backfired. It'll be hard t get the charge to stick now he's been acquitted IMV. It'll be seen as 'fair comment'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: UPDATE RAFFAELE SOLLECITO   

Ergon wrote:
Raffaele Sollecito has appealed to the head of state Sergio Matarella as head of the CSM to review the investigation and trial of his case. Ansa.It
This might be in anticipation of any action by judicial elements to request a review of the Marasca/Bruno motivations report, though it looks that, like Amanda Knox, he's going full bore on his own Self Exoneration Project :)

Will keep you posted as developments progress.

Just a reminder the wheels within wheels of Sollecito's suit for wrongful arrest.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:50 pm   Post subject: SOLLECITO NORMAL   

But then again :)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:17 am   Post subject: ECtHR STATE OF PROCEEDINGS   

haven't heard any thing further from ECtHR, or about the Italian response, sorry.

Here's the HUDOC search engine

Enter 76577/13 in the box to get latest status.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Based on the Umbria24 info:

Boninsegna’s implied starting position is that Amanda was a suspect before the interview started. Therefore she should have had, in UK terms, a PACE-interview. She didn’t. Therefore everything is tainted. Therefore the police must be reprimanded. A reprimand of the police can never be strong enough.


Examples of things going wrong:
  • Amanda’s phone was examined without a formal seizure order.
  • All the statements (i.e., the forms for acquiring information from a subject already ‘indiziato’ (~under suspicion)) are missing the closure time of the interview.
  • All the statements and spontaneous declarations are very brief with respect to the duration of something that took “hours”. Who was present, when the documentation activity started, etc. Even the choice of translator was inappropriate.
  • Being kind and friendly with the subject is a negativing factor.

The “pressure” theory requires Amanda to be stereotypically weak-minded. The weak-minded assumption is not tested, merely assumed. From that assumption, certain conclusions inevitably follow.


= = =
The weakness revealed by this of the Italian system is its lack of an adversarial character. Not in the trivial, although potentially dramatic, sense of the presentation of evidence piece by piece, but in the substantive sense of the adoption of a narrative of events, rather than an explanation of why one narrational pivot choice was selected in preference over others.

The reasoning is not clear, in other words.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:

Marasca-Bruno ruled the prosecution failed to prove their case, ...


I take the key-word to be "ruled".

An assertion is not a ruling.

A declaration of the legal position without underlying valid reasons is not a ruling. The reasons have to be coherent, logical, self-consistent, rational, etc. as well as valid (legally sound).

Anything based on evidence must examine the totality of the evidence (this requirement is justifiable at a purely logical level). Piecemeal evaluation of the evidence is incorrect.

Is the Marasca-Bruno decision "rational"?

If it is not rational, can it be called fair?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In the Common Law tradition, there is something called the "Declarative Theory" of the law, that is, that judges declare what the law is (as opposed to make the law).

In the Italian tradition, there seems to be a strong temptation to gravitate towards a Declarative Theory of "This is what happened".

In film terms, such an approach is called a "pitch".

So it is not surprising that lawyers and journalists talk about "legal truth" and "actual truth".*



*Although the phenomenon is not unknown in the Common Law world, either: the words "based on the evidence before me" can introduce a specific "finding" by a court or tribunal of what happened (or, for the purposes of the case, can be taken to have happened).
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:37 am   Post subject: At the risk of being brief   

For reference

Article 314(2) of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code provides for fair and equitable compensation for unjust detention where the detained person
  • has been released
    • for example, following acquittal under Article 530
  • by an irrevocable decision (per Article 648(2)),
    • such as Cassation rejecting an appeal (Article 615(2)).

There is no right to compensation where the person’s behaviour, before or after privation of liberty, contributed to it. The view to be taken is ex ante (looking forward): did the accused’s behaviour (specific acts, not conjectural ones) constitute a crime, and lead in turn to the restrictive orders (Cassation 34485/2006). Moral suffering can be taken into account (2628/1991 rv 18835). The amount has to be calculated on equitable grounds, taking into account all the factors (2618/1991 rv 187879). Legal costs are excluded (2628/1991 rv 188336). …

And so on.


There are pages and pages of jurisprudential commentary.


Useful ref:
Luigi Tramontano (ed), Codice di procedure penale spiegato: con esempi pratici, dottrina, giurisprudenza, schemi, tabelle e appendice normativa, 9th edition, (2011) [TribunaStudium, 2011] (The Criminal Procedure Code Explained: with practical examples, doctrine, jurisprudence, flow charts, tables and legislative appendices), pp 762ff. ISBN 9788861326743
Top Profile 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 152

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

But the SC confirmed the detention of both of them with reasoning. Doesn't count it? I couldn''t understand Bonsegna decision, I supposed either it was also botched or she just wanted be in line with the final SC verdict, what also seems to me it is not. I only cansee that Knox insisted to get into the police station and made her statements voluntarily. Her interview was stopped after she incriminated herself. If any police members thought she could be a potential suspect nobody can proof that, officially she was not. Otherwise she would be called for an interview. Also such planned interview would take place without lawyee to clarify if she is a suspect or not. Why Mignini didn't allow to them not to see a lawyer for the first 3 days of their detention? I know there is a low for that and M. didn't write it right down for Sollecito, that's why he got a neg. notice from CSM.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In a recent UK Supreme Court decision relating to potentially unlawful detention (and possibly partial detention), it was said:

Quote:
"Inevitably I reach for the decision of the European Commission of Human Rights, and thereafter of the ECtHR, on facts closest to those of this appeal: X v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 188."

Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice, United Kingdom Supreme Court (27 Jul 2016), [2016] UKSC 46 at [27] (Lord Wilson).


This is pure Common Law thinking.

The familiar principle of ‘similar facts, similar outcome’ (the basis of precedent) can co-exist with the principle of the court making up its own mind about the facts. Looking to see what has happened elsewhere is looking for guidance, not an abandonment of independence.

Where the idea comes from that a Civil Law court is free, indeed bound, to ignore what has happened in previous cases, amd why they prefer to ignore them so dogmatically, is beyond my knowledge.

Although, it is understandable if there is no consistent law reporting system in place. Plus also, inter-town rivalries and inter-class education level jealousies may play a part.

The practical difference bewteen Common Law and Civil Law is the same as the difference in attitude between scientists from the Enlightenment in England and those in continental Europe: in England they stood on the shoulders of giants (e.g, Newton, playing on the seashore of the ocean of truth) – a bottom-up approach –, while elsewhere in Europe they were persecuted hero/saints (Galileo), islands among a sea of ignorant peasants (Lavoisier extolling reasoning above credulity) and a general top-down approach applied: “The Continental Enlightenment was impatient for the perfected state – which led to intellectual dogmatism, political violence and new forms of tyranny” (Deutsch 2011, [Wq]).

Seeking guidance on a case is more efficient than re-inventing the wheel on each case, even though ‘principle of law + facts of case = resolution of case’ theoretically sounds simpler (and (ostensibly) requires less training (and advocacy skills, for the matter)). The Continental version of doing things explains the popularity of Blackstone in the US in the early days, and the lingering persecution, even now, of US Supreme Court Justices who even dare to suggest looking at what solutions other jurisdictions have implemented.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
Based on the Umbria24 info:

Boninsegna’s implied starting position is that Amanda was a suspect before the interview started. Therefore she should have had, in UK terms, a PACE-interview. She didn’t. Therefore everything is tainted. Therefore the police must be reprimanded. A reprimand of the police can never be strong enough.


Examples of things going wrong:
  • Amanda’s phone was examined without a formal seizure order.
  • All the statements (i.e., the forms for acquiring information from a subject already ‘indiziato’ (~under suspicion)) are missing the closure time of the interview.
  • All the statements and spontaneous declarations are very brief with respect to the duration of something that took “hours”. Who was present, when the documentation activity started, etc. Even the choice of translator was inappropriate.
  • Being kind and friendly with the subject is a negativing factor.

The “pressure” theory requires Amanda to be stereotypically weak-minded. The weak-minded assumption is not tested, merely assumed. From that assumption, certain conclusions inevitably follow.


= = =
The weakness revealed by this of the Italian system is its lack of an adversarial character. Not in the trivial, although potentially dramatic, sense of the presentation of evidence piece by piece, but in the substantive sense of the adoption of a narrative of events, rather than an explanation of why one narrational pivot choice was selected in preference over others.

The reasoning is not clear, in other words.



The recent case of Brendan Dassey in the Steven Avery case, who in September had his conviction provisionally overturned by the defence, thanks to the 10-part Netflix series, 'Making a Murderer', might be instructive here. Dassey was 16 at the time of the crime, and briefly, he confessed he happened to be taking some mail to his Uncle Steven when he heard screaming from outside the trailer, he was invited in, and there was photographer Teresa Halbach naked and chained to the bed. He claimed to police Uncle Steven encouraged him to rape and assist in killing her afterwards by knifing her in the neck, after Uncle Steven had done the same to her stomach. It is alleged Avery then shot the corpse in the head and torso eight or so times iirc before hacking it to pieces and burning the remains.

Dassey had obvious learning difficulties and could be seen in the Netflix film to be easily led and malleable. He thought he was going back to school in the afternoon to finish a project. His mother and lawyer were excluded from intensive police interviews lasting over four hours at a time, which were recorded. It showed the police cajoling Dassey relentlessly and giving him leading questions.

Compare and contrast to Knox bringing up the name of Patrick first and voluntarily offering the information that she had taken Patrick into the cottage where he then raped and killed Meredith Kercher, followed up by another written statement written in private and handed as 'a gift' to the police. The verbal accusation and confession to being there at the crime scene was within two hours or less within entering the Questura. Knox had insisted in accompanying Sollecito - who had been ordered to attend - of her own free will, there were no police preparations for her arrival, nor for her assertions, apart from Anna Donino asked to attend at short notice to help translate for her. Knox was a 20 year old adult, well-travelled, and well-experienced in life's vagaries.

In the Dassey case, the prosecution has now (19 Oct 2016) strongly opposed the acquittal of Dassey and their reasoning is as follows. It is worth using Knox as a comparison point, who is hardly a vulnerable or a weak person, when compared to Dassey, who clearly was, as of the time of the crime:

Quote:
In a brief filed with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney General Brad Schimel urged the court to reject Dassey's claim that his confession was coerced.

"Substantial police coercion" is required for any confession to be ruled involuntary, Schmel said. And he said the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was right to affirm in 2013 that Dassey's confession was voluntary.

Magistrate Judge William Duffin held that investigators made specific promises of leniency to Dassey and that no "fair-minded jurists could disagree." He cited one investigator's comment early in the interview that "you don't have to worry about things," plus repeated comments like "it's OK" and that they already knew what happened.

But the magistrate's ruling "ignores both the facts and the law," the attorney general said. Investigators didn't promise leniency, he said, and specifically told Dassey they couldn't make any promises.

The teenager willingly spoke with investigators and was properly informed of his rights, Schimel said. The interview took a few hours in the middle of the day, while Dassey sat on a couch and drank a soda, the investigators spoke in normal tones, and did not threaten him or make false promises, he said. And Dassey confessed to most of the important details within an hour, in response to open-ended questions, he added.

"The state courts' conclusion that Dassey's confession was voluntary is not only reasonable; it is entirely correct. Accordingly, Dassey is not entitled to relief," the attorney general said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/making-a-m ... -1.3813098


From this it can readily seen that US justice is a lot harsher - Dassey and Avery each received Life Without Parole. Again, compare and contrast with Knox and Sollecito's two automatic appeals, 25 and 26 years, with, no doubt, eligibility for parole kicking in well before that. Guede has already had day release from jail, eight years in, and is expecting to get parole before his lenient sixteen years are up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 152

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Whom all phones were seizured except K & S? Does it mean in every case that they were officially suspects? The police knew that K brought many strange men home, that's the reason she was asked about those visitors. She did not have alibi like the other young people around. And she asked about to travel to Germany to her relatives. Is not all that enough reasons to seizure her phone without being an official suspect? When the police proved the alibis of the other young people - does it mean they were also suspects till their alibi was proven? Actually I guess so. It is the nature of the investigators being suspicious. If K was a real official suspect why would the police have sent her home at first. Even after the interview they apparently thought she didn't murder, she just heard it. Even Mignoni believed she may be afraid of Lumumba. I even think they thought of a male culprit at that time because of the sexual assault. Mignini later mentioned the blanket.Regarding Donnino, all not Italians did have a translater on their interviews. Contraversally Knox even complains not having an interpreter or not a right one.?????
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
Based on the Umbria24 info:

Boninsegna’s implied starting position is that Amanda was a suspect before the interview started. Therefore she should have had, in UK terms, a PACE-interview. She didn’t. Therefore everything is tainted. Therefore the police must be reprimanded. A reprimand of the police can never be strong enough.


There's no such thing as a PACE interview in Italy. That's the trouble with Italy. (It's also, in a different way, the trouble with the United States.)

In Italy, police cannot question suspects. They can't. They can't caution the suspect, wait for a lawyer to arrive, then carry on questioning. Nope. Once someone is a suspect -- which requires a certain level of probable cause, which obviously did not exist before Knox's 5-6 November interview, the evidence emerging only during the interview -- all police questioning must cease forever.

A suspect interview, in Italy, is held only by agreement and by appointment. It must be voluntary. Counsel must be present, and the suspect must have had time to confer with counsel beforehand. The interview must be conducted by the prosecutor unless it is formally delegated to a police officer -- but even then it does not resemble police questioning, because it is voluntary, and the suspect not only has the right not to answer, and the right to lie, but the suspect has the right to end the interview at any time of her choosing, if the nasty rude man makes her in the least uncomfortable.

That's the trouble with Italy.

Well, it's part of the trouble with Italy. You've also got judges who apparently pretend that Knox was entitled to that absurd level of killer-coddling even before the 5-6 November interview, when police really didn't have anything.

Italian judges do not, of course, extend the same level of sentimental indulgence towards non-white, non-middle-class people.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:

There is statute in Italy which entitles a person who has been held on remand to claim compensation if not convicted. That seems fair, given it can take a year to go to trial, and then some more as it goes through the two automatic appeals. The get-out clause for the prosecution is if the defendant 'told lies'. So, while it's OK for defendants to lie throughout the trial, OTOH if they want compensation, this can be reduced because of their own contributory liability.


The Supreme Court found that Knox and Sollecito both lied to investigators and gave a 'failed alibi', and that Sollecito was presumably there. Persons informed of the facts have no legal immunity for lying before they become official suspects, and Knox and Sollecito both did that. But Italy is not a duly organised polity under the rule of law, it is merely a mafious conspiracy of interests, and Italian judges just do what they like in the interests of clique and caste, so...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:

Imagine there is a murder and you have someone in custody who is a compulsive liar - a bit like you know who - but yet consistently claims innocence. It is still up to the prosecution to secure a conviction. Lying is not actually against the law per se in Italy.


It is when you're not yet a suspect.

Quote:
In the UK it is just considered 'tough luck' to spend time in jail on remand, even if cleared later:

Quote:
Each year around 54,000 people are remanded in prison awaiting trial. When their case reaches court, up to one in five will be acquitted, usually with no compensation. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Pre ... Id/59/vw/1


That's ten thousand remand prisoners a year acquitted with no compensation. However, in the UK, the trial process is much, much shorter than Italy's, usually finishing at the end of the trial (first instance court, in Italy).

Does anyone have anything on Italian case law which points to how this will likely be settled? If almost 50% end up acquitted, that's an awful lot of compensation Italy is paying out, not to mention secure prison costs for the time spent in custody out of tax payers' money.


Italy doesn't have a remand system or a bail system like the UK's. Normally people are just left wandering around to await the summons to court -- as Guede was after the 'stop' in Milan, though even in the draconian US system he'd inevitably have been bailed the next day, contrary to what the groupies pretend to believe. 'Precautionary detention' in Italy is only allowed as a special measure on special grounds, and those grounds are normally flight risk, danger to the public or danger of interfering with witnesses or evidence. Even on murder charges, house arrest is common. Both Knox and, significantly, Sollecito (who was less of a flight risk) were held in precautionary detention and denied even house arrest. This may have had to do with the psychological reports which were apparently commissioned, but have never been revealed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
jamie wrote:

Imagine there is a murder and you have someone in custody who is a compulsive liar - a bit like you know who - but yet consistently claims innocence. It is still up to the prosecution to secure a conviction. Lying is not actually against the law per se in Italy.


It is when you're not yet a suspect.




Doesn't augur well for Sollecito then.

Quote:
QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.
QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.
QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.

'Person informed of the facts'

On November 5th 2007 at 22:40 in the offices of the Flying Squad of the Perugia Police Headquarters.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/R ... ranslation
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

"clique and caste" is right.

"Sentimental indulgence" is right (it even comes seeping out of Massei).

What Boninsegna (as reported) is on is beyond me.

The Criminal Procedure Code allows alternate (plausible) reconstructions of what happened to be not grounds for appeal, as I recall from yesterday's skim.

There seems to be a certain layer of rationality missing, a robustness in the logic has gone AWOL: it always comes back to Amanda and Raffaele being treated differently to, on the one hand, Rudy; and being treated differently, on the other hand, to anyone else who was questioned as a witness over the same period about what they did, saw and heard.

At the back of both of those treatments seems to be an acceptance, as if a presumption, that Amanda and Raffaele did it (for reasons that are literally unspeakable), and that that acceptance shapes the outline and basis of the discussion that is then crafted. In contrast, an acceptance that Rudy didn't do it (as much, in terms of degree of culpability) instead shapes the conversation against him.

Cognitive dissonance is in play. Perhaps what is being protected is that the unspeakable is prevented from being spoken. The shock would be too great, so great that the idea never enters consciousness. Just as Rudy never touches the topic and would rather spin out an unending yarn of uncorroborated events, and just as Amanda and Raffaele "can't remember" that evening and "slept in" the following morning, the court system is finding ways of dancing around that blockage without actually dealing with it.

And so we get judgment reasons that don't hold together in totality, that go round in circles, that posit behaviour and emotions and personal motivations that are 'normal' and 'rational' (as if from some sort of script), that de-emphasize some aspects and highlight others without specifying why the uneven-handedness is being applied.
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:

Doesn't augur well for Sollecito then.



You wouldn't think so, but, as we've seen, Italian judges just make stuff up as they go along and the law doesn't really come into it. Bruno claimed that the code of criminal procedure doesn't allow for unrepeatable scientific tests. In fact it specifically does, under Art.360, but a supreme court judge (who isn't even a real judge but a political appointee) says it doesn't, and there's no higher authority to rebuke him, and the press is craven, so this large and fish-redolent whopper is allowed to stand.

In principle, however, a person informed of the facts does not possess the infamous 'right to lie'.

This may be one reason why certain judges are keen to pretend that Knox and Sollecito were suspects when they told their major lies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 102

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I'm pleased that no one has linked to the Knox usa today bleating. There is much I could say about this, but apropos of the 'validity of arrest', she does stutter that 'just because I acted suspiciously didn't mean I deserved this shit'. (I paraphrase - but not a lot.)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
I'm pleased that no one has linked to the Knox usa today bleating. There is much I could say about this, but apropos of the 'validity of arrest', she does stutter that 'just because I acted suspiciously didn't mean I deserved this shit'. (I paraphrase - but not a lot.)

Won't link to it, Sallyoo, but only because it's so self-serving, repetitive, boring. The article's annoying only because she doesn't act like a normal person wanting to put it behind them. Remember Louise Woodward? The case that created such passion (and opposing viewpoints both sides of the Atlantic)? She withdrew into obscurity, not remembered much any more. Knox seems more interested in staying in the spotlight, LOL, then whines about the negative attention she gets.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
I'm pleased that no one has linked to the Knox usa today bleating. There is much I could say about this, but apropos of the 'validity of arrest', she does stutter that 'just because I acted suspiciously didn't mean I deserved this shit'. (I paraphrase - but not a lot.)

Won't link to it, Sallyoo, but only because it's so self-serving, repetitive, boring. The article's annoying only because she doesn't act like a normal person wanting to put it behind them. Remember Louise Woodward? The case that created such passion (and opposing viewpoints both sides of the Atlantic)? She withdrew into obscurity, not remembered much any more. Knox seems more interested in staying in the spotlight, LOL, then whines about the negative attention she gets.



Only a psychopath could top their roommate and then expect to carry on as normal.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 102

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
... Remember Louise Woodward? The case that created such passion (and opposing viewpoints both sides of the Atlantic)? She withdrew into obscurity, not remembered much any more. Knox seems more interested in staying in the spotlight, LOL, then whines about the negative attention she gets.


You know, my recollection of the Louise Woodward case was very much coloured (for me) by Sky News in the UK covering it in realtime. Us UK viewers were unaccustomed to being flies on the courthouse wall - before Louise we'd only been entertained by OJ.

I'd had a bit of sympathy for Louise, but when she (or others on her behalf) hired Barry Scheck as her lead lawyer....well, that's it.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:30 am   Post subject: LOUISE WOOWARD   

Sallyoo wrote:
Ergon wrote:
... Remember Louise Woodward? The case that created such passion (and opposing viewpoints both sides of the Atlantic)? She withdrew into obscurity, not remembered much any more. Knox seems more interested in staying in the spotlight, LOL, then whines about the negative attention she gets.


You know, my recollection of the Louise Woodward case was very much coloured (for me) by Sky News in the UK covering it in realtime. Us UK viewers were unaccustomed to being flies on the courthouse wall - before Louise we'd only been entertained by OJ.

I'd had a bit of sympathy for Louise, but when she (or others on her behalf) hired Barry Scheck as her lead lawyer....well, that's it.

No comment on Louise Woodward

guilt or innocence, Sallyoo, but:

Louise, her lawyer, and a very public bust-up
Quote:
IT WAS more than your regular lawyer-client relationship. While Elaine Whitfield Sharp had been the most junior member of the defence team representing the British au pair Louise Woodward at her murder trial last year, she had also become her client's best friend and most trusted supporter. No one was surprised when, once the trial was over and the appeals process had begun, she took Ms Woodward into her home as her lodger...
..It was not long before the Sharps reached the unhappy conclusion that the Woodwards were house guests from hell.

Of interest, though, since I followed the shaken baby syndrome debate for some time,
Quote:
Patrick Barnes, a pediatric radiologist at Stanford University, was a key prosecution witness in the trial, but in 2011 said he would not give the same testimony today. He said there had been a revolution in the understanding of head injuries in the past decade, partly due to advances in MRI brain scanning technology: "We started realizing there were a number of medical conditions that can affect a baby's brain and look like the findings that we used to attribute to shaken baby syndrome or child abuse",[16] such as infections and in utero strokes. (Wikipedia)

Ms Whitfield Sharp denies she ever disbelieved her client's innocence ABC News
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I personally believe its to set the narrative before Guede gets released to preemptively discredit anything he says. "As an exoneree, i'm exonerated always, regardless of any accusations guede has about someone who's been exonerated." She shuddered on the ABC news segment when the interviewer mentioned Guede was going to get out and might say something.

I think the directors and Knox believed the film was going to be a definitive condemnation of Pisa and Mignini, but then Netflix decided to market it as a "whodunit" instead (one of the directors has mentioned the trailers as coming from Netflix's marketing). Its telling that Knox's USAToday editorial doesn't mention the Netflix documentary driving the latest round of "did she or didn't she." Netflix asks "believe her" or "suspect her"; Knox says "No, don't do that, I'm an exoneree."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I always had the impression that the whole case against Woodward was simply made up. You can't argue 'shaken baby syndrome' without the characteristic contusions to the neck, and these were not present. The prosecution just made it up. They hired an 'expert' to come and sit in the witness box and mime shaking a baby, and make scary growling noises as he did so, which was about the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in a court of law and certainly wasn't evidence. It was just misdirection. (Because no contusions to the neck.) The little boy actually died of blunt-force trauma to the head which the prosecution completely failed to explain. They just vaguely claimed that he must have been near something hard when he was shaken, or that Woodward dropped him on the floor, all in a complete evidential vacuum. One prosecution 'expert' claimed the head trauma was equivalent to falling off a two-storey building. That claim, part of the US justice system's theatrical, hyperbolical convict-at-all-costs agenda, got mumbled and downplayed during trial because it was so patently false.

Later a British Channel 4 documentary showed the medical evidence to four pathologists, one a specialist paediatric pathologist (no such specialist was consulted by either prosecution or defence at any point during the American proceedings, which were startlingly and frighteningly amateurish). These experts were unanimous in finding that the little boy's head injury was probably accidental. The paediatric specialist said it was consistent with a fall, from the boy's own height, on to a hard wood floor such as that house unfortunately possessed. At that age, the child's arms are not long or strong enough, and his reflexes are not developed enough, to break his fall properly. (He did of course have a fractured wrist which may have been related. And if Woodward noticed no such injury, neither did the high-status busy-busy-busy parents.) The defence suggested quite reasonably that the little boy's boisterous younger brother might have pushed him, but then again he could just have tripped. Small children fall over all the time and, on a hard wood floor, that could be bad news. Especially if the parents are too disinvolved and busy-busy-busy to even notice that the boy has become listless. And the prosecution never came anywhere near showing that it was Woodward and not the parents who was present when the incident, whatever it was, occurred.

High-status Americans don't take the blame. The help takes the blame. So the prosecution just made it up.

This, it seems, really was a case of a witch hunt, against a very young and vulnerable outsider who made a convenient scapegoat, in a complete absence of evidence. When American Knox groupies describe Meredith's case in those terms, they are simply projecting the American situation on to Italy, where it doesn't fit. It's unlikely that such a prosecution would get very far in Italy.

And, um... it's not as if witch hunts have never happened in Massachusetts, is it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:05 pm   Post subject: MEET CODIS IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINES!   

Now I'm getting ads from Forensic Magazine :)
Attachment:
More Loci.png

PowerPlex® Fusion Systems
Quote:
Designed to meet CODIS and European standards, the PowerPlex® Fusion Systems enable laboratories to:
•Achieve the most inter-database compatibility and highest discrimination of any autosomal STR kit.
•Improve laboratory efficiencies with rapid-cycling and direct-amplification protocols.
•Obtain a higher success rate with difficult casework samples due to robustness and sensitivity and the inclusion of three Y-STR loci for improved mixture interpretation.
•Simplify validation and QC efforts by using one kit for both casework and databasing sections.

The PowerPlex® Fusion Systems offer the highest discrimination from a single reaction and deliver more information in demanding forensic, paternity and relationship-testing cases.

As DNA databases continue to grow and international cooperation increases, the need for a common set of markers is required to facilitate data sharing and to reduce adventitious matches. The PowerPlex® Fusion and Fusion 6C Systems enable increased discriminatory power and data-sharing possibilities by common and informative loci used throughout the world, such as SE33, Penta D and Penta E.

A probability of identity value (PI) is defined as the probability that two individuals selected at random will have an identical genotype at the tested locus. It is calculated by adding the square of the genotype frequencies. The figure indicates the Probability of Identity values for a variety of currently available STR systems and standards. A significant increase in discriminatory power is seen with the PowerPlex® Fusion Systems over other well established STR systems. Data were kindly provided by John Butler (NIST) using data collected by Carolyn Hill and analysis developed by Dave Duewer.

Just what I need for my basement lab for Christmas, Santa please. Plus a working refrigerator to store my samples :)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

A properly kept refrigerator, with a proper clinical thermometer, is -- as those formidable and renowned Carabinieri officers Major Berti and Captain Barni noted after walking into Vecchiotti's lab past all the rows of rotting corpses that Vecchiotti was too lazy and incompetent to do the paperwork to get buried, and the rest is history -- something of a desideratum.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:39 pm   Post subject: Earthquake Italy   

Hope our friends in Italy are OK with the 5.6 Richter earthquake that just hit 66 km east of Perugia http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 82011.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Multiple aftershocks and tremors continue after the two main quakes (themselves technically aftershocks of the recent big quake). Epicentre in the Apennines. No reported fatalities yet, although one man had a heart attack, not known if connected.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In the Sandro Bellini, 53, murder case, Massimo Zanetti as GIP has appointed the RIS from Rome and Carla Vecchiotti to do an analysis of DNA on the victim’s body (particularly from under the fingernails) and an examination of the alleged killer’s (a Ukrainian, Andriy Halan, 44) smartphone, with results to be presented 23 January 2017 in a fast-track hearing.

Defence lawyers are Francesco Mattiangeli and Bruno Capaldini, and prosecutor is Tullio Cicoria, with the case being about a woman and jealousy between the two ‘rivals’. Representing the civil party, the victim’s sister, is Renato Chiaranti. Jurisdiction is Terni.

[TuttOggi]
[TernInRete]
[Umbria24]
Top Profile 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 102

PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It's nice of you to think of us central Italians during this earthquake swarm. Seismologically it is rather worrying, because these latest biggies aren't 'expected' aftershocks, rather they are activity on a different bit of the fault, and they are getting worryingly close to the 1997 (Good God, it's twenty years ago) epicentre which damaged Perugia City, and famously the Basilica in Assisi.

Fortunately there have been no fatalities due to yesterday's quakes, and remarkably few injuries - not even, to be truthful, a lot of building damage. The recent big tremors (and anticipated future ones in this sequence) are happening in a much more 'secure' (i.e. richer, better administered, better restored, more experienced) seismic zone, and anything below a Richter 7 (which is pretty huge) in a heavily built up area, is gong to be frightening, but not disastrous.

As always, the headlines are misleading: they say 'Perugia' or 'Macerata' - but these are the names of provinces rather than cities - and the epicentres are way up in the mountains, where there are very few residents. At the same time, one never knows what mother nature has got up her sleeve - (but realistically there is sweet fa you can do about it) - apart from rely on the really rather good protezione civile to hook you out with a helicopter.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

To be published on 10 November, Florentine lawyer Francesco Paolo Maresca has written a book about the case, with Meredith at the centre, called “Processo Meredith: giustizia perfetta?”, describing the legal proceedings from the time of the discovery of her body up until 27 March 2015 when the two accused, Raffaele and Amanda, were released.
[GoNews], via ANSA.
[UmbriaDomani]
[ANSA]

On Amazon.it
ISBN: 978-8846745835
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
To be published on 10 November, Florentine lawyer Francesco Paolo Maresca has written a book about the case, with Meredith at the centre, called “Processo Meredith: giustizia perfetta?”, describing the legal proceedings from the time of the discovery of her body up until 27 March 2015 when the two accused, Raffaele and Amanda, were released.
[GoNews], via ANSA.
[UmbriaDomani]
[ANSA]

On Amazon.it
ISBN: 978-8846745835

Good for him! Now that book, I'll buy, and hopefully it will be translated into English. Can't think of better people to do that than one of our own? hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:00 pm   Post subject: AMANDA KNOX PICTURES   

Amanda Knox photographer Alyssa Wilcox published a new series of Knox Pics

Delightfully weird and disturbing, and please don't post them here. But the text, referring to a showing of Man Of La Mancha was hilarious.

Quote:
i was particularly moved by the courtship between don quixote & aldonza, the serving maid & whore of the inn. in man of la mancha,


Aldonza Knox, wench and whore, and her band of white knights, ahem la_)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:06 pm   Post subject: NETFLIX NOMINATED BUT NOT QUALIFIED, AHEM   

Much amused by 'shouts of joy' in certain quarters at news Netflix's Amanda Knox has been submitted for Academy Award consideration Real Screen

Except when you look at the full list at Oscars Org you see quite an impressive collection of documentaries that are a lot better, and,
145 DOCUMENTARY FEATURES SUBMITTED FOR 2016 OSCAR® RACE
Quote:
Several of the films have not yet had their required Los Angeles and New York qualifying releases. Submitted features must fulfill the theatrical release requirements and comply with all of the category’s other qualifying rules in order to advance in the voting process. A shortlist of 15 films will be announced in December.

and last I checked, the movie had not been shown in a commercial theater in New York or Los Angeles (UCLA Film School doesn't count).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Looks like NICK PISA is currently in Hong Kong covering the Rurik Jutting case. Looks like he's slut-shaming and cocaine-shaming yet another victim. Jutting has confessed to brutally killing two woman and claims he enjoyed it. However, Pisa is really making this poor guy look bad.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2058898/b ... -in-blood/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:39 am   Post subject: NICK PISA SLUT SHAMES AGAIN   

jamie wrote:
Looks like NICK PISA is currently in Hong Kong covering the Rurik Jutting case. Looks like he's slut-shaming and cocaine-shaming yet another victim. Jutting has confessed to brutally killing two woman and claims he enjoyed it. However, Pisa is really making this poor guy look bad.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2058898/b ... -in-blood/

Pisa's slut shaming the murderer, jamie? Cool. Which when you look at it, was what he did with Amanda Knox as well, LOL.
Quote:
I was ingesting it mainly by sniffing through bank notes or sometimes it was in my rectum.
Rurik said
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:03 am   Post subject: MARESCA BOOK MEREDITH KERCHER CASE   

Here are the details of the book coming out November 10.
The publisher is Edizione ETS based in Pisa since 1961, which has a nice list of academic, history, architecture and judicial books.
Processo Meredith: giustizia perfetta?

Autore/i: Francesco Paolo Maresca
Introduzione di: Roberta Bruzzone
Collana: PQM Collana di psicologia giuridica (1)
Pagine: 114
Formato: cm.14x21
Anno: 2016
ISBN: 9788846745835
Stato: Disponibile

There's a 13 page sample chapter by Maresca, introduction and table of contents with foreword by Roberta Bruzzone here: Introduction


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 152

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Another bad earthquake hit Italy, this time Roma. It's terrible.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi Elisa,

according to media reports,

Quote:
...the quake was centered 6 km (3.7 miles) north of Norcia, a town in the province of Perugia. The epicenter lay some 10 kilometers deep.

Norcia, famed for its Benedictine monastery and its cured meats, is home to some 5,000 people.

According to RAI Radio, at least two buildings collapsed there - the Basilica di San Benedetto, the 14th century cathedral in one of the city's main piazzas, and the Cathedral of Santa Maria Argentea.


Quote:
According to those on Twitter, tremors were felt in Perugia, Rimini, Abruzzo, Naples and Rome, where the circulation of the metro-system was briefly suspended on lines A and B.


Ancient Roman buildings are still standing (thank God.)
Top Profile 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Feature length documentary requirement: "Films that, in any version, receive a nontheatrical public exhibition or distribution before
their first qualifying theatrical release, will not be eligible for Academy Awards consideration. "

"Can my film have nontheatrical distribution (broadcast and cable television, PPV/VOD, DVD distribution,
Internet transmission) and still be eligible for Academy Award consideration?
Yes, but not before the first day of the qualifying theatrical release. If the film has previously
received nontheatrical distribution before its qualifying theatrical release then it cannot qualify for
Academy consideration."

ETA: LA times, sep 29 "Playing Laemmle's Monica, Santa Monica."
NY International Film Center, Sep 30-Oct 6: http://www.ifccenter.com/films/amanda-knox/


Last edited by pataz1 on Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Next Sunday, Nov. 6, Sollecito will be marching in Rome with the Radicals, demonstrating for the amnesty and better rehabilitation of prisoners.

November 6, 2016

IV March for Amnesty and Justice Reform
from the prison of Regina Coeli in St. Peter's Square

Give advance notice of your participation in the march and fasting between the 5th and 6th November, 2016 for the rehabilitative effectiveness of punishment

http://www.radicalparty.org/it?page=1
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here is an article describing Sollecito's latest activities. I skipped over some parts of it; below is an excerpt from it.

October 20, 2016

Sollecito spoke at Crime Box: A step out of the night and towards the Rule of Law
By Gianni Carbotti

On 15 October at the Abitart Hotel in Rome, in the Testaccio area, as part of a presentation of the book published by Longanesi "A step out of the night" in which he tells his story, we could again hear live Sollecito’s voice - after his heartfelt speech in the context of the extraordinary congress of the PRNTT* in Rebibbia - describing unimaginable reality, providing flashes of painful awareness that seem to pierce the veil of inexcusable and dismal ignorance that is wrapped around persons who, against their will, lived certain [unpleasant] experiences.

*) PRNTT - Partito Radicale Nonviolento Transnazionale e Transpartito; http://www.radicalparty.org/it
[Radical Party Nonviolent Transnational and Transparty, i.e Nonpartisan, ed.]

It makes a certain impression to watch and listen to Raffaele while he recalls, in his soft, almost monotonous in its linearity accent, often staring into the eyes of someone in the front row, the beginning of the nightmare, the discovery of Meredith’s body and then the sudden descent into grim and lengthy maelstrom faced, first, with Amanda, then alone, locked up, with echoes of the media squabble coming from outside, which, in solitary confinement, had certainly contributed greatly to his state of mind enough for him to emphasize the atmosphere of alienation and dissociation from reality which is, by itself, a peculiar trait of the detention.

And it's especially hard, the final indictment [l’atto d’accusa] to society with which Raffaele concludes his speech, when he points out how in fact he does not feel rehabilitated or, how, during the terrible years of detention and trial, he felt watched, persecuted by the institution “prison”, which, either for political reasons, or because of the chronic lack of funds or for these and other interrelated reasons, left the prisoner to his own devices.

Image

And it highlights the importance of events like this, organized by Crime Box, an association run by young criminologists Marica Palmisano and Maria Elena Caporale - the latter specializing precisely in social rehabilitation (re-integration) of ex-offenders – which is not to be limited to simply providing the public with an unprecedented snapshot (slice of life) of unquestionable usefulness thanks to the collaboration with Raffaele, but also comes up with an active proposal, definitely valid: creating a network of volunteers, professionals such as lawyers, psychologists, etc. to intervene on issues of isolation and often ignorance of the rights and obligations that many individuals are struggling with inside the state-run institutions [i.e. prisons, ed.], to actively contribute to their rehabilitation.

And this will not only alleviate this sense of alienation while they're "inside", but also and especially, accompany them on a journey of self-knowledge that permits an authentic reintegration when they are "out". The two young women are looking for collaborators, and wishing them well at this point seems only right, while it forces us as Radicals to remember that, with all the appreciation for the invaluable efforts of volunteers, we continue to believe that the age-old problem of prisons must be addressed by the State, perhaps from the point of view of amnesty measure that has become urgent and was sought relentlessly by [the late] Marco Pannella and for which the Radical Party, on 6 November, will march in Rome. We hope to meet again Raffaele Sollecito who will join the march.


AGENZIA RADICALE
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Feature length documentary requirement: "Films that, in any version, receive a nontheatrical public exhibition or distribution before
their first qualifying theatrical release, will not be eligible for Academy Awards consideration. "

"Can my film have nontheatrical distribution (broadcast and cable television, PPV/VOD, DVD distribution,
Internet transmission) and still be eligible for Academy Award consideration?
Yes, but not before the first day of the qualifying theatrical release. If the film has previously
received nontheatrical distribution before its qualifying theatrical release then it cannot qualify for
Academy consideration."

ETA: LA times, sep 29 "Playing Laemmle's Monica, Santa Monica."
NY International Film Center, Sep 30-Oct 6: http://www.ifccenter.com/films/amanda-knox/


Depends if TIFF counts as 'qualifying theatrical release.' I wouldn't know as I'm not a voting member of AMPAS.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
Feature length documentary requirement: "Films that, in any version, receive a nontheatrical public exhibition or distribution before
their first qualifying theatrical release, will not be eligible for Academy Awards consideration. "

"Can my film have nontheatrical distribution (broadcast and cable television, PPV/VOD, DVD distribution,
Internet transmission) and still be eligible for Academy Award consideration?
Yes, but not before the first day of the qualifying theatrical release. If the film has previously
received nontheatrical distribution before its qualifying theatrical release then it cannot qualify for
Academy consideration."

ETA: LA times, sep 29 "Playing Laemmle's Monica, Santa Monica."
NY International Film Center, Sep 30-Oct 6: http://www.ifccenter.com/films/amanda-knox/


Depends if TIFF counts as 'qualifying theatrical release.' I wouldn't know as I'm not a voting member of AMPAS.


Details are on the academy site. IIRC art shows don't count. It needs to be shown for a week in both NYC and LA; multiple times daily between noon and 10pm with at least 1 showing from something like 6-9 pm..

Pat
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

pataz1 wrote:
Feature length documentary requirement: "Films that, in any version, receive a nontheatrical public exhibition or distribution before
their first qualifying theatrical release, will not be eligible for Academy Awards consideration. "

"Can my film have nontheatrical distribution (broadcast and cable television, PPV/VOD, DVD distribution,
Internet transmission) and still be eligible for Academy Award consideration?
Yes, but not before the first day of the qualifying theatrical release. If the film has previously
received nontheatrical distribution before its qualifying theatrical release then it cannot qualify for
Academy consideration."

ETA: LA times, sep 29 "Playing Laemmle's Monica, Santa Monica."
NY International Film Center, Sep 30-Oct 6: http://www.ifccenter.com/films/amanda-knox/

Thanks, pataz1 for the correction. These showings might well might qualify the documentary for consideration. Though whether it makes to nomination, I don't know, given the very strong field.

It's a tossup whether Ava Du Vernay's 13th or Fisher Stevens' Before the Flood wins but I'm rooting for 13th.

I just realized Fisher Stevens, director of Before The Flood played Ben Jabituya on "Short Circuit", LOL.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline pataz1


Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am

Posts: 303

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It will be interesting to see what credit they give to Morse; the academy has specific requirements for Producer credit which they have to meet (see below).

"To be eligible for 89th Academy Awards consideration, a documentary feature must complete
both a seven-day theatrical release in Los Angeles County and a seven-day theatrical release in
the City of New York during the eligibility period. "

"Screenings during the theatrical release must occur at least four times daily and must begin
between noon and 10 p.m., with at least one screening beginning daily between 6 p.m. and 10
p.m. The motion picture must be exhibited for paid admission, and must be advertised during
each of its qualifying theatrical releases in at least one of these major newspapers in each city:
The New York Times, Time Out New York or The Village Voice (New York); Los Angeles Times
or LA Weekly (Los Angeles). The film must have a movie critic review in either The New York
Times and/or Los Angeles Times. "

"Advertisements must have minimum dimensions of one inch by two inches and must include the theater, film title, and the
dates and screening times of the qualifying exhibitions. A listing in the theater grid will not meet
this requirement. Advertising must begin on the first day of the theatrical release"

"3. What about schools and film festivals?
Documentaries may play in schools and at film festivals without affecting their eligibility"

"DEFINITION OF A COMMERCIAL VENUE
To be considered a commercial motion picture venue for Academy Awards purposes, a theater must
meet the following criteria:
1. Regularly show new releases
2. Charge admission
3. Have regular non-specialized programming open to the general public
4. Exploit and market films through regular listings and advertising
5. Generally run films for seven consecutive days, with multiple showings daily "

"If a documentary film reaches the semifinal round, all credited producers will be required to complete a
Producer Eligibility Form describing the exact nature of the work they performed for the film. Working in
close cooperation with a documentary director, a documentary producer's functions include active
involvement in at least two-thirds of the following (each of which are not necessarily equally weighted.)
1. Conceiving the underlying concept or selecting the material on which the production is based
2. Securing any necessary rights
3. Selecting and hiring any writers and collaborating on the development of the treatment/outline
4. Securing financing
5. Selecting and engaging the director, when applicable
6. Managing rights, clearances, insurance and all legal issues throughout production
7. Selecting and securing people to film/interview
8. Selecting and securing shooting locations
9. Selecting and briefing the cinematographer
10. Preparing the final budget
11. Preparing the shooting schedule
12. Selecting and securing all necessary production components, including equipment
13. Designing and managing production workflow
14. Selecting and briefing the editor and editorial staff
15. Supervising and approving day-to-day expenditures and cost reports as they relate to the final budget
16. Supervising the day-to-day operation of the production crew
17. Resolving day-to-day disputes and conflicts related to the production
18. Ongoing viewing and appraising of raw footage with the director and editor
19. Constantly evaluating the film's progress and need for additional shooting/interviews
20. Selecting and briefing the composer and/or music supervisor
21. Selecting and securing all post-production/editorial equipment and managing post-production workflow
22. Viewing and appraising all cuts
23. Spotting music and sound effects
24. Supervising the music recording session
25. Supervising all sound mixing sessions
26. Conceiving and approving titles and graphics
27. Approving the final print (film or digital)
28. Planning and securing distribution
29. Collaborating on the marketing, publicity and distribution plans for the motion picture
30. Collaborating on the plans for exploitation of the motion picture in foreign and ancillary markets"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here is another excerpt, where the Amanda Knox documentary is mentioned, from the same article (Sollecito spoke at Crime Box: A step out of the night and towards the Rule of Law)

If anything, it has to be acknowledged that Rob Blackhurst and Brian McGinn, authors of the documentary film [Amanda Knox, ed.], have a particular merit, that of extending to us a tool for looking safely into an abyss and scrutinizing it, which, however, by its very nature, [ i.e., the abyss] looks back into us* penetrating our soul, leaving us with an icy feeling of distress [anguish] at the idea that, yes, as it is, in regards to justice and the media, it could happen to any of us to find ourselves in such a situation. And it is especially the spectacle of Amanda, distant and frozen, lost elsewhere, despite her tears, to send us into an agony and show us the torment of the accused who continues to be haunted by her demons. Always the same, the "burning at the stake" in Salem, up until today.


---------------------------
*) - here, the article's author is probably referring to Friedrich Nietzsche's famous quote from Beyond Good and Evil:

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) wrote:
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. -->> Notable Quotes


Perhaps the only comforting thought is that you can always fight those demons, lock them up in a rational dimension, where they lose all power over individual lives, and it seems that both Amanda and Raffaele, on parallel paths, are doing just that and engaging in certain activities to make sure that the same ordeal doesn’t happen again to others or anyway because it leads to serious reflection on the mechanisms underlying the creation of modern “Columns of Infamy” ["Pillars of Shame”, ed.] [colonne infami in the original] see here: Storia della colonna infame

Amanda currently works as a freelance journalist in Seattle and with an association that gives assistance to victims of injustice. She filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights against Italy, re: unfair trial and ill-treatment, and recent news is that Strasbourg has accepted it although only at the initial (preliminary) stage.

Raffaele instead, shortly after the final acquittal, had joined the Radical Party and, as he struggles to get state compensation for wrongful imprisonment that would barely cover half of the costs incurred for the legal process, has declared himself totally involved with the social objective of informing and raising awareness of the general public about the dark world of Italian prisons, with their unknown internal mechanisms, unwritten rules, with all the baggage of the affliction characteristic of how the prison often continues to weigh on those who suffer - whether guilty or innocent - even after an acquittal or the natural end of a sentence.


AGENZIA RADICALE

------------------------------------------------------

As you can see in this photo, at that Crime Box event, Sollecito was speaking to a rather small group of people, i.e. his "lecture" didn't attract a large crowd of admirers. ;)

Image
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:


As you can see in this photo, at that Crime Box event, Sollecito was speaking to a rather small group of people, i.e. his "lecture" didn't attract a large crowd of admirers. ;)

Image


Now if he joined a major party instead of a minor one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... or_parties he'd get a larger crowd, guermantes.

But his familia are already ensconced with the Fascists and Northern Nationalists :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:56 pm   Post subject: IMDDB REVIEW OF THE AMANDA KNOX NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY   

Why did the directors ignore the Raffaele Sollecito Mafia connection?
IMDB October 31, 2016
Quote:
You'd expect documentary makers to well, when they tell a story at least fact check? It turns out Raffaele Sollecito belongs to a very well connected Mafia family and this may be one of the reasons why and how he was acquitted, with the help of some corrupt judges and DNA experts. Since Knox was joined to him legally, he had to help get her off too, though he tried to throw her under the bus several times leading up to the acquittal.

His lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, was part of the legal team that got Mafia connected Italian PM Mario Andretti acquitted on charges of murdering a political opponent. Just like with Knox and Sollecito, on 'insufficient evidence'.

His father, Italian surgeon Francesco Sollecito, is known as "the urologist to the Dons" but the Sollecitos of Bari are themselves a well known Italian crime family.

Francesco's cousin Rocco was the consigliere (some say the real power behind and therefore untouchable) to Canada's largest crime family, the Rizzutos. Then he got shot down in Montreal May 27, 2016 in a gang war. Sollecito's murder came after his son, Stefano, was arrested in November in a major drug sweep and accused of being an influential leader of the Montreal Mafia.

The Sollecitos of Montreal (who are big in construction) are tied to Amanda Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova who represents them in the now stalled mob controlled Messina Straits Bridge project.

The Sollecitos are allies of the New York-New Jersey Bonnano crime family.

His sister and aunt, an influential Italian politician, were caught trying to fix the case.

His family released video of Meredith Kercher's naked body to their local TV station in Bari. The producers were indicted, they got away with it.

It wasn't only the Italian Mafia that was involved; so too was the Democratic Party er, whatever. Journalist Nina Burleigh wrote in Newsweek how she received assurances from "a state department source at the Embassy in Rome" that Amanda Knox would never be extradited no matter what happened after her second stage acquittal in 2011.

This would be Ambassador David Thorne, Senate Foreign Ctee Chair John Kerry's ex-brother in law. Given that WA senator Maria Cantwell and mid level Democrat officials like her Congressman and Democrat judges all tried to intervene in the case makes it likely, as the Italians allege, that political pressure was put on them to fix the case.

Some thing the fan boy directors seem to have missed altogether in their attempt to exonerate Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:45 pm   Post subject: MARESCA BOOK PROCESSO MEREDITH   

Aside from the regrettable small errors which perhaps should have been caught earlier and stuff that doesn't translate well, I hear it will cover the 5th Chambers acquittal quite well. IIP/ISF celebrations might be premature. Read the book, thanks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 152

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Germantes, many tnx for your fast update about the resent earthqake and of course for all your news reg Kinfy Boy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hennesy


Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:52 pm

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/a ... ocumentary

A month old so I don't know if you've already seen this. Interesting article.

When can I buy Maresca's book?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:36 pm   Post subject: Re: IMDDB REVIEW OF THE AMANDA KNOX NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY   

Ergon wrote:
Why did the directors ignore the Raffaele Sollecito Mafia connection?
IMDB October 31, 2016
Quote:
You'd expect documentary makers to well, when they tell a story at least fact check? It turns out Raffaele Sollecito belongs to a very well connected Mafia family and this may be one of the reasons why and how he was acquitted, with the help of some corrupt judges and DNA experts. Since Knox was joined to him legally, he had to help get her off too, though he tried to throw her under the bus several times leading up to the acquittal.

His lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, was part of the legal team that got Mafia connected Italian PM Mario Andretti acquitted on charges of murdering a political opponent. Just like with Knox and Sollecito, on 'insufficient evidence'.

His father, Italian surgeon Francesco Sollecito, is known as "the urologist to the Dons" but the Sollecitos of Bari are themselves a well known Italian crime family.

Francesco's cousin Rocco was the consigliere (some say the real power behind and therefore untouchable) to Canada's largest crime family, the Rizzutos. Then he got shot down in Montreal May 27, 2016 in a gang war. Sollecito's murder came after his son, Stefano, was arrested in November in a major drug sweep and accused of being an influential leader of the Montreal Mafia.

The Sollecitos of Montreal (who are big in construction) are tied to Amanda Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova who represents them in the now stalled mob controlled Messina Straits Bridge project.

The Sollecitos are allies of the New York-New Jersey Bonnano crime family.

His sister and aunt, an influential Italian politician, were caught trying to fix the case.

His family released video of Meredith Kercher's naked body to their local TV station in Bari. The producers were indicted, they got away with it.

It wasn't only the Italian Mafia that was involved; so too was the Democratic Party er, whatever. Journalist Nina Burleigh wrote in Newsweek how she received assurances from "a state department source at the Embassy in Rome" that Amanda Knox would never be extradited no matter what happened after her second stage acquittal in 2011.

This would be Ambassador David Thorne, Senate Foreign Ctee Chair John Kerry's ex-brother in law. Given that WA senator Maria Cantwell and mid level Democrat officials like her Congressman and Democrat judges all tried to intervene in the case makes it likely, as the Italians allege, that political pressure was put on them to fix the case.

Some thing the fan boy directors seem to have missed altogether in their attempt to exonerate Knox.


Glad you opened this up Ergon. It is of course where our Netflix series on TJMK (which includes your review) is headed and we anticipate huge media attention.

I added to your IMDB comment as follows.

Quote:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5952332/board/reply/262824164

Re: Why did the directors ignore the Raffaele Sollecito Mafia connection

Comment by peterquennell

The Netflix team and the interest of the mafias certainly have been on parallel tracks for a long time. One Netflix producer was reported screaming at good reporters and spreading falsehoods about Mignini as far back as 2010.

The mafia angle is talked about in quiet places in Italy but not written about (yet) as investigations are ongoing. Mafia investigations really are done on a stealth basis, as there have been over 100 judges and prosecutors assassinated (yes THAT was not in the movie).

Still, a Netflix team which did its homework and won some trust in official circles could have acquainted itself with this angle pretty easily. They really did no research as such whatsoever, merely channeled the Knox PR emotionally.

The commenter above rightly asks why RS languished in prison for four years if he was so well connected. Its important to understand the timing.

Sollecito couldnt call for help while he was locked up through 2011. Then he thought he was home free. In that same time period his family presumably didnt want to move an inch nefariously as they had strong proof their phones were bugged - transcripts went public when RS's sister Vanessa was fired by the Carabinieri for scheming.

In 2013 after the Supreme Court mostly reversed the 2011 Hellmann apeal things looked far worse for Sollecito. He was rather desperately casting around for ways to stay in the US (as was Frank Sforza for similar reasons).

The Rizutto clan have a hideyhole at the eastern tip of the Dominican Republic, a Caribbean stepping stone of the drug trade. Sollecito went there quite openly twice in 2013 and met both times with Rocco Sollecito. Their second encounter was especially blatant - it happened right in the middle of the Nencini appeal in Florence, and may have been RS's way of trying to send a signal.

Thereafter the final Supreme Court appeal in 2015 was "mysteriously" assigned to the Fifth Chambers which normally never processes murders and is weak on homicide law, and "mysteriously" assigned to two politically appointed judges from Naples with cloudy pasts. The verdict was "mysteriously" garbled in law and evidence and openly contravened Italian law in not being referred back down to Florence for questions of evidence.

Mignini has been a target in recent years because he is openly one of those who accepts to prosecute mafia. The campaign to try to destroy him was first set in motion by a fellow-traveler with naive help from Doug Preston.

****

I differ slightly on the Democratic Party role. It wasnt a party thing, any administration in power which had smoke blown at them from Judge Heavey and ex-FBI John Douglas would have sent a signal via the US Embassy. I dont see it as pivotal, merely something that would have been looked at in a better movie - along with the massively abusive PR of course.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hennesy wrote:
http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1128698/netflix-amanda-knox-documentary

A month old so I don't know if you've already seen this. Interesting article.

When can I buy Maresca's book?


It'll be out November 10, Hennesy, and you can order now from the publisher's website link I posted above.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:12 am   Post subject: MEREDITH KERCHER RIP   

Remembering John Kercher's White Feather Phenomenon

yesterday then these lines from Yeats last play The Death of Cuchulain appeared:

“There floats out there
The shape that I shall take when I am dead,
My soul's first shape, a soft feathery shape...”


Meredith Kercher, RIP. (1985-2007)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 118

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

@ Fast Pete

What reporting/sources etc would substantiate meetings between Raffale and Rocco? Same for the mafia hidey-hole in the Dominican Republic.

I am looking forward to seeing an in-depth article on TJMK on all this but am hoping it will contain some foundation for making these assertions beyond mere speculation.

It is odd that Raffaele chose to and spent time in the Dominican Republic. Where exactly? At whose expense? Connections? We know, of course, that the Dominican Republic does not have an extradition treaty with Italy. That said he did return to Italy for the Nencini Appeal and had his passport confiscated. He did not have to do that, any more than Knox, why? Presumably he knew he was not going straight to jail if that appeal failed. But as to the final appeal? Assurances? Like the UK government has just given Nissan following Brexit?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 118

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

At 114 pages Maresca's book must be the shortest on the case. It should be well worth a read though.

On the question of mistakes it can be observed that that there has not been one Motivation that has not contained some fairly obvious mistakes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jape wrote:
@ Fast Pete

What reporting/sources etc would substantiate meetings between Raffale and Rocco? Same for the mafia hidey-hole in the Dominican Republic.

I am looking forward to seeing an in-depth article on TJMK on all this but am hoping it will contain some foundation for making these assertions beyond mere speculation.

It is odd that Raffaele chose to and spent time in the Dominican Republic. Where exactly? At whose expense? Connections? We know, of course, that the Dominican Republic does not have an extradition treaty with Italy. That said he did return to Italy for the Nencini Appeal and had his passport confiscated. He did not have to do that, any more than Knox, why? Presumably he knew he was not going straight to jail if that appeal failed. But as to the final appeal? Assurances? Like the UK government has just given Nissan following Brexit?


Hi jape:

Not naming sources on a matter like this is not the same as "mere speculation". You can get thousands of excellent reports on Google about the Canadian, Russian and Italian mafias and Mexican gangs in the Dominican Republic. The Rizuttos and the Sollecitos headed for Punta Cana as Canadian watchers have long known.

http://tinyurl.com/jowgz86

RS came back a first time for the Nencini appeal and confidently put on a good show which helped him (at some cost to Knox who he had nothing good to say about). Then he headed to the Dominican Republic for a second time.

Why did he come back a second time? Maybe he found no firm assurances, or no offer of a lifetime job. He wasnt actually convicted at that point, and as he had found in the United States (see Ergon's great reporting) it isnt easy to set up permanently, even with his skill-set and charms...

One needs amazing amounts of non-frozen money to stay on the run for a lifetime and various fugitives have called it quits for that reason alone. He had already been evicted from Switzerland.

Renegades often fear Interpol Red Notices (worldwide arrest warrants) more than they do formal extradition, we posted a lot on this on TJMK with regard to Robert Lady whose extradition from the US and Panama was not requested by Italy but who skipped out of both Panama and Costa Rica in a hurry in face of one.

Here is an Italy/Dominican Republic example of a Red Notice in action.

http://tinyurl.com/jnph5yy

RS didnt have his passport confiscated when he returned to Italy either time, or even when he made a beeline for Austria - he surrendered it then but got it back with a stamp in it.

http://tinyurl.com/zbz8jtk
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 302

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jape wrote:
@ Fast Pete

What reporting/sources etc would substantiate meetings between Raffale and Rocco? Same for the mafia hidey-hole in the Dominican Republic.

I am looking forward to seeing an in-depth article on TJMK on all this but am hoping it will contain some foundation for making these assertions beyond mere speculation.


I've never heard of an actual meeting between Raffaele and Rocco. The known connection is that Rocco bore a resemblance to Raffaele's father Francesco (born one year earlier in 1948), and Rocco came from Bari and always kept a home there, in Grumo Appula (possibly via Mazzini n.12), as well as salting away his fortune in real estate round there, and his funeral was in Grumo Appula on 6 June this year, three days after the big show-funeral for 200 attendees in Montreal. They were planning a big send-off at the church in Grumo too, at 18.30 in the evening, but the Bari police chief said they couldn't, and they had to hold a small private service instead... at 06.00.

http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/ ... ciso-.html

Rocco's connection with the Dominican Republic is of course through the Rizzuto Cosa Nostra gang, who seemingly used it as a drug staging point and also had gambling interests there. Vito Rizzuto had a home there and liked to hold meetings there.

The 2006 Canadian indictment against Rocco for racketeering (extortion, gambling and acquiring illegallly held property) -- the RCMP Operation Colosseum business for which the Italians extradited him from Bari -- names the Dominican Republic as one of a number of places where he conspired with others in the Rizzuto outfit. (He's the last one on the indictment.)

https://www.ceic.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/F ... -P-128.pdf

Vito Rizzuto was in the DR in August and September 2013, probably in connection with the Dream Casino chain he was trying to get hold of. (There are some famous security-cam pictures of him in one of the casinos, the last known pictures of him as he died of complications from lung cancer, back in Canada, that December.) Don't know if Rocco, as his right-hand man, was with him. Raffaele of course was there at that time, staying with 'friends', I think he said. The DR is noted in Italy as a place where mafia people keep boltholes because there's no extradition treaty and you can probably bribe officials. Kelsey Kay said Raffaele told her he was thinking of proposing to a Dominican girl so he could get citizenship, but he denied this.

Quote:
It is odd that Raffaele chose to and spent time in the Dominican Republic. Where exactly? At whose expense? Connections?


He was photographed in Santo Domingo. He gave a Skype interview to Oggi, I think, from a house somewhere. As mentioned above he said he was staying with 'friends'. I forget if their names were ever mentioned.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Good points as always Hugo. There was plenty of Italian reporting on RS in the DR which actually may have made him seem a hot potato to those who might help him.

We know that Italian justice officials wish it was legally permitted and seemingly as safe to speak out as it was for this brave prosecutor.

http://www.nicepeoplenetworking.com/201 ... -in-mafia/

Typically the Italian rule now is to get the bad guys in the can first and then to speak out, of which there have been a number of examples, some involving the FBI also.

Added: Of course Dr Mignini has already said the Fifth Chambers verdict broke Italian law in 2 respects in a submission to the courts in Florence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito's TV gig as a crime analyst and commentator with Il Giallo della Settimana (This Week's Mystery) has ended. He has been replaced with someone called Marina La Rosa, who seems even less qualified for the "job" than he. How do they at TgCom24 find such "legal pundits" is itself a "mystery."

October 25, 2016

TgCom24 back with This Week’s Mystery [Il Giallo della Settimana], Marina La Rosa [new] commentator (VIDEO)
By Giulio Pasqui

Marina La Rosa commentator on Il Giallo della Settimana. Last year it was the turn of Raffaele Sollecito

Saturday, October 29 (@ 22.00) returns This Week’s Mystery (Il Giallo della Settimana), the spin-off of Fourth Degree conducted by journalist (reporter for Channel 4) Remo Croci, broadcast on TgCom24. The program, born a year ago from an idea by Paolo Liguori in collaboration with the creator and producer of the Fourth Degree Siria Magri and the director of Videonews Claudio Brachino, aims to investigate major cases of crime news from the last seven days. The novelty of this edition is in regards to a commentator present in the studio. Last year it was the turn of Raffaele Sollecito; this year, it is Marina La Rosa: former contestant of Big Brother 1, known to everyone under the pseudonym of 'la gatta morte' (‘dead cat’). She is here because she feels passionate about mysteries [gialli] and has a degree in psychology. “From TV I got away by [my own] choice. It wasn't the environment [setting] that I thought it was. I didn’t feel at ease. I started doing theater, then I became pregnant with my first child; after less than a year since the birth of the first came the second. In short: I had other priorities, [...] I missed that part (my work), but thanks to this precious absence I had time to devote myself to my passions. I'm fond of mental saws (laughs). Seriously, I’m crazy about what our brain can create and what it is capable of doing, and so I graduated and became a Doctor of Psychology", she stated a few days ago on the site Gay.it.

The theme of the first episode of This Week’s Mystery will be the Court of Appeal of Arezzo ruling regarding the Guerrina Piscaglia crime.


TV BLOG
Top Profile 

Offline Hennesy


Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:52 pm

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I read the preface of Maresca's book and it mainly focuses on how the two families differed in attitude and how this led to a manipulation of the case by the defendants' families. Maresca describes how the Kercher family didn't want to be part of the media circus therefore their media presence was very limited and their lack of belief in the italian justice system caused by the first acquittal further decreased their presence in the legal process as a whole, on the other hand Knox and Sollecito families were always and persistently present in the media, starting huge PR campaigns right after the pair's arrest.

Maresca calls Francesco Sollecito a sly puppet-master, who pre-dominates the media with heavy presence and doing everything in his power to influence it by gaining empathy from journalists and help his son. He says Dr. Sollecito was always aiming at debasing people's opinion through strong statements and an almost suffocating TV presence, for that reason Maresca says, they had many bitter conflicts. I have personally caught Dr. Sollecito telling many lies in porta a porta, one of which I will never forget: that Raffaele didn't testify during trial because Bongiorno missed the deadline for putting his name in the witness list.

Maresca also writes about the continuous political pressure from the US, particularly from Hillary Clinton and Anne Bremner, who founded FOA, set-up a fund to cover the family's legal expenses, trying to gain some fame for herself at the same time.

I am looking forward to reading the whole book and get an inside perspective on how this legal process led to a definitive acquittal even though guilt was evident.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hennesy


Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:52 pm

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I also want to say something about today, November 1st, it is a sad day for all of us: I have never known Meredith but I feel as if I've known know her. I imagine her vivid, bright personality, her will to accomplish, her elegant attitude. I imagine the love and trust she invoked in her friends and family. I imagine the happiness she gave to all those who encountered her.

She will never be forgotten, not as long as we exist, as a group, and fight to bring her justice.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hennesy wrote:
I read the preface of Maresca's book and it mainly focuses on how the two families differed in attitude and how this led to a manipulation of the case by the defendants' families. Maresca describes how the Kercher family didn't want to be part of the media circus therefore their media presence was very limited and their lack of belief in the italian justice system caused by the first acquittal further decreased their presence in the legal process as a whole, on the other hand Knox and Sollecito families were always and persistently present in the media, starting huge PR campaigns right after the pair's arrest.

Maresca calls Francesco Sollecito a sly puppet-master, who pre-dominates the media with heavy presence and doing everything in his power to influence it by gaining empathy from journalists and help his son. He says Dr. Sollecito was always aiming at debasing people's opinion through strong statements and an almost suffocating TV presence, for that reason Maresca says, they had many bitter conflicts. I have personally caught Dr. Sollecito telling many lies in porta a porta, one of which I will never forget: that Raffaele didn't testify during trial because Bongiorno missed the deadline for putting his name in the witness list.

Maresca also writes about the continuous political pressure from the US, particularly from Hillary Clinton and Anne Bremner, who founded FOA, set-up a fund to cover the family's legal expenses, trying to gain some fame for herself at the same time.

I am looking forward to reading the whole book and get an inside perspective on how this legal process led to a definitive acquittal even though guilt was evident.


Good work. I sure look forward to more. We'd been advised that this would go 180 degrees against Netflix and it is obvious here. Useful for a TJMK post on media & PR coming up. The mood of Italy is more with Maresca I'd say. RS still gets ridiculed a lot.

At times I've had some sympathy for Papa Doc but he is one tough egg. He was made to sweat it out on Porta a Porta when RS's book came out in 2012 and sections were read to him by an Italian reporter in New York. He wouldnt admit that RSs claim that he could have walked if he had rolled over on AK was untrue but finally did.

In contrast the Porta a Porta shortly before the Fifth Chambers ruled in March 2015 was bowing and scraping to him. Odd, that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hennesy wrote:
I also want to say something about today, November 1st, it is a sad day for all of us: I have never known Meredith but I feel as if I've known know her. I imagine her vivid, bright personality, her will to accomplish, her elegant attitude. I imagine the love and trust she invoked in her friends and family. I imagine the happiness she gave to all those who encountered her.

She will never be forgotten, not as long as we exist, as a group, and fight to bring her justice.


Thank you, Hennesy, for saying this and remembering Meredith, and thank you, Ergon, for the beautiful picture and quote from Yeats. We all feel the same today. Unfortunately, the 1st of November will always be associated for me with this horrible crime, even though I have a friend who has a birthday on this day.

Especially after watching a short video of Meredith, filmed by Knox and included in the Amanda Knox documentary, one realizes the deepness of her (Meredith's) loss. For those who do remember Meredith, it’s an image that is still indelible: a confident, smiling young woman, with shining eyes full of light. Promising life cut short in such a savage and brutal manner, Meredith's family left with lifetime of what-ifs. There are cases when justice isn’t done, nor will it ever be seen to be done. Such is no doubt the burden of Meredith’s family, for whom the hope of justice has disappeared too soon. It's heartbreaking, but I'm still hoping that something may happen that would turn the tide and expose the murderers, because we have to keep in mind the following:

"For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light." (Luke 8:17)

and

"He who walks in integrity walks securely, But he who perverts his ways will be found out." (Proverbs 10:9)
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

So now we have Amanda Knox calling Perugia on the anniversary:

Quote:
"I heard about the earthquake, are you all right? Is anyone hurt? ". The phone call that some guys from Perugia have received in the last hour can not remain indifferent. Because the other end of the phone was someone who is overseas.

A call friends left in Perugia, in fact, was Amanda Knox, who is concerned about their fate after the series of devastating earthquakes that have hit all the Perugia province. What is striking, however, is that the call has come, ironically, exactly nine years after the murder of Meredith Kercher, her British flatmate Amanda in Via della Pergola house that even today, despite the terror to the continuous shocks , it is the theater of the macabre tourism.

Amanda, along with former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, was acquitted in 2015 by the Supreme Court a year ago from the charge of killing Mez on the night of November 1, 2007. The single was sentenced Rudy Guede, who is serving 15 years in prison but already asked for a retrial and compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016, 13:38

http://ilmattino.it/primopiano/cronaca/ ... 58505.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for the link, jamie. She is always so tactful and considerate (not!).

Apparently, last week, Knox sat down for an interview with the Seattle Times reporter Jonathan Martin, and it was published on Oct.31, on the eve of the anniversary. A perfect time, in her view, to draw attention to herself and away from Meredith:

Amanda Knox’s strength to deal with social-media specters
By Jonathan Martin

...That statement will probably prompt a fresh round of attacks on social media. The Twitter hashtag #amandaknox has vile troll fodder.


SEATTLE TIMES

Not a word about her "dear friend" Meredith...
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

There's a February 2016 article in the British Journal of Criminology by someone from the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Leicester.

Quote:
Lieve Gies
Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Social Media: The Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito Innocence Campaign
Br. J. Criminol., Feb 2016; doi:10.1093/bjc/azw017


Might be worth a look.



===
Edited to add:
Quick look - Curate's egg: worthwhile in parts.

From within the constrained perspective of the article, the bigger picture available (to the widely-read (critical) reader) is that not many people are natural logicians, or, more broadly, acquainted with the implications of what "fair play" means at the borders. They are constrained by the limitations they bring to their attempt at understanding what happened.

From outside the perspective taken by the article, the foundational classification scheme used as first applied to the subject/topic determines the range of conclusions that are possible and allowed within that classification scheme, and, by definition, automatically and without discussion rules out possible sets of conclusions that belong to other classification schemes.

= = =
Arising from the existence of multiple classification schemes, and being aware of only one of them, leads to 'anomalous' categories within that classification scheme - for example, in the article there is also (presumably unintended) irony: Preston is quoted for his "Trial by Fury" Kindle as descriptive support for "The Internet’s unedifying side" as revealed by online discussion about the case, without the author of the article showing an awareness of Preston's own (and significant) contributions to that state of affairs.

= = =
If a person begins a journey into knowledge by accepting that Creation Science is a science, and that 'the theory of evolution is just a theory', then their path is pre-ordained for them and the conclusions they reach inevitable, and they will have great difficulty reconciling the idea of falsifiability with anything, and will be sorely surprised to discover that the theory of electricity is also just a theory.

Likewise with what the idea of "a fair trial" means, what evidence is, how implicature works with evidence, and indeed what the rules of evidence actually are. Add to that, each jurisdiction is an island unto itself and the translation fallacy, that what happens on one's own island happens on all others, has full sport with the minds of amateur comparativists.



=============
Edited to add2:

Also worth a look, coming out on the 18th November, taking a Media Studies perspective:

Transmedia Crime Stories: The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Globalised Media Sphere (Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture)Nov 18, 2016
by Lieve Gies and Maria Bortoluzzi
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

“quod non est in actis, non est in mundo”
— Mayur Suresh, “The file as hypertext: Documents, files and the many worlds of the paper state”, in Stewart Motha and Honni van Rijswijk (eds), Law, Memory, Violence: Uncovering the Counter-Archive, (2016) [Routledge, 2016], pp 97-115, p 110.

Translation: what's not in the [court] file, does not [legally] exist.

From which:
What's not catered for by the conceptual classification scheme, cannot exist and will not be discussed.

Both the un-tree and the non-tree do not fall in the forest.
Or even stand, for that matter.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rudy is described as “Petty burglar” on the English-language “Miscarriage of justice” Wikipedia page ([link]).

Presumably, he is mentioned there as contrast to Amanda and Raffaele who “released in 2011 after an appeal court found there was no credible evidence against them”. [Amanda’s calunnia conviction is not mentioned; and describing the US Supreme Court as ‘an appeal court’ would be an interesting turn of phrase.]

Alternatively, Rudy gets a mention on the page because, as the page itself says, “Mass media may also be faulted for distorting the public perception of crime by over-representing certain races and genders as criminals and victims, and for highlighting more sensational and invigorating types of crimes as being more newsworthy.”

Alternative 3: Rudy is mentioned because his case is a(n implied) miscarriage of justice, which has just not been acknowledged yet as such, and give it time.



The equivalent Italian-language page ([link]: “judicial error”) lists Patrick Lumumba (which would be a true error) as well as Raffaele and Amanda (which would be a misunderstanding of what “not guilty through lack of sufficient evidence” means). The Italian page does not mention Rudy.


The Welsh term is linked as: Camweinyddiad cyfiawnder ([link]).

And Justizirrtum ([link]) in German.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

An analysis of Gies’ BJC article and what it finds must begin with the meaning of a term used in the title of the article: “Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Social Media: The Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito Innocence Campaign”.

Presumably, “miscarriage of justice” as used here does not refer to Cassation’s final ruling, overturning the murder convictions (yet affirming Amanda’s calunnia conviction), but, I expect, to the earlier-stage convictions, in particular the Massei Court ruling. Likewise, using that terminology, the Hellmann Court acquittal can be described as ‘wrongful exoneration’, because overturned by Cassation (again, except for the calunnia).

In everyday language, a “miscarriage of justice” means that something went wrong somewhere with the legal system, that a wrong result occurred:

  • “A failure of a court or judicial system to attain the ends of justice” (Oxford)
  • “a situation in which someone is punished by the law courts for a crime that they have not committed” (Cambridge)
  • “The term 'miscarriage of justice' refers to a legal act or verdict that is clearly mistaken, unfair, or improper. Primarily, a miscarriage of justice is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit.” (US Legal site)
  • “Failure of justice in returning a fair verdict based on the evidence presented.” (Business Dictionary)
  • “the failure of a judicial system or court in the administration of justice, esp. when an innocent person is convicted of a crime” (Dictionary.com)
  • “a wrong decision by a court, as a result of which an innocent person is punished” (Collins)



Definitions intended for practioners are more specific and have a practical orientation:

A miscarriage of justice is:
  • “A substantial wrong which occurs during a trial which so infects the proceedings as to merit quashing the result on appeal.” (Duhaime's Law Dictionary)

(Note that the idea of trial-appeal doesn’t fit into the concept of trial-appeal-appeal-appeal-appeal.)


In the Australian legal context, Butterworth’s Australian Legal Dictionary* defines “miscarriage of justice” as: “Where an accused person has lost a chance which was fairly open of being acquitted by reason of a failure to apply the rules of evidence, procedure and the relevant law”, citing Mraz v R (1955).

And: “Where there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice a conviction will be set aside on appeal”, citing, for example, (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1). Then there is a cross-reference: “See also, Criminal justice system; …”.


Gies gained the trust of nine interviewees to find out a bit more about what she calls the ‘innocence campaign’ and how social media affected things.

  • method
    • Skype (7)
    • face-to-face (2)
  • gender
    • men (7)
    • women (2)
  • based in
    • United Kingdom (4)
    • Italy (2)
    • United States (3)
  • time period of interviews
    • “in the autumn of 2012, approximately a year after Knox and Sollecito were released from prison and six months before the Court of Cassation overturned their successful appeal, triggering a retrial”
      • northern hemisphere autumn, therefore September-November 2012


Gies is aware that the case has reached Cassation (“Their convictions once again went before the Court of Cassation which delivered its final verdict in March 2015, when it exonerated both defendants, generating a further spike in media interest.”).


Sidenote: In terms of terminology, the word “exonerate” is an interesting one to select, because of the connotations it carries. Its usage could be due to a too-close familiarity with the loose reins of the media (a copying by osmosis, in effect), where instead one normally would have expected, at the very least, an application of the balanced standards and methods employed by an ethical court-reporter reporting the case, or, failing that, an acquaintance with the primary documentary sources (i.e., judgment reasons, testimony transcripts, expert reports, etc). Alternatively, the Italian media reporting reporting the case followed court-reporting guidelines, so a knowledge of what Cassation actually said would not have been difficult to come by. On the other hand, Italian media repeating defence press statements and courthouse step sound bites could be misleading to an outsider.


As to terms, Garner’s Legal Usage** has:

  • exculpate
    • to clear from all blame
  • exonerate
    • to free from an onus: “implies such a thorough contradiction of guilt that all imputations of blame are wiped away”
  • acquit
    • “to have a definite finding of ‘not guilty’”
      • acquitted of the charge: “a setting free or deliverance from the charge” (p 17)

  • absolve
    • “suggests a discharge from all obligations and penalties”
      • “absolved from wrongdoing” (p 9)

  • vindicate
    • “to clear from all censure”




So, given Casssation’s final ruling, and assuming that it is not impugnable (big assumption, in the face of the not-entirely-coherent reasons given for the decision), then the idea of a ‘campaign’ is somewhat naive: all the innocence campaigners, so called, had to do was wait. They were fighting their own fears.

On the other hand, ‘extensive research’ on the Internet resulting in a conclusion of innocence, even right at the beginning when Matteini confirmed preventive detention at the due process hearing rather than grant the suspects (Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick) house arrest or release, indicates logically that either Matteini and co were incorrect (“miscarriage”), or the Internet researchers and their research methods are (there is no special term yet for this. Maybe “D’oh!”).

Note that Patrick was released, when an alibi was confirmed. This suggests that the justice system has something that the campaigners/’researchers’ lack.






* Peter Nygh and Peter Butt (General editors), Butterworth's Australian Legal Dictionary, (1997) [Butterworths, 2009], "Miscarriage of justice" (p 752). ISBN 9780409307221
** Bryan A Garner, Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage, 3rd edition, (2011) [Oxford University Press, 2011], p 339. ISBN 9780195384208
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

co-)
Whatever happened to the famous truth drug, a.k.a. "truth serum"?

Quote:
“An intravenous injection of a barbiturate drug (either sodium Amytal or sodium Pentothal) that induces a state of complete relxation and a feeling of well-being and serenity and renders a person incapable of answering questions untruthfully.”

Butterworth's Australian Legal Dictionary, (1997) [Butterworths, 2009], "Truth drug" (p 1199). ISBN 9780409307221


Not so long ago, it used to be name-dropped in almost every TV show. Now, no-one ever mentions it.

It’s almost as if the definition has morphed into: “… renders a person incapable of answering questions”.


ETA:
The morph is on the mark.
- “not reliable” ([W])
- [George Bimmerle, 1993]: “No such magic brew as the popular notion of truth serum exists. The barbiturates, by disrupting defensive patterns, may sometimes be helpful in interrogation, but even under the best conditions they will elicit an output contaminated by deception, fantasy, garbled speech, etc.”



As a by-product, a(nother) possible reason why people make false confessions reveals itself: self-punishment.

Quote:
Neurotic individuals with strong unconscious self-punitive tendencies, on the other hand, both confessed more easily and were inclined to substitute fantasy for the truth, confessing to offenses never actually committed.


ETA2:
Why don't clinically trained psychiatrists (and biochemists), instead of Department of Psychology members, write about false confessions? That CIA review above shows that they would advance knowledge faster and deeper.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

On Nov. 3, Sollecito was discussing the Meredith Kercher murder case with Meo Ponte, at Il festival della criminologia (Festival of Criminology) in Torino (Turin).

http://www.festivaldellacriminologia.it/

November 3, 2016
21:00

Il caso Meredith Kercher
Meo Ponte (La Repubblica), Raffaele Sollecito

Quote:
Meo Ponte: Journalist, in 1982 he joined the "Gazzetta del Popolo" of Turin, where he began his career as a crime reporter. From 86 to 87 he wrote for "La Nazione" (Florence, Perugia and then Lucca), then 87 to 89 was at the RAI Perugia, until he resigned to join the editorial staff of 'La Repubblica', working there until retirement (August 2015). He has reported about many of the major cases of national crime, especially Erika and Omar, the case of Tortona stones*, Cogne, Meredith Kercher, Salvatore Parolisi. He was sent to Iraq from July 2003 to February 2005, and Libya in 2011.


http://www.festivaldellacriminologia.it ... 016/#ponte
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

*) - "the case of Tortona stones..." - December 27, 1996: on the motorway A / 21, which connects Turin to Piacenza, Maria Letizia Berdini dies hit by one of the stones thrown against a moving car from an overpass near Tortona, Alessandria.
http://www.repubblica.it/online/cronaca ... tappe.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Meo Ponte ask Raffale Sollecito inconvenient questions about his family's past attempts to interfere with the investigation and free him from jail by using political influence? ;-) -->> viewtopic.php?style=6&p=129049#p129049

I very much doubt it.
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 253

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
=============
Edited to add2:

Also worth a look, coming out on the 18th November, taking a Media Studies perspective:

Transmedia Crime Stories: The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Globalised Media Sphere (Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture)Nov 18, 2016
by Lieve Gies and Maria Bortoluzzi

Yes indeed if Yvonne Jewkes (Foreword) and Stevie Simkin are among the writers it might be worth a look.

Also this article, which is dedicated to Rudy, sounds interesting: Race, a floating signifier, or, Rudy Guede in the Italian press.

Contents:

Foreword.

The tragicomedy of Perugia: Power and prejudice, visibility and invisibility in the making of a transnational, postmodern media story.

Yvonne Jewkes.

Introduction: Transmedia crime stories.

Lieve Gies and Maria Bortoluzzi.

Part I: The making of Amanda Knox.

1.What's in a name? The UK newspapers' fabrication and commodification of Foxy Knoxy.

Atalanta Goulandris and Eugene McLaughlin.

2.Scarlet letters from Perugia: 'Slut shaming' and the media representations of Amanda Knox.

Stevie Simkin.

3.(A)moral representation: The hyper-sexual construction of Amanda Knox.

Siobhan Holohan.

Part II: Alternative narratives in social media and beyond.

4.SIAMO INNOCENTI: Twitter and the performative practices of the 'real' Amanda Knox.

Katrina Clifford.

5.(Co-)constructing community-identity: Pro-innocent voices in the Meredith Kercher murder case.

Maria Bortoluzzi.

6.From news to comment: Tracing text trajectories in news reporting about the Amanda Knox trial.

Michael S. Boyd.

Part III: Other media injustices.

7.Prosecution in action in the Italian criminal justice system: the Amanda Knox case.

Riccardo Montana.

8.Race, a floating signifier, or, Rudy Guede in the Italian press.

Julia Heim.

9.'My name is Raffaele Sollecito and not Amanda Marie Knox': Marginalisation and media justice.

Lieve Gies
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 253

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Yvonne Jewkes is of course the professor who in Media & Crime (Key Approaches to Criminology) once wrote that:


Convicted criminals can also become media 'celebrities' by virtue of the notoriety of their crimes.

Sometimes criminals are cast as folk devils by the media, and they are deemed newsworthy long

after their convictions because mass media take a moral stance on public distaste and revulsion

towards their crimes. One such example is Peter Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire ripper who, in 1981,

was convicted of the murders of 13 women in the north of England. After two decades of confinement

in a high-security hospital he remains something of a media celebrity, with endless newspaper column

inches and frequent television documentaries devoted to his crimes and life since arrest. He has even

been revealed to have been a friend of Jimmy Savile’s, who, reportedly, was questioned as a possible

suspect in connection with the police investigation into the murders.


However, the fact that Sutcliffe is unlikely ever to be released means that the media are able to treat

Sutcliffe as a side-show, an entertaining, if somewhat macabre diversion to fill media space when there

is little else of importance to report.


There are a handful of other criminals who occupy a particular symbolic space in the collective conscience of

the British public (the Kray twins, the Great Train Robbers, Denis Nielsen, Fred and Rosemary West, Jon Venables

and Robert Thomson, Ian Hunter and Maxine Carr, Amanda Knox), but arguably the most notorious figure in the history

of the British criminal justice systems is Myra Hindley (the ‘Moors murderess’) who, with her partner, Ian Brady, was

convicted in 1966 of her part in the abduction, torture and murders of two children.



It's an achievement of a sort to be mentioned among these infamous criminals let alone right next to Myra Hindley in a book that will be saved to the posterity. (Raff and Rudy, poor guys, once again, totally ignored.)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:41 pm   Post subject: ANOTHER ROTARY CLUB DOG AND PONY SHOW   

Remember when Judge Michael Heavey took his dog and pony Amanda Knox presentations on the road to Rotary Clubs, Congress, wherever? Dr. David Anderson went to one in WA with the judge and Frank Sfarzo, now has his own show going :)

"David Anderson, writer, president Rotary Club Todi", had one recently with judge Angelo Matteo Socci of the Supreme Court, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, Francesco Sollecito, et al, with presentations on circumscribing the role of public minister, the psychology of wrongful justice, the need for scientific standards in DNA analysis, etc :)

Attachment:
Dog and Pony.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:48 pm   Post subject: Re: ANOTHER ROTARY CLUB DOG AND PONY SHOW   

Ergon wrote:
Remember when Judge Michael Heavey took his dog and pony Amanda Knox presentations on the road to Rotary Clubs, Congress, wherever? Dr. David Anderson went to one in WA with the judge and Frank Sfarzo, now has his own show going :)

"David Anderson, writer, president Rotary Club Todi", had one recently with judge Angelo Matteo Socci of the Supreme Court, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, Francesco Sollecito, et al, with presentations on circumscribing the role of public minister, the psychology of wrongful justice, the need for scientific standards in DNA analysis, etc :)


Good catch. Todi is quite a long way south of Perugia, maybe 1/2 an hour drive. I knew that David Anderson lives away from Perugia, so he lives down there. His place (a guesthouse or B&B?) was an abode for the Knox-Mellases and Nina Burleigh etc. Seems a lot of brain-washing already went on there.

Public Ministers already are very circumscribed - see the many hoops before trial "Merediths Case" as it is called here they had to jump through. Its the VICTIM that needs more help.

David Anderson began shouting at a meeting on the case and has posted a lot. His UK background explains his tilt, he testified wrong in a miscarriage of justice case and was shown up - and ever since has blamed the police. Strong similarity to the Doug Preston case, he also guessed wrong, in the MOF case, and was shown up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 253

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -Sit tibi terra levis   

Just read that Leonard Cohen passed away yesterday.

And as it happens, for the past two weeks I've been playing this song of his on and on and on, it's so beautiful. Heard it in a recent episode of a Spanish drama series I follow (Cuéntame cómo pasó).

May he rest in peace, sit tibi terra levis:



picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Edited again, the fault was in my stars, not Rumpole's, sorry sor-)
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

My review of the shitflix infomercial for Knox. It's too long for IMDB so I'll need to edit it.
Amanda Knox, a Netflix documentary directed and exec produced by two ardent Knox supporters, Rod Blackhurst and Stephen Robert Morse, who have been campaigning for Knox since 2011, which included harassing journalists who actually covered the case far more thoroughly than they did), opens with lingering almost gleeful close ups of the bloody crime scene and goes downhill from there. The documentary begins by trying to shape a false narrative of handy villains who all seemingly came together like the stars aligning to make innocent Amanda look so screamingly, beyond a reasonable doubtingly guilty. In the beginning, there were the cops. It was them who railroaded and coerced poor Amanda. Then it was the nasty prosecutor, who the documentary falsely intimates took part in Knox's trial and appeal, whereas he only took part in her trial and was one of several prosecutors. The documentary attempts to make out he's some Sherlock Holmes fanboy nut job. They also mistranslate him, by having him proclaim that only a female killer would cover a female victim, when he actually said that and "unknown" male killer-within the context of a supposed burglary gone wrong- would be unlikely to cover up a victim. Then it was the ENFSI certified forensic specialist who Knox's fan club labeled a "lab technician". (Oddly though, the same forensic specialist and prosecutor seemed to do a great job testifying against and prosecuting the black guy and good work guys)

Then it was Meredith Kercher's friends who conspired against The Railroaded One, then it was the innocent victim's innocent family themselves who were "persecuting" sweet Amanda. Now, courtesy of Netflix, the REAL villains were the tabloid media, specifically one tabloid hack, Cockney Wide boy Nick Pisa who comes across like I'd imagine Danny Dyer's dad would come across as and is quite hilarious, albeit totally devoid of any scruples as any tabloid hack worth his/her salt wouldn't. The media the prosecutor, the witnesses- THEY were the ones who were responsible for poor Amanda's woes. (and not the 10,000 pages of behavioral, circumstantial and hard physical evidence against her which the documentary brushes over in a cursory manner.)

It makes out that Knox and Sollecito were in love after an alleged five day romance. I say "alleged" as Sollecito is rather inconsistent in this regard, variously claiming a fortnight, 10 days, to a week to now apparently five days. This is hammered home by shots of what I presume to be lovebirds, complete with feel good treacle music. Sollecito comes across as a smirking stoned weirdo and Knox comes across as her usual creepy quasi psychopathic self, complete with crocodile tears and loud theatrical sighs. Knox is also her usual inconsistent self and can't seem to stop changing her story, whether it's droning that she and Meredith weren't the best of friends (after droning in other interviews that they were "dear friends"), or claiming that she only knew Guede to see and had only seen him two or three times, despite claiming that she only saw Guede for the first time ever in court (Dianne Sawyer interview) and claiming she never had contact with Guede, in her rambling eight page email to the Nencini appellate court before claiming- in a consecutive sentence no less- that she actually did have contact with him. She proclaims it's "impossible" for her DNA to be on the murder weapon, disregarding that it was a matter of established fact that her DNA is on the murder weapon with Meredith's on the blade.

The film makes out that Rudy Guede, the sole person convicted for Meredith Kercher's murder, left his DNA all over the crime scene, with funky arrows pointing here there and everywhere. The problem is this simply isn't true. Rudy Guede was convicted on less DNA evidence (five samples) than Amanda Knox(six samples).

The documentary also displays quasi racism, where trial and appellate courts can be rejected for innocent Amanda, but innuendo is sufficient for black guys, as Knox lies in the documentary that Guede is a known burglar. The documentary happily facilitate this lie by obligingly showing a mugshot of Guede with the intimation that it's a mugshot for burglary. The problem again is, this is again simply untrue. Guede has no burglary convictions and indeed was the only one out of the trio with no prior criminal record before Ms Kercher's murder. Knox and Sollecito both had minor run ins with the law resulting in fines. Guede was never even charged with the burglary and even the acquitting court decreed that the burglary was staged, as in staged in another flatmate's room where Amanda Knox left her presumed blood DNA mixed with the murder victim's and where no trace of Rudy Guede exists. Knox also claims that no biological traces of her exist in one localized area of the crime scene,specifically Meredith's bedroom, yet ignores that by such rationale, Guede couldn't have committed the burglary. Knox also claims that Guede acted alone when no court decreed this and claims that he broke into her home when Meredith was present, neglecting to explain how Meredith never heard the 4KG rock hurling through Filomena Romanelli's bedroom and why she obligingly did nothing while Guede shimmied 13 feet up a sheer wall, TWICE.

The documentary, apparently not content with trying to match the record of most lies ever told in a documentary before, then breezily attempts to surpass such a record, by introducing the film's saviors, Stefano Conti and Carla Vechiotti as "independent forensic DNA experts". Conti hypothesizes, like he did in court that anything is possible. It's like totally possible that contamination could have occurred, therefore it...DID occur. Basically a hypothesis on the basis that "anything's possible" supersedes actual submitted evidence. Vechiotti not to be outdone promptly contradicts Conti by attacking LCN DNA as a science. Basically Meredith Kercher's DNA profile on the murder weapon (found in Sollecito's flat causing him to lie in his diary as to how the DNA got there, by claiming that Meredith had cut herself cooking while at his apt. Meredith had never visited Sollecito's apt), is so tiny that it should be discarded and ignored. LCN DNA is however accepted by courts of law world wide including the state of New York USA. Vechiotti also admitted in court that it was Meredith's profile and that contamination couldn't have occurred due to the six day delay between testing. She does a u-turn on the documentary though claiming that contamination was likely due to Meredith's profile being LCN and so small, despite testifying the exact opposite where it mattered the most, in court. Problem is, Conti makes the contamination hypothesis for the bra clasp, only Sollecito's DNA isn't LCN, it's in a 17 loci match, with a US court considering between 10-15 loci sufficient enough to be used as evidence. The doc also fails to explain how his DNA ended up only on the tiny bra clasp in such abundance and nowhere else apart from a cig but mixed with Knox's. So too small for the knife and hey, anything's possible for the bra clasp. They also make big thing about the bra clasp lying in a sealed crime scene for 46 days,yet don't mention that two samples of DNA evidence used to convict Guede (Meredith's sweatshirt and purse) also lay there for 46 days, but I guess there's different burdens of proof bars for black guys.

However again the problem is that all of this (yep, again) is simply untrue. Conti and Vechiotti are not forensic DNA experts or ENFSI certified. Carla Vechiotti is a pathologist. Her lab at Sapienza University was shut down due to atrocious hygiene practices including honest to God corpses being strewn about the halls, I kid you not. Conti's expertise is "computer medical science"...whatever that's supposed to be. Nor are they independent. Conti and Vechiotti were found "Objectively biased" and "Objectively deceptive" in court by the Nencini appellate. Specifically because Vechiotti falsely claimed that the technology did not exist to re-test the murder weapon. It did indeed exist in 2011. Vechiotti was also filmed by the BBC shaking hands with Sollecito's father in court no less, hardly appropriate behavior for so-called independents. Vechiotti has also been found guilty of criminal misconduct in a separate case and was fined €150,000 for screwing up in yet another separate case, known as the Olgiatta murder.

You'll notice in this review how I've rarely mentioned the victim Meredith Kercher. That's because she barely gets a mention in this sad excuse for a documentary. Not even an RIP. Meredith, the victim is relegated to a mere footnote and indeed a foot under a duvet. The doc does use archive footage of her mother Arline though, and intimates that she herself is having doubts whereas the Kerchers have made very clear on several occasions that they know who murdered their daughter. Reprehensibly, the doc also displays close up autopsy photos of Meredith. Yet the autopsy photos were never made public. Considering only the Kerchers (who didn't take part in Netflix's PR makeover) and the defence- and by extension the two former defendants- had access to such material, this begs the very pertinent question- who provided two ardent Knox supporters with autopsy photos of the murder victim? The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this alone, utterly contemptible behavior which comes across as needlessly and despicably taunting the victim's family or at the very least exploiting their daughter and sister purely for lurid effect to make their documentary more "gritty".

So what's the verdict on Amanda Knox the documentary? Well it's a terrible, false and ultimately immoral exercise in innocence fraud and here are some facts that Knox's PR infomercial left out:

1 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Amanda Knox was present during Meredith's murder and may even have possibly washed the victim's blood from her hands afterwards but it STILL can't be proved that she did it. (which begs more questions, namely why didn't innocent Amanda call the cops for her friend and why wasn't she done for accessory at least?) The same Supreme Court do not make the same allowance for the black guy though, had he had have washed the victim's blood from his shoes for example. The court also states that there's "strong suspicion" that Sollecito was there.

2 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that the burglary was staged.

3 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Meredith was murdered by three attackers and that Guede had two accomplices. (And you really don't have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out who these two accomplices were, when you view the evidence in its totality)

4 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Meredith's murder was NOT due to a burglary gone wrong.

5 The Supreme Court's acquitting nonetheless finalizes Knox's calumny/ criminal slander conviction, which she got for falsely accusing her innocent employer of rape and murder, leaving him in prison for two weeks and never retracting her statement, despite false reports that she did, meaning that Knox's status is still that of a convicted criminal felon.

6 In finalizing Amanda Knox's calumny/criminal slander conviction, The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Knox blamed her boss to protect Rudy Guede as she was afraid that Guede could "retaliate by incriminating" her, which of course begs some more very interesting and pertinent questions, such as how could Guede incriminate innocent Amanda to begin with?

7 The Supreme Court's acquitting report does NOT exonerate Knox, it acquits her due to "insufficient evidence",like Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and that nice man Robert Durst.

The Truth is Out There, as a fictional 90s FBI agent who investigated strange stuff once mused. The truth in Meredith Kercher's case is out there too,specifically in the Massei and Nencini court reports. Never have I seen a case where such overwhelming evidence existed and where all the primary sources and court reports are fully available, only for such false reporting and fawning (and equally false) accounts abound. It's like the mainstream media have collectively turned into the town of Stepford. Yet the truth often has the strangest habit of coming to light and often when we least expect it to shine. I have hopes it'll shine in Meredith's case, in time. The supporter fanboy filmmakers are fooling nobody familiar with Meredith's case and neither are Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.

RIP Meredith Kercher, who along with her stoic dignified family (who have been subjected to absolutely abhorrent abuse and attacks by Knox's supporters online) and Knox's employer Patrick Lumumba are the only victims here. May the truth shine in your case one day and the facts and truth come to light.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Excellent review, Corpusville.

Just one comment: you seem to imply Sollecito's DNA was not LCN because 17 loci were found. Meredith's DNA was LCN but 15 alleles were found, so finding a near full profile is not a criteria as to quantity of DNA sample, although Sollecito's DNA, as you say, was NOT LCN.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 5:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

To clarify, jamie, I think corpusvile's saying Meredith Kercher's DNA on the knife was LCN because of the noise and peak imbalances in the electropherogram, not because it was a 17 allele match. Sollecito's DNA was such a strong sample on the bra clasp it was most likely not LCN. The argument there is not about Solly's DNA, but whether it came by through tertiary transfer. Highly unlikely. (Knox's DNA on the bra, now THAT is a different argument).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 253

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -Sit tibi terra levis   

Rumpole wrote:
Just read that Leonard Cohen passed away yesterday.

And as it happens, for the past two weeks I've been playing this song of his on and on and on, it's so beautiful. Heard it in a recent episode of a Spanish drama series I follow (Cuéntame cómo pasó).

May he rest in peace, sit tibi terra levis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mqhuNrdwFw

picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Edited to just include the link since the YouTube player links no longer work. Can't be fixed, sorry, since we're locked into the older version of software and updating might wreak havoc with our files.


The link didn't work? Odd, it worked just fine for me. Just testing: does this one also not work for you:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9TR9G5bd7w

Maybe my links work for us here in Europe and just not for your lot in the Americas?
Top Profile 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Just out of interest, the Rumpole Youtube (above) worked just fine for me (in Europe).

But what I logged in for was to mention a horrid lying little rant from Injustice whatever (link tweeted by Annella/zebbidi iirc).

Anyway, it is saying that tmomk is all wrong, that it stole ' their' (Amanda Knox case) pdfs and turned them into pages (sigh...yes, dear, that makes them searchable, or hadn't you twigged this?). But of course, turning pdfs into pages means tmomk altered them to suit the guilter case (oh yes, machine converters - which I assume were used - have an opinion?)

Plus, according to this scurrilous twaddle, the tmomk site has deliberately withheld translations into English of witnesses who were favourable to Knox! Now, as far as I know, there were no such witness statements - and if the deluded one who pecked out this diatribe could find any, why hasn't the lovely Julia or the misguided Luca promoted them? (It isn't as if they would be more than a couple of pages long.)

I suppose, on one hand, that it's quite encouraging to observe their continued deranged bleatings - I have to wonder why they continue to draw attention to themselves - or is it simply a leg (no, a toe, maybe only a corn) of the Knox self-promotion project?

I try to avoid 'ad animalem' attacks - but this nonsense takes the biscuit. (Do not auto translate to cookie, please!)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:46 am   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE DAY RELEASE   

Etruria News
Dinner with the killer of Meredith Kercher
Quote:
Paolo Gianlorenzo 13 novembre 2016
Il tentativo, disgustoso, di trasformare in evento la vita di un feroce e spietato assassino condannato a 16 anni e che sta scontando, tra premi e cenette in esterna, presso il carcere di Viterbo. Forse hanno festeggiato la lugubre ricorrenza della sua morte avvenuta il primo di novembre del 2007


This article condemns Rudy Guede, out for dinner with friends in Viterbo on unsupervised release.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -Sit tibi terra levis   

Rumpole wrote:

The link didn't work? Odd, it worked just fine for me. Just testing: does this one also not work for you:

Maybe my links work for us here in Europe and just not for your lot in the Americas?


No, it's just my crappy Inert Explorer, Rumpole. Works fine in Google Chrome, will redo.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:07 am   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE DINNER   

Also here: Rudy Guede dinner out of jail
di Raffaele Strocchia 13 novembre, 2016
Quote:
Viterbo – Cena fuori dal carcere per Rudy Guede.

Le foto della cena – slide

Nuovo contatto con la realtà per il 29enne ivoriano, unico condannato a 16 anni per l’omicidio di Meredith Kercher, uccisa a Perugia il primo novembre 2007.

Guede ha ottenuto un nuovo permesso premio, il quarto dall’estate scorsa, e ieri è potuto uscito dal carcere di Mammagialla. Rimarrà fuori dal penitenziario viterbese fino alle 17 di martedì.


With him is his lifetime friend Giacomo Benedetti and family, as well as his spokesman Daniele Camilli. On leave from prison till November 17.

ETA: the original in Italian is confusing.
Quote:
Rimarrà fuori dal penitenziario viterbese fino alle 17 di martedì.


Thursday the 17th? Tuesday at 17:00?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
Excellent review, Corpusville.

Just one comment: you seem to imply Sollecito's DNA was not LCN because 17 loci were found. Meredith's DNA was LCN but 15 alleles were found, so finding a near full profile is not a criteria as to quantity of DNA sample, although Sollecito's DNA, as you say, was NOT LCN.


Hi Jamie and thanks for th shout.

I should have clarified more, and "contradict" was probably a wrong term to sue but my point was that Vechiotti attacked LCN DNA as a science itself, not the actual evidence, and her main contention for contamination is due to Meredith's DNA being LCN. However even when the DNA (Sollecito's) isn't DNA, well contamination could have ergo did occur anyway. basically the doc is completely polemic and neither C&V ever flat out state that contamination occurred, they simply bandy the words "likely" (wrt LCN DNA) and "possible" wrt Sollecito's.
In a nutshell, no matter what the evidence, it was going to be dismissed by the doc but again I probably should have made that clearer.
Had to severely truncate it anyway for IMDB but am not altogether dissatisfied with the resutl as I was a bit waffly with the unedited version anyway. :mrgreen:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5952332/reviews-25
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for the news about Rudy Guede, Ergon. Here it is in a bit more detail:

November 13, 2016

Rudy Guede dinner outside prison
By Raffaele Strocchia

Guede has obtained a new permit, the fourth since last summer, and yesterday was released from Mammagialla prison. He will remain out of Viterbo jail until Tuesday 5 pm.

In June, after nine years in jail, the Ivorian had obtained his first 36 hours of contact with reality in the [guest] house of Gavac, an association of volunteers and prison assistants, which hosts inmates on leave from Viterbo prison and their families.

In the two days of previous permit [to leave prison], Guede had met family and friends but was unable to get out of the [guest] house. This time, however, the 29-year-old has been allowed to have breakfast, lunch and dinner outside the hotel / guest house: four hours not just out of prison, but also of freedom from house arrest.

And so, last night, the Ivorian came back to sit down, after nine years, at a restaurant table: in Il Richiastro, in via della Marrocca in Viterbo. A black and white checkered shirt over a gray T-shirt, Guede was sitting at the head of the table. At his side his lifelong friend, Giacomo. And all around - his family members.

Bruschetta dishes and patés, and other traditional products of Viterbo. In a few glasses a little wine, in others Coca Cola. Food and drink all chosen by the Ivorian. And often on the face of the 29-year-old appeared a sweet smile.

At 9pm he had to go back to Gavac. "In the guest house Guede spends most of the day of his leave – says his spokesman Daniele Camilli, also at the table with the 29-year-old - He makes things very simple: watching TV, talking with friends, reading and studying. After the Bachelor's degree with 110 and honors, he had enrolled in a 3-year [Master’s] degree in history and environment at the University of Roma Tre".


http://www.tusciaweb.eu/2016/11/rudy-gu ... ichiastro/
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Thanks for the news about Rudy Guede, Ergon. Here it is in a bit more detail:

Guede has obtained a new permit, the fourth since last summer, and yesterday was released from Mammagialla prison. He will remain out of Viterbo jail till Thursday, the 17th.




Hi guermantes, the original in Italian is confusing. Corrected my post above.
Quote:
Rimarrà fuori dal penitenziario viterbese fino alle 17 di martedì.


Thursday the 17th? Tuesday at 17:00?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hennesy


Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:52 pm

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

He will be free until Tuesday 5pm
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Quote:
Hi guermantes, the original in Italian is confusing. Corrected my post above.
Quote:
Rimarrà fuori dal penitenziario viterbese fino alle 17 di martedì.


Thursday the 17th? Tuesday at 17:00?


Hi Ergon, yes it's "martedi" (Tuesday) in the original. I took the liberty to "correct" it because, the 17th being a Thursday, I thought it was a mistake, but now I can see that you are right, and it could mean "until 17 (5pm) on Tuesday".

That is, Rudy Guede is on leave until 5 pm this Tuesday. I'll correct it in my "translation." ;-)

Still no decision on RG's request for a review of his sentence?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thank you, Hennesy. :)
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Quote:
Hi guermantes, the original in Italian is confusing. Corrected my post above.
Quote:
Rimarrà fuori dal penitenziario viterbese fino alle 17 di martedì.


Thursday the 17th? Tuesday at 17:00?


Hi Ergon, yes it's "martedi" (Tuesday) in the original. I took the liberty to "correct" it because, the 17th being a Thursday, I thought it was a mistake, but now I can see that you are right, and it could mean "until 17 (5pm) on Tuesday".

That is, Rudy Guede is on leave until 5 pm this Tuesday. I'll correct it in my "translation." ;-)

Still no decision on RG's request for a review of his sentence?


There's this story in the Sun:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2181021/a ... behaviour/

...and this one in the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urant.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:12 am   Post subject: ENOUGH ALREADY   

Now this, is hilariously (sorry!) funny.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:


Hi jamie,

I'm not in favor of RG's early release or rewards "for good behavior" at this rate, but Knox and Sollecito being permanently free is much worse, in my opinion, than RG's 72 hours out of prison. Obviously, it's sad for the Kercher family to see their daughter's / sister's murderers walking around free and obtaining University degrees, those same people who deprived their Meredith of a life and a future.

A review of Guede's trial(s) would be interesting to me only insofar as it might highlight, once again, Knox and Sollecito's role in the crime, although I'm a bit skeptical about the review's final outcome (if it were allowed at all.)
Top Profile 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 152

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Unfortunatelly am afraid that Guede won't be granted any review because whole story should get forgotten reg. Sollecito and slso Knox. There are too many people involved I FEAR. Even if Renzi will get off. I am only happy that K +Knife. Boy must be pretty afraid. I guess we will hear more from Guede after his 16 y are off. He will make his master and after done his sentence he will talk, I guess a lot. If he won't get killed before.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

From an Italian newspaper today:


http://www.cronacaedossier.it/rudy-gued ... solitaria/

Quote:
The Ivorian accused of the crime called for the review of the process: the last train of a human and judicial tragedy for Rudy Guede

On August 3 Rudy Guede has requested a review of the process that sentenced him to 16 years in prison for ' murder of Meredith Kercher . This is the last train of a legal case full of errors, exploded in the media and on social networks. The facts are very well known: Meredith Kercher was killed in Perugia in November 2007. After a series of dotted investigation of errors, pressures and denied rights , the investigators circumscribe the suspects: are Italian Raffaele Sollecito, American Amanda Knox and l ' Ivorian Rudy Guede. A fundamental prologue is the choice of the accused: Knox and Sollecito opt for the ordinary procedure while Guede, recommended by Nicodemo Gentile lawyers and Walter Biscotti, obtained by the judge for the preliminary hearing granting summary judgment. This creates a crossroads cases through the judiciary: the decision of First Instance for Knox and Sollecito sees them sentenced to 26 and 25 years imprisonment, while Guede to summary proceedings is sentenced to 16 years for "complicity in murder."

Knox and Sollecito are then acquitted on appeal of the murder in 2011; in 2013 the Supreme Court annuls the acquittal and early 2014, the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence says the guilt of the two, overthrowing the Second Degree. The March 27, 2015 Finally, the Supreme Court definitively absolve Knox and Sollecito, virtually eliminating the last four years of trials and returning to the judgment of 2011. Rudy Guede? Expedited having chosen, Guede awaits the end of Knox and Sollecito conscious process of having a weapon at its disposal, namely the decision of the judge who sentenced him for conspiring to murder following the summary procedure. Conspiring to murder with whom, you ask Guede, when the other two were acquitted? This gives rise to the request for retrial, to be a serious miscarriage of justice and an Italian system with obvious shortcomings. Should be commended therefore the courageous decision of the Supreme Court who is not impressed and in 2015 acquits Knox and Sollecito based solely on the evidence gathered - right or wrong - even though creating a clear legal paradox: for them it is the only murderess be the guy Ivory Coast , which consequently would have acted alone.

For this reason, Rudy Guede has decided to request a review of the process, whose success but it seems highly unlikely for several reasons. A strong hint had already arrived last January, when lawyers Gentile and Biscuits had renounced defense of Guede: officially because they thought they were "now exhausted all the technical and procedural aspects that are involved in Kercher murder each other."

Unofficially, it can be assumed that according to lawyers who have followed him since the first day there is no room for legal proceedings of this kind: were the new lawyers to Guede, Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi, to request a retrial for a "contrast judged" with the ruling that acquitted Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. In this regard it should be emphasized that, for the crimes in the competition, the Italian law provides that if a defendant (or more) should be acquitted the other (or others) remain guilty. If the revision of the process exceeds the screening of eligibility and be accepted, the Guede's lawyers would ask the acquittal of his client for not having committed the crime.



Article by Nicola Guarneri


It seems to be a better written article than most, so worth reproducing here (Google Translation)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
Just out of interest, the Rumpole Youtube (above) worked just fine for me (in Europe).

But what I logged in for was to mention a horrid lying little rant from Injustice whatever (link tweeted by Annella/zebbidi iirc).

Anyway, it is saying that tmomk is all wrong, that it stole ' their' (Amanda Knox case) pdfs and turned them into pages (sigh...yes, dear, that makes them searchable, or hadn't you twigged this?). But of course, turning pdfs into pages means tmomk altered them to suit the guilter case (oh yes, machine converters - which I assume were used - have an opinion?)

Plus, according to this scurrilous twaddle, the tmomk site has deliberately withheld translations into English of witnesses who were favourable to Knox! Now, as far as I know, there were no such witness statements - and if the deluded one who pecked out this diatribe could find any, why hasn't the lovely Julia or the misguided Luca promoted them? (It isn't as if they would be more than a couple of pages long.)

I suppose, on one hand, that it's quite encouraging to observe their continued deranged bleatings - I have to wonder why they continue to draw attention to themselves - or is it simply a leg (no, a toe, maybe only a corn) of the Knox self-promotion project?

I try to avoid 'ad animalem' attacks - but this nonsense takes the biscuit. (Do not auto translate to cookie, please!)


Thanks Sallyoo. Seems right on all points. We organized all our own translations including numerous documents last year all of which without exception stacked up against Knox. There was no cherrypicking, just surprises at how much many boosted the case.

A very big weakness of the Julias (and the Netflix team) is that they were not around for the trial and have come to believe a totally wrong take. Fischers sites did not exist (he popped up in 2010) and the only contrarians were Sforza and Dempsey. Sforza made things up for $$$ and Dempsey didnt know the law or the evidence (or good Italian!)

No testimony ever helped Knox that I recall and cross-examinations by the defenses time and again won no points. She hurt herself bigtime on the stand. This is why Knox became so desperate for Sollecito to speak up and support her 3rd alibi, tho he never did.

The only translation of theirs I ever looked at closely was their Marasca-Bruno report to compare with ours. Theirs was very poor (seemed to me mostly by machine, yeah those crazy wrong words slip through) and it got key things wrong - Yummi (Machiavelli) posted on one major "mistake" of theirs which left them floundering for an excuse.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... _and_lied/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
A review of Guede's trial(s) would be interesting to me only insofar as it might highlight, once again, Knox and Sollecito's role in the crime, although I'm a bit skeptical about the review's final outcome (if it were allowed at all.)


Hi Guermantes

I'm in favor. I think it definitely would highlight their role and put them (and Marasca-Bruno) on the spot which is what Sollecito is so angry at now, having been angry at Knox for most of the past eight years.

It would certainly help sell Guede's book. He has not denied being at the scene (kinda hard to) and did attempt an emotional apology to the Kerchers in court. No proof ever surfaced that he sold drugs (AK had her own pet source).

No proof either on claimed burglaries. Police and the lawyers themselves think the breakin at their office (which Meredith would have walked past a few times, including on her last night, it is below the English girls' house) was by two others, who made a lot of copies of papers on another case and would need a car. The lawyers were unwilling defense witnesses of course. Guede had a key to the Milan pre-school.

No drifter either. He'd worked hard at his job up north before the business collapsed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In other news, court orders stay on Brendan Dassey release.
http://www.cbs58.com/story/33736497/seventh-circuit-court-of-appeals-orders-stay-on-dasseys-release
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:36 am   Post subject: TRUMP DEFENDS KNOX, KNOX ER, SLAGS TRUMP IN BACK :)   

See this 2010 YouTube video where Trump actively defends Knox to KOMO News channel 4. Also, "A member of her legal team actually visited Trump but to date he has not donated any money"



which is included in the Netflix documentary as confirmed by The Independent Amanda Knox Netflix documentary: The Donald Trump appearance explained

Then this 2011 statement on Twitter

Then #AmandaKnox in a post election article er, slagged him in the back too, ahem :) Amanda's View: "Amanda stands with Trump"
Quote:
Trump had his own ideas and his own way; he called for the U.S. to sanction Italy until they released me—a pronouncement which only amplified anti-American sentiment towards me in the courtroom.


Serpent's tooth, ungrateful child.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It seemed to me that after he REALLY looked into the case... there were no more comments from him but I did not know about the 'slag' by 'Her Nastiness'
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:16 pm   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE TRIAL REVIEW   

Courtesy of Andrea Vogt
Quote:
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt · Nov 17

Dec 20: Florence appeals court to hear Rudy Guede's revision request. He claims #amandaknox rulings conflict w/judgments in his case.


Not sure of the outcome, but hopefully there will be light shed on conflicting Section I and V judgements.

Just before Christmas, so likely will be adjourned to 2017.

It's just before his birthday so I expect further surprises. But if he just wants to plead innocence again all he's doing is digging his own grave. You're guilty, and if Knox and Sollecito have no proven case, so what?


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 352

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Could he make a case for an unfair trial though, considering he was subjected to different standards of evaluation by the same Supreme Court, compared to the other two?
My Heart goes out to the Kerchers I personally don't find this good news. Two wrongs don't make a right for me and I'm aware of the merit of it potentially highlighting the dodgy goings on in Bruno/Marasca's court but it just doesn't sit right with me at all. ss)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
Could he make a case for an unfair trial though, considering he was subjected to different standards of evaluation by the same Supreme Court, compared to the other two?
My Heart goes out to the Kerchers I personally don't find this good news. Two wrongs don't make a right for me and I'm aware of the merit of it potentially highlighting the dodgy goings on in Bruno/Marasca's court but it just doesn't sit right with me at all. ss)


The reasons given by the spokesperson are as follows:

Quote:
Review Process: Set hearing for 20 December
" the court of appeal, Florence has fixed for the next 20 December the hearing kammerumlage to deliberate on the instance of revision proposal from Rudy Guede. This is an important first step towards the recognition of the innocence of Rudy, even if the path will be long and complex ". to make it known is Daniele Camilli, spokesperson for Rudy Guede the young man of 29 years sentenced to 16 years Imprisonment for violence and competition in the murder of Meredith Kercher, the girl killed in perugia on 1 November 2007. Rudy Guede is currently being held at the correctional facility "Mammagialla" of viterbo.
The application was lodged in August at the court of appeal of Florence by its defenders, lawyers tommaso pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi. The Review was requested for contrast of judged by the judgment which has acquitted raffaele sollecito and Amanda Knox.
" we are firmly convinced of our good reasons - declares Daniele Camilli - but we must recognise that the task now entrusted to the court of appeal is extremely delicate. And we cannot ignore the fact that a young girl lost her life in dramatic circumstances. We must therefore conduct their defense to the criteria of discipline and composure, in respect of the role of the court of appeal and of all the other parties involved in the process "
- from Rudy Hermann Guede Facebook page.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 2:21 am   Post subject: GUEDE REVIEW PROCESS   

From Ansa Italia
Quote:
Court to hear Guede Kercher case review

Slain student's family say request is 'baseless'
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:10 am   Post subject: DONALD TRUMP SAYS JODI ARIAS IS GUILTY   

...but not Amanda Knox, apparently :)

Trump Tweet


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Someone posted this picture on Twitter :)

Boldnbeautiful ‏@neroebello 17 hours ago
Rudy Guede says amanda knox was THERE when Meredith Kercher was murdered. He is going to court to get a re-trial on Dec 20th 2016 #amandaknox

Image
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:35 pm   Post subject: TRUMP PAYS KNOX AND SOLLECITO'S LEGAL FEES   

TRUMPS PAYS KNOX AND SOLLECITO'S LEGAL FEES

Donald Trump paid Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's legal fees. From La Stampa today:

Quote:
22 November 2016 16:54
Guido 'George' Lombardi, an Italian who lives and does business in the States, he told La Stampa : his friend Donald Trump, yes, the new president of the United States, "trusting instinct had sided with the party innocentisti "and he would pay a portion of the legal fees for the defense of Amanda Konx, the American student accused of being implicated in the murder of Meredith Kercher and then paid with her boyfriend at the time, Raffaele Sollecito .



Quote:
Trump bitter Lombardi, speaking to La Stampa , has revealed that, according to him, the interest of Donald Trump to chance, would allow Knox to achieve the notoriety that has allowed them to get support and funding: "Unfortunately - also said - by Amanda has not even got a thank you, Don it is bitter. "

http://www.umbriaon.it/2015/amanda-knox ... -i-legali/

I presume that translates as 'Donald Trump is bitter at getting no thanks from Knox'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Knox's "charitable" pre-Christmas activities:

November 21, 2016

Jason Flom’s Guilt Trip

What’s the music mogul behind acts like Katy Perry and Kid Rock doing in the studio with Amanda Knox? He’s the powerful voice of Wrongful Conviction.

By Aaron Gell

“Wow, that is quite the board!” Amanda Knox exclaimed on Friday morning, taking in the massive mixing console at the Platinum Sound recording studio in Hell’s Kitchen, as she deposited her luggage in a corner of the room. The former exchange student, who was prosecuted by Italian authorities for the murder of her roommate based on a ludicrous theory that nonetheless inspired feverishly lurid headlines around the world, was in town from Seattle to tape a holiday edition of the Wrongful Conviction podcast.


NYMAG.COM

Knox is worth quoting in full:

Quote:
Knox, who has also become a vocal advocate of criminal justice reform, was perhaps the most philosophical of the group. “Something horrible happened, and I was blamed for it, and because people were so entrenched in their anger about it, they were blinded to the reality of how complex it was,” she said. “It’s not that we’re not angry. But I don’t want to repeat the same mistake. If I get all fire-and-brimstone about what happened to me, that’s going to blind me and disable me from being able to do anything practical about the problem.”


As usual, Knox's language is twisted and unclear. "... they were blinded to the reality of how complex it was..."
She doesn't say straightforwardly that people were blinded to the reality of her innocence, but to the reality of "how complex it was" (to get her acquitted and out of jail?)

Another example from the above quote: "... It’s not that we’re not angry. But I don't want to repeat the same mistake again." I guess she doesn't want to get angry again at someone (as she got angry at Meredith) and commit another murder. She is keeping herself in check.

"...that's going to blind me and disable me from being able to do anything practical about the problem." What problem? She doesn't name it, but yes, she does have a big problem on her hands, being a murderer and a liar.

Quote:
The way Knox sees it, the podcast is fulfilling another critical role: For many of those who have been wrongfully convicted, simply being heard is “the most helpful thing,” she said. “It helps you to not feel like a crazy person. This goes for victims of crime as well as victims of the criminal-justice system. Acknowledgement is the first thing we can give to people to make it up to them.”


That's why she constantly seeks the limelight. She craves acknowledgement and recognition which would give her an illusion of being "okay" and "forgiven."
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
...
Quote:
Trump bitter Lombardi, speaking to La Stampa , has revealed that, according to him, the interest of Donald Trump to chance, would allow Knox to achieve the notoriety that has allowed them to get support and funding: "Unfortunately - also said - by Amanda has not even got a thank you, Don it is bitter. "

http://www.umbriaon.it/2015/amanda-knox ... -i-legali/

I presume that translates as 'Donald Trump is bitter at getting no thanks from Knox'.


Yes.
Trump bitter
Lombardi, speaking with La Stampa, has revealed that, according to him, Donald Trump's interest in the case allowed the Knoxes to gain the level of notoriety which in turn allowed them to obtain backing and financing: «Unfortunately – he also said – there was not even a thank you from Amanda, Don was left with a sour taste in his mouth (embittered) about that».

"Disgruntled" would also fit.

"Deeply dissatisfied", in almost-diplomatic speak.


===
ETA:
There may also be a tad (as in tadpole-sized amount) of Trump self-promotional big-noting (even if by proxy) going on in the claim of actual influence over matters. Subtract that out, and he is just another one in the long-line of people who have not been repaid or compensated, monetarily or morally. For the T, as I imagine, a lack of return on a sure-bet investment would be particularly galling, which is another word which fits.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip wrote:
jamie wrote:
...
Quote:
Trump bitter Lombardi, speaking to La Stampa , has revealed that, according to him, the interest of Donald Trump to chance, would allow Knox to achieve the notoriety that has allowed them to get support and funding: "Unfortunately - also said - by Amanda has not even got a thank you, Don it is bitter. "

http://www.umbriaon.it/2015/amanda-knox ... -i-legali/

I presume that translates as 'Donald Trump is bitter at getting no thanks from Knox'.


Yes.
Trump bitter
Lombardi, speaking with La Stampa, has revealed that, according to him, Donald Trump's interest in the case allowed the Knoxes to gain the level of notoriety which in turn allowed them to obtain backing and financing: «Unfortunately – he also said – there was not even a thank you from Amanda, Don was left with a sour taste in his mouth (embittered) about that».

"Disgruntled" would also fit.

"Deeply dissatisfied", in almost-diplomatic speak.


===
ETA:
There may also be a tad (as in tadpole-sized amount) of Trump self-promotional big-noting (even if by proxy) going on in the claim of actual influence over matters. Subtract that out, and he is just another one in the long-line of people who have not been repaid or compensated, monetarily or morally. For the T, as I imagine, a lack of return on a sure-bet investment would be particularly galling, which is another word which fits.



This whole issue of Trump is interesting, indeed. In West Seattle Herald, Knox recently complained:

Quote:
In a time when my entire family had already tapped into their retirement savings and taken out second mortgages, we were grateful when any supporters, including Trump, donated to my defense and spoke out about my innocence. And like some of my supporters, Trump had his own ideas and his own way; he called for the U.S. to sanction Italy until they released me—a pronouncement which only amplified anti-American sentiment towards me in the courtroom.



So now Trump, too, is responsible for her being found guilty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The Pratillo-Hellmann and Marasca courts are anti-American?

Interesting use of the phrase.

There could be some sense in it: a fair-trial is the defining characteristic of the Common Law system, so in America fair-trials are the gold standard.

Pratillo-Hellmann and Marasca did not proceed along fair-trial lines (circular reasoning and irrational reasoning), so in that sense therefore they are anti-American.

Yes, that makes sense.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:37 pm   Post subject: IS HUGH MUNGUS A PMF MEMBER?   

IIP site had someone called "Hugh Mungus" post for a while, perhaps wrongly assumed to be from PMF? Dunno, but here he is in his first video, and he 's from Seattle? :)



Then Lady Hugh Mungus in case it was all staged? responds:



Happy Thanksgiving to all our American friends! hugz-)

ETA: I am told IIP had a Hugh Jorgan there. is)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito continues his book tour of Italy; if I'm not mistaken, this will be his third or fourth visit to Sicily.

He must be popular with Sicilians, no doubt "in demand" all across the island. ;) What a hunk (*sarcasm*), his ponytail is getting longer and longer.

Image

November 22, 2016

Raffaele Sollecito in Trapani to present his book

Raffaele Sollecito will be in Trapani Saturday, November 26th to present his book "A step out of the night - All that you never imagined [about] me ", published by Longanesi. The meeting will be held at 5 pm, on the premises of the historic building "Principe di Napoli”, Via dei Cappuccini 7.

In addition to the author, it will be attended by Dr. Nicolò Renda, Nino Marino, lawyer at the Criminal Court of Trapani, and Giacomo Frazzitta, lawyer, President of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Marsala. Journalist Wolly Cammareri will moderate. The event is organized by the Kiwanis Club of Valderice, in collaboration with the Kandinsky Academy of Fine Arts. Media partners: Telesud.


LA GAZZETTA TRAPANESE

Trapani is located not very far from Palermo where Giulia Bongiorno is from.

Image
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nothing is very far from Palermo, it could be said, in various metaphorical and physical senses and spheres of thought.
;)

The question is whether we allow it to guide us over Life's seas and through its forests.

Goldilocks is really Granny Riding-Wolf in disguise: "My, what persuasive arguments you have!"
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito's book presentation in Trapani (VIDEO):

http://www.telesud3.com/attualita/il-li ... -26nov2016

ETA: Sollecito was in Palermo on Fri, the 25th:

Raffaele Sollecito will be tomorrow, Friday, November 25, at 5pm, in Palermo in Cinematocasa, located in the [old] Stables of Palazzo of Marquis Busacca of Gallidoro in via Maqueda 124, to present his latest book "A step out of the night - Everything that you could never have imagined [about] me ", published by Longanesi. With him will go up on stage criminologist Nicolò Renda. Journalist Massimo Di Martino will moderate the meeting. Free admission subject to availability of seats.


ANSA SICILIA

Sollecito in Palermo (VIDEO):

http://tgs.gds.it/2016/11/27/raffaele-s ... mo_595758/

Raffaele Sollecito presents his book in Palermo: there are only 10 people present

http://www.palermotoday.it/video/raffae ... video.html
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:22 pm   Post subject: NEW FILES WIKI   

Wiki updates November 27 2016

We have updated 50 or so files and uploaded a new batch of various files. These files are currently on the Master list only. Links will eventually be distributed to other pages.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: NEW FILES WIKI   

Ergon wrote:
Wiki updates November 27 2016

We have updated 50 or so files and uploaded a new batch of various files. These files are currently on the Master list only. Links will eventually be distributed to other pages.



Awesome!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 118

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

First time I have seen the cellphone traffic for Sollecito.

2007-11-01-Log-cellphone-Vodafone-SollecitoR.pdf

Hardly a day went by without Papa Doc giving him a ring and sometimes 2 or 3 times a day. His phone was nearly always connected, with plenty of traffic, until late at night, and sometimes later. He also seems to have connected to a lot of voice messages left for him so he obviously felt the need to ignore calls a lot of the time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
Catnip wrote:
jamie wrote:
...
Quote:
Trump bitter Lombardi, speaking to La Stampa , has revealed that, according to him, the interest of Donald Trump to chance, would allow Knox to achieve the notoriety that has allowed them to get support and funding: "Unfortunately - also said - by Amanda has not even got a thank you, Don it is bitter. "

http://www.umbriaon.it/2015/amanda-knox ... -i-legali/

I presume that translates as 'Donald Trump is bitter at getting no thanks from Knox'.


Yes.
Trump bitter
Lombardi, speaking with La Stampa, has revealed that, according to him, Donald Trump's interest in the case allowed the Knoxes to gain the level of notoriety which in turn allowed them to obtain backing and financing: «Unfortunately – he also said – there was not even a thank you from Amanda, Don was left with a sour taste in his mouth (embittered) about that».

"Disgruntled" would also fit.

"Deeply dissatisfied", in almost-diplomatic speak.


===
ETA:
There may also be a tad (as in tadpole-sized amount) of Trump self-promotional big-noting (even if by proxy) going on in the claim of actual influence over matters. Subtract that out, and he is just another one in the long-line of people who have not been repaid or compensated, monetarily or morally. For the T, as I imagine, a lack of return on a sure-bet investment would be particularly galling, which is another word which fits.



This whole issue of Trump is interesting, indeed. In West Seattle Herald, Knox recently complained:

Quote:
In a time when my entire family had already tapped into their retirement savings and taken out second mortgages, we were grateful when any supporters, including Trump, donated to my defense and spoke out about my innocence. And like some of my supporters, Trump had his own ideas and his own way; he called for the U.S. to sanction Italy until they released me—a pronouncement which only amplified anti-American sentiment towards me in the courtroom.



So now Trump, too, is responsible for her being found guilty.


Yeah, Trump found out about this rejection and is ticked - KrissyG quoted his reaction to Knox in her post on TJMK.

***

Added: Oh! I see Catnip above spotted Trump's reaction too. Good. "Send her back. Send her back." Could that work?!

On Catnips post about possible self-promotion - Trump went public late in 2009 but not again that I know of after that.

But he mentions paying toward the defence perhaps "bigly" and there were those rumors in Perugia that SOMEONE may have paid up to $2 million to have Helllman replace Chiari.

Job #1 on my next trip to Italy is to get to Chiari and see if he will talk some more - at the time he made a loud complaint at being pushed aside, and resigned.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 118

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

That SOMEONE would have to be De Nunzio, I guess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jape wrote:
That SOMEONE would have to be De Nunzio, I guess.



We have soothsayers in our midst, as Peter Quennell predicted all sorts of troubles ahead with De Nunzio's nefarious manoeuvres way back in 2010:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... teriously/

And Machiavelli/Yummi in 2013 had De Nunzio's measure:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... urt_rulin/

Machiavelli writes of Hellmann's overturn:

Quote:
But on the practical side, most probably the Hellmann-Zanetti verdict did not even survive beyond the first mistake. The appeal verdict most likely crumbled completely from the very beginning on reason #1, the illegitimate appointing of new experts by Hellmann-Zanetti to re-examine the DNA.


So now the Fifth Chamber has reinstated the re-examined DNA findings, laughed out of Chieffi's court.

What does the crystal ball tell us now, anybody?


Last edited by jamie on Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jape wrote:
That SOMEONE would have to be De Nunzio, I guess.


I guess! Umbria's chief judge. A defense team was seen entering his chambers and the prosecution was not told why. I go for the rogue masons myself.

FOA seem to find that term pretty funny but as usual they jeer before they check. Machiavelli has explained to some extent how the rogue mason faction (a small percentage of all masons in Perugia) works - a main tactic is that they mess with mainstream (essentially meaning Catholic) justice officials and help their own kind. De Nunzio is one and we know who some others are too. The FOA dimwits wont know this but they have infected other cases in the past.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _in_italy/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... teriously/

Hopefully Chiari will talk. Especially was we can publish offshore.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
jape wrote:
That SOMEONE would have to be De Nunzio, I guess.


I guess! Umbria's chief judge. A defense team was seen entering his chambers and the prosecution was not told why. I go for the rogue masons myself.

FOA seem to find that term pretty funny but as usual they jeer before they check. Machiavelli has explained to some extent how the rogue mason faction (a small percentage of all masons in Perugia) works - a main tactic is that they mess with mainstream (essentially meaning Catholic) justice officials and help their own kind. De Nunzio is one and we know who some others are too. The FOA dimwits wont know this but they have infected other cases in the past.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _in_italy/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... teriously/

Hopefully Chiari will talk. Especially was we can publish offshore.



It would be a serious breach of Bar Standards in England & Wales for any legal representative in a live case seeking a private audience with the presiding judge/s in their chambers.

Slight ninja, there, with the link. fen-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 879

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
jape wrote:
That SOMEONE would have to be De Nunzio, I guess.


I guess! Umbria's chief judge. A defense team was seen entering his chambers and the prosecution was not told why. I go for the rogue masons myself.

FOA seem to find that term pretty funny but as usual they jeer before they check. Machiavelli has explained to some extent how the rogue mason faction (a small percentage of all masons in Perugia) works - a main tactic is that they mess with mainstream (essentially meaning Catholic) justice officials and help their own kind. De Nunzio is one and we know who some others are too. The FOA dimwits wont know this but they have infected other cases in the past.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _in_italy/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... teriously/

Hopefully Chiari will talk. Especially was we can publish offshore.


Hi Jaime

It would be a serious breach of Bar Standards in England & Wales for any legal representative in a live case seeking a private audience with the presiding judge/s in their chambers.

Slight ninja, there, with the link. fen-)


Jamie:

Right-on. If you are looking for a project (!) one of our posting lawyers on TJMK James Raper in 2 posts went up against aspects of a highly misleading 26-part series for UK lawyers posted on a for-lawyers subscription website.

The series was by Fred Davies, a moonlighting clerk of the court in north Cambridge. He used Google Translate giving some awful results (though our own great translations were available on the Wiki) and claimed to be proud that that was all he read.

He was mostly making out it was only Guede, with myriad facts wrong or omitted and what read as a nasty anti-black attitude, and at the very end he blinked some.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... ate_trial/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... on_knives/

That series could still have thousands of UK lawyers thinking WTF on the case and Italian justice. FOA thought he gave them a legal opening: that it was unfair to RS and AK that Guede's trial preceded theirs. James explained why not.

We have the whole series thing captured if you would like to kick it around further. We emailed to the editor; she replied that she would welcome a good rebuttal. :-)

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/per ... lParts.pdf
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 253

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In the wake of the recent fake news panics someone who has recently watched the Netflix AK doc has, among other things, this to say:

Johanna Schneller wrote:
As we’ve seen in the recent U.S. election, people will believe even the most ludicrous misinformation

if you repeat it often and loudly enough. Watching this doc, you can’t help but shiver:

Take one crooked cop, introduce him to one shameless reporter, whip up some nasty

public opinion and you can destroy the life of literally anyone.

Johanna Schneller wrote:
Eventually Knox was acquitted and Kercher’s murderer was found. But the two jackasses above are

guilty as sin for their campaign of lies and innuendo. Their crap kept Knox on trial for eight years, until the case

arrived before the supreme court of Italy, which overturned her conviction based on the “stunning flaws” in Mignini’s investigation.


Netflix's Amanda Knox is a chilling anatomy of a trial by media

or

The real guilty parties in Amanda Knox case

Presumed this review was written by some young chick straight out of the journalism school but it turns out it's written by an elderly type of a woman. How she lets this doc so easily manipulate a person of her age into believing that she now knows the truth about the case is incomprehensible. Although I guess we should be used to it by now. That the so called reporters and journalists rarely know much about the subjects they cover.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
jamie wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
jape wrote:
That SOMEONE would have to be De Nunzio, I guess.


I guess! Umbria's chief judge. A defense team was seen entering his chambers and the prosecution was not told why. I go for the rogue masons myself.

FOA seem to find that term pretty funny but as usual they jeer before they check. Machiavelli has explained to some extent how the rogue mason faction (a small percentage of all masons in Perugia) works - a main tactic is that they mess with mainstream (essentially meaning Catholic) justice officials and help their own kind. De Nunzio is one and we know who some others are too. The FOA dimwits wont know this but they have infected other cases in the past.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _in_italy/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... teriously/

Hopefully Chiari will talk. Especially was we can publish offshore.


Hi Jaime

It would be a serious breach of Bar Standards in England & Wales for any legal representative in a live case seeking a private audience with the presiding judge/s in their chambers.

Slight ninja, there, with the link. fen-)


Jamie:

Right-on. If you are looking for a project (!) one of our posting lawyers on TJMK James Raper in 2 posts went up against aspects of a highly misleading 26-part series for UK lawyers posted on a for-lawyers subscription website.

The series was by Fred Davies, a moonlighting clerk of the court in north Cambridge. He used Google Translate giving some awful results (though our own great translations were available on the Wiki) and claimed to be proud that that was all he read.

He was mostly making out it was only Guede, with myriad facts wrong or omitted and what read as a nasty anti-black attitude, and at the very end he blinked some.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... ate_trial/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... on_knives/

That series could still have thousands of UK lawyers thinking WTF on the case and Italian justice. FOA thought he gave them a legal opening: that it was unfair to RS and AK that Guede's trial preceded theirs. James explained why not.

We have the whole series thing captured if you would like to kick it around further. We emailed to the editor; she replied that she would welcome a good rebuttal. :-)

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/per ... lParts.pdf



James Raper seems to have dealt with Fred Davies well. Far be it from me to drag him out of deserved obscurity. The big problem for the 'lone killer' brigade is exactly (1) explaining the staged burglary and (2) the clean-up.

The idea that a frightened Knox who locked herself in until Guede had fled and then covered up for him because she was even more scared of the police is laughable. This is someone loud and brash and swears like a trooper. This is not someone who would lift a finger to clean up, except to serve herself.

The idea, 'there was no clean up', doesn't work either, except that with the hallway completely clean, together with the doors and the door handles - although the murder room door and door handle, must have had blood stains on the outside, just to pull it shut. No, we have a clean scenario in the hallway, which enabled Knox and Sollecito to feign no knowledge of what is behind the locked door. How else could Knox go onto to claim she carried about her everyday life as normal on arriving at the cottage that morning? However, the idea that Guede cleaned up, is not one that has been entertained by anybody.

It's interesting, the paths of all three are soon to merge, yet again. Guede with his Florence hearing . Now that would be useful: to get hold of the appeal petition setting out the reasons for the appeal for a review. We know it is for 'contradictions' within the Fifth Chambers judgment, presumably with reference to Micheli and Massei. I believe that will be in camera. That's in less than three weeks. Then Sollecito gets his remedy hearing in late January - only a few weeks away - with prosecutor Crini opposing it. Listed for four or five days, they appear to be expecting a great deal of evidence being brought forward, most notably all of the judgments to date, directly relevant to Sollecito's incarceration. Lastly, looking into my crystal ball, there should be a response from the ECHR any day now, as Italy was to have answered way back in September.

There are various permutations: Guede gets his review hearing (opposed by Maresca at its inception). Sollecito gets a nominal award, to reflect his contributory conduct. Lying to police is one grounds for being denied. The ECHR rejects the application, satisfied that Knox had not exhausted Italy's own complaints procedures. Dalla Vedova did not complain in a timely manner.

Alternatively, Guede gets the bum's rush from Florence, Sollecito gets 50% of €500K and he's happy. Knox gets a small settlement of €37K from Italy without their accepting liability, just to get rid of her.

Or any variation of any of these. The only side-show left will be Guede bringing out his book.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Two new books:



The Manipulative Memoir of Amanda Knox: A Critical Analysis
Liz Houle


Amanda Knox: No Love Lost in Perugia: Nine Years Later and the Good Folk of Perugia Still Think Amanda Did It*
by Arlette Stuip (Author), Tom Stuip (Editor), Pat Wieja (Editor)

*Douglas Preston is thanked for "your kind words of encouragement". (Near the end, some of the chapter headings are: "Why Perugians Think They Are Guilty", "Why I Thought They Were Guilty", "They Are Innocent", ""Where They Are Today")
On the other hand, money goes to a volunteer shelter for homeless dogs and cats in Thailand.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

On Stuip:

The (very brief) interviews with the locals are worthwhile reads (= Fabio, a restaurant owner, a ceramic shop owner, three elderly woman + young couple on next bench to translate, a professor, a landlord, a bookshop worker (who refused), the woman in the main student office (didn't know much), and an Italian man in the same compartment on the car train back to the Netherlands).


The rest is a pastiche from the Pruett Burleigh Preston Sawyer-Netflix school of information cookery, with mélanges like
  • “leaks are legal”
  • and “the power Prosecutor Mignini has over the police and the media, both national and international”
  • and “The coroner was negligent and botched every standard of forensics known. She failed to record the body temperature until the next day, …”
  • and “Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini has hurled satanic charges against dozens of people.”

leading to the conclusion
  • “it was a burglary gone wrong”
  • and “I feel protective towards her”.


The account can’t help but be peppered with a heavy sprinkling of “Strangely enough” and “bizarre vendetta” phrases.

Legal understanding is minimal and, in many places, because of outright misunderstanding and miscomprehension, ranges into the negative.

Tries to be in legal-reporting court-reporter/investigative journalist mode, but the task is too great and the result falls far short. Well-written, though, with some effort given to sentence construction.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Houle’s critique is a hoot.

Following the trail of thought of someone who provides conflicting information cannot help but expose the absurdities inherent in the account.

“Hunting for a patsy job” – is one heading.

Even with just reading the first few chapters, there’s a lot of spontaneous opportunism going on while on the trip, and much re-presentation of it afterwards.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Houle highlights an interesting matter about dynamics:

- the small bathroom was in use by Meredith and Amanda
- Amanda left the toilet unflushed
- what does that say, if anything, about Amanda's attitude to Meredith?

Inter-girl relationships is not a well-known topic in the male sphere. All perspectives are welcome.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

If there are memory holes involved (drugs, brain defect, split personality, false memories, reality-distorting meningitis, genetics, etc etc), you would expect that, by chance, some of them would be one way, and some of them the other, at least.

When all the memory holes put a ring fence around the field of culpability and nothing else, then that is beginning to look suspicious, in itself.

Also, knowing which part of the timeline needs dynamic on-the-fly retro-active revisioning with multiple alibis (like a sort of anti-magnetic Magneto story-generator) is also suspicious, but implies the opposite of a memory hole.

Ockham.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Knox just can't stop talking about herself and her "experiences", can she? Yeah, VR (virtual reality) might just be the answer to her problems - she has been living in it for the last 9 years. ;)

VR and Subjective Truth
By Amanda Knox

Quote:
Humanity still has its empathetic blind spots, especially with regard to fringe human experiences that are emotionally and politically charged—experiences with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, for instance. When I was fighting to prove my innocence in Italy, people referred to my defense as “la verità di Amanda”—Amanda’s truth. Truth was subjective, and the Italian people were bestowed with the responsibility of choosing which “truth”—Prosecutor Mignini’s or mine—compelled them the most. During those years when I was redefined as a sadistic killer and imprisoned for a crime I didn’t commit, I experienced a maddening disconnect between truth and reality. I will never forget how humanity’s weakness of imagination can actually wound. But VR can make experiences like mine more accessible than ever before. As an advocate, VR captures my attention because of its potential to humanize victims and radically amplify empathy.


https://ryanboudinotisahack.com/2016/12 ... ive-truth/

If anyone (Catnip?) wishes to psycho-analyze her words, you are very welcome to do so. [Emphasis in bold mine -G.] "Humanity's weakness of imagination"??? "Humanity" just couldn't "imagine" that she was "innocent"? Yes, strong imagination was required to imagine that. Sorry, but I can only roll my eyes at her words. :roll:

ETA: Listen, Knox, we have healthy imaginations: unlike you, we didn't "imagine" that Patrick Lumumba could have murdered Meredith. Maybe, there is something wrong with your imagination, rather than humanity's?

Amanda Knox in a letter to her lawyers wrote:
It was all I could think of, Patrik. I imagined meeting him by the basketball [cou]rts, I imagined him in front of my house, I imagined covering my ears to stop the sound of Meredith's screaming, and so I said [Pa]trik.


TMOMK WIKI
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Good analysis of Netflix's Amanda Knox docu + revealing screenshots of Knox and Sollecito:

How you were manipulated by the Amanda Knox documentary
By True Crimes Podcasts on December 4, 2016

Image

TRUE CRIMES PODCASTS
Top Profile 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 118

PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The opposite of a weakness of imagination is, of course, an overimagination, which is what she wants the reader to think was what the prosecution case amounted to. Are we supposed to believe that we imagined the evidence? Believe in me, me, me is of course the message. She's tiresome. Good article by the Crimes Podcast.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: NEW FILES WIKI   

Ergon wrote:
Wiki updates November 27 2016

We have updated 50 or so files and uploaded a new batch of various files.



Good work.

Location map of the tossed phones: one in the middle of the yard, the other under some bushes. A steep incline just off the road.


Hidden Content: show
[rimg]
Attachment:
phone_locations.jpg
[/rimg]


"Sperandio", the name of the road leading out into the countryside, was the motto over what used to be a monastery along the city wall, and means "Hope in God", or more traditionally in English: "Trust in God".


= = =
From other documents:


  • ”2 big knives”
    • apartment inventory, Raffaele’s flat

One made it into an exhibit box in court.

What does the other one look like?



= = =

Ian McEwan’s “Enduring Love” was on the nightstand.

The glass half-full on the nightstand shows how physically concentrated and focussed the violence was.

And the dictionary on the floor is a Collins Italian-English (I thought I recognised it). The scene inspector in their notes thinks the clean-edged 90-degree "gap" in the stains on the floor relate, because of their size, shape and orientation, to the dictionary being moved afterwards.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox in a letter to her lawyers wrote:
It was all I could think of, Patrik. I imagined meeting him by the basketball [cou]rts, I imagined him in front of my house, I imagined covering my ears to stop the sound of Meredith's screaming, and so I said [Pa]trik.


TMOMK WIKI


Strength of imagination can heal. Obviously.

Unless the opposite is a Beatles lyric (or Italian rap).

Assuming no lies, ambiguity abounds. Am I imagining covering my ears to stop the [actual] sound, or imagining covering my ears to stop the [imagined] sound? Why would I imagine anyone screaming, anyway? And a basketball court meeting? Did I speed-dial my DD or something earlier that day?


And does "imagine" mean "visualise", or "recall as an image", or "remember"?


Coincidentally, the "research paper" appendix in McEwan's novel:

The book contains an appendix purporting to be a scientific paper ("A Homo-Erotic Obsession, with Religious Overtones: A Clinical Variant of de Clerambault’s Syndrome") describing a case study identical to the one around which the narrative is based. The appendix is an invention of McEwan, with its authors - Wenn and Camia - being an anagram of his name. Although fictional, some reviewers took the document to be a factual case, with the New York Times review criticising McEwan for having "simply stuck too close to the facts".[2]
McEwan later submitted the paper to the British Journal of Psychiatry under the name of the paper's fictional writers,[3] but it was not published. Speaking in 1999, McEwan said "I get four or five letters a week, usually from reading groups but sometimes from psychiatrists and scholars, asking if I wrote the appendix."[2]


From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enduring_Love>


The NYT reviewer, back in the day, is particularly astute:

"Unless the appendix is an elaborate fiction, like the foreword to ''Lolita'' by John Ray Jr., Ph.D., then we finally have to assume that McEwan is quoting an actual case history and modeling the events of the novel closely upon it. It is an impressive transformation, the rearing up of a fictional world around summary notations from the realm of the actual. Impressive, but also curiously ballasted, as if by hewing to the highly eccentric contours of what really happened, the novelist were tethered on some deeper level. Interesting and credible though Joe and Clarissa are, there is some way in which they don't seem thoroughly known, as if McEwan didn't trust that he had permission to imagine them all the way into existence. The same constraint is felt, at times, about the developing situation: it is so unusual that it seems to lack some of the hard granularity of true invention."

From <http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/01/25/reviews/980125.25birkert.html>

Words applicable here.

When we're in a context where we have to say "we have to assume", treat it as a creative writing exercise unless otherwise corroborated.

Especially, look out for the contours. The shape of the narrative describes a "narrative-memory hole" that is elephant-shaped.
co-)


ETA:
Some leakage from German "vorstellen" (=fore.stand, as in: stand-before-one): "acquaint one person with another; present, propose; imagine, create a mental image which does not literally exist" (Babylon), via 'mir vorstellen' (I imagine/think/believe).

The statement is quite true: "I did imagine X (create a mental image which does not literally exist) and that's why I said Y".

It's not untrue, and for exactly the same reason led to a prison sentence and a compensation order.

Other people would just call it 'making things up' and leave it at that. None of this using a mirror to look in a mirror to be able to describe a scene as if in real life, with everything the right way round.

Plus, the old technique for beating a lie detector: tell the (best) truth.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Maresca’s book arrived today.


Quote:
“infantile e scolastica”
(~"sophomoric and pedantic")

— Francesco Paolo Maresca, Processo Meredith: giustizia perfetta?, (2016) [Edizioni ETS, 2016], p 102. ISBN 9788846745835


His opinion of 5th Chamber’s judgment reasons.


‘padantic’ doesn’t do the negative connotations justice.

Infantile/puerile/childish: amateurish
Dogmatic/formulistic/academic: tainted by Scholasticism


Flawed and irrational (nearest legal terms).

Flawed reasoning and sanctimonious smugness (we’re heading into Scalia-territory, here).

e.g., an acquittal should demolish a first-instance decision - which didn't happen.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7201

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Courtesy Peter Quennell, the Knox documentary did NOT make the Oscars shortlist http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... re/#c26369
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 152

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

At least there are some independent people who can see that that Netflix is not a real documentary. It made my day!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

If anyone wants to listen to Jason Flom's Wrongful Conviction podcast, a special episode "Christmas Behind Bars" with Amanda Knox, Jarrett Adams, and Jeffrey Deskovic is now available online:

Dec. 12

http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/w ... ason-flom/
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The "indefatigable" Knox has also written an article for the Vice's Broadly: "Amanda Knox: Why Do Innocent Women Confess to Crimes They Didn’t Commit"

Thankfully, she doesn't mention her "53-hour interrogation" in it. She is now more "concerned" about the fate of other women.

December 13, 2016
Amanda Knox: Why Do Innocent Women Confess to Crimes They Didn’t Commit
By Amanda Knox

BROADLY VICE

Amanda Knox wrote:
Professor Saul Kassin, a leading false confessions researcher, explains why scant evidence exists in this area. "The vast majority of suspects for violent crimes are men. Often we do analyze for gender and nothing comes of it―at least not in our laboratory experiments." Quite simply, the proportion of women committing violent crimes is too low to allow for statistical modelling.

I ask Kassin if there are dispositional characteristics that render certain people susceptible to coercive interrogation tactics. "There are two personality traits that can dispositionally increase a person's vulnerability: high levels of compliance, and scoring high on measures of suggestibility―which increases a person's susceptibility to misinformation and false memories." [Emphasis mine - G.]


I thought Knox was known for her rebelliousness against authority? - would this mean she didn't falsely confess? ;) Although, regarding her 'suggestibility', indeed, she seems to be susceptible to any piece of CNN propaganda. She has retweeted this message by her 'advocate' Rod Blackhurst:

Rod Blackhurst ‏@rodblackhurst Dec 13
Quote:
Why is the world sitting quietly by as Trump's crony Vlad Putin assists the Syrian troops in Aleppo going door-to-door killing civilians???


As an aside: Who is killing civilians, Rod? Have you been there to witness it? Or are you being as 'objective' as in your Amanda Knox documentary?

Anyway, how Hillary Clinton enters the equation of "false confessions", is a bit unclear:

Amanda Knox wrote:
Throughout history, our ideas about justice have repeatedly failed women in this same, special way. We imagine criminal intent where it doesn't exist. The Salem Witch trials of the late 1600s tended to target middle-aged women who rebelled against strict social and spiritual standards, finding them responsible for anything from miscarriages to spoiled milk. More recently, Hillary Clinton was judged guilty by association of her husband's sexual indiscretions, and even though investigations into Benghazi and her private email server found no wrongdoing worth criminal prosecution, mantras of "Lock her up!" prevailed.
Top Profile 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 152

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

AK surly have had a very nice Christmas in Capanne as is known about Italian prisons. Sorry, AK is just a lying pile of sh$$t and all her friends, too, this makes a hughe building of lying sh$$t so that it smells bad even over the ocen antill Europe.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 31 of 34 [ 8462 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


29,734,183 Views