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: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:51 am
It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:51 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 32 of 34 [ 8264 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next
Author Message

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Did anyone see this news item yesterday:

Quote:
Perugia, December 13, 2016 - Tuesday, December 20 Rudy Guede will be in court in Florence, in front of the Court of Appeal, to attend the hearing which will consider the instance review of his trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher , completed in Perugia in November 2007. the Ivorian is serving in prison in Viterbo 16 years of imprisonment. With the auditor's opinion, Guede asking to be acquitted for not having committed the crime.

The process was set at 9. A request for reconsideration will be dealt with in closed session, that is, only in the presence of interested parties (which include legal civil party Kercher family). Updater does not welcome the public and journalists. Guede was tried under the summary procedure. Although he admitted his presence in the house of the crime when the British student was killed he has always maintained his murder strangeness that - according to him - it would have been done by others. The review was requested by the legal dell'ivoriano for what they consider a contrast of judged with the judgment which finally acquitted Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.


It 'been set for December 20 the hearing before the Court of Appeal of Florence to examine the instance revision of the trial of Rudy Guede , who was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for' murderess of young Meredith Kercher, barbarously killed the night between the first and 2 November 2007, in the house on via della Pergola in Perugia.

"This is an important first step towards the recognition of the innocence of Rudy, though the path will be long and complex," said Daniele Camilli, a spokesman for Guede. "The Court could also ex officio declare the instance inadmissibility and instead scheduled a hearing to discuss it," said the lawyer with the Ansa Thomas Pietrocarlo who oversaw the act together with my colleague Monica Grossi. "According to the documents - he added - it seems that a first step has been passed. We'll see."


http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/ ... -1.2750710


Looks like a closed session, so unless Marasca attends for the Kerchers and reports back, we may only know the outcome.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
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.



Usual crock of shit. So now Knox is the torch bearer for Wimmins Lib. Riiight. Can this felon become any more sanctimonious?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
Did anyone see this news item yesterday:

Quote:
[...]The process was set at 9. A request for reconsideration will be dealt with in closed session, that is, only in the presence of interested parties (which include legal civil party Kercher family). Updater does not welcome the public and journalists.[...]
...
It 'been set for December 20 the hearing before the Court of Appeal of Florence to examine the instance revision of the trial of Rudy Guede , who was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for' murderess of young Meredith Kercher, barbarously killed the night between the first and 2 November 2007, in the house on via della Pergola in Perugia.

[...]"The Court could also ex officio declare the instance inadmissibility and instead scheduled a hearing to discuss it," said to Ansa the lawyer Tommaso Pietrocarlo who oversaw the act together with my colleague Monica Grossi. "According to the documents - he added - it seems that a first step has been passed. We'll see."


http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/ ... -1.2750710

Looks like a closed session, so unless Marasca attends for the Kerchers and reports back, we may only know the outcome.


Thanks for this news, jamie. You mean Maresca of course? ;) Looking forward to the Florence Court of Appeal hearing and decision.

Here's the link to the last post on the previous page (p.31): viewtopic.php?style=6&p=131583#p131583
Top Profile 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Does anybody know why the appeal court is not public?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

elisa wrote:
Does anybody know why the appeal court is not public?

Hi, Elisa,
It might be due to the er, political sensitivity of the case. Reopening it in the face of so many Supreme Court rulings would open a can of worms.

Hi Jamie,
waiting to hear if Maresca will attend though Rudy Guede's Facebook page operated by his team might be the best source of up to date news.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:20 pm   Post subject: MONTREAL MAFIA WARS   

Another article on the death of Rocco Sollecito and how Montreal's Bloody Mafia War Won't End
Quote:
Since 2009, there have been roughly 25 mafia-linked murders in Montreal, according to a report by Le Journal de Montréal..

The murders have even spread internationally. Two Canadian mobsters were whacked in a 2013 ambush in Sicily, apparently on orders from Montreal.


Not to forget Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova's connection to those very same Montreal construction companies in the Messina Straits bridge project.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:53 pm   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE APPEAL HEARING FLORENCE   

Just in from our sources:


Yes, advocate Francesco Maresca will be in court to represent the Kerchers December 20. Good news! We can look forward to his argument and insights as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:06 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.


The only Trump statement I ever saw was late in 2009. The PR had inspired dozens of similar cracks against Italy, see the Heavey letter to President Neapolitano for example, and Preston's and Ciolino's rants, that is what "amplified anti-American sentiment" if anything. But based solely on the EVIDENCE Knox was still found guilty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
elisa wrote:
Does anybody know why the appeal court is not public?

Hi, Elisa,
It might be due to the er, political sensitivity of the case. Reopening it in the face of so many Supreme Court rulings would open a can of worms.

Hi Jamie,
waiting to hear if Maresca will attend though Rudy Guede's Facebook page operated by his team might be the best source of up to date news.


Unusual, but the Florence Court has had a history of closed hearings pre-trial in this case as a deliberate way to muzzle the PR and RS&AK defence. See here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... mes_appar/

In this case I guess it will especially serve to keep the AK and RS teams out.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Ergon wrote:
elisa wrote:
Does anybody know why the appeal court is not public?

Hi, Elisa,
It might be due to the er, political sensitivity of the case. Reopening it in the face of so many Supreme Court rulings would open a can of worms.

Hi Jamie,
waiting to hear if Maresca will attend though Rudy Guede's Facebook page operated by his team might be the best source of up to date news.


Unusual, but the Florence Court has had a history of closed hearings pre-trial in this case as a deliberate way to muzzle the PR and RS&AK defence. See here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... mes_appar/

In this case I guess it will especially serve to keep the AK and RS teams out.



That's interesting. They smell something rotten in the Fifth Chambers ruling? The implication, if so, is that they are gravely unhappy they may be legally forced to acquit Guede as a result of the Knox/Sollecito acquittal? OTOH they may rule that as Guede is guilty anyway, beyond reasonable doubt, there is no reasonable prospect of success and reject the application.

At least one of the early hearings during the main trial was 'closed' due to the sensitive nature of the issues. That's unlikely here. The other main reason could be because it is merely a 'case management' (directions) hearing, to decide how to proceed with the case review, if granted.

The Fifth Chambers verdict is already going to be under intense scrutiny in Sollecito's four-day remedy hearing in late January, opposed by prosecutor Crini. Once again in three-days it will be under the spotlight, albeit in camera in a claim by Guede.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
Ergon wrote:
elisa wrote:
Does anybody know why the appeal court is not public?

Hi, Elisa,
It might be due to the er, political sensitivity of the case. Reopening it in the face of so many Supreme Court rulings would open a can of worms.

Hi Jamie,
waiting to hear if Maresca will attend though Rudy Guede's Facebook page operated by his team might be the best source of up to date news.


Unusual, but the Florence Court has had a history of closed hearings pre-trial in this case as a deliberate way to muzzle the PR and RS&AK defence. See here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... mes_appar/

In this case I guess it will especially serve to keep the AK and RS teams out.



That's interesting. They smell something rotten in the Fifth Chambers ruling? The implication, if so, is that they are gravely unhappy they may be legally forced to acquit Guede as a result of the Knox/Sollecito acquittal? OTOH they may rule that as Guede is guilty anyway, beyond reasonable doubt, there is no reasonable prospect of success and reject the application.

At least one of the early hearings during the main trial was 'closed' due to the sensitive nature of the issues. That's unlikely here. The other main reason could be because it is merely a 'case management' (directions) hearing, to decide how to proceed with the case review, if granted.

The Fifth Chambers verdict is already going to be under intense scrutiny in Sollecito's four-day remedy hearing in late January, opposed by prosecutor Crini. Once again in three-days it will be under the spotlight, albeit in camera in a claim by Guede.


Hi Jamie

That about covers it. There were several closed hearings in 2007-08 and Guede's trial was in theory closed though documents describing everything appeared and the Italian media reported well.

The court closings in 2009 were at the request of the Kerchers - they asked for the whole trial to be closed but Judge Massei accidentally ensured that only the really damning parts were closed, and thus not reported well, which has led to no end of trouble ever since.

However I think this is the first instance where the AK and RS lawyers and families will be on the outside and not looking in. That Maresca will be inside rubs it in.

There is bad blood between the First Chambers and Fifth Chambers (the normal role of which is petty and family crimes) over what Maresca and Bruno said in 2015 about the First Chambers (the capital-crimes court) and their writing of appalling law.

If there is court action in Florence and someone appeals it goes back to the First Chambers. Heh heh.

Sollecito may or may not get something in compensation a few days later, but he provably misled the police and then fingered Knox with his "she made me lie" and later his "I never want to see her again".

Wonderful couple. Here. Have a few grins.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... rs_and_ak/
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 Dec 18, 2016 5:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:


If there is court action in Florence and someone appeals it goes back to the First Chambers. Heh heh.




In a rational system, "things should make sense".

Marasca and Bruno produced something from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

A legal judgment should not only be able to stand up on its own (i.e., the conclusion follows from the reasons, in a logical manner), but to remain standing it should dovetail into the reasoning of other judgments in the legal system, also in a logical manner: and that is the whole point of Cassation.


Quote:


Those dealing with the computerisation of the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot overlook, in addition, offering the possibility of consulting the full text of the judgements, uploaded onto the net on the same day as their filing, not only because, as is commonly said, of the necessity anyway to confirm the principle expressed by the legal rule with the substantive content of the adopted decision, but more so because uniformity of interpretation is based only on authoritativeness, and this in turn derives not from the dictum of the rule as stated, but from the development of the argument within the decisioning process.

Franco Fiandanese
“Il Centro Elettronico di Documentazione della Corte Suprema di Cassazione”
(The Supreme Court of Cassation’s Electronic Document Centre)

in Ginevra Peruginelli and Mario Ragona (eds)
L’informatica giuridica in Italia: cinquant’anni di studi, ricerche ed esperienze
(Law and Computers in Italy: Fifty years of study, research and experience)
Edizioni Scientifiche, 2014
ISBN 978-88-495-2799-5
pp 151-168 at p 161

Top Profile 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Does anybody think Guede's lawyers can bring some new evidence or something what would be aknowledged as a new evidence? I read that only that can enable a revision of SC decision, so also the decision of the appeal court in Florance. Apparently nothing else.Has anybody an answer?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

elisa wrote:
Does anybody think Guede's lawyers can bring some new evidence or something what would be aknowledged as a new evidence? I read that only that can enable a revision of SC decision, so also the decision of the appeal court in Florance. Apparently nothing else.Has anybody an answer?


Hi, Elisa, I doubt Guede will bring up new evidence. They've indicated only that K+S "exonerations" should apply to him as well, using the same standards. The evidence of his presence at the crime IS stronger than theirs, objectively speaking. Plus he admitted being there. I just don't know why, since his previous arguments were discounted and he received a definitive sentence, that he thinks he can get a retrial.

Unless he makes a full confession, and names Knox and Sollecito. Not that it will affect his sentence, even then, so doubt he'll try that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
elisa wrote:
Does anybody think Guede's lawyers can bring some new evidence or something what would be aknowledged as a new evidence? I read that only that can enable a revision of SC decision, so also the decision of the appeal court in Florance. Apparently nothing else.Has anybody an answer?


Hi, Elisa, I doubt Guede will bring up new evidence. They've indicated only that K+S "exonerations" should apply to him as well, using the same standards. The evidence of his presence at the crime IS stronger than theirs, objectively speaking. Plus he admitted being there. I just don't know why, since his previous arguments were discounted and he received a definitive sentence, that he thinks he can get a retrial.

Unless he makes a full confession, and names Knox and Sollecito. Not that it will affect his sentence, even then, so doubt he'll try that.


Andrea Vogt, who has insider contacts, is saying Guede's case will be accepted and a proper hearing listed for early next year.

https://twitter.com/andreavogt/status/8 ... 0553860097


Also, see .

The Italian press are reporting it will probably be postponed until January in order to collate the necessary documents. I presume a party has lodged an application to do this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

As far as I have understood, the reasoning behind Guede's request to the Florence court is based on a legal inconsistency - and I doubt that the court will become an arena where evidence, or other details of the crime could be discussed.

Fundamentally, there is something in the Italian constitution which requires Cassation Court judgments to be consistent (meaning that one Cassation Court verdict cannot contradict a different Cassation Court judgement). What Guede is saying is that he feels that his final verdict, which depends on his having ' accomplices', is contradicted by the Marasca Bruno verdict where he is the 'sole killer'.

It's quite an interesting question really, because if we accept the interpretation of the Marasca Bruno reasoning report which has them stating that Knox (and most probably also Sollecito) were present at the time of the murder, there does not seem to me to be a strong case to claim inconsistency between the verdicts. If, however, we accept that Marasca Bruno were merely conjecturing (a position taken by the Knox supporters), then there seems to me to be a clear inconsistency.

I agree that the most likely outcome in Florence on 20 December is a deferment, and not an outright rejection.
Top Profile 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here is an ANSA report in English. Deferred until Jan 10.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks Sallyoo. All happened just as Andrea Vogt predicted: hearing postponed, documents requested. Here is the link to an ANSA report: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2016/12 ... cb259.html

Guede's Kercher petition set for Jan 10

Florence's court of appeal on Tuesday said it will decide on January 10 on a petition to review the trial of Rudy Guede, an Ivorian who is the only person convicted of the 2007 murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher in Perugia. The court adjourned proceedings as judges requested documentation from the supreme court's conviction of Guede and its acquittal of two other former suspects, American Amanda Knox and her ex boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

Tommaso Pietrocarlo, an attorney on Guede's defense team, said the court "will now be able to compare the two sentences", stressing that his client's conviction was based on the "necessary participation also of Amanda Know and Raffaele Sollecito", something that the supreme Cassation Court has "absolutely ruled out".

The attorneys representing Kercher's family, Vieri Fabiani and Francesco Maresca, instead denied that Guede's conviction implied that Knox and Sollecito had played a role in the murder.
Fabiani said there were no grounds to revise the trial because new evidence had not been presented and Guede's conviction was not incompatible with the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito.
"What has not been proven is that the murder could not be committed without those accomplices", as claimed by Guede in his petition, Fabiani noted.
Maresca added that the petition to revise the trial was also "not sufficiently motivated".
...


ANSA
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Earlier today, the AP news agency reported the following: "When the high court upheld his [Guede's] sentencing, it ruled he did not act alone, although it did not name any accomplices." Hmmm.

Here is their report on today's hearing:

Only person convicted in Kercher murder seeks acquittal
By AP

Nearly two years after Italy's highest court acquitted Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend of murdering a British student, the legal wrangling still isn't over.
Lawyers for the Ivorian man convicted in the 2007 slaying of Meredith Kercher are petitioning a Florence appeals court Tuesday to overturn the only conviction in the case. They argue that the acquittals of the high-profile defendants are in conflict with the guilty verdict against Rudy Guede.
Guede, 29, is serving a 16-year sentence for the murder. When the high court upheld his sentencing, it ruled he did not act alone, although it did not name any accomplices.
Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca will be in court to argue that Guede's guilty verdict must stand.


DAILY HERALD
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I see that, since this morning, the AP piece has been updated by Colleen Barry. It's definitely skewed in favor of Knox and Sollecito. Why she decided to quote Knox's lawyer Dalla Vedova who wasn't even present at today's hearing, is a mystery:

The court, after hearing arguments, put off a ruling on the request until Jan. 10.

"The Italian justice system must give us at least one guilty party," Maresca told AP on Monday. "We want that maintained, absolutely."

Maresca argued alongside prosecutors in both Guede's speedy trial and the multiple joint trials of Knox, now 29, and Raffaele Sollecito, 32, joining arguments that Guede could not have acted alone. He cited, among other things, the lack of defensive wounds that suggest that more than one person was present to hold Kercher down during the sexual assault and murder at knifepoint.

Maresca and the family have expressed dismay that Guede was convicted without any other accomplices being held accountable, or other suspects ever being identified.

Whatever the appeals court in Florence decides, it won't affect Knox, who has been in Seattle since she was released on a first-level appeal in 2011 after four years in prison, or Sollecito.

Knox's Italian lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, emphasizes that the physical evidence against Guede, including genetic evidence on the victim's body and a palm print in blood in her room, is incontrovertible.

"There is no conflict between that conviction and our acquittal. Our acquittal is clearly saying that the evidence against Rudy Guede is very strong. In that decision, they don't mention that it was possible he was there with someone else in the room. There is no evidence of anyone else," Dalla Vedova said.


KIRO7
Top Profile 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Interesting Sallyoo. Thank you. I think at face value it is reasonable to argue that there isn't an inconsistency, that is, if one has to accept Marasca and Bruno's mind boggling nonsense. There is, of course, the issue of reconciling the fact that they seem quite clear that Knox was present in the cottage at the time of the murder, and quite probably Sollecito too, with their acceptance that there were multiple attackers. We therefore have one or more unidentified assailants unaccounted for by any evidence. That is not in itself an inconsistency but IIRC nowhere do M&B state that this must have been so. If that is the case then it could be argued they failed to demonstrate that their ruling was at least consistent with the final judgment in Guede's case, and why, though the reason why they ducked out on that is fairly obvious. That may not help Guede but it might result in the first judicial criticism of M&B. However, don't hold your breath, and further, it is unclear what the consequences would be if this happened.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:21 pm   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE APPEAL   

While I strongly believe (and said since the Knox and Sollecito acquittals) the inconsistencies between the various rulings should be addressed judicially I don't think Rudy Guede's self-serving appeal is the right way to do that. No idea whether Florence will order a hearing, but without any new evidence, unlikely it will result in a change to any of the three accused's situation.

From Andrea Vogt Update Sept. 9, 2013
Quote:
As the second appeal of the Amanda Knox verdict in the Meredith Kercher murder case nears, readers of my ongoing coverage over the last six years have requested I publish original reporting and new developments on a regular basis here.

This week’s focus is on the one document that should be required reading for those curious about exactly how the next phase will unfold: The Italian Supreme Court Ruling (Court of Cassation) issued in Rome last March. (2013) It is now available in English here:

Italian Supreme Court Reasoning on Amanda Knox Case_ English Version (link)

I read the original Italian document, released in June, but now an English translation has been made available by a pool of volunteers, lawyers and professional translators who follow and debate the case online. I have read both and can confirm the translation’s accuracy. The arduous task of translating the ruling into English allows all interested parties (on both sides of the innocence divide) to read, analyze and come to their own conclusions. This court document is essential reading for anyone interested in a deeper analysis of precisely what has unfolded thus far and where this complex story is headed.

For those who want just a brief overview, one of the main thrusts of the Supreme Court’s reasoning is its outright rejection of the lone wolf theory that Rudy Guede alone killed Meredith Kercher. The court specifically directs the appeals court to consider prior (and now definitive) findings in the Rudy Guede decision that there were multiple attackers and that the break-in was staged. The court also suggests keeping open various motives, more weight be given to Knox’s own written statements, and confirms the reliability of several witnesses essentially dismissed by magistrates Hellmann and Zanetti. On the forensic front, the Supreme Court states its belief that the footprints attributed to Knox, which contained both Knox and Kercher’s DNA, were made in blood. The court also found there was no evidence that contamination occurred.

The appeals court in Florence is not bound to accept the Supreme Court’s reasoning, however their scathing dismissal of Hellmann’s reasoning due to “numerous deficiencies, contradictions and manifest lack of logic” makes it clear they expect the Florentine court to provide a higher burden of proof than was presented in the first appeal in Perugia.

-end-


Since neither Mignini nor Maresca or anyone else in the Italian judiciary seemed to think a direct challenge would succeed, I wonder why an indirect one will?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Dont be too pessimistic yet. If you want the gloating of RS and AK to not persist for the next 50 years this IS the way to go.

Re questions of the scope of this court raised by Sallyoo etc above, this may help.

It’s important to understand that this could and should be more than a matter of an appeal court interpreting the letter of the law. It should get into some of the evidence too.

There was severe (illegal) mission-creep on the part of two of the previous courts:

(1) Hellmann’s in 2011. Then the First Chambers in 2013 at length explained how he went too far and should not have interpreted much of the evidence at all.

(2) Marasca/Bruno’s in 2013. As the pending Mignini suit against Maori explains, the Fifth Chambers should not have got into the evidence at all (okay, should not even have got the case).

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... t_chamber/

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... _and_lied/

If mission-creep and some crazy stretching of the evidence (especially re the DNA) had not been allowed to rule then Nencini's would have been the last word.

If the Supreme Court has evidence questions the code clearly mandates that they must be referred back down, in the 2015 case back down to the Nencini court.

This new court as an appeal court equivalent to Nencini’s CAN get into the evidence that the appellant (Guede) raises.

Which we presume is what the RS and AK forces were not hoping for.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
I see that, since this morning, the AP piece has been updated by Colleen Barry. It's definitely skewed in favor of Knox and Sollecito. Why she decided to quote Knox's lawyer Dalla Vedova who wasn't even present at today's hearing, is a mystery:


Hi Guermantes

Colleen Barry has long tilted strongly to AK and RS, and other AP reporters have done so in a milder way too.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... ears_on_7/

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
As far as I have understood, the reasoning behind Guede's request to the Florence court is based on a legal inconsistency - and I doubt that the court will become an arena where evidence, or other details of the crime could be discussed.

Fundamentally, there is something in the Italian constitution which requires Cassation Court judgments to be consistent (meaning that one Cassation Court verdict cannot contradict a different Cassation Court judgement). What Guede is saying is that he feels that his final verdict, which depends on his having ' accomplices', is contradicted by the Marasca Bruno verdict where he is the 'sole killer'.

It's quite an interesting question really, because if we accept the interpretation of the Marasca Bruno reasoning report which has them stating that Knox (and most probably also Sollecito) were present at the time of the murder, there does not seem to me to be a strong case to claim inconsistency between the verdicts. If, however, we accept that Marasca Bruno were merely conjecturing (a position taken by the Knox supporters), then there seems to me to be a clear inconsistency.

I agree that the most likely outcome in Florence on 20 December is a deferment, and not an outright rejection.



Sallyoo, bear in mind, this is an application for a 'case review' and not for an appeal. It may be that in a review, evidence can be looked at afresh if there is a material reason for doing so. In the UK, there is a Criminal Case Review Commission. I expect Italy's won't be radically different in concept. they do not have the power to overturn a verdict, but do have the power to refer the case back to an Appeal court.

Quote:
There needs to be significant new evidence or new legal argument for
the CCRC to be able to refer your case to an appeal court. This needs
to be something that has not already been heard by a court before.
 The application form is your chance to tell us everything about what is
wrong with your conviction and/or sentence.
What is “significant new evidence or legal argument”?
This means something that was not covered at your trial or your appeal – for
example, new evidence not known about at the time, or a new
development in science. We cannot look again at things that were known
about by the jury, the judge or the magistrates, even if you believe that they
made the wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new
that makes your case look very different now.
We cannot help you if you just repeat the same points in your application to
us that were made at your trial or appeal.
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploa ... icants.pdf

We don't know what was said at this closed hearing. Is there new evidence, maybe not. However, a contradiction in the legal status is a legal grounds in Italy. Say a person is convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime, and another court rules there was no conspiracy and you did it alone, then the former is in direct legal contradiction. In the same way, say a person is charged with shoplifting but convicted of say, dangerous driving, then that is a contradiction (exaggerating to make a point). You can't be convicted of something that hasn't been pleaded (=on the charge sheet). Micheli said Guede did not kill himself, but was in complicity with someone who did kill. So we see the inherent contradiction in Marasca-Bruno who - it could be said - have taken away the 'complicity' part in acquitting Knox and Sollecito.

And of course, the operative word is material and the other key three words: Reasonable Prospect of Success. As Guede has almost completed his term up to parole and he was there at the murder scene, this is what the opposing parties will be arguing.

Not to mention case precedent,as a third variable the judges will be assessing.
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 Dec 21, 2016 1:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The postponement until January has been so the court can acquire the documents relating to Cassation’s decision about Rudy, and “above all the judgment that acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito”.

Maresca thinks that there is not a conflict of judgments, “but simply a different interpretation of the conduct of persons who were present in the cottage”.

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/cronaca-i ... 7-2607698/
Top Profile 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The thing is, Jamie, that the application by Guede before the Florence court is based solely on the (possible) inconsistencies in the two Cassation Court verdicts.

The application was not lodged citing any new evidence, nor any new legal arguments regarding the case. We know this from Guede's current lawyers, who publicly explained the arguments they would use some few months ago.

Your mention of 'case precedent' is interesting: this useful (and massively time-saving) concept doesn't enter (much) into Italian law. Only Cassation Court judgments can be cited as 'precedents'. That's why it is rather important that they are 'consistent'.

I make no predictions whatsoever about the decision which the Florence court may make on 10 Jan. I think they have only two alternatives available. Either to dismiss the application, (which seems to me to be within their remit), or to refer the application to the Cassation Court. But that's just my opinion.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
The thing is, Jamie, that the application by Guede before the Florence court is based solely on the (possible) inconsistencies in the two Cassation Court verdicts.

The application was not lodged citing any new evidence, nor any new legal arguments regarding the case. We know this from Guede's current lawyers, who publicly explained the arguments they would use some few months ago.

Your mention of 'case precedent' is interesting: this useful (and massively time-saving) concept doesn't enter (much) into Italian law. Only Cassation Court judgments can be cited as 'precedents'. That's why it is rather important that they are 'consistent'.

I make no predictions whatsoever about the decision which the Florence court may make on 10 Jan. I think they have only two alternatives available. Either to dismiss the application, (which seems to me to be within their remit), or to refer the application to the Cassation Court. But that's just my opinion.

Hi, Catnip, Sallyoo,

On the one hand, the Giordano ruling on Guede saying he acted in conjunction with others (implying it was K+S) and didn't strike the killing blow, on the other hand Marasca agreeing that Knox places herself at the scene and therefore Sollecito likely was there as well (but it's unproven they murdered Meredith). I hoped they would also consider the Chieffi Ruling, but guess that cannot be done legally.

Logically speaking, Guede's appeal will be denied, and I don't wish to create false hopes. But: I've seen so many twists and turns here, will go on a limb and say his case will eventually be referred to the Supreme Court.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
The thing is, Jamie, that the application by Guede before the Florence court is based solely on the (possible) inconsistencies in the two Cassation Court verdicts.

The application was not lodged citing any new evidence, nor any new legal arguments regarding the case. We know this from Guede's current lawyers, who publicly explained the arguments they would use some few months ago.

Your mention of 'case precedent' is interesting: this useful (and massively time-saving) concept doesn't enter (much) into Italian law. Only Cassation Court judgments can be cited as 'precedents'. That's why it is rather important that they are 'consistent'.

I make no predictions whatsoever about the decision which the Florence court may make on 10 Jan. I think they have only two alternatives available. Either to dismiss the application, (which seems to me to be within their remit), or to refer the application to the Cassation Court. But that's just my opinion.

Hi, Catnip, Sallyoo,

On the one hand, the Giordano ruling on Guede saying he acted in conjunction with others (implying it was K+S) and didn't strike the killing blow, on the other hand Marasca agreeing that Knox places herself at the scene and therefore Sollecito likely was there as well (but it's unproven they murdered Meredith). I hoped they would also consider the Chieffi Ruling, but guess that cannot be done legally.

Logically speaking, Guede's appeal will be denied, and I don't wish to create false hopes. But: I've seen so many twists and turns here, will go on a limb and say his case will eventually be referred to the Supreme Court.



To be pedantic, it is not technically 'an appeal', it is an application for a 'review'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
The thing is, Jamie, that the application by Guede before the Florence court is based solely on the (possible) inconsistencies in the two Cassation Court verdicts.

The application was not lodged citing any new evidence, nor any new legal arguments regarding the case. We know this from Guede's current lawyers, who publicly explained the arguments they would use some few months ago.

Your mention of 'case precedent' is interesting: this useful (and massively time-saving) concept doesn't enter (much) into Italian law. Only Cassation Court judgments can be cited as 'precedents'. That's why it is rather important that they are 'consistent'.

I make no predictions whatsoever about the decision which the Florence court may make on 10 Jan. I think they have only two alternatives available. Either to dismiss the application, (which seems to me to be within their remit), or to refer the application to the Cassation Court. But that's just my opinion.


Dear Sallyoo

No the case is not based "solely" and those are not the alternatives.

1) What the Guede team said publicly some months ago about that legal strategy really means nothing. That is almost certainly smoke blown to get the very threatening Sollecito team which was promising to sue off their backs. That is not even the thin edge of the wedge we are seeing.

2) The whole thing hinges on different interpretations of evidence. Micheli etc went one way and Marasca/Bruno went another way. Micheli and the first Guede appeal court had a right to get into the evidence, whereas under the criminal code Marasca/Bruno had no right to. In the report they even hinted they knew this but took a what-the-hell approach anyway. Some lawyers think they almost WANTED to be challenged, recognizing their March ruling didnt stand when they actually got into the guts of the evidence.

3) On January 10 or thereafter the Florence court could trigger Criminal Code Article 636 which provides for a quick retrial (with Crini and/or Mignini & Comodi) focusing on that evidence relevant to what Guede’s team think was handled wrong, which rotates around the identity of the other two. That trial would be in Florence.

4) It only goes back to Cassation (probably First Chambers) if one or other of the parties (which dont include RS and AK) disagree with the outcome.

There is tough evidence suggesting Guede was part of the attack so a simple release seems not in the cards. But there is tough evidence also suggesting that RS and AK were those other two, as Florence Judge Nencini in 2014 already showed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
To be pedantic, it is not technically 'an appeal', it is an application for a 'review'.


Not so pedantic. This is very important. We are now in the review stage and on 10 January under Criminal Code Article 636 chances seem good that we will be in a limited retrial phase.

If there is any appeal it will be to the Supreme Court if either side cannot live with the retrial outcome.

Such an appeal would by default go back to First Chambers which is said to be itching to rub the Fifth Chambers noses in it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello all together, am thinkin all the time why after so many years Guede started being interesting first for the criminology school in Viterbo and now having high profile lawyers from Rom. Biscotti denied futher involment being less high prifile, I guess also this was an agreement. Biscotti did great for Guede, he protected him from the pack defens of Knox and Sollecito and Guede finally got only 16 years in. omparison of 25/26 for K+S. Nobody could suppose that they would get acquitted at tha SC. Nobody helped Quede after Aviello and the beating up. And. ow somebody organized for him first the TV talk with Leosini. And now he has high profile lawyers who try to get a revision. I suppose these people want to try to catch Knox and Sollecito. Guede will get out after 2 years anyway, even with his master degree most likly. I think, to ask for revision this mcm has no sense and they know it. They try this way, also knowing that Clinton is out of power, they knew it even already in Sept or before. Also via a Florance court they can avoid maybe the connections of Sollecitos, Bongiorno and Della Vedova. They are from Rom and Rom's law people arenot happy about the shamful. erdict of SC.Further there are inconsistencies handling the forensic evidence what they int erpreted from Hellman whos court was. ullified by SC. However not Guede's forensic evidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 7:12 pm   Post subject: MERRY CHRISTMAS   

From Wales, courtesy of Swansea Jack:



Quote:
The Welsh Valleys are full of deprivation and drug abuse. This is so moving..
It's hard to translate word for word but basically Calon Lan is
"seek not life's ease and pleasures,
Earthly riches, pearls nor gold;
Give to me a heart made happy,
Clean and honest to unfold.

(Chorus)
A clean heart o'erflow'd with goodness,
Fairer than the lily white;
A clean heart forever singing,
Singing through the day and night.
If I cherish earthly treasures,
Swift they flee and all is vain;
A clean heart enriched with virtues,
Brings to me eternal gain.

(Chorus)
Morn and evening my petition,
Wings its flight to heaven in song;
In the name of my Redeemer,
Make my heart clean, pure and strong."

Be careful this just may reduce you to tears xo


It did.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:16 am   Post subject: George Michael RIP   

Geoge Michael passed away today. RIP.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:21 pm   Post subject: ROCCO SOLLECITO   

Public mass for Rocco Sollecito cancelled in Bari on orders of the police and the Archbishop of Bari-Bitonto, Francesco Cacucci.
Bari.Repubblica.It


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: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:33 pm   Post subject: ROCCO SOLLECITO FUNERAL MASS   

Background: TheLocal.It
Quote:
Italian priest sparks scandal after inviting public to mass for slain Canada mafia boss
But Francesco Cacucci, the Archbishop of Bari-Bitonto, issued a ban on the public celebration, describing it as a "serious scandal" while threatening disciplinary action against the priest, La Stampa reported. A private mass for Sollecito was instead due to be held at 6am this morning.

Italians were outraged in August 2015 after a Rome mafia boss was given a lavish send-off, with his coffin carried through the streets of the capital in a gilded horse-drawn carriage and rose petals dropped from a low-flying helicopter.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:25 am   Post subject: DEBBIE REYNOLDS   

RIP.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
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 ...





knox family (not her lawyers) said that this obvious scratch, on the neck of knox, is a "hickey".
Scratch was not there, the evening before the murder (attested her housemates). Scratch was
photographed (2nd photo) 1 week later, by perugia police (when Knox was finally made a suspect as
Sollecito, her "boyfriend" retracted his support for her alibi, stating that she was out of his house
@ the time the police believed the murder was committed), with healing consistant. This scratch
is in the position a scratch would be, if it were made in warding off an attacker. Scratch was noticeable
by all, the morning the murder was discovered. She may have made some attempts to cover the scratch
up. The only thing missing from the room of the ransacked room of one of the housemates, was reported
to be "some makeup". Sollecito who didn't even live there was sure that there was nothing missing. Sollecito
was downplaying the situation; delaying the discovery of the body as long as possible. He was hoping that
his sister (a police officer, then), would arrive on the scene to "fix things" (as he stated). The scratch did
not withstand the glare of the strong, winter sunlight that morning, or the glare of the police, multiple
photographers. A scratch. A fresh scratch.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

partial facts arose out of the constructed stories of knox and sollecito. Knox carefully putting together dialogues based on what she knew sollecito knew about the night, or what they'd briefly agreed. Based on what she knew the police knew. Knox and Sollecito did "shower", as she wrote, but it wasn't at the apartment of sollecito. It was at the murder house. Knox recollected sollecito "cleaning her ears"

They were showering to remove blood, traces. Knox in her drugged up paranoia was worried about evidence. Knox (sollecito) reported, had been panicking, trying to see into the room containing the body (keys disposed of), because she was sure she'd left evidence of her presence there. Knox had inserted her fingers in her ears to block the piercing screams, as she stated, as she was at the house. As there was a scream (she confirmed). That later partially transposed to Knox showering alone, the next day. That to explain the footprint (which she thought was hers). The partial footprint measured to the dimension of Sollecito was left on the bathmat, brushed aside in the cleanup, unseen. She explained that she'd "shuffled with the bathmat", naked, back to her room "as she had left her towel", in that cold, dark house. Showering when she could have showered at Sollecitos again. Shuffling to explain her bloody footprints in the corridor, that she knew the police knew about. That in the "bloodied bathroom", house with the door wide open, she'd found. "strange".

Quite a scratch. A deep scratch.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Family of Knox unashamedly saying "it's a hickey". Course, knox wasn't prolific. Course she didn't have herpes. Protracted lip ulcer was a "cold sore". Scratch was a "hickey".

"Hickies" aren't long scratches, in that position. "Hickies" aren't placed to the left side of the adams apple. Defensive scratches are. Nail scratches inflicted in warding off an attacker. A scratch inflicted onto knox when meredith kercher fought for her life vs the crazy, drug enlightened knox, who was supported by the coward sollecito, both wielding knives. Sollecto always carried a knife. Sollecito brazenly carried his 'designer knife' into the "questura" (police station), for questioning. Knox had a 32cm kitchen knife.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:59 am   Post subject: DNA traces spread sheet   

Posted again since I can't find it :)


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

Offline Hennesy


Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:52 pm

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

A hickey in that position would mean Raffaele was trying to byte her like a vampire!!!! A very bony area, too close to the airways, only a sick person would leave a hickey there and it wouldn't be thin and long. Besides, the person receiving it would feel like being suffocated and react, am I wrong?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It's likely the other side would counter by referring to the DNA testing on Meredith's nail clippings which did not reveal any foreign DNA. That said, a hickey I am sure it is not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello all and Happy New Year,

Guede's request for a review has been rejected:

Review of Guede conviction rejected
Florence court rules petition inadmissible

Florence, January 10 - A Florence court on Tuesday ruled that a petition to review the case of Ivorian Rudy Guede, who is serving a 16-year sentence for the murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007, was "inadmissible". Guede's lawyers said they might appeal to the supreme Court of Cassation. A lawyer for Kercher's family, Francesco Maresca, said "I'd say this story is finished." The court was reviewing documentation from the supreme court's conviction of Guede and its acquittal of two other former suspects, American Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. Guede's defence team had argued that his conviction was based on the "necessary participation also of Amanda Know and Raffaele Sollecito", something that the supreme Cassation Court has "absolutely ruled out".
...
Fabiani said there were no grounds to revise the trial because new evidence had not been presented and Guede's conviction was not incompatible with the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. "What has not been proven is that the murder could not be committed without those accomplices", as claimed by Guede in his petition, Fabiani noted.


Read more: ANSA

Ansa.it wrote:
The decision at today's hearing after about an hour of deliberation.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

There is this little detail in La Repubblica's report about today's court hearing:

An admission of the request for a review was opposed by the Deputy Prosecutor General Giancarlo Ferrucci and lawyers for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca and Vieri Fabiani. "I ask the court to issue a preliminary order which would declare inadmissible as manifestly unfounded the request of the defense - said the pg Ferrucci - and to order Rudy Guede, who initiated this request, to pay 2,000 euro fine".


LA REPUBBLICA
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

There's an AP report in English, probably written by Colleen Barry:

Latest: Court rejects grounds for new trial in Meredith Kercher murder case

An appeals court in Florence has rejected a bid for a new trial and possible acquittal of the only person convicted of the 2007 murder of British university student Meredith Kercher.
...
Guede was in court for the court's decision, after an hour's deliberation.
...
The Florence court did not elaborate on why it rejected Guede's bid.

His lawyer, Tommaso Pietrocarlo, said the defence will consider appealing to the Cassation court on the same issue that failed to persuade the lower level tribunal.


BREAKING NEWS (IRELAND)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for the good news, guermantes. Even Kercher family attorney Francesco Maresca opposed the request.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello Ergon, why should it be good that the court rejected Guede's request? I guess it was the last chance to show the guilt of all three? I do not think he could be set free but it could have cause whole review of the guilt of K + S?or am mistaken. Why got Guede the fine pf 2000€?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

elisa wrote:
Hello Ergon, why should it be good that the court rejected Guede's request? I guess it was the last chance to show the guilt of all three? I do not think he could be set free but it could have cause whole review of the guilt of K + S?or am mistaken. Why got Guede the fine pf 2000€?


Hi elisa, good because it was opposed by Maresca who IMO feels it would not be right to subject the Kerchers to any more uncertainty, and to allow them peace.

It would also not ever have impacted the K + S verdict. The time for that was in 2015 to apply directly for an immediate review of the M&B acquittal. As I said at the time.

The 2000€ fine was requested by the prosecutor. Was that granted? I do not know.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:47 pm   Post subject: SOLLECITO COMPENSATION   

Lanazione.It
Quote:
On January 16, 2017, the Florence Court of Appeal will decide on Sollecito's request for compensation (516 000 euro) for wrongful imprisonment for nearly four years in prison.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello Ergon, why NOBODY requested the review in 2015? I am afraid, the winers will take all, Knofy boy will get his money also Knox for her 1 y imprisoment. She won already the court police versus her lies, I never could understand. Both murderers will get what they want I am afraid. There is no justice in Italy not even in Florance anymore.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for the reminder, Ergon. About a year ago (back in 2016), I made a New Year's resolution that, if Sollecito got a 516,000 Euro compensation from the State, I'd quit following this case, because it would be unbearable and a "travesty of justice", but, honestly, I haven't ever really made a New Year's resolution work. :)

We'll see what happens on the 16th. ;)

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

An excerpt from an article in today's La Repubblica:

Meredith Murder, review of Guede’s trial inadmissible

The defense of Guede, speaking of judgments considered to be 'in conflict', drew on various circumstances / arguments to reopen the process by focusing on the fact that Meredith "was killed - said lawyer Tommaso Pietrocarlo - with Raffaele Sollecito’s knife", and "not generically with any other pointed or edged weapon, but that knife" from the house of Sollecito who, the lawyer said, had the "craze/audacity to go out with a knife, and bring it with him. " "And [it was] the same knife with which Sollecito cut the girl’s bra," said the lawyer describing the sexual assault on Meredith.

Also, said Pietrocarlo, "if there was a motive to kill Meredith, it would be the necessity to kill an inconvenient witness. A necessity not attributable to Guede, who had no relationship with Meredith, while the other two, Knox and Sollecito, the victim knew them.'” “Guede - continued the defense - was convicted of murder despite not being considered the perpetrator [material executor] of the crime."
...
Pg Ferrucci also said that "the defense focused too much on the knife. But no judgment brings that knife into relation with Rudy Guede"; also on the alleged false leads of Knox in the house, about which the defense writes in the review request, the pg Ferrucci, criticizing Guede’s request, noted that "the judgment said that her intervention / participation [intervento] in the crime was incidental, secondary (accessory), not necessary", "just as Sollecito’s."

Reactions. "Rudy Guede was not sentenced in complicity with ghosts but individually during a trial in which he was involved and in which all his responsibilities were recognized," said Raffaele Sollecito, commenting to Ansa on the decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence. While the Florentine lawyer Francesco Maresca, Meredith Kercher family lawyer, explained: "I would say that this story is over (finished.)"


LA REPUBBLICA (FIRENZE)

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

Of course, we all know that there were TWO knives, both belonging to Sollecito, that were used in the murder & subsequent clean-up / re-arrangement of the crime scene. So, Guede's defense might have gotten that wrong.
Top Profile 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Yes, we all know, but Guede described Sollecito very well and with knife. So he is a witness of Knify boy being on the murder scene with a knife, he didn't witness Knox with a knife, only her voice and running away. The SC threw the knife of Knox out as Bongiorno wanted.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

From an article in yesterday's La Nazione:

Meredith murder, no retrial for Rudy Guede

"We'll assess whether to appeal to the Supreme Court", "it does not depend on us, the final word" in this story. Thus, leaving the courtroom, the lawyer Tommaso Pietrocarlo, Rudy Guede’s defense, commented to reporters on the decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence.

"The appeals court - said the lawyer Pietrocarlo - found that, between the two judgments, there is no contradiction and incompatibility, not even at the level of abstract imagining. In our opinion, the incompatibility exists and it is quite obvious, and the review should have been permitted / allowed / admitted."

In particular, "we believed that, the Court of Cassation having ruled that that (Sollecito’s knife, ed) was not the murder weapon, that biological traces on the bra could not be attributed to Sollecito, here we thought that these findings of fact were incompatible with our conviction / judgment (against Guede, ed) because our sentence / conviction accepts the existence of that knife as an established fact, and that in carrying out the sexual assault” on Meredith the same Guede "would be assisted by Sollecito."

The Supreme Court, in the acquittals of Knox and Sollecito, "says, though, - said the lawyer - that this is not so. In our view, the two judgements are incompatible in the sense that these two historical facts that were placed at the base of our conviction", precisely that against Guede, becoming final in 2010, "were established as unrealistic by the Supreme Court in the acquittals of Knox and Sollecito."


LA NAZIONE

Sollecito's reaction (cont'd)

"Guede’s - stressed Sollecito – is a process / trial that does not concern me, and which I don’t mind. At the crime scene, however, there has never been evidence of the presence of more people, but only traces of Guede. The reconstruction of the murder leads then to believe that it was done by one person".

"Guede - reminded Sollecito - chose to be tried separately from us, and any participation of myself and Amanda Knox was evaluated in our trial, after which the Supreme Court definitively acquitted us. Guede continues to follow his own procedural path ".


LA NAZIONE
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Guede's reaction:

Meredith murder, Guede after the rejection of the revision: "Patience, even if innocent"
The Ivorian comments on the decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence, thanking his lawyers: "I am calm, I have to continue my studies"

"Don’t worry, I'm calm. I'm happy the way I'm doing; now, I need to continue my studies. Never mind if the process is not reopened, even though I know I'm innocent," said Guede, thanking his defense lawyers who spoke with him after the decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence.

"Rudy Guede is very serene - says the defense attorney Tommaso Pietrocarlo – he does not think more of this affair / story, is aware of the misfortune that has happened to him and he has accepted it. He built a completely different life, got through all these facts, while not disregarding the suffering of Meredith Kercher."

"But - reiterated the lawyer – he took a different path. He had created, as it were, a culture. He studied, he achieved a Bachelor's degree in history. Now he wants to study again and obtain a Master's degree. Looking beyond."

Guede has recently obtained a permit for three days out of Viterbo prison, the second since the beginning of his imprisonment, but, before he could take advantage of it and use it, it was postponed because of the hearings, and the outcome, at the Court of Appeal of Florence. Among the things that had been discussed with his lawyers there was also this: when he would be able, at this point, to go on leave.


LA NAZIONE
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 Jan 12, 2017 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

This difference about what was "proven" is a lot like young children learning the grammar classifications of their language (only slower).

A 束 shù of flowers, or of light (we would say a bunch of flowers, a beam of light): "bundle". (W)

A 口 kǒu of food: "mouthful", same as in English.

Three 本 běn of printed matter, books: "volume", as in scroll.

With multiple varying viewpoints, the onus on later judgments, besides laying out a coherent narrative of the evidence, is to explain why earlier judgments were incorrect, not to ignore them.

For example, Micheli's reasoning still stands on its own as sound logic. Later judgments have not demolished it, only ignored it, or partly paralleled it. Its logic does not disappear because there is a differing opinion. Likewise, Marasca/Bruno, in following Bongiorno's path through the forest, did not explain why the prosecution's case failed. In fact, from their judgment, the existence of an actual prosecution would be hard to imagine. Readers would be left wondering where they had gone to (admiring the view, perhaps).

In other words, the system is not truly adversarial, until the judgments reflect both sides and decide between the two in an explainable way. That's at the first level. Subsequent levels would have to explain why the previous level was wrong (or right).

The Common Law idea of 'The judge is an umpire' may have gotten slightly lost and blurred in the translation (leaving aside any external influences).

Writing a Common Law judgment is hard work (although some are easier than others).



====
ETA
PsycNET ([link]) has an abstract of a 1998 paper which begins: “Classifiers are lexico-syntactic structures that are common in Chinese but not in English.”

That counts as an assertion, and merits a huh-) . Or even a nw)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Agree with you on Micheli's sound logic, Catnip. Every trial requires a balance of Direct and Circumstantial evidence and I liked the way he expressed his reasoning better than any other.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

elisa wrote:
Hello Ergon, why NOBODY requested the review in 2015? I am afraid, the winers will take all, Knofy boy will get his money also Knox for her 1 y imprisoment. She won already the court police versus her lies, I never could understand. Both murderers will get what they want I am afraid. There is no justice in Italy not even in Florance anymore.


Hi elisa. I think no one wanted to challenge the ruling directly. What I heard back was they thought they'd lose. I disagreed, but not up to me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

La Nazione wrote:
"Rudy Guede is very serene - says the defense attorney Tommaso Pietrocarlo – he does not think more of this affair / story, is aware of the misfortune that has happened to him, and he has accepted it.

La Nazione wrote:
"We'll assess whether to appeal to the Supreme Court", "it does not depend on us, the final word" in this story. Thus, leaving the courtroom, the lawyer Tommaso Pietrocarlo, Rudy Guede’s defense, commented to reporters on the decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence.


Judging from Guede's reaction, there probably wouldn't be any appeal to the Supreme Court. If his lawyers appealed, it would be kind of funny: the Supreme Court would be asked to make a judgment on the two conflicting judgments that the Supreme Court itself has issued. As a result, this case would reach a new level of absurdity... so it's all for the best that it's now "finished", as Francesco Maresca said.
-----------------------------------
Just want to quote, for the sake of completeness, Andrea Vogt's tweet and what Meredith Kercher family lawyers said after the Jan.10 hearing in Florence:

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt Jan 10

Quote:
Florence court rejects #RudyGuede trial revision request. He remains guilty of committing a homicide "w/others" unidentified by courts.

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

"The Court - continued the two lawyers, Maresca and Fabiani - deduced that the facts are not in conflict with each other incontrovertibly, because otherwise the review would have been admitted. The Court of Appeal, in the preliminary assessment of the request for a review, have considered it inadmissible because the facts forming the basis of the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito are not incompatible with the sentencing of Rudy Guede". Still talking to reporters, who noted that Guede was convicted of murder in complicity with others, lawyer Vieri Fabiani stressed that "the evidence was not sufficient to consider founded (with good reason) the responsibility of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."


LEGGO
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:42 am   Post subject: Grinder   

Writer John "Peter" Sherwin of Seattle, who used to write on the case as "Grinder" on the ISF board, has passed away at the age of 70. RIP. One of the more interesting commenters, he seemed to enjoy the debate more than expressing a pro or con position.

Grinder was the guy who went to the acquittal party and revealed that Knox stayed only 5 minutes and sounded insincere in her Skype call with RS.

He was interested in transportation issues Let’s repair the viaduct and prepare for its removal

His mother fled Nazi Germany in 1937 and eventually taught German at UW Elsa Winners Sherwin

Always interesting to learn more about people on the other side of a divide.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: SOLLECITO COMPENSATION   

Ergon wrote:
Lanazione.It
Quote:
On January 16, 2017, the Florence Court of Appeal will decide on Sollecito's request for compensation (516 000 euro) for wrongful imprisonment for nearly four years in prison.


Hi Ergon,

I know, La Nazione wrote this about the date of the hearing, but I remember it differently, see here: viewtopic.php?style=6&p=131432#p131432

Decision in January [2017] on compensation to Sollecito

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.

The hearing will be held on 27 January.
...
After the January hearing, the Court will have five days to decide the merits of the claim.


Which date, do you think, is correct? Can we expect something to happen tomorrow or not?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Obviously, nothing happened yesterday, there was no news from ANSA, so I guess we'll have to wait for the compensation claim hearing until the 27th of January.

Sollecito was in Carpi (Modena) on the weekend; of course he couldn't abstain from giving a short interview and whining and complaining about his tarnished public image created by the media:

January 16, 2017

Sollecito starts up again (re-surges) from Carpi, projects with the artist Bund

There was Raffaele Sollecito Saturday at the Spinning Wheel of Modena, at the opening of 'Bund World', an exhibition of Daniele Corrone, aka Daniel Bund, 30, Carpi artist who drew the latest collection of stuffed animals for Trudi. A friendship between Sollecito, sentenced in first instance but then also definitively acquitted by the Supreme Court of the charge of having participated in the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, and Bund was born a few years ago. "His presence at the opening of my exhibition honored me - says Daniele - I right away admired the dignity with which he lived the horror and is reclaiming his life. When it comes to me, it is 'simply' Raffaele, who is a great friend." Sollecito speaks calmly, is available, does not recoil from any question: the prosecution, the prison experience, the new life, work, friendships, and Carpi.

A friendship with Bund is important ...
"Very. It was born 'by accident': a few years ago Daniele wrote me via e-mail to express his respect / regard for the way I was facing the terrible story. During my trip to Emilia Romagna we met in Parma: something created a nice synergy. Whenever I can, I come to visit."

You like Carpi... Do you intend to move?
"I wonder! In Carpi I found a warm welcome and a nice environment. I like the fog, it is poetic. But still I prefer to call myself 'traveling', 'nomadic', between one destination and the other. I never stay put for too long in one place; I need to feel free to go on, without any more constraints or chains. But there will also come time to settle down in a [new] place to go back to being free to live a normal life, without the fear of being trapped in a new dead end trap".

What are your plans?
"In 2014 I obtained a degree in computer engineering: I have recently started a new project, suntickets, an online service for tourists. Also, I travel around Italy to present my book. Finally, Daniele and I are considering working together to create an app."

How difficult is the social redemption?
"Very. I try to live my life peacefully, without hiding. I see people’s eyes, their comments and smiles while they look at me. Sometimes they approach me and express solidarity or say words of comfort. But my image at the grassroots level has been destroyed. Justice declared me innocent in court, but did nothing to help me rebuild my existence. I expected them to explain well to all why I was innocent, but I realized that I had to rebuild my social image, otherwise the public will always be in doubt. Unfortunately, on a personal and business level, my person gets the picture that was painted of me. I have to destroy the metastases of this injury.


IL RESTO DEL CARLINO

Image
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:20 am   Post subject: Re: SOLLECITO COMPENSATION   

guermantes wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Lanazione.It
Quote:
On January 16, 2017, the Florence Court of Appeal will decide on Sollecito's request for compensation (516 000 euro) for wrongful imprisonment for nearly four years in prison.


Hi Ergon,

I know, La Nazione wrote this about the date of the hearing, but I remember it differently, see here: viewtopic.php?style=6&p=131432#p131432

Decision in January [2017] on compensation to Sollecito

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.

The hearing will be held on 27 January.
...
After the January hearing, the Court will have five days to decide the merits of the claim.


Which date, do you think, is correct? Can we expect something to happen tomorrow or not?


I dunno, guermantes, but interesting that Sollecito filed his claim on January 27 2016 The Guardian
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: Grinder   

Ergon wrote:
Writer John "Peter" Sherwin of Seattle, who used to write on the case as "Grinder" on the ISF board, has passed away at the age of 70. RIP. One of the more interesting commenters, he seemed to enjoy the debate more than expressing a pro or con position.

Grinder was the guy who went to the acquittal party and revealed that Knox stayed only 5 minutes and sounded insincere in her Skype call with RS.

He was interested in transportation issues Let’s repair the viaduct and prepare for its removal

His mother fled Nazi Germany in 1937 and eventually taught German at UW Elsa Winners Sherwin

Always interesting to learn more about people on the other side of a divide.


Ah! Thanks. RIP Grinder. You mention transportation issues and I guess the Alaskan Way Viaduct could be called that, but really it was something else - a nasty noisy high speed highway which sort of cuts all of downtown Seattle off from the sea (the Puget sound) making the high-potential waterfront noisy and dark.

Grinder won! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_W ... ent_tunnel

San Francisco had similar. That was taken down. Boston had similar. That was taken down. Baltimore had similar. That was taken down.

Manhattan had similar - for some miles. About 30 years ago, the mid portion was taken down and a riverside park appeared. The south portion is now a wildly popular elevated park (Highline) and the north section still exists in front of a row of new highrise apartments which carry Trump's name (he got squeezed out of ownership, by a Chinese group.)

Wikipedia says the Seattle tunnel took so long to in effect get off the ground because of this consensus planning mode:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 349

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito being his usual scummy self, was found to be part of a secret FB group, dispensing advice on how to clean up after murders and making disrespectful comments about Meredith Kercher.

http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Cronaca/2017/1/19/RAFFAELE-SOLLECITO-CONTRO-SELVAGGIA-LUCARELLI-Ride-della-morte-di-Meredith-La-replica-alla-blogger-Solo-ironia-su-Facebook-Oggi-19-gennaio-2017-/743385/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

corpusvile wrote:
Sollecito being his usual scummy self, was found to be part of a secret FB group, dispensing advice on how to clean up after murders and making disrespectful comments about Meredith Kercher.

http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Cronaca/2017/1/19/RAFFAELE-SOLLECITO-CONTRO-SELVAGGIA-LUCARELLI-Ride-della-morte-di-Meredith-La-replica-alla-blogger-Solo-ironia-su-Facebook-Oggi-19-gennaio-2017-/743385/


Here's the source, jimjones. Selvaggia Lucarelli is a journalist at Il Fatto Quotidiano.

There are screen grabs too, but some of the comments attributed to him might be other's.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

And here's his response: Sollecito e gli altri «odiatori»Insulti alle donne sulla Rete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Another article about his posting on that Facebook page. He displays a lot of insensitivity, as expected Il Fatto Quotidiano
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

But, with screenshots where he gives the finger to AK. ("Their Skype phone call was very warm", indeed as StacyHs tells us about the party where Grinder had his arm twisted to attend).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

What an idiot he is. He complains constantly about the media "tarnishing" his public image, but it's he himself who gives rise to all sorts of speculations about his shady, dubious online activities. Who in their right mind would participate in such FB groups and make jokes about knives and murdering people, after having been a murder suspect? He simply laughs it off and dismisses it as "just a little leisure and rest from a day's hard work."

As Selvaggia Lucarelli said last time, it's all in very bad taste, but Sollecito doesn't even notice, continuing unabashed. I have the impression that we are dealing here with an adolescent, rather than a 32-year-old grown up man. The same goes for Knox: she rhapsodizes about Virtual Reality and still raves about "Harry Potter", at the age of 29. Arrested development, infantile fixation? I wonder. Was Sollecito taunting Meredith with his pocket knife because he wanted to have "a little fun" back then, too? Out of boredom, because he had nothing better to do, and as "a little leisure" from writing his undergraduate thesis?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 19, 2017

Selvaggia Lucarelli attacks Sollecito: "Jokes about Meredith's death"

Raffaele’s reply: "I don't know what to do with my days, Ms. Lucarelli. Certainly, the Facebook groups with whom I laugh and joke are only a little leisure"

By Marta Proietti

Selvaggia Lucarelli's battle continues against the Facebook groups that incite violence, verbal and physical, against women. But, this time, at the center of controversy, there is someone known in the news for being one of the main defendants in a murder trial.

It is Raffaele Sollecito. "Good news, especially for the family of Meredith Kercher - Lucarelli writes on the pages of Il Fatto Quotidiano - Raffaele Sollecito, after trying to recycle himself as a television commentator and a funeral undertaker 2.0, has found his place in the world: (...) as a leader of closed groups on FB, which made hatred of women their riding horse [vehicle], and ends up as a humorist. Indeed, irresistible comedian with a clear preference for black humor (...)"

In short, Lucarelli has found out that Raffaele Sollecito is among the 250 thousand members of the Facebook group "Pastorizia (pastoralism*)) never dies" in which, so to speak, "between various nonsense, there are also men who exchange opinions on how to kill an ex and make a body disappear. There he [Sollecito] was photographed with one of the administrators and became an idol of the masses of troglodytes**) who wallow in there with blows of irresistible quips / jokes and with great gusto at the Meredith case."
----------------------------------------
*) pastoralism - semi-nomadic livestock rearing, sheep-rearing, sheep-farming
**) troglodyte: prehistoric cave dweller, hermit, also pej.: ignorant or old-fashioned person
----------------------------------------
The famous blogger was not limited to discovering that Sollecito belonged to these groups but has also managed to find some comments: "Tale Denis” writes: Master, teach me how to clean traces of a crime (...)? Raffy Sollecito responds: It's easy, shit [i.e. defecate] on it, and no one will come near [the crime scene]! “Giulia” wrote to him asking not to be cruel when he kills her and Raffy responds: Don't worry; It will be nice and painless [or: I’ll make it feel nice and painless.]

If these comments were not enough, there are also those that allude directly to the murder of Meredith. Lucarelli reports: "She: I see you look pale, you haven't been to the seaside [to get some tan]? Raffy: Oh, I have seen so many people go pale ... The blogger [Lucarelli] then comments: “Ahahaha you laugh, in fact Meredith must have been rather pale, considering that they found not so much as a centiliter of blood in her body.”

"He [Sollecito] goes to a restaurant with the group administrator, Alessandro Falanga, takes pictures in front of a meat dish with a [steak] knife in hand and posts it with the quip: The eyes of someone who has seen many, the knife of someone who has sliced [them] all up! Someone writes: From the color of the meat, I would say it's Rudy, and Raffy replies: Hahaha this is funny! Someone mounts the head of Patrick Lumumba on the neck of the administrator of the "Pastoralism never dies" group and Raffy laughs with gusto [heartily]."

Lucarelli concludes: "And anyway, why take away the pleasure from Raffy Sollecito to joke a little, come on. He went with his girlfriend to buy her underwear, with Meredith’s body still warm [lying at the crime scene], let him tell jokes about Meredith’s now cold body. Let him play. He has found the right place. The right company. In the same group, Marco asks if anyone has suggestions on how to take out [get rid of] his ex who left him for a black guy."

Raffaele Sollecito’s response

On the Radio Cusano Campus came Raffaele Sollecito’s response: "Things are not like that, the ones that you mentioned are just goliardic***) groups that make fun of the facts and events of daily life simply to play down various events, personal and not. There is nothing serious in those groups, all things are rather comical [ironical], these are closed groups, these are chats between friends where you tell all kinds of nonsense."
-------------------------
***) goliard: a wandering student of the 12th or 13th century given to the writing of satiric Latin verse and to convivial living and minstrelsy.
--------------------------
In reference to the comment in which Sollecito gave advice on how to erase the traces of a crime, Raffaele said: "I said you could sh** on it [the crime scene, ed], but it was just a ”figure of speech”, because, if there really was sh** [i.e. feces], it would just mean leaving more traces. Mine was a stupid answer to a stupid question, it is simply the game of these groups".

And he concludes: "I don’t know what to do with my days, Ms. Lucarelli. Certainly, the Facebook groups with whom I laugh and joke are only a recreation, are not my place in the world, are just my little leisure in days of hard work. Selvaggia Lucarelli does not know me, does not know the case, does not know anything, I wonder why spend her days nibbling at what I do during my days."


IL GIORNALE

Image: courtesy of TRUE CRIMES PODCASTS

Image
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Radio Cusano Campus

Raffaele Sollecito responds to Selvaggia Lucarelli. Click HERE to listen to full interview

“… I honestly do not understand it. I joke about myself, I don't joke about others. I never mentioned Meredith in those comments, and I’d never mention her; to do so would not seem to me even cute. Even in a joke I have my limits. Between these groups and femicide [murder of women, ed] there is no link, what she [Lucarelli] says is something stupid; these groups are full of women who comment; this is satire, student spirit, there is nothing else. Everything else is nonsense. I understand that Selvaggia Lucarelli likes to speak ill of other people, I do not know her and am not willing to spend time to understand what she does in her life. Even read it [what she writes], I prefer reading items of more serious and competent journalists."

http://www.tag24.it/169237-raffaele-sol ... lucarelli/
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Catnip, Hennesy, could you please help me translate these two bits (highlighted in bold)? Thanks in advance. :)

Quote:
Anzi, irresistibile comico con una netta predilezione per il black humor, visto che lui la morta ammazzata su cui scherzare ce l'ha avuta in casa'.
...
Maestro mi insegni come si cancellano le tracce di un delitto che ho due cose da risolvere?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The Independent has picked up the facebook story:

Amanda Knox ex Raffaele Sollecito denies Facebook jokes about murdered Meredith Kercher

However, Mr Sollecito, 31, has provoked outrage in Italy after journalist Selvaggia Lucarelli revealed his lurid remarks – including an apparently tongue-in-cheek comment on the disposal of a body – to a number of closed Facebook groups which feature jokes about femicide, rape and murder.
...
Writing on her Facebook page, Ms Lucarelli posted screenshots of Mr Sollecito’s participation in several groups on the network, including one called “Pastorizia never dies” (meaning “Shepherds never die”) and #accazduro, meaning “with a hard d***”.

A comment which caused particular controversy was a response to someone who asked: “Master, teach me to cancel traces of a murder, as I have a couple of things to solve.”


THE INDEPENDENT
--------------------------------

And there was a translation of the sentence I asked you to help me with. ;)

Maestro mi insegni come si cancellano le tracce di un delitto che ho due cose da risolvere? -->> “Master, teach me to cancel traces of a murder, as I have a couple of things to solve.”
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Andrea Vogt tweeted:

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt Jan 21
Quote:
Brava @stanzaselvaggia for outing Sollecito's disturbing FB posts glorifying murder, crime scene tampering & more.


https://twitter.com/andreavogt/status/8 ... 0950073344
----------------------------------------------------------

I second that. Well done, Selvaggia Lucarelli. I hope, one day, she will catch Sollecito in the act (of committing misdeed), i.e. red-handed [in flagrante delicto]. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Translation of the Corriere article by Silvia Morosi:

Sollecito and other 'haters'
Insults to women on the Net

By Silvia Morosi

Men who hate women. Men who seem to deride the tragic end, as Raffaele Sollecito, the former defendant charged with the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia (acquitted along with Amanda Knox), posting on two 'closed groups' on Facebook that incite violence, verbal and physical, towards the female gender. Platforms on which opinions are exchanged on how to kill an ex, make a body disappear, and 'kill my girlfriend who left me for a black guy.'

Men who use the Internet to humiliate, but are not censored. Indeed, those who denounce [such behavior] are to be blamed. A paradox that the President of [Italian] Chamber of Deputies Laura Boldrini pointed out yesterday in a post on her Facebook page. Criticizing the company (Facebook) and the company's top management for failing to stem the so-called 'virtual rape', but also for having imposed penalties on those who revealed the existence of the phenomenon.

The example given is that of Arianna Drago, “a girl who has found the courage to reveal the intolerable existence of some 'closed groups' which circulate photos stolen from profiles.” Images which are then shared and “covered with filthy, sexist comments,” said Boldrini.

Boldrini: "The company must take responsibility”

Part of the young woman’s post had been masked (edited out) by Facebook because it "did not respect the standards of the community," read the statement. And now the girl is prohibited from using her profile. "On what standards do we govern (moderate) this community? And which of them Arianna infringed?" wondered the President (Boldrini). She explains to Corriere: "I think it is time for the company to take responsibility." At the Facebook summit, last month, she [Boldrini] made three proposals: putting an icon «beware hatred», which can be used by users when they encounter messages of hate speech; a dedicated phone line; an ad hoc staff with offices in different countries. "They assured me — tells Boldrini — of their reply within a month until the end of January." The President is also involved in the project «Parole O_Stili» [ostile means “hostile”, i.e. “hostile, intimidating words”; stile also means “manner, style” in Italian, ed], a community against violence 2.0 that intends to reflect on the influence of words. A project that will see its first meeting in Trieste on 17 and 18 February, with the presentation of a "Manifesto of non-hostile communication"': a set of rules to reaffirm that "the hostility in one’s posts would be scrutinized ." [i.e. people would be held accountable for hostile, abusive behavior on the net.]

Sollecito: "Between these groups and femicide, there are no links"

A new front in a discussion about women and social networks was opened again yesterday with the controversy between the journalist Selvaggia Lucarelli and Raffaele Sollecito. The Il Fatto newspaper journalist and blogger criticized the latter’s habit to attend two groups filled with sexist comments. Indeed, he is one of the most active members. According to Lucarelli, the young man would make mockery of Meredith's body with advice on how to conceal traces of a murder.

Interviewed by the Corriere, Sollecito says that these are "goliardic groups, on the edge of insanity (lunacy), but not violent. A virtual bar where they invited me to come in." And the question of how to erase traces of a crime, made by a user? "I replied that we [could] cr** on it" (in the house of the crime were found human feces, ed). But - he downplays - "it was just a way of speaking [a turn of phrase, sarcasm] because it would leave more traces. A stupid answer to a stupid question." He concludes: "I joke about myself, not about death, and I never mentioned Meredith: it would be sickening. These groups and femicide have no links”.


CORRIERE DELLA SERA
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:01 pm   Post subject: "Someone who has sliced all"?!!!   

What the **** is THIS?!

Does it really say:

"The eyes of someone who has seen a lot, the knife of someone who has sliced all!" ?!!!

(Can you imagine ANYTHING dumber to say/ post after the DNA of a raped and STABBED girl was found on the blade of a knife in YOUR kitchen and YOUR DNA was found on her severed underwear?!!!)

Image


Looks like Lil' Solly has pulled into a HUGE YUUUUUUUUUUUUGE lead in their revolting Post-Acquittal Creep Out Contest!!!
Image

I suppose this latest PR fiasco is the reason the FOA have recently been caught bringing their Bored Housewives Brigade back to "work" as "citizen journalists":

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c50_1483946851

;-)

(Is this how they bring the (ever so honest) "36 year old hockey player" named "Bill" to his "hockey fights"???)
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: Grinder   

Fast Pete wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Writer John "Peter" Sherwin of Seattle, who used to write on the case as "Grinder" on the ISF board, has passed away at the age of 70. RIP. One of the more interesting commenters, he seemed to enjoy the debate more than expressing a pro or con position.

Grinder was the guy who went to the acquittal party and revealed that Knox stayed only 5 minutes and sounded insincere in her Skype call with RS...


Ah! Thanks. RIP Grinder. You mention transportation issues and I guess the Alaskan Way Viaduct could be called that, but really it was something else - a nasty noisy high speed highway which sort of cuts all of downtown Seattle off from the sea (the Puget sound) making the high-potential waterfront noisy and dark.

Grinder won! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_W ... ent_tunnel
...


That's a shame - "Grinder" was one of only a handful of 'pro-innocence' commentators on the JREF/ISF that demonstrated a fairly consistent ability and willingness to approach the various issues under debate with logic, reason and common sense.

He certainly had Dempsey's number - Grinder didn't fall for ANY of her laughable BS (which now forms the basis for the current wiki article on this case - which, incredibly, doesn't contain so much as a single WORD of what the Italian Supreme Court ACTUALLY wrote about the presence of the accused during the murder).

The FOA would have been a lot more persuasive to people with triple digit IQ scores if they'd had more Grinders and fewer mentally defective fanboys desperate for a hug, kiss, autograph or hand-tracing from one of the accused.
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: "Someone who has sliced all"?!!!   

Jackie wrote:
What the **** is THIS?!

Does it really say:

"The eyes of someone who has seen a lot, the knife of someone who has sliced all!" ?!!!

(Can you imagine ANYTHING dumber to say/ post after the DNA of a raped and STABBED girl was found on the blade of a knife in YOUR kitchen and YOUR DNA was found on her severed underwear?!!!)



I took it as, 'The eyes of the one who has seen so many, the knife of the one who sliced them all up.' Meaning women, obviously, since femicide is that Facebook group's pet topic. Although someone said, 'From the colour of the meat, I'd say that was Rudy,' to which Sollecito replied, 'Ahahaa that's nice!' ('Simpatico!' in the original.)

His pose, in the group, is that of the seen-it-all serial-killer. Someone said, 'You look pale, haven't you been to the seaside?' (Because we all know how he likes his beach holidays.) And he replied, 'Oh, I've seen a lot of people go pale.' Meaning in death, obviously, as Selvaggia Lucarelli pointed out.

From a man who has actually stood trial for the sadistic, sexually aggravated knife murder of a female acquaintance, this is more than strange, and not a little incriminating.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: Grinder   

Jackie wrote:
That's a shame - "Grinder" was one of only a handful of 'pro-innocence' commentators on the JREF/ISF that demonstrated a fairly consistent ability and willingness to approach the various issues under debate with logic, reason and common sense.

He certainly had Dempsey's number - Grinder didn't fall for ANY of her laughable BS (which now forms the basis for the current wiki article on this case - which, incredibly, doesn't contain so much as a single WORD of what the Italian Supreme Court ACTUALLY wrote about the presence of the accused during the murder).

The FOA would have been a lot more persuasive to people with triple digit IQ scores if they'd had more Grinders and fewer mentally defective fanboys desperate for a hug, kiss, autograph or hand-tracing from one of the accused.


Grinder couldn't abide Nina Burleigh either, which said a lot for him.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:24 am   Post subject: Re: "Someone who has sliced all"?!!!   

hugo wrote:
Jackie wrote:
What the **** is THIS?!

Does it really say:

"The eyes of someone who has seen a lot, the knife of someone who has sliced all!" ?!!!

(Can you imagine ANYTHING dumber to say/ post after the DNA of a raped and STABBED girl was found on the blade of a knife in YOUR kitchen and YOUR DNA was found on her severed underwear?!!!)



I took it as, 'The eyes of the one who has seen so many, the knife of the one who sliced them all up.' Meaning women, obviously, since femicide is that Facebook group's pet topic. Although someone said, 'From the colour of the meat, I'd say that was Rudy,' to which Sollecito replied, 'Ahahaa that's nice!' ('Simpatico!' in the original.)

His pose, in the group, is that of the seen-it-all serial-killer. Someone said, 'You look pale, haven't you been to the seaside?' (Because we all know how he likes his beach holidays.) And he replied, 'Oh, I've seen a lot of people go pale.' Meaning in death, obviously, as Selvaggia Lucarelli pointed out.

From a man who has actually stood trial for the sadistic, sexually aggravated knife murder of a female acquaintance, this is more than strange, and not a little incriminating.


Hello, Hugo - seems there's even more to this revolting behavior, if you believe Mach over on ISF:
Image

'Meredith is the "crispy" one in the dish' = funny? :

Image


'Knox is an insane murderess' = funny? :

Image

Now tell me that's not the kind of guy who'd think it was 'funny' to tell Laura and Filomena that Meredith's body was found "completely covered in Vaseline" (Follain p. 124).

Still, I won't be sure what to make of it all until I spot a consensus of 'expert' opinion from at least 5 of the following:

a) a twice bankrupt coat salesman
b) a hairdresser working out of a shack
c) a burned out ex-pharmacist living off the grid in a trailer
d) a chemistry teacher who pretends to be a forensic geneticist
e) an ex-Cessna pilot who pretends to be a homicide detective
f) a mail-order PI facing a $40 million law suit for pretending to be a cop
g) a rum-loving ex-preacher who spends his days and nights insulting people on the internet*
h) an elderly part-time paralegal who doesn't even know what double jeopardy means
i) a cow veterinarian
j) Frank the Fugitive


*Did Jesus spend his days and nights mocking a woman and calling her names because she didn't agree with Him on government matters???


Last edited by Jackie on Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi Jackie,

I have been thinking about you and hoping you'd comment on the latest photo of Sollecito posing with a knife. ;) Thanks for re-posting Machiavelli's comments.

More photos / screenshots can be found here:

Amanda Knox ex-boyfriend insinuates that she is insane in Facebook posts about getting away with murder

TRUE CRIMES PODCASTS

The photoshopped picture of Santa Claus and Knox is especially degrading to her, but Sollecito doesn't mind. All his empty talk about their "whirlwind romance" and his "first true love", all is instantly forgotten. No longer "honor bound", is he?
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: "Someone who has sliced all"?!!!   

Jackie wrote:

Hello, Hugo - seems there's even more to this revolting behavior, if you believe Mach over on ISF:
Image

'Meredith is the "crispy" one in the dish' = funny? :


'Crispy' as in 'done till golden brown', I suppose. Nasty. That FB group seems to be as racist as it's misogynistic. And someone else made the original comment, but Sollecito greeted it with an 'Ahahaa!' So when he said he hadn't brought Meredith's name into it, he was being a pretty shabby letter-of-the-law liar. The murder really is his idea of fun. And Knox's. Knox is better at hiding it, but Sollecito openly says she's crazy. Perhaps because he's seen what she can do.


Quote:
'Knox is an insane murderess' = funny?


His family have encouraged him to take the view that it's all Knox's fault and he's just 'easily led'. The Sollecitos, after all, clearly leaked those CCTV photos to Quarto Grado, apparently showing Knox in the parking garage -- whether it was her or not, the Sollecitos wanted people to think it was her.

Quote:
Now tell me that's not the kind of guy who'd think it was 'funny' to tell Laura and Filomena that Meredith's body was found "completely covered in Vaseline" (Follain p. 124).


The whole thing just seems like his idea of fun. As anyone with internet access, or anyone who reads various Italian journals or the Sun, the Mirror and the Independent in England or the Herald in Scotland, now knows.

I think there's a reason why Knox kept his number on her phone under the pet name 'Jason'. As he was a knife fetishist and extreme-horror and violent-porn fan, that can only have referred to Jason Voorhees in the Friday the 13th horror films. And Knox liked that vibe, apparently.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:35 pm   Post subject: ECtHR Knox V. Italy   

Update from ECtHR:

"I'm enquiring re the case of Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 23/11/2013.

Since it was communicated to the Government for observations 29/04/2016 have you received a response and has a ruling re: admissibility been issued? I have been unable to locate its status on the HUDOC database."
Quote:
Thank you for your message.

Regarding your request, the application in question is still pending before the Court and no decision as to its admissibility has been made yet.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:36 pm   Post subject: KNOX c. ITALIE   

And from the HUDOC database Case Details it looks like it was communicated three times between the parties so that's why it's been delayed as each side responds to the request.

Edited to fix the link: HUDOC database

Then click on "Case Details" upper left.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks Ergon (and Catnip).

I've updated my post about Knox's appeal to the ECHR in the "In Their Own Words" sub-forum, adding more links:

viewtopic.php?style=6&p=126553#p126553
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick question: will there be Motivations for the Court of Appeal of Florence decision to reject Rudy Guede's application for revision? Issued within 90 days, as usual? Just curious.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Thanks Ergon (and Catnip).

I've updated my post in the "In Their Own Words" sub-forum about Knox's appeal to the ECHR, adding more links:

viewtopic.php?style=6&p=126553#p126553
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick question: will there be Motivations for the Court of Appeal of Florence decision to reject Rudy Guede's application for revision? Issued within 90 days, as usual? Just curious.


I assume so, guermantes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:17 am   Post subject: ECtHR Knox v. Italy   

From guermantes link Press Country Profile-Italy
Quote:
Noteworthy pending cases
Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy
(no. 76577/13)
Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.


Once all communications for further information have been replied to the court can then rule on inadmissibility or proceed to a hearing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:19 pm   Post subject: Solly Takes Aim at Foxy?   

guermantes wrote:
Hi Jackie,

I have been thinking about you and hoping you'd comment on the latest photo of Sollecito posing with a knife. ;) Thanks for re-posting Machiavelli's comments.

More photos / screenshots can be found here:

Amanda Knox ex-boyfriend insinuates that she is insane in Facebook posts about getting away with murder

TRUE CRIMES PODCASTS

The photoshopped picture of Santa Claus and Knox is especially degrading to her, but Sollecito doesn't mind. All his empty talk about their "whirlwind romance" and his "first true love", all is instantly forgotten. No longer "honor bound", is he?


Hello, Guermantes - hope you've been well!

As for Solly's latest PR problem ...

WOW. Just ... WOW.

And JUST in time for the GLOBAL Woman's March!

Judging by the responses of the last 5 Knox fanboys who are still posting 24/7 (they do not appear to have jobs, families, friends or lovers to attend to), I'd be forced to conclude they're not clicking on your links and forcing themselves to look at this stuff and consider the FULL range of reasonable inferences that can be drawn.

Now, I have NO idea whether the reporters and bloggers publishing this stuff can be trusted, and I have NO idea whether Lil' Solly himself was really playing around with this FB 'He-Man Woman Stabbers Club', or whatever you'd call it, but if it really WAS him ... DAMN ...

If I'm not mistaken, this one features his fave KNIFE-microphone toting, Shock-rock star (Marilyn Manson) and a photoshopped version of the 'love of his life', to whom he proudly proclaimed he is "honor-bound" to respect and protect, copulating with Santa (Is the juxtaposition of this pic with a spent-looking Manson in Santa garb meant to imply that Manson was the the man in the Santa suit with Knox?):

Image


And, according to Mach, this one features Knox's face among the faces of a number of famous murderers on the cover of a MURDER MYSTERY game (I have no idea whether this is true as I do not recognize the other faces):

Image

So, if it really was Solly publishing and/or laughing along with these kinds of posts, it would seem that he's at least as disrespectful toward Knox as he is toward Meredith ...

Perhaps at his next speaking engagement, he should appear in front of a backdrop of photos like these, rather than a tasteful photo of the woman he was accused of stabbing, and see what that does to the numbers of autographs being requested of him ...

All that money spent on Ferrari-drivng PR pros = down the drain ...

(UNLESS Italian media outlets are as poor as their American counterparts ... and why wouldn't they be? We're living in an era where approximately 9 out of 10 Journalism grads seek work at PR firms rather than at news agencies - in the Days of Woodward and Bernstein is was the opposite: ~9 out of 10 J-school grads wanted to work as reporters to uncover the truth rather than as shills for the well-heeled seeking to sway the sheep. I suspect this shift is one of the reasons the US now has a President named Trump I mean Drumpf I mean ****face Von Clownstick I mean Putin ;-)


Last edited by Jackie on Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: "Someone who has sliced all"?!!!   

hugo wrote:
Jackie wrote:

Hello, Hugo - seems there's even more to this revolting behavior, if you believe Mach over on ISF:
Image

'Meredith is the "crispy" one in the dish' = funny? :


'Crispy' as in 'done till golden brown', I suppose. Nasty. That FB group seems to be as racist as it's misogynistic. And someone else made the original comment, but Sollecito greeted it with an 'Ahahaa!' So when he said he hadn't brought Meredith's name into it, he was being a pretty shabby letter-of-the-law liar. The murder really is his idea of fun. And Knox's. Knox is better at hiding it, but Sollecito openly says she's crazy. Perhaps because he's seen what she can do.


Quote:
'Knox is an insane murderess' = funny?


His family have encouraged him to take the view that it's all Knox's fault and he's just 'easily led'. The Sollecitos, after all, clearly leaked those CCTV photos to Quarto Grado, apparently showing Knox in the parking garage -- whether it was her or not, the Sollecitos wanted people to think it was her.

Quote:
Now tell me that's not the kind of guy who'd think it was 'funny' to tell Laura and Filomena that Meredith's body was found "completely covered in Vaseline" (Follain p. 124).


The whole thing just seems like his idea of fun. As anyone with internet access, or anyone who reads various Italian journals or the Sun, the Mirror and the Independent in England or the Herald in Scotland, now knows.

I think there's a reason why Knox kept his number on her phone under the pet name 'Jason'. As he was a knife fetishist and extreme-horror and violent-porn fan, that can only have referred to Jason Voorhees in the Friday the 13th horror films. And Knox liked that vibe, apparently.


Evidently, Knox's fanboys like that vibe, too - they're even "extremely proud" of Solly the Blade:

Image

Image

Image

Who ARE these obsessive, creepy little diehards on ISF?! I'd have figured that misogynistic knife fetishists with penchants for lying would have trouble finding devotees in a civilized society ... sh-))
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: Solly Takes Aim at Foxy?   

Jackie wrote:

Now, I have NO idea whether the reporters and bloggers publishing this stuff can be trusted, and I have NO idea whether Lil' Solly himself was really playing around with this FB 'He-Man Woman Stabbers Club', or whatever you'd call it, but if it really WAS him ... DAMN ...


I don't think there's any doubt, as Sollecito himself has admitted on Italian radio that it's him, and he acknowledged and tried to justify one of the posts that Selvaggia Lucarelli mentioned. The Italian media are very tame and law-shy; they aren't making it up.

Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, this one features his fave KNIFE-microphone toting, Shock-rock star (Marilyn Manson) and a photoshopped version of the 'love of his life', to whom he proudly claimed he is "honor-bound" to respect and protect, copulating with Santa (Is the juxtaposition of this pic with a spent-looking Manson in Santa garb is meant to imply that Manson was the the man in the Santa suit with Knox?):

Image



The 'Santa' apparently rogering Knox in that picture is black, which added to the amusement among the FB group, including Sollecito.

Quote:
All that money spent on Ferrari-drivng PR pros = down the drain ...


Well, I don't suppose his father's too pleased, and given the forceful way Papa expressed himself in those wiretapped prison convos...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: Solly Takes Aim at Foxy?   

hugo wrote:
Jackie wrote:
All that money spent on Ferrari-drivng PR pros = down the drain ...


Well, I don't suppose his father's too pleased, and given the forceful way Papa expressed himself in those wiretapped prison convos...


Indeed. Alas, I suppose this entire story is so stale at this point that there's little media interest in covering what might be post-acquittal 'tells' ...

But what have we really got here?

On the one hand he seems to be boasting about being a bad ass lady slicer and, on the other hand, he seems to be suggesting Foxy is the real killer ...

One big "Cluedo" game for a spoiled brat 32 year old man?

If this is "honor-bound" behavior, they're going to have re-write the definition of the word "honor" so that it more closely resembles at least one of the 'definitions' now appearing in the DSM-5 ;-)

Wouldn't it be FASCINATING to learn what a forensic psychiatrist could deduce from the behavior of this knife-loving liar?!


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: ECtHR Knox v. Italy   

Ergon wrote:
From guermantes link Press Country Profile-Italy
Quote:
Noteworthy pending cases
Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy
(no. 76577/13)
Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.


Once all communications for further information have been replied to the court can then rule on inadmissibility or proceed to a hearing.


Hello, E. - thanks for the update - I really do hope there is an ECtHR judgment on this case as I would love, love, LOVE to know WHAT, exactly, happened during the initial witness interviews with Knox, and I simply cannot stand any more of these far-from-clear-and-concise Italian judgments which elide more than they elucidate, and which are so loaded with ornate turns of phrase that they become the legal equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot.

Although, I don't have a lot of faith in the ECtHR (commentators have noted that, at one point, certain ECtHR judges did not even understand the notion of a precedent (?!!!)/ some of the judgments are a little too short and concise in terms of their description of the fact pattern and its relation to the rule being applied/ one could well argue that it favors due process concerns over crime control concerns to a point that borders on the ridiculous (you have to be cut form a certain cloth to feel good about awarding stone-cold guilty rapists and killers a few thousand bucks because they happened to confess to police before a lawyer could tell them the blatantly obvious ("you have the right to remain silent" and lying to police and/or admitting to rape or murder could lead to serious penal consequences ... duh)/ etc.), it can't be any more mystifying/ ridiculous than what the Italian Supreme Court served up and maybe, just maybe, we'll learn something that moves us a little closer to understanding what really happened in Perugia.

________________________

PS I haven't read the ISF for quite a while now but it seems some of Knox's Geezer Brigade are getting increasingly forgetful in their old age, so I feel I should offer them this kind reminder that, before the State Department rattled its Saber (if you believe Burleigh's Newsweek report) so loudly that the Italian Supreme Court buckled, some of the best-qualified experts on the planet acknowledged the strength of the prosecution's case:

Image


PPS Make fun of Coulter if you wish but she graduated from a very good law school (U of Michigan) in the top 10% of her class (Order of the Coif), which is a lot more than you can say for never-set-foot-in-law-school Trump Drumpf (not exactly a stickler for facts in any event, as the WORLD now knows), or that other now infamous non-lawyer/ non-scientist Maria "my bro was framed by the cops for murder, too!"Cantreadwell Cantwell (even the Cantwells' own lawyer denied there was any evidence of a police conspiracy against her bro but don't try to tell that to the Cantwellls! LOL ).


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:17 am   Post subject: A HOMICIDAL PSYCHOPATH   

‘I’m so proud of myself. I stabbed her like 20 times.’
By Travis M. Andrews
Washington Post
January 24

Quote:
“I stabbed an innocent woman to death earlier today. … It was absolutely fantastic. Murder gives me a high unlike any other. It feels like this crisp unreality, flashing and sparkling, adrenaline and shock.”
While these lines might sound like the demented writings of John Wayne Gacy or perhaps Charles Manson, they actually appeared in what police said was a diary kept by a teenage girl named Pearl Moen, 18.
Moen described the attack in further detail in her diary, explaining excitedly how the victim fought back.
"So, okay, I’ll start with the exciting bit. I stabbed an innocent woman to death earlier today. (Technically yesterday since it’s 1 am). It was absolutely fantastic. Murder gives me a high unlike any other. It feels like this crisp unreality, flashing and sparkling, adrenaline and shock. Fight or flight mode. How do I even go about describing it. The whole thing was unreal. I’m so proud of myself. I stabbed her like 20 times. Maybe more. I wasn’t counting. She screamed & grabbed at me saying “what the f—?! Help. Leave.”
The diary entry continued, explaining she did it because “I’m a homicidal psychopath. I have a deep hatred towards people right now.”

Describes Knox's behavior since the murder and how it's reflected in her earlier writing as well?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Courtesy of BnB.


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

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:19 am   Post subject: a WHALE of a BABY   

After spending more than a YEAR at his keyboard, 24/7***, dedicating both his days and his nights to the vicious online abuse of ONE, lone woman such that she scarcely managed to go 4 hours without being called a "liar" or "stupid" for the "sin" of daring to hold an opposing point of view on a government affair, "Bill" (the self-proclaimed "36 year old hockey player" with experience in "hockey fights"), "REPORTED" the surprisingly kind, tolerant and polite victim of his abuse for this:

Image



It's hard to say what I find more upsetting here:

a) the fact he's in NO position to call ANYONE 'stupid' after revealing that he's so scientifically-illiterate he doesn't even know what a gene locus is (not that that stopped him from denouncing the quality of the DNA testing in this case ... about 11,000 times - hint: we got your uneducated opinion the FIRST time, we didn't need the 10,999 repetitions);

b) the fact he's in NO position to call ANYONE a 'liar' after getting caught out in the biggest LIE ever posted on the ISF Knox thread (that Nencini "writes on page 243" that "Y-Haplotypes come from women");

c) the possibility that he really is an ex-minister who made his living teaching people to 'love their enemies' and to 'forgive them for they know not what they do' (nothing in the Bible about calling them names, mocking them in hurtful ways or attempting to incite others to ban them, sue them, jail them, or beat them bloody in a parking lot);

d) the possibility that he really is a man, not a woman, in which case it's time a man asked him if he wants to consent to stepping outside for a little lesson in manners (if I saw a man talking to a woman the way "Bill" is interacting with "Vixen", I would not listen to it for 5 minutes, let alone one YEAR ... unless he was bigger than me 8-) ); or

e) the GALLING double standard on display ("Bill" rudely calling someone a 'stupid liar' 24/7 for over a year = OK; "Vixen" politely pointing out that someone is relying on rhetorical devices rather than logic = time to call the cops! LOL What a BRAVE man! And your intellectual integrity, Billy!!! Wow. Hats off to YOU, sir, hats off to you! A true scholar and a true gentleman!).

___________________________________________________
***As I randomly survey what I've missed over past year on ISF, I am horrified to discover that I am unable to find a SINGLE calendar day when 'Bill" did not post all through the day and night, and this DESPITE the fact that there has been NOTHING really new to discuss about this case for OVER A YEAR. The man may need some help! It seems he's dedicated his LIFE to hurling verbal abuse on a woman going by the screen name "Vixen". He barely goes 4 hours without making a post to humiliate her, and from time to time is even waking up in the middle of the night to add yet another slam onto the mountain of slams already heaped upon poor "Vixen". As if that weren't enough, he routinely runs over to a second board, IA, to gossip like a little girl about how to better insult Vixen when he returns to ISF! And HE, of all people, is daring to call anyone who disagrees with him a "NUTTER"?! LOL He's the biggest, fattest, nuttiest fruitcake on either side of the God damned debate! LOL And, you know what? I think he knows it ... at least in his more, uh, sober moments (which is what separates him from the only other '24/7 Nutter' left, LooneyJohn, who actually seems to believe he's conducting some sort of important sociological study, when he's not selling cell phones or whatever LOL). I think it says a lot about Team Knox that they picked a complete BUFFOON like "Billy" to act as an online "advocate" for their website.

I have to be careful not to let my feelings about this pathetic parade of lying and/or idiotic furriers, fugitives, hairdressers, semi-coherent retirees and assorted hucksters to cloud my judgment about this case. Roll on ECtHR! I want to figure this one out (despite the screeching cacophony of noise emanating from the dullards that Knox seems to attract)!


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:43 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:16 am   Post subject: What happened to the Second Commandment?   

Lord knows I'm no angel, but then I've never claimed to be holy or offered spiritual guidance and Bible lessons in exchange for the chance to stuff my face with the proceeds of a collection plate, so I have to ask:

Did Jesus treat people like this for disagreeing with Him about government affairs?


How does one reconcile this conduct with the Second Commandment???


Maybe it's time to take a break, full-time FOAKers. The main event is over. Seems some of you need a vacation. Desperately.

Just relax and take a Hint: they're called judicial OPINIONS for a reason and, in common law jurisdictions, you get to see that many, many appellate judgments entail (gasp) DISSENTING opinions.

Only God Himself can claim ABSOLUTE certainty, dumbasses* friends, and "innocence" is merely PRESUMED in a court of law, it does not need to be, and rarely is, "proven". (That's good enough for lawyers but a true scientist would never 'presume' anything in a search for the truth!)

So let "Vixen" have her say, even if it amounts to a dissenting opinion. It's called 'free speech' - a priceless gift from our forefathers ;-)



* Forgive me, Lord.


_____________

PS Is it just me or does the "upcountry banjo player" cut take a shot a both the poor and the developmentally disabled? Wow. Just ...


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline whatswisdom


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:52 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: a WHALE of a BABY   

Jackie wrote:
I have to be careful not to let my feelings about this pathetic parade of lying and/or idiotic furriers, fugitives, hairdressers, semi-coherent retirees and assorted hucksters to cloud my judgment about this case.!
Have you run out of screech?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

So, according to this article, the bleater has his hour before the Florence court for his compensation tomorrow, 27 January. It suggests you might even be able to see him on UK telly, in something called the Victoria Derbyshire show. (IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked.)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38745287
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
...IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked...


Thanks Sallyoo. Unfortunately, it IS geoblocked. If somebody knows how to circumvent this obstacle, please post.

Ansa.it has also published a short news item about tomorrow's hearing:

Decision pending from Florence Court on compensation to Sollecito
for nearly four years of unjust imprisonment


On the 27th of January, a decision is awaited from the Court of Appeal of Florence regarding the compensation claim (516,000 euro) by Raffaele Sollecito for unjust detention for nearly four years in prison after being involved as an accused in the Meredith Kercher murder case...

A request to which are opposed the Prosecutor General and Ministry of Finance.
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
So, according to this article, the bleater has his hour before the Florence court for his compensation tomorrow, 27 January. It suggests you might even be able to see him on UK telly, in something called the Victoria Derbyshire show. (IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked.)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38745287


I watched about five minutes of it. The whole thing drags on for a quarter of an hour, which, with Sollecito's weird droning affectless voice, is just too long. He whinged a lot, as you'd expect. That's pretty much it.

These interviews don't happen at the request of the broadcaster, but at the suggestion of the interviewee's PR people. As to why Sollecito is promoting himself in Britain, on the BBC, when his compensation case is being heard in Italy, it's fairly obviously the murderer's wish to appropriate and annihilate the victim and her memory. It's like his little trip to dance on Meredith's grave, as facilitated by the despicable Nigel Scott.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: a WHALE of a BABY   

whatswisdom wrote:
Jackie wrote:
I have to be careful not to let my feelings about this pathetic parade of lying and/or idiotic furriers, fugitives, hairdressers, semi-coherent retirees and assorted hucksters to cloud my judgment about this case.!
Have you run out of screech?


LOL

Yes! I haven't got a drop of the stuff!

Plus I haven't been to church since Trump Drumpf got elected president (How could such a thing happen if there really is a God? ;-)
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
...IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked...


Thanks Sallyoo. Unfortunately, it IS geoblocked. If somebody knows how to circumvent this obstacle, please post.

Ansa.it has also published a short news item about tomorrow's hearing:

Decision pending from Florence Court on compensation to Sollecito
for nearly four years of unjust imprisonment


On the 27th of January, a decision is awaited from the Court of Appeal of Florence regarding the compensation claim (516,000 euro) by Raffaele Sollecito for unjust detention for nearly four years in prison after being involved as an accused in the Meredith Kercher murder case...

A request to which are opposed the Prosecutor General and Ministry of Finance.


Another chance to find out what this case is really made of.

Another chance to find out what Italy is really made of.

I sense that the police, prosecutors and judges are rolling over (State Dept rattles its Saber -> annulment by Supreme Court -> defamation action tossed by lower court)

It will be interesting to see if the Italians show any spine now that they're dealing with one of their own and the 'precious American damsel in distress' is safely back in the Land O' Drumpf.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

What can Maori mean by this:

Quote:
Luca Maori, legal Raffaele Sollecito, after the judgment had explained: "The maximum allowed is 516 000 euro, but the damage suffered by Raffaele are vastly greater . And 'why we are also considering other avenues, which soon will be announced. " The young Apulian published by Longanesi an essay to tell his legal odyssey, titled "A Step out of the night." Meanwhile, Sollecito has joined the Italian Radicals and took the word to their congress to talk about his experience in jail, that the young man considered "a recruiting school for the Mafia".
http://www.direttanews.it/2017/01/26/vi ... allitalia/

Sounds like a threat.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
So, according to this article, the bleater has his hour before the Florence court for his compensation tomorrow, 27 January. It suggests you might even be able to see him on UK telly, in something called the Victoria Derbyshire show. (IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked.)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38745287


I watched about five minutes of it. The whole thing drags on for a quarter of an hour, which, with Sollecito's weird droning affectless voice, is just too long. He whinged a lot, as you'd expect. That's pretty much it.

These interviews don't happen at the request of the broadcaster, but at the suggestion of the interviewee's PR people. As to why Sollecito is promoting himself in Britain, on the BBC, when his compensation case is being heard in Italy, it's fairly obviously the murderer's wish to appropriate and annihilate the victim and her memory. It's like his little trip to dance on Meredith's grave, as facilitated by the despicable Nigel Scott.



What is Nigel doing these days? Still giving grave tours against family wishes?

Come to think of it, what are the rest of those FOA hacks, hucksters, hustlers and housewives now doing?

Is the hairdresser still being asked by the BBC for interviews about her "writing"? LOL

Is the furrier still selling coats? (Or did he switch to working in an auto parts store?)

Did the food blogger ever find a full-time job as a professional journalist?

Is Frank the Fugitive in jail yet? Is he still living with his Mom? Is he almost 60 years old now?

Is The Halk still grading introductory chemistry midterms?

Did the ex-Cessna pilot find another job as a campus security guard?

Is Anne practicing law anymore, after that stint in jail?

The only news I've seen isn't good:

1) Self-described "PI" Paul Ciolino (aka Magnum P.I.E.), who famously used CBS News to lie to the world, with gusto, that Knox had "never laid eyes on" Guede, is being sued for $40 million for (allegedly) pretending to be a cop and bullying a man into a false confession; and

2) Ol' Jim 'I don't need to read the court documents' Clemente is being sued for $750 million for (allegedly) defaming the brother of a famous murder victim on (once again) CBS.

It's funny to think how, when I was in my first year of law school, I thought nothing could be more noble than volunteering for one of the projects in the innocence network, but the cast of characters in this case has really opened my eyes. Some of the projects no longer seem to be employing the same set of standards (they used to require PROOF of innocence, not just a mere scintilla of doubt about guilt). I think it's a shame that underhanded people and underhanded tactics are being used for less than deserving cases for it tarnishes the good name of the project and, as a result, taints the exoneration of those unfortunate souls who really are factually innocent - They should never have to stand on the stage next to the 'very likely guilty' at a banquet for exonerees.

Perhaps Hampikian should start the 'Idaho Not-Exactly-Innocence Project' ...

Image


Last edited by Jackie on Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
...IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked...


Thanks Sallyoo. Unfortunately, it IS geoblocked. If somebody knows how to circumvent this obstacle, please post.

Ansa.it has also published a short news item about tomorrow's hearing:

Decision pending from Florence Court on compensation to Sollecito
for nearly four years of unjust imprisonment


On the 27th of January, a decision is awaited from the Court of Appeal of Florence regarding the compensation claim (516,000 euro) by Raffaele Sollecito for unjust detention for nearly four years in prison after being involved as an accused in the Meredith Kercher murder case...

A request to which are opposed the Prosecutor General and Ministry of Finance.



So if the verdict is tomorrow, as mentioned by Victoria Derbyshire, does this mean the four day hearing has been going on since Monday, behind closed doors?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

hugo wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
So, according to this article, the bleater has his hour before the Florence court for his compensation tomorrow, 27 January. It suggests you might even be able to see him on UK telly, in something called the Victoria Derbyshire show. (IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked.)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38745287


I watched about five minutes of it. The whole thing drags on for a quarter of an hour, which, with Sollecito's weird droning affectless voice, is just too long. He whinged a lot, as you'd expect. That's pretty much it.

These interviews don't happen at the request of the broadcaster, but at the suggestion of the interviewee's PR people. As to why Sollecito is promoting himself in Britain, on the BBC, when his compensation case is being heard in Italy, it's fairly obviously the murderer's wish to appropriate and annihilate the victim and her memory. It's like his little trip to dance on Meredith's grave, as facilitated by the despicable Nigel Scott.


I don't doubt that his interview was boring. He hasn't said a thing that's new in years, so we haven't missed out on anything vital. Did he make a trip to London, specially to give this 15 min interview? He won't be present at tomorrow's court hearing, according to a report in Libero Quotidiano:

Sollecito, shame and revenge: how much he wants to get paid by the State

During an interview on British public television BBC, the former defendant said he shall ask the Italian State for "maximum compensation, approximately 516 thousand euros, but still not enough to offset as much as my family has spent. 10 years have passed since the beginning of this nightmare. We had to sell our apartments but we still have debts, approximately 400 thousand euros. Compensation, therefore, would serve just to cover the outstanding debts."

But the former Apulian student will not be present, his lawyers will be there to tend to his interests.

In the interview, Sollecito stressed: "I hope that the judges understand that compensation would only serve to clear debt. The first victim was Meredith, but she was not the only one. Amanda's parents, our families ... There are many more, killed [uccise] by persecutors’ mistakes".


Did he really say "killed" in the interview?! And yes, it's "persecutors", not prosecutors, in the original.

There is also a poll on the Libero Quotidiano website asking people whether it would be fair [just] to pay Sollecito a compensation (please vote ;) )

LIBERO QUOTIDIANO POLL
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
...IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked...


Thanks Sallyoo. Unfortunately, it IS geoblocked. If somebody knows how to circumvent this obstacle, please post.

Ansa.it has also published a short news item about tomorrow's hearing:

Decision pending from Florence Court on compensation to Sollecito
for nearly four years of unjust imprisonment


On the 27th of January, a decision is awaited from the Court of Appeal of Florence regarding the compensation claim (516,000 euro) by Raffaele Sollecito for unjust detention for nearly four years in prison after being involved as an accused in the Meredith Kercher murder case...

A request to which are opposed the Prosecutor General and Ministry of Finance.



So if the verdict is tomorrow, as mentioned by Victoria Derbyshire, does this mean the four day hearing has been going on since Monday, behind closed doors?

Probably since last Friday the 20th, jamie. As announced previously, the hearing would be on the 20th I think, then take 5 days to be announced. I'm assuming 5 working days.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:

Did he really say "killed" in the interview?! And yes, it's "persecutors", not prosecutors, in the original.


I love it every time I see Solly the Blade and his supporters slamming the police, prosecutors and judges in the media, especially the Italian media, because it puts the lie to the ridiculous FOA claim that no one in Italy may speak out against the state; not even when they're in a court of law facing incarceration.

FFS, there was a time when some of the old men supporting the FOA (who had lived through WW2) seemed to be under the impression that Frank the Faker was risking his LIFE to blog about the case from his mommy's rented apartment! LOL

They seemed to be under the impression that Frankie was something akin to a member of the French Resistance in 1943, bravely sending out messages via Morse code from an underground bunker deep in the heart of Nazi-occupied France LOL

There ought to be a law against bilking traumatized old men out of their money like that ...


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
So if the verdict is tomorrow, as mentioned by Victoria Derbyshire, does this mean the four day hearing has been going on since Monday, behind closed doors?


Hi jamie,

no, I don't think so. The countdown to the final decision begins tomorrow, on the day of the first court hearing. First, there will be arguments, presented by the Prosecutor, the Ministry of Finance and Sollecito's lawyers, after which the judges will have 5 more days, i.e. all next week, to reach a decision. I don't expect it to be announced before next Friday, Feb.3, but I'm only guessing here. They may also postpone tomorrow's hearing, as is the custom in Italy, and request more documents. So, who knows when we'll hear the verdict.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Image

When experts of this caliber assess the prosecution's case as "strong", it's hard to imagine how, in a just world, a knife-loving member of a misogynistic FB group, who lied about cooking for the victim and who wound up with DNA in all the wrong places, could end up with half a million Euro:

Image

But we live in a world of Drumpf.

Then again ... maybe, just maybe, the police and forensic teams were as bad as the FOA claim, in which case, I want to see a Court provide DETAILS, not just ornate but inscrutable and legally meaningless turns of phrase ("investigative amnesia") floating around, completely untethered to each of the specific findings of fact at trial.

PS If the Italian Supreme Court requires traces from a defendant on the murder weapon itself in order to convict with "tranquilizing certainty" (this is far above the BARD standard used in common law jurisdictions, which do NOT require "certainty" because it can only be attained by God Himself), why is the black defendant in prison for murder?

(Don't get me wrong, I think Guede is as guilty as sin, and I don't think he deserves ANY of the mercy he's been shown in light of his stedfast refusal to provide a full and honest account of what really happened to Meredith, but a legitimate system of laws cannot allow one set of standards for poor black defendants and a second set of standards for wealthy white defendants. And no effective system of laws could construe the BARD standard as one of "absolute, tranquilizing certainty" for there is NO human endeavor, including the control of crime, that can be conducted under a standard attainable only by God.)


Last edited by Jackie on Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:42 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
hugo wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
So, according to this article, the bleater has his hour before the Florence court for his compensation tomorrow, 27 January. It suggests you might even be able to see him on UK telly, in something called the Victoria Derbyshire show. (IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked.)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38745287


I watched about five minutes of it. The whole thing drags on for a quarter of an hour, which, with Sollecito's weird droning affectless voice, is just too long. He whinged a lot, as you'd expect. That's pretty much it.

These interviews don't happen at the request of the broadcaster, but at the suggestion of the interviewee's PR people. As to why Sollecito is promoting himself in Britain, on the BBC, when his compensation case is being heard in Italy, it's fairly obviously the murderer's wish to appropriate and annihilate the victim and her memory. It's like his little trip to dance on Meredith's grave, as facilitated by the despicable Nigel Scott.


I don't doubt that his interview was boring. He hasn't said a thing that's new in years, so we haven't missed out on anything vital. Did he make a trip to London, especially to give this 15 min interview? He won't be present at tomorrow's court hearing, according to a report in Libero Quotidiano:

Sollecito, shame and revenge: how much he wants to get paid by the State

During an interview on British public television BBC, the former defendant said he shall ask the Italian State for "maximum compensation, approximately 516 thousand euros, but still not enough to offset as much as my family has spent. 10 years have passed since the beginning of this nightmare. We had to sell our apartments but we still have debts, approximately 400 thousand euros. Compensation, therefore, would serve just to cover the outstanding debts."

But the former Apulian student will not be present, his lawyers will be there to tend to his interests.

In the interview, Sollecito stressed: "I hope that the judges understand that compensation would only serve to clear debt. The first victim was Meredith, but she was not the only one. Amanda's parents, our families ... There are many more, killed [uccise] by persecutors’ mistakes".


Did he really say "killed" in the interview?! And yes, it's "persecutors", not prosecutors, in the original.

There is also a poll on the Libero Quotidiano website asking people whether it would be fair [just] to pay Sollecito a compensation (please vote ;) )

LIBERO QUOTIDIANO POLL



it would be fair [just] to pay Sollecito a compensation (please vote ;) )

No 70% Sì 30%
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
No 70% Sì 30%


This will come as a complete shock to "Bill" the ISF's "36 year old hockey player" who, as BIZARRE as it sounds, actually asserts that "Mach" is the ONLY man in Italy who isn't buying the "innocence" PR.

Never mind the 20,000+ Italian signatures to get Solly the Blade OFF of their TV screens, or the overwhelming number of negative comments about K & S on the debate.org poll and every article since, from the UK's Daily Mail bits to America's TMZ bits.

My wife informs me that every waiter, concierge, bell hop and taxi driver she and her mother spoke with on their tour of Italy in 2014, said "Heezzzaaa guilteeeeeeeee!" LOL

Hellmann's laughable judgment didn't seem to be convincing the Italian man on the street and I doubt the equally ridiculous Supreme Court ruling ("tranquilizing CERTAINTY"?!) was any more persuasive (the post-annulment petition, and the comments therein, to get Solly out of his TV gig, certainly don't militate against that supposition).


Last edited by Jackie on Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:42 am   Post subject: SOLLECITO DAILY MAIL   

Headline in today's Daily Mail.
'They've been set free - so why keep going on?' Meredith Kercher's father says it's 'bizarre' that the pair cleared of her murder keep discussing the case as Raffaele Sollecito claims HIS life was 'destroyed' by his legal fight

The Daily Mail doesn't seem to like my comments on the case, but here's hoping:
Quote:
Replying to Meredith Kercher's father "why these two keep going on about it?" the answer might well be it's the outcome of a shared psychotic behaviour. These two just can't stop gloating and taunting her family: Sollecito visiting Meredith's grave against their wishes, making horrible comments about his victim on his closed Facebook account (but reported in Italian media) and Knox releasing video of Meredith taken without her permission to the directors of the recent Netflix movie.

She also displayed similar behaviour in the days after the murder, showing none of the trauma a normal person might have felt after her room mate had been so violently killed, but instead, a hyper sexualized display often shown by psychopaths after they've done something like this. American teen (and self diagnosed psychopath) Pearl Moen called it "an adrenaline rush" which is what Meredith's friends, police and the media observed in Knox after poor Meredith's body was found.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:13 am   Post subject: Re: SOLLECITO DAILY MAIL   

Ergon wrote:
Headline in today's Daily Mail.
'They've been set free - so why keep going on?' Meredith Kercher's father says it's 'bizarre' that the pair cleared of her murder keep discussing the case as Raffaele Sollecito claims HIS life was 'destroyed' by his legal fight


OMG! Don't tell "Bill" but hundreds of people in the UK are ALREADY making and liking pro-guilt comments! There's even one from Bahrain!

It looks like Mach really isn't the ONLY man on the planet who isn't buying the "innocence" PR or the Court's Rorschach inkblot of an annulment!

nw)
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
I don't doubt that his interview was boring. He hasn't said a thing that's new in years, so we haven't missed out on anything vital. Did he make a trip to London, specially to give this 15 min interview?


He didn't explain what on earth he was doing here apart from bugging the Kerchers, I don't think.

Quote:

In the interview, Sollecito stressed: "I hope that the judges understand that compensation would only serve to clear debt. The first victim was Meredith, but she was not the only one. Amanda's parents, our families ... There are many more, killed [uccise] by persecutors’ mistakes".


Did he really say "killed" in the interview?! And yes, it's "persecutors", not prosecutors, in the original.


No, he said 'made' (that is, made victims) -- and 'prosecutors', though his pronunciation sometimes makes it sound like 'persecutors'.

He also lied by claiming the Supreme Court said he and Knox had nothing to do with the crime, whereas in fact the court said they were there -- Knox certainly, Sollecito presumably.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:50 am   Post subject: MORE HARASSMENT OF THE KERCHERS   

Michael Becker just can't seem to help himself. Response to the Daily Mail (which censored my comment, sadly).


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: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I just watched the rest of the Derbyshire interview in case anyone who's blocked wants to know. Not much to it. Sollecito claims he faces 'prejudice'. He trots out the talking point about the police wanting 'to close the case as soon as possible.' He criticises the Kerchers, saying 'they completely missed the case' (as if they could move to Italy for years on end). He says he still talks to Knox, but rarely. Curiously, in his list of victims of the case, he includes Patrick Lumumba and his family, but still puts it all down to 'the prosecutors' mistakes' rather than Amanda Knox's lies.

Derbyshire didn't ask him about his Facebook antics, having probably agreed in advance not to do so.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

What did Bongiorno mean by saying "procedurally physiological" (normal, as expected?)

January 27, 2017, 14:39

Sollecito compensation, the Court reserves [judgment]
Bongiorno, the decision is procedurally 'physiological'


The judges of the Court of Appeal in Florence reserved the decision on the request for compensation (516 000 euro) advanced by Raffaele Sollecito for wrongful imprisonment. The President of the third section of the Florence court, Silvia Martusciello (together with judges Paola Masi and Anna Favi) will deposit the decision within five days. This morning, brief hearing, which was attended by the Deputy PG [Prosecutor General] Ferrucci and lawyers Francesco Cocchi, replacing Giulia Bongiorno, and Luca Maori. The claim has been opposed by the Prosecutor General of Florence and the Ministry of Finance. For the lawyer Bongiorno, it is a decision procedurally "physiological"[or: it's a "physiological" procedural decision.]


ANSA

All three judges on the panel are women. I hope they read Selvaggia Lucarelli's blog/column in Il Fatto Quotidiano. ;) The same Deputy PG (Ferrucci) as in the court hearing on Guede's request for a trial review.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Meredith, Sollecito asked half a million for wrongful imprisonment. The Court reserves [the decision]

The Court of Appeal of Florence, after more than two hours of deliberation, has reserved the decision on the request made by Raffaele Sollecito, asking the state for 516 thousand euro as compensation for wrongful imprisonment, for "the suffering endured, to the highest degree". The delay should be dissolved within five days.

It's a "physiological" procedural decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence. Said one of his lawyers, Giulia Bongiorno. "We are confident," she added. "The Supreme Court ruling that acquitted Sollecito - emphasized again Bongiorno - is clear and highlights serious responsibilities at the investigative stage." "We look forward with confidence" - commented the other [Sollecito] defense lawyer, Luca Maori, leaving the courtroom.
...
In their application, the lawyers of the Apulian engineer have retraced the four years of incarceration: "Pretrial detention not only removed – they said – Raffaele from the world of affection, but also broke dreams and hopes of an undergraduate student, greatly delaying entry into the world of work: even after the acquittal on appeal in Perugia in 2011 - they reported - Sollecito struggled greatly to continue his studies and to find a place to work, since for all Raffaele Sollecito was and continued to be the accused in a heinous crime."

The lawyers have asked the Court to consider the "role played by sensational blackouts [defaillances] or amnesia and guilty omissions in investigation (passages from the Supreme Court ruling that definitively acquitted him, ed), which contributed significantly to an incarceration of a young innocent citizen."


LA NAZIONE
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: ECtHR Knox V. Italy   

Ergon wrote:
Update from ECtHR:

"I'm enquiring re the case of Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 23/11/2013.

Since it was communicated to the Government for observations 29/04/2016 have you received a response and has a ruling re: admissibility been issued? I have been unable to locate its status on the HUDOC database."
Quote:
Thank you for your message.

Regarding your request, the application in question is still pending before the Court and no decision as to its admissibility has been made yet.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit


Well done Ergon. Not even ACCEPTED yet?!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Jackie wrote:
hugo wrote:
Sallyoo wrote:
So, according to this article, the bleater has his hour before the Florence court for his compensation tomorrow, 27 January. It suggests you might even be able to see him on UK telly, in something called the Victoria Derbyshire show. (IF the link in the article takes you to the BBC News channel on iplayer it may not be geoblocked.)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38745287


I watched about five minutes of it. The whole thing drags on for a quarter of an hour, which, with Sollecito's weird droning affectless voice, is just too long. He whinged a lot, as you'd expect. That's pretty much it.

These interviews don't happen at the request of the broadcaster, but at the suggestion of the interviewee's PR people. As to why Sollecito is promoting himself in Britain, on the BBC, when his compensation case is being heard in Italy, it's fairly obviously the murderer's wish to appropriate and annihilate the victim and her memory. It's like his little trip to dance on Meredith's grave, as facilitated by the despicable Nigel Scott.


What is Nigel doing these days? Still giving grave tours against family wishes?

Come to think of it, what are the rest of those FOA hacks, hucksters, hustlers and housewives now doing?

Is the hairdresser still being asked by the BBC for interviews about her "writing"? LOL

Is the furrier still selling coats? (Or did he switch to working in an auto parts store?)

Did the food blogger ever find a full-time job as a professional journalist?

Is Frank the Fugitive in jail yet? Is he still living with his Mom? Is he almost 60 years old now?

Is The Halk still grading introductory chemistry midterms?

Did the ex-Cessna pilot find another job as a campus security guard?

Is Anne practicing law anymore, after that stint in jail?

The only news I've seen isn't good:

1) Self-described "PI" Paul Ciolino (aka Magnum P.I.E.), who famously used CBS News to lie to the world, with gusto, that Knox had "never laid eyes on" Guede, is being sued for $40 million for (allegedly) pretending to be a cop and bullying a man into a false confession; and

2) Ol' Jim 'I don't need to read the court documents' Clemente is being sued for $750 million for (allegedly) defaming the brother of a famous murder victim on (once again) CBS.

It's funny to think how, when I was in my first year of law school, I thought nothing could be more noble than volunteering for one of the projects in the innocence network, but the cast of characters in this case has really opened my eyes. Some of the projects no longer seem to be employing the same set of standards (they used to require PROOF of innocence, not just a mere scintilla of doubt about guilt). I think it's a shame that underhanded people and underhanded tactics are being used for less than deserving cases for it tarnishes the good name of the project and, as a result, taints the exoneration of those unfortunate souls who really are factually innocent - They should never have to stand on the stage next to the 'very likely guilty' at a banquet for exonerees.

Perhaps Hampikian should start the 'Idaho Not-Exactly-Innocence Project' ...


Hi Jackie

Great post. Did you SEE Clemente in the report. As amateurish as any ex professional could be. Jonbenet's brother HAD to be guilty because in one interview he leaned forward!

Also an update on this:

Quote:
1) Self-described "PI" Paul Ciolino (aka Magnum P.I.E.), who famously used CBS News to lie to the world, with gusto, that Knox had "never laid eyes on" Guede, is being sued for $40 million for (allegedly) pretending to be a cop and bullying a man into a false confession;


(1) The suit against Ciolino was thrown out, on the grounds that Mr Simon actually had confessed.

(2) Ciolino countersued Mr Simon, for $25 million, and three weeks ago that also was thrown out.

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2017/01/0 ... dismissed/

Quote:
Ciolino argued that his counterclaim is valid under a federal rule of civil procedure, which defines a counterclaim as compulsory if it is logically related to the original claim and “arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim,” according to court documents.

[Judge] Dow dismissed the claim of sufficient common ground between the two cases.

“Although there obviously is some connection between Simon’s claim of malicious prosecution and Ciolino’s counterclaim alleging that Simon and the other Counter-Defendants defamed him by discussing Ciolino’s alleged conduct during the investigation, any logical relationship between the claims is attenuated at best and not sound enough…” Dow wrote in his decision.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: ECtHR Knox V. Italy   

Fast Pete wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Update from ECtHR:

"I'm enquiring re the case of Knox v. Italy application no. 76577/13 which was lodged with the Court on 23/11/2013.

Since it was communicated to the Government for observations 29/04/2016 have you received a response and has a ruling re: admissibility been issued? I have been unable to locate its status on the HUDOC database."
Quote:
Thank you for your message.

Regarding your request, the application in question is still pending before the Court and no decision as to its admissibility has been made yet.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit


Well done Ergon. Not even ACCEPTED yet?!


Hi, Pete. Technically not even accepted, only received. The only category that counts is admissibility, and no ruling on that can be made until all communiques for information have been replied to. According to the flow chart I posted here ECtHR APPLICATION Sep 17, 2016 10:00 am it's at the "Initial Analysis" stage.


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: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 10 hours ago
Quote:
Florence appeals ct sets aside 5 days to decide if #RaffaeleSollecito (acquitted definitively) to get 516K EUR comp for 4 yrs jail.

https://twitter.com/andreavogt/status/824987778471620612
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a foreboding / premonition that the three-judge panel will vote in favor of paying Sollecito a compensation. I mean, what else can they do? He has been definitively acquitted and declared "not guilty" by the Supreme Court, and the Florence judges have no choice but to abide by the SC judgment. Maybe, the court will rule not to pay him the maximum amount of 516,000 Euro, but something in the range of, say, 300,000 Euro, as a compromise. Sollecito is probably rubbing his hands together in anticipation of a payout from the State.

Well, I guess, when all is said and done [settled and concluded], we'll be left with what's left - the husk of disappointment. as usual. We can then close up shop and go home. There are only two other things remaining, two small offshoots of the main trial - the Sollecito/Gumbel defamation trial and Knox's appeal to the ECHR. What does everybody think of this outlook? ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:35 am   Post subject: Montesquieu   

guermantes wrote:
What does everybody think of this outlook? ;)



Professor Dershowitz is no amateur, and he's certainly no fool ... yet things have run completely counter to his assessment ...

It's tempting, therefore, to suspect that the Italian judiciary really is susceptible to corruption by the executive branch in accord with Nina Burleigh's report in Newsweek, just before the Supreme Court ruled:

Image

I keep looking for signs that the Italian police, prosecutors and judges will show some spine, but I haven't seen any - When a lower court in Florence acquitted Knox on charges that she slandered police notwithstanding the Supreme Court's definitive decision to convict her for slandering PL (Which is it, Italy: was she coerced, or wasn't she?! Pick ONE!), it seemed to me there were 2 possibilities:

1) the police and forensic teams really were as bad as the FOA claim; or

2) the rattling of the State Department's YUUUUUUGE American Saber, per Nina's report, was sufficient to get Italy's executive branch to corrupt its judicial branch.

If it's (1):

a) Why did the Court bother to send this case back down to Nencini instead of simply endorsing Hellmann?

b) Why, after rejecting Hellmann, did the Court repeat his mistake and apply too strict a standard ("tranquilizing CERTAINTY")? Only God Himself can ever hope to have absolute certainty. The BARD standard, on the other hand, is PROBABILISTIC. One can convict on the basis of strong PROBABILITIES (and, as studies have now shown, even under ideal conditions in a lab, tertiary transfer of touch DNA is a relatively LOW probability event).

c) Why did the Court sweep away so many key findings of fact at trial with ornate but inscrutable and legally meaningless turns of phrase (e.g. "investigative amnesia") instead of setting out clear and detailed reasons as to why each piece of evidence, even when considered in relation to the whole - AND VIEWED IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PROSECUTION*** - was 'insufficient' to displace the presumption of innocence in the mind of a 'rational' trier?
________________________________________
***Per the SCOTUS in Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982), the test for 'SUFFICIENCY' (in a common law jurisdiction) requires the appellate court to view "the evidence and the inferences therefrom" in a light MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PROSECUTION and yet still decide that a "rational factfinder" could not have voted to convict.

It's like looking at a soccer game and saying even if the visiting team doesn't take to the field, the home team STILL wouldn't be able to kick the ball into the goal.

_________________________________________

As it has been translated, it seems the Italian Supreme Court did nothing of the sort - indeed, far from viewing all of the prosecution's evidence and the inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the prosecution, they outright rejected most of it with nary a word of meaningful explanation and, not surprisingly at that point, found what little remained to be 'insufficient'!

Assuming the translations are accurate, it would seem that, in the case of the 2 white defendants but not the 1 black defendant, Italy has adopted a standard above and beyond BARD (i.e., "certainty") that is impossible to satisfy, and a test for 'sufficiency' that is completely at odds with the common law world, which makes it hard for me to resist the temptation to suspect that we might be looking at possibility (2).

Maybe, just maybe, if you believe Newsweek/Kneepads Nina, all of those hotshots over at the State Dept (and its Italian equivalent) forgot their Montesquieu:

“There is as yet no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from legislative power and the executive power."

"...[T]he independence of the judiciary has to be real, and not apparent merely".




(While I'm on the subject of Montesquieu and the separation of powers, I wonder what he would make of a sitting MP, who is also on the Justice Committee, acting, at one and the same time, as a defense lawyer for one citizen with a million or more to spend on his defense ... ;-)


___________________________
PS Speaking of an "independent" judiciary, does anyone recall Ol' Ex-Judge Heavey (aka "5 Hands Heavey") and his boasting about how he and the FOA were able to push the Italian government to put a 'better'*/ 'A team' judge (Hellmann) on the case?

If you believe Heavey really accomplished such a feat, then you must also believe Italy's justice system is a joke.

Wherever the truth may lie in this case (and at this point I haven't got a clue), I'm ready to conclude one thing: that I am about as likely to find justice in Italy as I would be in Mexico.


(* apparently, 'better'/ 'A team' = dumb enough to think BARD = absolute certainty, and that each piece of evidence is to be examined in isolation, divorced from the larger context in which it occurs, and then discarded if it cannot prove guilt to an absolute certainty all by its lonesome.)


Last edited by Jackie on Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:38 am   Post subject: law suits   

Fast Pete wrote:
Jackie wrote:
...

The only news I've seen isn't good:

1) Self-described "PI" Paul Ciolino (aka Magnum P.I.E.), who famously used CBS News to lie to the world, with gusto, that Knox had "never laid eyes on" Guede, is being sued for $40 million for (allegedly) pretending to be a cop and bullying a man into a false confession; and

2) Ol' Jim 'I don't need to read the court documents' Clemente is being sued for $750 million for (allegedly) defaming the brother of a famous murder victim on (once again) CBS.

It's funny to think how, when I was in my first year of law school, I thought nothing could be more noble than volunteering for one of the projects in the innocence network, but the cast of characters in this case has really opened my eyes. Some of the projects no longer seem to be employing the same set of standards (they used to require PROOF of innocence, not just a mere scintilla of doubt about guilt). I think it's a shame that underhanded people and underhanded tactics are being used for less than deserving cases for it tarnishes the good name of the project and, as a result, taints the exoneration of those unfortunate souls who really are factually innocent - They should never have to stand on the stage next to the 'very likely guilty' at a banquet for exonerees.

Perhaps Hampikian should start the 'Idaho Not-Exactly-Innocence Project' ...


Hi Jackie

Great post. Did you SEE Clemente in the report. As amateurish as any ex professional could be. Jonbenet's brother HAD to be guilty because in one interview he leaned forward!

Also an update on this:

Quote:
1) Self-described "PI" Paul Ciolino (aka Magnum P.I.E.), who famously used CBS News to lie to the world, with gusto, that Knox had "never laid eyes on" Guede, is being sued for $40 million for (allegedly) pretending to be a cop and bullying a man into a false confession;


(1) The suit against Ciolino was thrown out, on the grounds that Mr Simon actually had confessed.

(2) Ciolino countersued Mr Simon, for $25 million, and three weeks ago that also was thrown out.

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2017/01/0 ... dismissed/

Quote:
Ciolino argued that his counterclaim is valid under a federal rule of civil procedure, which defines a counterclaim as compulsory if it is logically related to the original claim and “arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim,” according to court documents.

[Judge] Dow dismissed the claim of sufficient common ground between the two cases.

“Although there obviously is some connection between Simon’s claim of malicious prosecution and Ciolino’s counterclaim alleging that Simon and the other Counter-Defendants defamed him by discussing Ciolino’s alleged conduct during the investigation, any logical relationship between the claims is attenuated at best and not sound enough…” Dow wrote in his decision.


Hey, Pete, thanks for the update!

Wow. Tough times for Paulie. He was dreaming of millions and now ... nothin', zero, zip, nada ... 'cept maybe a big legal bill : (

According to his counterclaim, he's now suffering from "depression, anxiety, fear, sleep and eating issues", and given up his PI license because he's no longer got any clients, and "now earns virtually nothing" - here's a link to the details:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/privat ... tion-suit/

"Forget it, Jake - It's Chinatown."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cWnubJ9CEw

As for Jimmie C, yes, I DID see him on CBS (pitching for Knox DID get him out of that YouTube crap with Weiner and into the Lime Light at long last ... only to be sued ... 'BIGLY') along with the other retired experts taking on the Ramsey case and, you know what? I think they made a pretty compelling argument!

But I had to take it all with a big grain of salt because my understanding of issues in that case is not as strong as my understanding of the issues in this case, and I've witnessed firsthand just how Clemental shockingly wrong Jim can be when he's more interested in feverish, one-sided advocacy than in objective, balanced and panoptic analysis.

I couldn't help but note that he was perfectly fine with input from a former FBI linguistic profiler, a criminal behavior analyst, and a former FBI statement analyst ...

I'd love, love, LOVE to get an OBJECTIVE analysis of G, K & S from those 3 experts ... (linguistics ... behavior ... statements ...the FOA always mock this kind of analysis but I find it very compelling, as does the FBI, evidently ... I'll bet they'd have a FIELD DAY with the games the 3 defendants in this case have been, and still are, playing!)

... assuming, of course, that they could avoid the unprofessional, one-sided, red-faced zealotry we've been treated to by Steve & Jim on the Weiner Channel ... I've honestly got some serious doubts about the quality of FBI agents now ... I was expecting to see a 'Jack Bauer', not a 'Barney Fife' ...


Last edited by Jackie on Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Recommended: Machiavelli's take on why Guede's request for a trial review was rejected.

January 19, 2017
Understanding Why Guede’s Appeal For A New Trial Was Declined By The Florence Court
Posted by Machiavelli

A few days ago Guede’s request for a trial review was declared inadmissible by the Florence court. As usual a written explanation will be issued by the court; meanwhile, this is my take.

In a situation of the normal functioning of the law - where the previous judges’ decisions are actually legal - there would be no room for a review of Guede’s conviction, because in order to obtain a trial review, a convicted person has to show that given the new evidence, the overall assessment of the evidence has a significant probability to change, meaning that a court assessing all the evidence would have a significant probability to come to a different conclusion.

Now, if evidence on Rudy Guede is assessed legally by a court, there would be no significant probability that any court would come out with a different verdict, because there is in fact sufficient evidence that he took part in a murder and that he is guilty in complicity along with other culprits as the courts have already found.


TJMK
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

John Kercher wrote:
'They've been set free - so why keep going on? It's bizarre'

Perhaps they can't stop talking about it because they make capital out of their notoriety (cash in on it)? This is the only reason I can find for their "bizarre" behavior.

Amanda Knox has a new speaking engagement:

Amanda Knox to speak

https://twitter.com/PBCBarPrez?lang=en

Palm Beach County Bar Association Bulletin, Feb’17

Law Day Luncheon 2017

Guest Speaker: Amanda Knox

Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Time: 11:30 AM-1:00 PM
Registration Closes: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:00 PM
Location: Embassy Suites Hotel 1601 Belvedere Rd, WPB 33406

Event Cost
    • Judges ($0.00)
    • PBCBA Members ($35.00)

Program Overview

Reserve a table for 10 online by selecting Option: Table of 10, and REGISTER NOW. Fee will total $400 (names of table guest MUST be emailed to kclark@palmbeachbar.org ). This event is sponsored by: Clio, Complete Legal Investigations, Esquire Bank, Sabadell United Bank and Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley

http://apps.palmbeachbar.org/calendar/r ... entNo=2465
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:21 pm   Post subject: How NOT to win friends and influence lawyers ...   

guermantes wrote:
John Kercher wrote:
'They've been set free - so why keep going on? It's bizarre'

Perhaps they can't stop talking about it because they make capital out of their notoriety (cash in on it)? This is the only reason I can find for their "bizarre" behavior.

Amanda Knox has a new speaking engagement:
...

Embassy Suites Hotel 1601 Belvedere Rd, WPB 33406


I'm guessing she won't be using this as a backdrop for her talk:

Hidden Content: show
Image


Or this:

Hidden Content: show
Image


Or this HORROR - especially in front of LAWYERS!!! (Viewer Discretion Advised):

Hidden Content: show
Image
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello Jackie,

someone tweeted this about the upcoming "luncheon":

Quote:
#amandaknox is speaking, WANTED law students with guts & determination 2 expose her fake 'story'.

Quote:
#wanted Law students hoping 2 attend @PBCBarPrez in Palm Beach April 26, willing to ask #amandaknox the tough questions about her lies.


I wonder if any of the judges/lawyers, who invited her to speak, have read any of the court documents or sentencing reports from her trial(s)? Do they just take her word for it - that she is innocent - and trust her blindly? I'm just surprised at such carelessness.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks, Ergon, for posting the (direct) link to Sollecito's latest BBC interview on Victoria Derbyshire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04qv61z

I've found it in comments under one of the articles on TJMK. This link is working for me and hopefully for all others who are not in the UK. I can only bear to watch the interview in short,
2 min segments, though, with long pauses and tea breaks in between. p-(((
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi Guermantes,

I don't think there's any point to that effort for 2 reasons:

1) Knox's handlers will be sure to have things set up in a way that she can't be given an impromptu cross-examination (for example, by never opening it up to Q&A, or by pre-arranging a limited Q&A with friendly/sympathetic questioners, etc.); &

2) No one attends these kinds of events to call the featured speaker into question.

For example, when I volunteered for the innocence project affiliated with my law school, we were immediately invited to attend a dinner at a nice hotel featuring a recent exoneree and the lawyers that had helped him. I had no frame of reference. I'd never seen any of those people before. I didn't know the first thing about his case. In fact, I didn't really know the first thing about the law. I hadn't even had one full semester of criminal law at that point and it would be another year before I'd see the inside of a real courtroom, or receive training in evidence law, trial advocacy, etc.. "If all of these fancy lawyers, law professors, and judges think the man is "innocent", who am I, a lowly law student, to question any of it?!"

Showing up at an event featuring a self-proclaimed "exoneree" to call their claims of "innocence" into question, would be like showing up at an AA meeting with a case of beer and saying "Who wants to party?!" You're missing the point. You're running counter to the spirit of the thing. You're not reading the room.

They'll be there to feel good about fighting "wrongful convictions" in the name of Justice. They're not there to cross-examine Knox and call her a liar - even though she is a liar, surrounded by a team of professional liars.

The ONE place where a featured speaker might be given a hard time is a law school symposium with a Q&A session that's open to the entire class. Great law schools are beehives of activity - there are so many guests giving so many lectures on so many topics, both in and out of regularly scheduled classes, that you could NEVER hope to see them all (students used to joke that you could go all 3 years of law school without ever having to buy groceries if you made of point of hitting all of the conferences that offered free sandwiches or pizza). And great law schools are full of smart students who like to ask tough questions. Guest speakers usually got at least ONE tough, sometimes almost rude, question from one of the more aggressive students. I don't think Knox would enjoy opening it up to a random Q&A about the details of her case with an audience of smart law students. I seriously doubt she'd come away unscathed and that's why I'll bet we never see it.

Alas, her shockingly disingenuous American PR campaign has been enormously successful on this side of the Atlantic and there's nothing anyone can do about that now. IMHO, there was a time when the Kerchers could have made an impact but they did not seem willing to feed the US media beast, and that beast has now moved on.

Take comfort in the fact that Knox was released before Drumpf was elected - can you imagine the scene President *****grabber would have made?! ITALY would have been right in there with Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen on his ****list! The red states would be hailing Knox as a hero and giving her ticker-tape parades upon her triumphant return! This way, she arrived to a crowd of about 2 at dreary ol' SeaTac (unless you count PR people and photogs ordered to be there) and is nothing more than a grammatically-challenged wannabe writer (who can't even distinguish between 'conquer' and 'concur'), and, judging by the Netflix doc, living in semi-seclusion, in a shack in the woods, with cats crawling all over her food. Plus, judging by the polls, whenever she walks into a public place, anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of the people who recognize her will suspect she's a depraved and unrepentant criminal.

If she truly is "innocent", that's an unforgivable tragedy, but if she really was there ... as the Italian Supreme Court seems to suggest ... then it's nowhere near enough.


Last edited by Jackie on Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

She didn't make herself available for Q & A during her recent trip to Toronto to promote the Netflix movie either, Jackie. And when UK reporter Graham Phillips asked for an interview David Marriott didn't like his list of questions :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
She didn't make herself available for Q & A during her recent trip to Toronto to promote the Netflix movie either, Jackie. And when UK reporter Graham Phillips asked for an interview David Marriott didn't like his list of questions :)


I am Jack's COMPLETE lack of surprise.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here's another explanation (vertical scratch on one side of knox adams apple). Didn't know about this one

"State pathologist Dr Luca Lalli examined Amanda on November 6, 2007 and testified the mark was an “extremely non specific skin irritation” and there was no broken skin or marks from fingernail scratching. (That didn’t stop the prosecution saying it was scratch) The testimony is on pages 77, 87-89 and 112 of the April 3, 2009 transcript."
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:44 pm   Post subject: So nice they violated her human rights???   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Here's another explanation (vertical scratch on one side of knox adams apple). Didn't know about this one

"State pathologist Dr Luca Lalli examined Amanda on November 6, 2007 and testified the mark was an “extremely non specific skin irritation” and there was no broken skin or marks from fingernail scratching. (That didn’t stop the prosecution saying it was scratch) The testimony is on pages 77, 87-89 and 112 of the April 3, 2009 transcript."


This case is filled, top to bottom, with things that could go either way ...

Even the JOKES! (IIRC, 2 very smart commentators, erasmus44 (PIP) and hugo (PGP), couldn't agree on WHY Cecily Strong's Knox joke at the WH Press Correspondents' Dinner was funny - one thinks it turns on the notion that Knox is clearly NG, the other thinks it turns on the idea that she's clearly G)

Is it a hematoma from something like a finger jab during a fight that preceded the stabbing, or is it a hickey???

Personally, I'm waiting for the ECtHR to tell me who is lying about the alleged slaps: Knox or the cops???

The Italian courts are contradicting one another on that one, and their ornate but inscrutable and legally meaningless turns of phrase ("obsessive length", unspecified "clamorous failures", "investigative amnesia", unspecified "culpable omissions", etc., etc.) are not clearly and concisely tied to specific findings of fact, so it is impossible to determine what, exactly, happened (and WHEN) in the witness interviews.

And if the translations of Boninsegna are accurate, who knows?! We might witness, possibly for the first time in the annals of law enforcement, a case where a witness is deemed to have been treated TOO KINDLY by police! LOL

The police were too NICE?! (... said NO FOAKer E V E R )

So "sugarcoated" in their approach that they violated her human rights?! FFS.

I honestly wish I'd never heard of Amanda Knox. Can anyone point me to a single example where Knox or her PR team (Ciolino, Bremner, Moore, Clemente, Marriott, Van Sant (Marriott's "partner" at CBS), Kassin, etc.) claimed she ruined PL because the police were TOO NICE to her?!

So, let me get this straight ... an "innocent" 3rd year university student, well over the age of 18, with normal intelligence, will falsely accuse an innocent friend of a terrible crime, and implicate herself, in less than 90 minutes of "sugarcoated" KINDNESS ???????????????????????????????????????

sur-)

And I thought the "Affluenza Defense" was lame!
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Here's another explanation (vertical scratch on one side of knox adams apple). Didn't know about this one

"State pathologist Dr Luca Lalli examined Amanda on November 6, 2007 and testified the mark was an “extremely non specific skin irritation” and there was no broken skin or marks from fingernail scratching. (That didn’t stop the prosecution saying it was scratch) The testimony is on pages 77, 87-89 and 112 of the April 3, 2009 transcript."

Hi, ttrroonniicc,
Lalli was referring to impressions from memory, as he didn't' have his notes or inspection report with him so it was based on his recollections nearly two years later. Meredith Kercher Wiki
Quote:
DOMANDA – lesione?
RISPOSTA – Lesioni, sì, nel senso la definiamo lesione nel
senso c’era questo segno sul collo.
DOMANDA – un segno sul collo.
RISPOSTA – Questo segno sul collo ma di natura, a mio ricordo
estremamente aspecifica, tanto che non... non aveva
caratteristiche né di unghiatura, né di graffio, né di
cose di questo genere.
DOMANDA – Senta, sì, altri segni esterni...
RISPOSTA – No.
DOMANDA – Segni esterni, se io le dico, me lo sono segnata,
una lesione sopra una mammella sinistra, piccoli... ma
cosa è un segno?
RISPOSTA – Non me lo ricordo, no.
DOMANDA – Perfetto, io termino, tornando alle macchie di tipo
ipostatico di cui all'interno del piccolo... quelle che
sono state...
RISPOSTA – Fotografate.
DOMANDA – No sono state oggetto di molte domande...
RISPOSTA – Sì.
DOMANDA – Come sempre puntuale dell'Avvocato Bongiorno, sa
perché? Perché nel verbale di chiusura dell’incidente
probatorio, che è agli atti, del 19 Aprile 2008, alle
pagine 73 e 74 in un, diciamo, contraddittorio tra il
professor Torre e la professoressa Anna Aprile,
relativamente al cadavere, al morto, si veniva a dire:
no, l'esame istologico, come lei ha detto, ha escluso la
presenza di ecchimosi e non si può parlare di ecchimosi
in un morto, e la professoressa Aprile, che era uno dei
consulenti del GIP, concordava su questa non... Allora
se io le dico, ha già risposto, ma è corre... Lei che
cosa ne pensa di un giudizio di non poter definire,

then when shown a magnified photo, cannot specify whether it is a lesion or a scratch. He may also have been unsure whether it was produced by a nail scratch since Meredith's fingernails were very short.
Quote:
DOMANDA – Aspecifica, nel senso che non riesce a determinare
il mezzo che lo ha prodotto?
RISPOSTA – Determinare il mezzo che lo possa aver prodotto,
può essere anche una lesione da grattamento, insomma,
voglio dire, anche un semplice, una semplicemente
un’azione derivante dal proprio essersi grattati.
DOMANDA – Ed è quindi una unghiatura? e né di graffio?
RISPOSTA – Sì, a mia ricordo sì
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:57 am   Post subject: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Can you believe these Team Knox translations of Boninsegna?!
____________________________________
"All these reported events {of police officers hugging Knox or holding her hand during the interrogation and, possibly, of the interpreter speaking of her own traumatic amnesia and urging Knox to remember while holding or touching Knox's shoulder} do not appear, very understandably, this also being evidence that they were reckoned as anomalous, in any written report. However, they have been presented, and even stressed multiple times, by the witnesses {that is, the police including the police interpreters} heard, with the manifest aim of pointing out at the fair, indeed nice, treatment reserved for Knox. In this way the witnesses and the civil parties have, probably, meant to introduce an element of support to their case, disproving at the same time the defendant’s accusations against them. But they probably did not realise, and this too is likewise characteristic, that in such a professional context, the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24). And this because of the obvious and textbook-like reason that she was a subject who had to be enabled to defend, in an unhampered way, her personal freedom against the power of the State, since the latter had, through its law enforcement, already marked her as a person under investigation."
-------------------------------------------------
The cops were TOO "NICE" to Knox?!

So "nice", in fact, that their "SUGARCOATED" approach somehow violated her human rights?! LOL Now I really have heard it all.

This will come as a COMPLETE shock to anyone who has followed Knox's American PR campaign, which was very effective in selling the great unwashed on the idea that she was 'tag-teamed' by dozens of bully cops who slapped her and yelled at her for "53 hours" nonstop ... without a bathroom break! LOL

Why are the Italians rolling over for this humiliation??? (Mmmmmmm ... What would Ferrari, Panerai and Persol DO without ACCESS to all of those rich Californians?!)

Evidently, in Italy (and the rest of the EU), there is almost no concern for 'crime control' - the bad guys aren't the problem, it's the cops! So, it seems, they've focused almost exclusively on 'due proccess' concerns ... to such a ridiculous extreme that, apparently, a cop can blow a case just by offering a few kind words or the comforting touch of a hand to a stone-cold guilty suspect! :shock:

Meanwhile, back in the real world, North American courts recognize the need to give police the tools they need to CONTROL CRIME: cops can flat-out LIE to suspects - indeed, they can claim to have incriminating evidence when they don't, even put a suspect in a holding cell with an undercover cop pretending to be another criminal to get the suspect to confide an inculpatory word or two.

And, as Casey Anthony will tell you, American cops do NOT have to read 'suspects' their rights to keep their pre-custody/arrest lies admissible in court, even if they happen to get handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser as part of multi-day series of full-on interrogations of "obsessive length" (as Hellmann would put it)!

And to think the constant refrain of the FOA all these years has been "US law is superior to Italian law - Amanda would never even have been charged here!" What delicious irony! Particularly in light of Professor Dershowitz's assessment (not only charged but convicted). By US standards, Knox's lies to police are just as admissble as Casey Anthony's lies to police. And none of the lonely Knox-loving geezers will ever get that ... you can lead a horse to water, but ... most of these fanboys aren't even as smart as a horse ;-)

Ah well, what does it even matter now that we're living in the Age of Fake News? PR firms and book-selling media barons rule. The fourth estate has collapsed. The "news" is for sale. Hail President Drumpf Putin and the rise of "alternative facts".

The only sensible approach in the face of this media meltdown is to adopt a strict Sub Judice Rule (no public comments while a case is before the courts) - you can't have the courts' role usurped by PR shills and other assorted morons on TV (e.g. a legally and scientifically illiterate senator who thinks the police framed her 21 y.o. bro for murder as payback for her dad's politics despite there being no evidence for this belief, or a burned out ex-cop who will say anything just to be on TV).

I'll never know whether the Supreme Court was right to suggest that Knox was there, likely with Solly the Blade by her side, and possibly even washing Meredith's blood from her hands, but I am convinced that this Italian Clown Show made one right call: nailing Guede to the wall ... even if only to reward him with a free degree and a slap on the wrist (like I say, they seem to think cops are the real problem, not the criminals, so why not cut the lying, game-playing, blood-covered bastard a break?!) n-((

But ... eyes on the prize: Did Boninsegna accept Knox's claim that she was slapped? (No other Italian court has, not even Hellmann's.) sh-))
___________________________________________________________________


PS I don't suppose it really matters though because it would seem that the (ridiculously reasoned) about-face of the Italian courts has paved the way for total victory for the 2 white defendants (but not the 1 black defendant). I wouldn't be surprised to see them both receive compensation at this point. If that occurs, it would be hard to ignore the fact that this case became a political football the second Cantwell* saw her 21 y.o. brother in Knox and began to make waves. Indeed, on the strength of Burleigh's Newsweek report citing an un-named "diplomat" in the State Department, it could well be argued that a complete victory for Knox would say a lot more about the enormous power and prestige of the US government than it would about the application of well-settled law, science, logic, reason and common sense. (The victim's poor mother certainly seems to feel this way, which says it all, really.)



* Cantwell's family background is truly bizarre and more than a little unsettling. IIRC, even their own lawyer didn't buy their belief that their 21 y.o. son was framed by police for his dad's politics. What are the odds of finding a senator like THIS?! Already primed to believe police frame innocent kids to settle political scores! Even in Indiana! LOL A truly great documentary on the Knox case would start with the Cantwells.

For starters: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/106941375/
"Prosecutor James F. Kelley charged Saturday that the murder case against 21-year-old Daniel F. Cantwell had been turned into a "political football." ... Cantwell is charged with murder in the death of Miss Jones, a 26-year-old cafeteria employee of the Indianapolis Public School system, last Nov. 1. She was slain in an efficiency apartment she had just rented at 1702 East Bradbury Avenue. The apartment is owned by the defendant's mother, Rose Cantwell. Cantwell's parents are divorced."

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/106960680/
"Miss Hayes had expressed fear about testifying... lives near the Cantwell home, 2346 South Keystone Avenue, testified she was a friend of Cantwell's and heard him admit to the murder Nov. 1. She said she was standing in the kitchen of Cantwell's home with Cantwell and several other persons when the defendant said, "I wrapped it around her neck and squeezed,"

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/107626090/"Daniel Cantwell ... reportedly faiied two lie detector (polygraph) tests administered by Indianapolis police when he claimed to have no personal knowledge of the death He passed a third test arranged by his parents."


https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/107940647/
"...Cantwell allegedly made the admissions to Jaggers while seeking drugs...DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ...will call...a respected polygraph operator, to testify...he would not have tested Cantwell that night because Cantwell admitted to having taken drugs in the previous 24 hours, had already been questioned for several hours and had reacted violently to accusations by police he wasn't telling the truth...other evidence against Cantwell includes a thumbprint in the apartment."


"...pressure by ... the Cantwells not to indict. Stark told the grand jury his investigators had been harassed more in this case than "in my 28 years on the force."

(family circling the wagons and applying political pressure ...claims of a police conspiracy...'harassing' police investigators...BUT...drugs...violent reaction to questioning ...failed lie detector tests...witnesses to confessions...a print at the scene - funny ... no mention of ANY of this on her wiki page, which DOES mention Knox - you'd think she'd want to highlight the similarities ;-)
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:33 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Jackie wrote:
Can you believe these Team Knox translations of Boninsegna?!
____________________________________
"All these reported events {of police officers hugging Knox or holding her hand during the interrogation and, possibly, of the interpreter speaking of her own traumatic amnesia and urging Knox to remember while holding or touching Knox's shoulder} do not appear, very understandably, this also being evidence that they were reckoned as anomalous, in any written report. However, they have been presented, and even stressed multiple times, by the witnesses {that is, the police including the police interpreters} heard, with the manifest aim of pointing out at the fair, indeed nice, treatment reserved for Knox. In this way the witnesses and the civil parties have, probably, meant to introduce an element of support to their case, disproving at the same time the defendant’s accusations against them. But they probably did not realise, and this too is likewise characteristic, that in such a professional context, the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24). And this because of the obvious and textbook-like reason that she was a subject who had to be enabled to defend, in an unhampered way, her personal freedom against the power of the State, since the latter had, through its law enforcement, already marked her as a person under investigation."
-------------------------------------------------
The cops were TOO "NICE" to Knox?!

So "nice", in fact, that their "SUGARCOATED" approach somehow violated her human rights?! LOL Now I really have heard it all.

This will come as a COMPLETE shock to anyone who has followed Knox's American PR campaign, which was very effective in selling the great unwashed on the idea that she was 'tag-teamed' by dozens of bully cops who slapped her and yelled at her for "53 hours" nonstop ... without a bathroom break! LOL

Why are the Italians rolling over for this humiliation??? (Mmmmmmm ... What would Ferrari, Panerai and Persol DO without ACCESS to all of those rich Californians?!)

Evidently, in Italy (and the rest of the EU), there is almost no concern for 'crime control' - the bad guys aren't the problem, it's the cops! So, it seems, they've focused almost exclusively on 'due proccess' concerns ... to such a ridiculous extreme that, apparently, a cop can blow a case just by offering a few kind words or the comforting touch of a hand to a stone-cold guilty suspect! :shock:


Italy is rather different from Britain, though. Note that Boninsegna is not saying that police should have interviewed Knox under caution, as they would have done in Britain. Italian police can't do that. They can't interview suspects. They can't conduct interviews under caution. Once someone is a suspect, all police questioning must end. So Boninsegna is saying that, as soon as Sollecito withdrew Knox's alibi, she should have been completely immune to all police questioning forever. She should only have been interviewed by the prosecutor, on a voluntary basis, with notice given in advance and time to prepare with her lawyers, and she should have been able to end the interview at any time she wanted if she became in the least uncomfortable, as happened with the Mignini interview in December.

Police should not have been able to question her at all. Italian procedure really is that dysfunctional.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:41 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Jackie wrote:

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/106960680/
"Miss Hayes had expressed fear about testifying... lives near the Cantwell home, 2346 South Keystone Avenue, testified she was a friend of Cantwell's and heard him admit to the murder Nov. 1. She said she was standing in the kitchen of Cantwell's home with Cantwell and several other persons when the defendant said, "I wrapped it around her neck and squeezed,"

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/107626090/"Daniel Cantwell ... reportedly faiied two lie detector (polygraph) tests administered by Indianapolis police when he claimed to have no personal knowledge of the death He passed a third test arranged by his parents."



That's good archive-ferreting, Jackie. I definitely did not know that a witness said she heard Daniel Cantwell confess to the murder of his mother's tenant Miss Jones.

Curious that the Indiana jury took only half an hour, if I recall aright, to acquit Daniel Cantwell. But then the defendant's father was a prominent and powerful local politician. I wonder if there's any remaining physical evidence on which modern DNA analysis could be conducted, but I suppose the double-jeopardy rule means they can't go there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Jackie wrote:
Hi Guermantes,

I don't think there's any point to that effort for 2 reasons:

1) Knox's handlers will be sure to have things set up in a way that she can't be given an impromptu cross-examination (for example, by never opening it up to Q&A, or by pre-arranging a limited Q&A with friendly/sympathetic questioners, etc.); &

2) No one attends these kinds of events to call the featured speaker into question.
...
They'll be there to feel good about fighting "wrongful convictions" in the name of Justice. They're not there to cross-examine Knox and call her a liar - even though she is a liar, surrounded by a team of professional liars.
...
Alas, her shockingly disingenuous American PR campaign has been enormously successful on this side of the Atlantic and there's nothing anyone can do about that now. IMHO, there was a time when the Kerchers could have made an impact but they did not seem willing to feed the US media beast, and that beast has now moved on.


Thanks for your explanations, Jackie. I'm sure you are right: everything will be prearranged, and Q&A scripted in advance. It will be a one-way presentation without much involvement from the audience. Still, it would be nice if someone could crash their party and ask Knox some inconvenient questions... (a dream, I know)

Here is what Professor Dershowitz said after Knox's acquittal by Italy's Supreme Court:

Meredith murder, Lawyer Dershowitz: "Amanda is lucky to be tried in Italy"

After the sentence on the murder of Meredith Kercher, there have been many reactions of outrage. "Amanda should be happy that her trial was conducted in Italy, American judicial system would not have offered many opportunities for review as happened in Italy." Says to Il Messaggero lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a former adviser to the defense of OJ Simpson and defender of Mike Tyson.

"My impression is that the solution to the case had been passed not by the way of law but that of diplomacy. The respective embassies were certainly in contact for some time to test the waters in a discreet way, understand the mutual intentions, and negotiate the road easier for both countries."

viewtopic.php?style=6&p=126649#p126649
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Just a couple observations on the latest Sollecito interview.

I've noticed that, sometimes, he fixes his gaze on Victoria Derbyshire and holds it as if checking on her reaction to his words (whether she appears to believe what he is saying or not.)

I.e., Lying Eyes: Why Liars Seek Deliberate Eye Contact

We hypothesized that liars seek more eye contact because they want to convince the interviewer that they are telling the truth and want to check whether the interviewer appears to believe them.


or 8 Signs Someone Is Lying To You

When people lie, it's common that they break eye contact, but the liar could go the extra mile to maintain eye contact in attempt to control and manipulate you.


I know, analyzing his body language is a thankless task, but if you look at him in this interview and then look at the photos on that "closed" FB group, where he is pictured with a knife, it's like you're seeing two different persons. I do think that Sollecito isn't as harmless as he pretends to be; he has a mean streak, he can be heedless, reckless and foolishly thoughtless; he doesn't have a sound judgment, and is easily led by a group as his latest comments on Facebook have shown. One day, he might do something nasty again.

My second observation is about the pocket square he is wearing. Its pattern is suspiciously similar to a (leopard) print of a silk scarf by Christian Dior: Dior silk collection (retails for £150). Perhaps there are pocket squares by the same designer (Mitzah Bricard), I don't know.

There are many good fashion designers in Italy too, of course, and we all know the junior's love for expensive designer clothes and accessories. In short, he could do with a bit more money from the State to be able to afford luxury items (*sarcasm*).
Top Profile 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello Germantes, nothing yet from the court reg Knifey Boys "compensation" for suffering while murdering a beautiful girl?[CQuote][/CQuote]
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

We might hear something tomorrow, elisa. They said they'd take 5 days. (Working days I presume).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
We might hear something tomorrow, elisa. They said they'd take 5 days. (Working days I presume).


Who knows what tricks behind the scenes are being played (again)? But if the judge really studies the record of the early days there is no way RS gets paid.

He ADMITTED that he had lied to the cops because Knox made him. He had half a dozen hearings before the 2009 trial and all the judges turned his pleas down - moving from prison to house release included.

Its worth noting that one of his and Knox's 2008 attempts at being sprung before trial was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court weighed the evidence and said, better to keep them both locked up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

elisa wrote:
Hello Germantes, nothing yet from the court reg Knifey Boys "compensation" for suffering while murdering a beautiful girl?


Hi elisa, I have been checking news from the ANSA news agency all week; no reports, so far, of any decision by the Florence judges. They'll probably deposit / announce it at 10:30 pm tonight, as they did with the Supreme Court verdict that acquitted Knox and Sollecito. ;) Friday night is the best time (from the point of view of the judiciary) for announcing unpopular decisions; that way, people won't have time to get too upset and complain about a waste of taxpayers money. And, by Monday morning, the news will fade from the mainstream and be all but forgotten (ETA: just my personal guess, I'm preparing myself for the worst.)
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
Ergon wrote:
We might hear something tomorrow, elisa. They said they'd take 5 days. (Working days I presume).


Who knows what tricks behind the scenes are being played (again)? But if the judge really studies the record of the early days there is no way RS gets paid.

He ADMITTED that he had lied to the cops because Knox made him. He had half a dozen hearings before the 2009 trial and all the judges turned his pleas down - moving from prison to house release included.

Its worth noting that one of his and Knox's 2008 attempts at being sprung before trial was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court weighed the evidence and said, better to keep them both locked up.



Florence three-women panel of judges promised the verdict by today. No news, when the courts in Italy must be closed by now. If there was an award, we would surely have heard about it and a press conference called.

The silence, we hope, is the silence of disappointment of the Knifed One and his eager money-grubbing attorneys.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
elisa wrote:
Hello Germantes, nothing yet from the court reg Knifey Boys "compensation" for suffering while murdering a beautiful girl?


Hi elisa, I have been checking news from the ANSA news agency all week; no reports, so far, of any decision by the Florence judges. They'll probably deposit / announce it at 10:30 pm tonight, as they did with the Supreme Court verdict that acquitted Knox and Sollecito. ;) Friday night is the best time (from the point of view of the judiciary) for announcing unpopular decisions; that way, people won't have time to get too upset and complain about a waste of taxpayers money. And, by Monday morning, the news will fade from the mainstream and be all but forgotten.



Wasn't that late because the judges could not agree?

Perhaps there is disagreement here. However, it has had a whole week to hammer out any deal.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for the answers to all of you. Am pessimistic.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Right now, it's 10:40 pm in Italy, and there is STILL no news on the court of Florence's decision.

So, I take it that we will have to wait for a while longer until we hear the verdict (possibly on Monday.)
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 349

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 3:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 10 hours ago
Quote:
Florence appeals ct sets aside 5 days to decide if #RaffaeleSollecito (acquitted definitively) to get 516K EUR comp for 4 yrs jail.

https://twitter.com/andreavogt/status/824987778471620612
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a foreboding / premonition that the three-judge panel will vote in favor of paying Sollecito a compensation. I mean, what else can they do? He has been definitively acquitted and declared "not guilty" by the Supreme Court, and the Florence judges have no choice but to abide by the SC judgment. Maybe, the court will rule not to pay him the maximum amount of 516,000 Euro, but something in the range of, say, 300,000 Euro, as a compromise. Sollecito is probably rubbing his hands together in anticipation of a payout from the State.

Well, I guess, when all is said and done [settled and concluded], we'll be left with what's left - the husk of disappointment. as usual. We can then close up shop and go home. There are only two other things remaining, two small offshoots of the main trial - the Sollecito/Gumbel defamation trial and Knox's appeal to the ECHR. What does everybody think of this outlook? ;)

I suspect the Sollecito/Gumbel charges will be stretched outuntilprescrizione/statutes of limitations kick in. I have no idea how the ECHR case will go, assuming it's accepted. Have no idea re Sollecito getting compo either. By all rights he shouldn't but if Florence need to abide by Cassation's ruling then he probably will. I can't take any judicial decision by Italy seriously anyway after this fiasco. Florence need to abide by an illegal ruling by Cassation and illegal acquittal? He gets money despite lying to the cops & hard damning evidence which would have convicted him anywhere else? That's profiting from murder and empowering him, due to them having to abide by an illegal ruling. It's a sick joke and obscenely disrespectful to the victim and her family. Absolute disgrace & the Italian judiciary have absolutely no respect from me. Italy is not ultimately under the rule of law & cannot be trusted to hring justice to murder victims.
So if he gets comped then so be it. He's still a scumbag.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Here is a good analysis of Sollesito's Radio Cusano Campus interview (it contains an assessment of Sollecito's personality with which I fully agree, the underlines are mine):

Analysis of the interview released by Raffaele Sollecito following the revelations of Selvaggia Lucarelli

Raffaele Sollecito: Good morning, good morning to all.

Raffaele responds in a modulated voice, almost feminine, in a tone of a victim. By now, it is clear that Sollecito does not intend to take responsibility and apologize [for his behavior on Facebook] but defend himself.

Reporter: What happened Raffaele? Things are as told by Selvaggia Lucarelli?
...
Raffaele Sollecito, after everything he has been through, innocent, according to the judges of the Supreme Court, enjoys playing the role of a killer in Facebook groups; he not only does not deny being capable of murder but also describes [various] arrangements.
...
Raffaele Sollecito, through his black humor, tells [us] about himself, his lack of empathy and particularly his inability to stand up for himself and fight off group dynamics. The group removes responsibility and leads some people to do the silliest [most stupid] things. The one, who, being innocent, suffered firsthand the infamy of a charge as serious as that of having killed someone, usually avoids appearing on Facebook as a murderer who got away with it; an innocent [person] wants suspicions about him to disappear and does nothing to feed them. Many will wonder how it is possible that Sollecito does not realize the risk he runs? Evidently, he loves danger and feels in a barrel of iron, not afraid to put his reputation at stake, something that might happen in the event of a revision, but, above all, Raffaele has not learned his lesson because, just because of his personality traits, is unable to learn from experience.
...
Contrary to what he claims, there is plenty to say, mostly about his psychopathology; Raffaele, on this occasion, once confronted with the evidence, rather than focusing on an unlikely defensive line, should just have apologized to the Kercher family but he didn't, which makes him an irresponsible, impulsive man, who doesn't learn from experience, insensitive, immature and capable of extreme forms of contempt. The question arises: what would Raffaele Sollecito think if someone addressed the issue of his mother's death with the same satire and student spirit with which he joked about the murder of the poor Meredith Kercher? Perhaps nothing, given that Sollecito is devoid of empathy.
...
Going back to Sollecito's response to the journalist, where he says, "but, in the end, there are friends, even", looking for extenuating circumstances where there are none; adding "even" at the end of the sentence tells us that, in the group, there are not only his friends, as initially he intended to persuade the journalist, but that there are "even" his friends. To be sure, the groups Sollecito belongs to have more than 200,000 members, can hardly be regarded as groups of friends; in any case, even if they were only friends, it would not justify his behavior, nor would he avoid being judged in psycho-pathological terms.

Raffaele, also in this response, replying to the journalist, says: "There are several of my friends who tell stupidities of all kinds ..."; he does not speak of himself and his posts but those of friends; in order to minimize his involvement, he dodges his responsibility and shifts it to share it with others, the behavior of a coward.
...
In conclusion, we expected that Sollecito would apologize to the Kercher family while he limited himself to defending the indefensible, and it confirms his insensitivity. It is significant, as we have seen, that Raffaele has no brakes when he is part of a group and finds it rewarding being considered a 'master' of a murder gone unpunished, capable of hiding all traces, and that he has no fear of repercussions for certain posts he published. Finally, what is most surprising is the fact that Sollecito didn't understand [the question of a reporter] about not having friends; he did not recognize in the tone of voice of journalists, falsely playful and accommodating with him, a manipulation; their goal was not to support him but make him talk as much as possible, a goal achieved.


MALKE CRIME NOTES
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito will be a guest of Giovanni Minoli, host of the Faccia a faccia (Face to Face) programme on La7, tonight at 8:30 pm (2:30 pm EST)

Faccia a Faccia La7 ‏@facciafacciala7
Quote:
Domenica 5 febbraio #La7 20:30 In studio Raffaele #Sollecito intervistato da Giovanni #Minoli per #facciaafaccia

Face to Face La7 @ facciafacciala 15 hours ago
Quote:
Sunday, February 5 # La7 20:30 In the studio Raffaele #Sollecito interviewed by Giovanni #Minoli for #facciaafaccia


TWITTER

FACCIA A FACCIA

I presume this interview was scheduled in advance; he was probably supposed to talk about receiving an award for wrongful imprisonment from the State, but, the Florence judges, by delaying their ruling on his compensation claim, might have spoiled his (anticipated) triumph, so to speak. ;) Let's hear what he has to say... Maybe he knows something we don't know.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Faccia a faccia LIVE now.

Live stream: http://www.la7.it/dirette-tv

First, an interview with the president of the Veneto region, then Sollecto.

Minoli introduced Sollecito to his viewers with these words:

Quote:
RT @ facciafacciala7: #Minoli to #Sollecito: "Can you say that Raffaele and Amanda #Knox were saved from / by America?" #facciaafaccia # La7 @...
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Unfortunately, the La7 live stream has been interrupted. I'm following the programme on Twitter now:

Faccia a Faccia La7 ‏@facciafacciala7 4 minutes ago
Quote:
#Sollecito a #Minoli: "I media hanno parlato per bocca della procura" #facciaafaccia #La7 @Raffasolaries


#Sollecito to #Minoli: "The media was speaking as a mouthpiece for the prosecution"
#Sollecito to #Minoli: "I reproach myself for having been naive, but at that age .."
#Sollecito to #Minoli: "Many media outlets have talked about me without ever asking me anything [any questions about myself]"
#Sollecito to #Minoli: "There was extreme shallowness/superficiality and haste to close the case"
#Sollecito to #Minoli: "Strong pressure from the British and Italian colpevolisti media"
#Sollecito to #Minoli: "The justice system in Italy is also a stroke/game of luck [throw of the dice]"
#Sollecito to #Minoli: "The real ghosts came into my life after prison..."
#Sollecito To #Minoli: "The prisoners are left alone to themselves in that world"
----------------------------------------------------

To sum up: NOTHING new. A complete waste of everyone's time. Why he doesn't get bored to regurgitate the same old tired story, is beyond me.

Comment by a viewer:

nick landscape ‏@STANCO83 28 minutes ago
if he had not been defended by Bongiorno, he might not have been where he is now (was not going to make it.) words #sollecito. you are a culprit. #facciaafaccia
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Funny sort of world where more people believe Rudy Guede than Raffaele Sollecito. He even has more supporters in Italy. Weird.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

From ANSA about the Raffaele Sollecito interview yesterday evening, 'Case built on Sandcastles in the Air':

Quote:
(ANSA) - Rome, Feb. 5 - "During the process, no one wanted to listen to me: perhaps they were not interesting or maybe it did not matter what I had to say and wanted to bring a charge that could only survive on a sand castle" . And 'what he says Raffaelle Sollecito, in the interview with Giovanni Minoli aired tonight at 20.30 on La7, talking about the trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Meredith has received justice ?, he asks the reporter. "I think so", I urge the response. "Many media have spoken by the mouth of the prosecution", underlines the young man answering Minoli who wondered why for America were considered, he and Amanda Knox, innocent as they were considered guilty for Italy.
Sollecito believes it wrong not to defend itself immediately.
http://www.ansa.it/umbria/notizie/2017/ ... 1b778.html


Only problem is, he and Amanda Knox were not charged for a few months and the trial was not until over a year later, January - December 2009. That was plenty of time for police to discover they 'made a mistake', as they did with Patrick Lumumba.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hello to all, did anybody hear anything about th appell. court in Florance or nothing, yet?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It may be they filed the decision with the court registry, but so far no media's picking it up, elisa.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi Ergon, what does it mean ( actually don't understand)?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
It may be they filed the decision with the court registry, but so far no media's picking it up, elisa.


If so, we can take it it's bad news for the Knifed One?

It's hard to believe the three judges can't come to a unanimous decision after six working days.

Even if his compensation claim fails, he gets to appeal to the Supreme Court...?

Elisa: Ergon means the decision may have been lodged with the court and in the public domain for anyone to apply to see it. Bongiorno and Maori haven't called a press conference to announce it, and I don't suppose the prosecution are allowed to.


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: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

elisa wrote:
Hi Ergon, what does it mean ( actually don't understand)?


Hi, Elisa, court decisions do not always get announced publicly, but only have to filed with the court registry and notice given to the parties. What's interesting is no one in the media's written about it so it might have been delayed is my guess. If RS had won it would be trumpeted by those folk, and if he lost the media would report it by now. There's a site I check sometimes for court decisions http://www.penale.it/ but no news there either.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 240

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
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/


There's now also another episode about/with AK on that site:

Season 2 Episode 1: The Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox
February 06, 2017

She comes across as rather cheerful and giggly. Flirty. Have listened about the first 15 minutes, she's describing how they found MK.
------------------

Daily Mail (and a few other sites) had this today:

Amanda Knox insists she'll never change her name to avoid abuse from the public

ETA: corrected typos


Last edited by Rumpole on Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Rumpole wrote:
guermantes wrote:
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/


There's now also another episode about/with AK on that site:

Season 2 Episode 1: The Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox
February 06, 2017

She comes across rather cheerful and giggly. Flirty. Have listened about the first 15 minutes, she's describing how they found MK.
------------------

Daily Mail (and a few other sites) had this today:

Amanda Knox insists she'll never change her name to avoid abuse from the public


Amanda Knox the brand name? Will include:

Amanda Knox cotton buds
Amanda Knox table lamp
Amanda Knox postcards (footprint design)
Amanda Knox bathmat (ditto)
Amanda Knox bread knife
Amanda Knox bleach
Amanda Knox mop
Amanda Knox Pizza
Amanda Knox Cluedo (or has the Knifed One already trademarked this?)
Amanda Knox airfreshener

Life time guarantee.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline elisa


Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

Posts: 150

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Knox apparently still enjoys her murder of Meredth getting even an orgasmus recalling her heinous sexual assault. That murder and sex. assault got a main part of her life. What a creature of the hell she is!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

What is taking the Florence Appeals Court so long? To recap on an article in La Nazione:

Quote:
Florence, 27 January 2017- The Court of Appeal of Florence , after more than two hours of deliberation, has reserved the decision on the request made by Raffaele Sollecito , asking the state 516 thousand euro as compensation for wrongful imprisonment, for " sufferings, the highest degree ". The reserve should be dissolved within five days .

It's a decision procedurally "physiological" that of the Court of Appeal of Florence. He said one of his lawyers, the lawyer Giulia Bongiorno. "We look confident," he added. "The Supreme Court ruling that acquitted Sollecito - highlighted even Bongiorno - is clear and highlights serious responsibilities at the investigation stage. We look forward with confidence" comment the other defender, the lawyer Luca Maori leaving the classroom.

The request was made by lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori for their client, Raffaele Sollecito. Nearly four years in prison, accused of having killed (together with the then girlfriend Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede , one definitely convicted for the murder), the British student Meredith Kercher . Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted in cassation.

Asked opposed both the General Prosecutor of Florence that the Ministry of Finance .

In its application the legal engineer from Puglia have retraced the four years of incarceration: "Pre-trial detention not only walked away - they said - Raffaele from the world of suffering, but broke the dreams and hopes of a graduate student, greatly delaying its entry into the world of work: even after the acquittal on appeal in Perugia in 2011 - is reported - Sollecito had to struggle hard to continue their studies and to find a work placement, since for all of Raffaele Sollecito was and continued to be the accused of a heinous crime. "

The lawyers asked the court to also consider the "role played by the sensational failures, investigative amnesia and omissions guilty of investigation (the steps of the judgment the Supreme Court that absolve them forever, editor's note), which have contributed significantly to lead a young innocent citizen in jail. "



So, if Sollecito's lawyers have persuaded the court to look into "the sensational failures, investigative amnesia and omissions guilty of investigation" will this go any deeper than their taking Marasca-Bruno's word for it?

What could be taking them so long?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

jamie wrote:
What could be taking them so long?


The Florence court judges are probably flabbergasted, after reading all the documents, by the Bruno-Marasca report. The Supreme Court judges' inconsistent reasoning in their report implies that their acquittal of Knox and Sollecito may have been 'illegal'. So, perhaps, the Florence judges realize that and are in a bit of a bind, delaying the decision. But, as you said, Sollecito's lawyers will have the option to appeal to the Supreme Court, anyway.

For our Italian speakers - the Feb.5 Faccia a Faccia episode is now available online:

http://www.la7.it/facciaafaccia/rivedil ... 017-203626

The Sollecito interview starts at the 28 min mark. Please spare yourself the trouble and don't even bother watching it. Giovanni Minoli asked Sollecito one single question about his activities in those 'private' Facebook groups, which the latter of course dismissed out of hand. The "moment of criticism" lasted half a minute (@33'30") ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Rumpole


Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 pm

Posts: 240

Location: Old Bailey

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
jamie wrote:
What could be taking them so long?


The Florence court judges are probably flabbergasted, after reading all the documents, by the Bruno-Marasca report. The Supreme Court judges' inconsistent reasoning in their report implies that their acquittal of Knox and Sollecito may have been 'illegal'. So, perhaps, the Florence judges realize that and are in a bit of a bind, delaying the decision. But, as you said, Sollecito's lawyers will have the option to appeal to the Supreme Court, anyway.

For our Italian speakers - the Faccia a Faccia Feb.5 episode is now available online:

http://www.la7.it/facciaafaccia/rivedil ... 017-203626

The Sollecito interview starts at the 28 min mark. Please spare yourself the trouble and don't even bother watching it. Giovanni Minoli asked Sollecito one single question about his activities in those 'private' Facebook groups, which the latter of course dismissed out of hand. The "moment of criticism" lasted half a minute. ;)


Thanks for the link. I struggled to watch and especially to listen RS in that recent British interview - for some reason I can't stand to listen him speak in that very broken English of his, I'd rather they'd interviewed him so that he could've spoken Italian and they'd had subtitles in English.

As for the damages, I've always taken it for granted that he'll get whatever damages are in order for any person in similar circumstances. But now it does seem as if this is not so clear, the delay seems a bit strange - unless the judges have fallen ill or something.

In Finland, our own wrongfully convicted innocent aka Anneli Auer, who languished (I'm using a verb AK and her interviewer used in yesterday's podcast in describing her experiences) 611 days in prison for a crime she didn't commit, would've collected €545,800, that is €800 for each wrongfully incarcerated day she spent behind bars + some other damages including €57,000 for loss of income, but she's not satisfied: she's currently suing our government for €1,5 million.


Sources, the first one in English but use Google translate for the others, if interested:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/annel ... es/9151769

http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2016090 ... 1_uu.shtml

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-2 ... 56188.html


Amanda Auer, Auer's eldest daughter, was interviewed by a German crime magazine last autumn and Finnish tabloids reported about it:

http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2016062 ... 8_uu.shtml

http://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/artik ... ki/5971064


I have to admit, that Amanda Auer sounds actually a bit like Knox in saying (check the recent podcast, for example) that she also trusted the police prior to when they interrogated her years after the murder and tried to make her say that she didn't see any strange man in their house on the murder night. She says that she had always thought that the police is always right and could be trusted, that they were good people, but not anymore after she had that interrogation experience when she was 12 years old. AK has obviously done her research for the part, i.e how and of what a wrongfully convicted or accused person talks etc.


Last edited by Rumpole on Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Some people on ISF are reporting a rumour that Sollecito's filed another lawsuit, this time against Mignini for abuse of power or whatever. Don't know if this should be cause for delay, but nothing surprises me after Marasca Bruno and the Boninsegna decision.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:53 pm   Post subject: SITE TEMPORARILY DOWN   

Hi, every one, sorry for the alarm. While the site was down HostGator put a placeholder which contained some dodgy links. No, it never was 'hacked'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Some people on ISF are reporting a rumour that Sollecito's filed another lawsuit, this time against Mignini for abuse of power or whatever. Don't know if this should be cause for delay, but nothing surprises me after Marasca Bruno and the Boninsegna decision.


Yawn. Sollecito first threatened to sue two years ago, but both his father and Bongiorno told him to move on. Bongiorno seemed to know the Marasca-Bruno outcome was fragile, she apparently expected it to be sent back to Florence at a minimum. Boninsegna was a shock, but otherwise the Florence courts have been no friend to RS and AK.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It is silly, and absurdly misleading, to deny that Sollecito has no intentions to seek further 'damages' from whoever.
He has, in two recent interviews on mainstream TV, 'alluded to' - to put it mildly! - further measures which he intends to take. I have no idea if Bongiorno is in accord with these aspirations - but to 'yawn' about it is risible.
Whatever you 'hope' Pete - doesn't make it happen. Suck it up (as they say).
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:46 am   Post subject: RAFFAELE SOLLECITO'S MANY SUITS   

I believe Sollecito is no longer being represented by Giulia Bongiorno, Sallyoo. And until it's confirmed by the media it's all still just a rumour.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:14 am   Post subject: AMANDA KNOX APPLICATION TO ECHR   

On the other hand, it is a confirmed fact that Knox's application to ECtHR has not yet been ruled admissible. I see a lot of special pleading and mental contortions by Friends Of Amanda at ISF stating that since the case was assigned to a "judicial formation" it has been accepted. Yes, it's been received, but not, ruled admissible. And all they have to do is contact the court as I did and check for themselves instead of slurring me personally, ahem.

According to this chart at http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Case_proc ... rt_ENG.pdf no matter whether the application was assigned to a single judge, committee, or the Grand Chamber (unlikely, since it's a garden variety case) it still must adjudged on the facts before a ruling of admissibility or even the merits can be issued. Since I know there have been several rounds of communiques between Knox and the court, (where they asked for information) they can hardly rule on admissibility until all the facts are assembled.

Anyhow, that's why the delay in the application moving forward, but I'll post soon as I get updates.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
It is silly, and absurdly misleading, to deny that Sollecito has no intentions to seek further 'damages' from whoever.
He has, in two recent interviews on mainstream TV, 'alluded to' - to put it mildly! - further measures which he intends to take. I have no idea if Bongiorno is in accord with these aspirations - but to 'yawn' about it is risible.
Whatever you 'hope' Pete - doesn't make it happen. Suck it up (as they say).


I will continue to only believe it when I see it for real, not before and not just on TV. He has made numerous such threats in the past and so far he has just one case, for damages, before the court. His Guede suit seems to have dropped dead. His suit against Lifetime has dropped dead. His compensation... as of today no sure thing and the powerful Ministry of Finance argued against. There were good reasons why Bongiorno did not take on the defense of his book and now, apparently, has walked - dislike, mistrust, and now maybe no more Euros for outstanding bills.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Maybe Bongiorno being rather heavy on woman's rights, knew about his FaceBook comments and decided he was just too toxic a client? Just a thought popped up out of no where :-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nearly two weeks have passed without any news from the courts. Indeed, it's strange, although Bruno-Marasca also delayed release of their motivations report by several weeks.

In the meantime, here is an article which might explain why Sollecito feels encouraged to sue Prosecutor Mignini for "damages." The link was posted on Sollecito's FB a few days ago. The term "physiological", which Bongiorno used to explain the 5-day delay that was necessary for the Florence judges to reach a decision on Sollecito's compensation claim, makes a reappearance in this interview.

February 5, 2017

Enrico Costa: “Judges make mistakes, innocent suffer, the State pays”

Enrico Costa, now Minister for Regional Affairs and Family, is among the very few Italian politicians who are very sensitive to the subject of the innocent in prison. Even as Deputy Minister of Justice with Renzi government, he campaigned to do something concrete to curb judicial errors and cases of wrongful imprisonment in Italy, raising the old and sensitive issue of civil liability of judges.

A few days ago, Costa had been engaged on "Porta a Porta" in a televised duel with the National Association of Magistrates (ANM*) President Piercamillo Davigo, who had claimed several times that miscarriages of justice did not exist or were only “physiological facts”, but, above all, that the judges who make mistakes were very few. In this interview, Costa rattles off numbers that we at Errorigiudiziari.com know well because we collect them year after year since the first day: the official statistics on cases of miscarriages of justice and unjust detentions. Those numbers that should make you cringe (25,000 ended up innocent in prison without fault and therefore compensated by the State, since 1992 until today, just under 700 million Euro paid by way of compensation and reparations for the past 25 years) and that continue to be underestimated, neglected, forgotten, except in certain cases. Meaning that something, indeed much, could and should be done.

It is a sheet of lined paper, handwritten. The beautiful handwriting yellowed by the passage of years. Enrico Costa, lawyer and Minister of Regional Affairs and Family (Deputy Minister of Justice in the Renzi government), keeps it as a memorandum on his desk in his study in Cuneo.

It reads: "... what angers me, apart from the witch hunt, medieval iniquity of the rite, is this Justice on vacation as a shop selling ice creams, and this human garbage (such is the regard of some national judges for citizens) left to ferment, in iron bins of prisons: full of despair, not questioned, the unlucky ones, and, like me, innocent ... do something, I beg you."
Signed: Enzo Tortora, 30 August 1983.

Minister, Tortora sent this letter to his father Raffaele, who was also at the time a member of government and politician of Italian Liberal Party. Why, in spite of that desperate and unheard (unheeded) appeal, one continues to assign so many innocent people to prison, and the rest of us [do nothing]? What has been done in 34 years to correct what he calls the "unjust justice?"

"Recently, I have addressed this issue with a senior magistrate, I have heard that errors of justice are "physiological facts", innate, and therefore "inevitable.” Is this enough to frame the phenomenon?"

No, but it would be interesting to hear from you. What do you think?

"That our justice system is suffering from a very serious disease, contains within itself very strong criticisms and issues which cannot be hidden or remain unanswered, since it is our freedom, that is, the legal system of a State, that we are talking about. And I intend to shine a light on this sick system. I want to get to understand its causes, responsibilities and possible solutions".

Examples Minister, show us examples.

"The numbers. Let's start with those that are frightening. More than 42 million Euro paid only in 2016 to compensate a thousand cases of unjust imprisonment and miscarriages of justice."

What does it mean, excuse me, "unjust imprisonment" and what is a "miscarriage of justice?"

"An unjust imprisonment refers to those citizens who undergo preventive detention (remand) during the preliminary investigation stage and then are released by special tribunals because the arrest shouldn’t have been made, or [they] are acquitted without going to trial. A miscarriage of justice, rather, involves a person indicted and later found innocent by a revision of the judgment of the trial that had led to a conviction, unfairly. Only in 2016, there were about a thousand. Too many to consider all this a "physiological fact." It is not over."

What else is there?

"Since the Clean Hands ('92), when the first payments were made, until today, persons deprived of their personal freedom and then compensated by the state for wrongful imprisonment were 25,000. And the total cost, to the taxpayer (obviously), came to 648 million Euro. And if we add to these the victims of judicial errors, we would even come to 700 million. Imagine a football stadium (sold-out) filled with those that sought and received compensation. And I add, outside the stadium there are also others, who are countless .... "

Who?

"Those who for various reasons did not request a review or couldn’t get a review while considering themselves innocent."


ERRORI GIUDIZIARI

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

To be continued...
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The Costa interview, cont'd


Yet the President of ANM (National Association of Magistrates), Piercamillo Davigo, in a recent debate with you on Porta a Porta, has argued that there are no innocents but only absolved from sentences pronounced by courts that previously had been fooled. Deceived by those who conducted investigation, by witnesses etc

"It makes me shudder that a person recognized as such cannot be considered innocent (I repeat "innocent") in an acquittal pronounced by the judges, because this demeans not only the innocent, but also the work of those who have acquitted him. I wonder if these judges feel represented by those words of Davigo. I would also like to know an opinion of those judges (many) who used to do their work quietly, without fanfare, and to decide with so much scruple on a person’s liberty. And the president of ANM should be asked more."

What would you like to ask Davigo?

"Why precisely his union, with all its members, is opposed to any initiative that may consider (evaluate) disciplinary measures against members themselves [i.e. magistrates, ed]? Why object to it if you are convinced of the legitimacy of their actions? There is a huge inhomogeneity on Italian territory in so-called unjust arrests, and the phenomenon should be studied. Example: the Court of Appeal of Bologna has 28 cases, Torino 23. Taranto 4. Trento 2. Milano 46. Lecce 59.”

Many unjust detentions. Do you believe that in Italy the criteria for preventive detention (remand) are applied rigorously?

"The justice system records a huge deficit: the certainty of punishment [of those who sanction unjust detentions, ed]. In Italy, in practice, this does not exist. And everything is unjustly filled with abuse of preventive detention because, you know, prison makes headlines, exerts pressures on the investigated (let us not forget the rattling of handcuffs of Tangentopoli), and this abuse, inevitably, generates numbers that we have reported. At least a thousand per year unjustly arrested. And a total of 700 million disbursed by the State and by the taxpayer in 25 years."

Restitution claims have been recognized, at least.

"I reject the argument that, because the compensation claim has been recognized, justice has been restored. Compensation is nothing compared to the suffering endured by the innocent who suffered an unjust imprisonment (even one day) or an unfair trial. Think of the trauma of families. Not to mention that for those, who ended up behind bars by mistake, being a suspect is the specter destined to remain."

And the time? How long – on average – a person, victim of judiciary error, must wait to see the damage repaired?

"At least 10 years before the fact is established and the compensation awarded. Liquidated. And let us repeat: paid by the State. Only by the State".

Processing time?

“Must be reduced. 60 percent of all provisions/regulations is determined during preliminary investigations. Without [them], a potentially innocent may be declared as such. The excessive length of trial of defendants or suspects detained increases intolerable suffering of those who, in spite of the presumption of innocence, are forced to wait, forgotten and isolated, for a verdict that will verify responsibilities. And, too often, an imprisonment is followed by an acquittal."

Instead, the magistrates are “guilty”? Should [they] pay?

"The disciplinary responsibility of magistrates, in the face of these gross errors, does not kick off. In fact, unlike the provisions of the Pinto Act, the compensation measure is not transmitted to the holder of disciplinary action that evaluates his competence. For the mistakes made so far, only the State has paid (I do not cease to repeat it); a magistrate who errs has no responsibility. I'm working on this. And the [Lower] House gave unanimous vote to the rule, included in the draft bill on the Criminal Procedure, which requires to provide an annual report to the Parliament that contains data relating to reparations for wrongful imprisonment (with specified reasons for acceptance and extent of the compensation) and the number of disciplinary proceedings initiated against magistrates for sanctioning an unjust detention."

Not much.

"It is something, but not enough, as long as we see even one case of unjust imprisonment, unlawful or unjustifiable ".

The Justice Minister, Andrea Orlando, is sensitive to the issue?

"Not only showed sensitivity, actually. The Minister of Justice is also working on the prison system [reform], the need to narrow the gap between the suspect and the investigating magistrate or judge, and the importance of breaking down the wall that is often created between the parties involved. The objective, commendable, to which the Minister is giving his soul. To prevent, as often happens, that an accused (immediately after the formality of the interrogation of warranty - interrogatorio di garanzia, validation of arrest hearing, ed) is not forgotten in a [prison] cell. In those iron bins, about which Enzo Tortora once wrote.


ERRORI GIUDIZIARI

-------------------------
The end.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Maybe Bongiorno being rather heavy on woman's rights, knew about his FaceBook comments and decided he was just too toxic a client? Just a thought popped up out of no where :-)


Remember at trial in 2009 she was an unexplained no-show on some of the defense days and we heard repeatedly that she might walk (she later claimed appendicitis).

If in 2010 the chief judge had refused her demand to push aside Judge Chiari for Judge Hellmann opening the way to all subsequent corruptions I think she would have walked as the appeal was a sure-fire loser.

She is ridiculed on Italian TV for being a drama queen and a faux feminist (anything for clients).

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Nearly two weeks have passed without any news from the courts. Indeed, it's strange, although Bruno-Marasca also delayed release of their motivations report by several weeks.

In the meantime, here is an article which might explain why Sollecito feels encouraged to sue Prosecutor Mignini for "damages." The link was posted on Sollecito's FB a few days ago. The term "physiological", which Bongiorno used to explain the 5-day delay that was necessary for the Florence judges to reach a decision on Sollecito's compensation claim, makes a reappearance in this interview.

Enrico Costa, now Minister for Regional Affairs and Family, is among the very few Italian politicians who are very sensitive to the subject of the innocent in prison. Even as Deputy Minister of Justice with Renzi government, he campaigned to do something concrete to curb judicial errors and cases of wrongful imprisonment in Italy, raising the old and sensitive issue of civil liability of judges.

"The numbers. Let's start with those that are frightening. More than 42 million Euro paid only in 2016 to compensate a thousand cases of unjust imprisonment and miscarriages of justice."

What does it mean, excuse me, "unjust imprisonment" and what is a "miscarriage of justice?"

"An unjust imprisonment refers to those citizens who undergo preventive detention (remand) during the preliminary investigation stage and then are released by special tribunals because the arrest shouldn’t have been made, or [they] are acquitted without going to trial. A miscarriage of justice, rather, involves a person indicted and later found innocent by a revision of the judgment of the trial that had led to a conviction, unfairly. Only in 2016, there were about a thousand. Too many to consider all this a "physiological fact." It is not over."
-----
"Those who for various reasons did not request a review or couldn’t get a review while considering themselves innocent."


ERRORI GIUDIZIARI

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

To be continued...


Hi, guermantes, It appears the not the very bright Sollecito, finding a judicial misconduct bandwagon he can jump on http://www.errorigiudiziari.com/?s=Amanda+Knox may well be trying to compensate himself by suing the judges who had him remanded (until acquitted by others). The not very bright Rudy may also have been misled to think he would get some relief by filing his suit. Time (lots of it, I think) will tell if Sollecito will be successful.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, guermantes, It appears the not the very bright Sollecito, finding a judicial misconduct bandwagon he can jump on http://www.errorigiudiziari.com/?s=Amanda+Knox may well be trying to compensate himself by suing the judges who had him remanded (until acquitted by others). The not very bright Rudy may also have been misled to think he would get some relief by filing his suit. Time (lots of it, I think) will tell if Sollecito will be successful.


Hi also Guermantes

THANKS for the translate. Reads like the notorious Oggi! Taking things wildly out of context, Costa seems to make a worrisome case.

I think we should rebut it comprehensively. Can we have ideas?

For example, Costa leaves out that the Italian system itself is highly tilted pro-perp, and the real agony in Italy is the millions of victims and families who at the end of the day see justice denied.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... lies_says/

Much of the tilting was done in parliament to let corrupt buddies off the hook. Some of those had the mafias behind them. Spurious defense lawyer appeals to ECHR overwhelm that court.

The automatic appeals are mostly solutions looking for a problem, and appeal juries are notorious in second guessing trial juries - though they never hear the full prosecution case.

Even so, Italy has an incarceration rate lower than most other countries and only about 1/5 that of the US.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... martasses/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... ed_states/

Italian public opinion is very solidly behind the police and courts, after the President they consistently poll as the most popular public institutions in Italy.

Its Costa that is suspiciously out of step. Whats his gig?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline rocklee1957


Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:47 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

In the end, Florence Court finally refused to indemnify Raffaele Sollecito.
"Too many lies in the early stages"
After changing his story 5 times and covering for his ex-girlfriend who placed herself there hearing Meredith scream.
Hopefully Justice was wise for once.

http://www.lastampa.it/2017/02/11/itali ... agina.html

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2017/0 ... um=twitter

http://www.notizienazionali.net/notizie ... detenzione

http://www.finoaprovacontraria.it/esclu ... ecito-pdf/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:43 pm   Post subject: SOLLECITO SUIT DENIED   

Hi, Rocklee1957, and welcome to the forum. Thanks for the news! It looks like Sollecito knew beforehand he'd lose his request and is already foolishly making noises about suing the judges. I guess he's filing in Genoa because he think's it'll be more friendly than Florence, LOL.

He's already turned to Raffaele Sollecito Facebook to complain:
Quote:
Credevo di aver vissuto le pagine più nere della Giustizia Italiana, ma nonostante la Cassazione mi ha dichiarato innocente, devo prendere atto che la mia durissima detenzione sarebbe giustificata. Ripeto, la Cassazione aveva sottolineato l’esistenza di gravissime omissioni in questo processo e di défaillance investigative.

Translation: I thought I had experienced the darkest pages of Italian Justice, but in spite of the Supreme Court has declared me innocent, I must acknowledge that my harsh detention was justified. I repeat, the Supreme Court had pointed out the existence of serious omissions in this process and investigative failings.

His press agent Frank Sfarzo Twitter is suggesting it will be up to ECHR to compensate him?
Quote:
Negato risarcimento a @Raffasolaries. C'è ancora chi non ha capito che i risarcimenti bisogna darli, o alla fine c'è #ECHR, che lo dà tutto
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:54 pm   Post subject: FLORENCE APPEALS COURT DECISION   

Attached is a copy of the Appeals Court decision filed February 10, 2017. Source:
It notes he had changed his story 5 times.


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

Offline rocklee1957


Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:47 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thank you. He seems he's trying to victimize himself once again. I don't know if he thinks he can appeal this successfully, too many people in Italy think he was involved.

Genova is wonderful city and it won't be a piece of cake for his new lawyer. He will surely acknowledge teasing public opinion like he did, insulting Meredith's memory on facebook was not wise,and the timing was not in his favor.

Frank Sfarzo, as usual and unsurprisingly, is still defending murderers like Alberto Stasi or Sollecito while knowing well they are both dangerous persons... only the fact they are from wealthy families gets his interest. Some day, it'll play him trick : Karma.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I've just read the judgement denying him his blood money. It is beautiful, and (I hope) truly bulletproof.

It is very well worth a careful readable translation.
Top Profile 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It is stunning that Sollecito and his counsel seem genuinely surprised by the judgment. They must have known it was a low probability bet.

Perhaps he thought luck was on his side with the acquittal and the €66K business start up award. Then there was the grand trip to the UK BBC News studio just beforehand as the exonerated knife Knight whose only ever crime was to collect harmless penknives and watch video games on X-Box. A sympathetically nodding Victoria Derbyshire appears to 'humor the patient'. So much encouragement.

The intervening long five further days must have been too much for him to bear, as he spent his days dreaming of the new BMW and Marilyn Manson as guest artist to his party to be held at a classy Rome nightclub, with all of Italy's socialites invited. Berlusconi, the leader of the radical party, his whole family, Greta, the FOA, Knox, Trump, even. Yes, Trump! He diffidently opens the email from Giulia who has warned him the delay might be ominous. He stares at the screen. His eyes dart about, anxiously looking for the words 'Raffaele Sollcito is awarded...." What's this? "Demand denied." The color drains from his face. Dad walks in to find him staring at the fridge. "What's wrong, son, what's wrong?'

Sounds of crying and sobbing.

There is an old saying: "Quit while you are ahead".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

At last, some good news! Thanks everyone.

There's a short (3 min) interview with Sollecito on Maralizzatore; the "poor victim of injustice" doesn't look too happy, understandably so. ;)

http://www.moralizzatore.it/2017/02/11/ ... i-carcere/
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sallyoo wrote:
I've just read the judgement denying him his blood money. It is beautiful, and (I hope) truly bulletproof.

It is very well worth a careful readable translation.


I second that, Sallyoo. Hope it will be translated too. It really is devastating for his case. (And Knox's before the ECtHR, it should be noted, since both were the authors of their own misfortune).

I will be giving a talk on Liz Houle's True Crimes Podcast tomorrow Feb. 12 at 6PM EST discussing the implications of this ruling and how it will affect Amanda Knox's claim before the ECtHR. Will post link later.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

I'm not sure that Knox's case before the ECtHR is in any way analagous. (Not that I think it has any validity, but her recourse is based on different parameters.)

Basically, it seems to me, the Florence Court (which decided on compensation) considered (as was their remit) whether Sollecito had deliberately 'dropped himself into it' and (rightly IMO) concluded that he did, irretrievably, implicate himself by lying (a lot). That is enough to support their judgement.

Significantly (IMO) they also pondered on whether he could have 'got himself out of it' (early on, by pleading to lesser charges of 'accomplice', or 'deliberately hiding evidence'), and the Florence court concluded (IMO correctly) that he didn't (even) avail himself of that escape route.

I'm tremendously happy that they detail these considerations - (though I'm not so certain that the recent Florence Court has the remit to consider this stuff.) It is the one 'bit' which at the same time makes me delighted, but makes me nervous.

I do hope I'll get some help on a perfect translation on the Florence judgement - it's only 12 pages - like an hour's work divided between four of us!
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Have asked others to volunteer, Sallyoo.

Knox and Sollecito's case are only broadly similar, in that they argued prosecutorial misconduct leading to false charges against them. But the judge's reasoning here might I hope lead to a similar conclusion at ECtHR IF it should be ruled admissible and argued on the merits: they were both responsible for their own misfortunes. Plus some twists I'll throw in :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 349

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Lol Bitey Sfarzo has me blocked on twiiter not that I care what he burbles anyway. Some small good news at last.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

That's all right, then. Reportedly, in Italian procedure, lying to investigators will get you gonged out of compensation. And, as we know, the courts don't always do what the law says they should, but this time they did. With all that that implies for Sollecito's reputation and his ex's.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:18 am   Post subject: SOLLECITO REQUEST COMPENSATION   

Breaking: Sollecito lawyer Bongiorno to file appeal to Cassazione against Florence court denial of compensation

Il Fatto Quotidiano
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: SOLLECITO REQUEST COMPENSATION   

Ergon wrote:
Breaking: Sollecito lawyer Bongiorno to file appeal to Cassazione against Florence court denial of compensation

Il Fatto Quotidiano



From the article:


'For the judges, therefore, the conduct of Sollecito "must be classified as an example of that 'willful misconduct or gross negligence' that, according to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the interpretation has always provided by the Supreme Court, excludes the right of the subject found innocent for compensation for wrongful imprisonment suffered ".'

Under what point of law can there be a successful appeal? Sollecito's poor conduct during the investigations is irrefutable:

- He made the police wait while he finished his meal.

- He sauntered into the questura with a knife.

- He gave Knox an alibi.

- He then withdrew the alibi.

If, as the Fifth Chambers found, he was present at the scene with Knox, why did he not :

(1) say so,

(2) report what he witnessed,

(3) if he did not know the whereabouts of Knox between 20:45 and 1:00, why refuse to confirm it to the police,

(4) why not call an ambulance,

(5) why not report a dead body.

(6) why refuse to testify to explain the courts what happened that night and the following morning,

(7) say he was surfing the net until 3:00 when he was not,

(8) initially tell police Knox came home at 1:00,

(9) tell police he took a call from his father at 23:00,

(10) tell police he slept through until after 10:30, when his phone was activated at 6:00 and his laptop at 5:30?

How will Bongiorno explain all of this away in the appeal?

Any suggestions for points of appeal?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:55 pm   Post subject: Re: SOLLECITO REQUEST COMPENSATION   

jamie wrote:
From the article:


'For the judges, therefore, the conduct of Sollecito "must be classified as an example of that 'willful misconduct or gross negligence' that, according to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the interpretation has always provided by the Supreme Court, excludes the right of the subject found innocent for compensation for wrongful imprisonment suffered ".'

Under what point of law can there be a successful appeal? Sollecito's poor conduct during the investigations is irrefutable:

- He made the police wait while he finished his meal.

- He sauntered into the questura with a knife.

- He gave Knox an alibi.

- He then withdrew the alibi.

If, as the Fifth Chambers found, he was present at the scene with Knox, why did he not :

(1) say so,

(2) report what he witnessed,

(3) if he did not know the whereabouts of Knox between 20:45 and 1:00, why refuse to confirm it to the police,

(4) why not call an ambulance,

(5) why not report a dead body.

(6) why refuse to testify to explain the courts what happened that night and the following morning,

(7) say he was surfing the net until 3:00 when he was not,

(8) initially tell police Knox came home at 1:00,

(9) tell police he took a call from his father at 23:00,

(10) tell police he slept through until after 10:30, when his phone was activated at 6:00 and his laptop at 5:30?

How will Bongiorno explain all of this away in the appeal?

Any suggestions for points of appeal?


Good list.

We have literally hundreds of false claims posted, though his book claims are behind the scenes for reformatting. See one of several posts on RSs lies by The Machine here.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _multiple/

Re your question at the end "How will Bongiorno explain all of this away in the appeal?" my guess is they will again attempt to use their nefarious connections to bend the Supreme Court again somehow.

Authorities are much more alive to this now than they were in 2015.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Johnny Yen was first to send links to two reports in English.

Liz Houle:

https://truecrimespodcasts.com/2017/02/ ... pensation/

Radar Online:

http://radaronline.com/videos/amanda-kn ... risonment/

The Guardian reports on it today also.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... th-kercher

See the last paragraph. Gimme a break Bongiorno. WHERE is the proof of that?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi, Pete, "Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress."

Same argument Knox is making before ECtHR.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

rocklee1957 wrote:
Thank you. He seems he's trying to victimize himself once again. I don't know if he thinks he can appeal this successfully, too many people in Italy think he was involved.

Genova is wonderful city and it won't be a piece of cake for his new lawyer. He will surely acknowledge teasing public opinion like he did, insulting Meredith's memory on facebook was not wise,and the timing was not in his favor.

Frank Sfarzo, as usual and unsurprisingly, is still defending murderers like Alberto Stasi or Sollecito while knowing well they are both dangerous persons... only the fact they are from wealthy families gets his interest. Some day, it'll play him trick : Karma.


Hi, rocklee1957, Sollecito's ill advised trip to London to appear on the BBC 2 show was insulting to Meredith's family, and reporter Selvaggia Lucarelli's expose of his Facebook Posts didn't help him any either.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, rocklee1957, Sollecito's ill advised trip to London to appear on the BBC 2 show was insulting to Meredith's family, and reporter Selvaggia Lucarelli's expose of his Facebook Posts didn't help him any either.


Is the BBC reporting the development?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Nothing since this show, Peter http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08bqlzc
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Nothing since this show, Peter http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08bqlzc


How... unexpected! Okay I emailed.

Tho the BBC have been on both sides of this, and pass the baton from reporter to reporter to reporter.

I know some think Victoria Derbyshire was signalling she wasnt buying RS.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, Pete, "Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said she would appeal the decision at the supreme court, arguing that the Florence appeals court had failed to consider that his conflicting statements in the early days of the murder investigation were given under duress."

Same argument Knox is making before ECtHR.


Given the Supreme Court's definitive finding that Knox was certainly present during the crime and Sollecito was presumably present too -- and, even if he wasn't, he knew Knox was -- then both Knox and Sollecito were lying to investigators from the outset, long before the contentious interviews on the night of 5-6 November (as Sollecito himself admitted). So if the Supreme Court were now to accept Bongiorno's argument... they'd be 'avin' a larf.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:44 pm   Post subject: LIZ HOULE BLOGTALK RADIO   

I'll be discussing Amanda Knox's case before the European Court and how the Raffaele Sollecito ruling affects that. Some mention of Madeleine McCann as well. Today, 6 PM EST but you can listen in later too.
Blog Talk Radio/True Crimes
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, guermantes, It appears the not very bright Sollecito, finding a judicial misconduct bandwagon he can jump on http://www.errorigiudiziari.com/?s=Amanda+Knox may well be trying to compensate himself by suing the judges who had him remanded (until acquitted by others).


Hi Ergon, yeah, I think Sollecito is desperate for money and will do just about anything to get it, but, as Enrico Costa has said, judges are not obliged or required to compensate him ("...the compensation measure is not transmitted to the holder [subject] of disciplinary action that evaluates his competence. For the mistakes made so far, only the State has paid (I do not cease to repeat it); a magistrate who errs has no responsibility...") So, Sollecito, if he sues Mignini for "damages", will likely lose. He should keep this in mind. Is he going to sue Massei and Nencini, too? ;)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Just for the record:

February 11, 2017

Raffaele Sollecito, no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment: "He helped to cause it with lies to investigators"

"There is an unjust detention which occurred because of the acquittal of the moment," say the judges of the Third Criminal Division. But he "helped to cause it with his own willful misconduct or gross negligence". Conduct, the judges write, that "consisted in making to the judicial police, investigators, and judges, particularly in the early stages of the investigation, contradictory or even frankly untrue declarations, also found in the light of the evaluations contained in the final judgment of the Supreme Court ".

Sollecito's declarations / statements, according to Florentine judges, Silvia Martuscelli, Paola Masi and Anna Favi, "had certainly contributed, as part of a circumstantial and ambiguous evidentiary framework, to orienting first the investigators and then the lower courts towards a valuation overall unfavorable to Sollecito of the evidence gathered, and especially the many clues susceptible to varying interpretations, even by consultants and experts, and to issuing, in two judgments, a judgment of criminal responsibility."

For the judges, therefore, the conduct of Sollecito "must be classified as an example of that 'willful misconduct or gross negligence' that, according to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the interpretation that has always been provided by the Supreme Court, excludes the right of the subject found innocent to compensation for wrongful imprisonment suffered ".

The lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, who defends the young man with Luca Maori, has already announced an appeal to the Court of Cassation. Reserving a more complete reading of the document, Bongiorno speaks of "a multitude of errors in the reconstruction of facts, as well as document-related." An "endless and absurd story,” called it lawyer Maori. "A story in which - he added - the only guilty, Rudy Guede, will soon be released from prison after serving a reduced sentence (16 years after he was tried under the summary procedure, editor's note)".


IL FATTO QUOTIDIANO

----------------------------------------------------
Does this mean that Giulia Bongiorno is still representing Sollecito? And Luca Maori couldn't abstain - of course! - from calling Rudy Guede "the only guilty" and bemoaning the fact that his sentence, in Maori's view, was too short. He has said the same about Rudy several times in the past.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi, guermantes, AFAIK Bongiorno is representing him in his appeal of the judgement by Silvia Martuscelli, Paola Masi and Anna Favi. He of course has separate representation in the defamation case filed AGAINST him by Mignini re the charges in his book, Honor Bound. If we get the details of the rumoured appeal in Genoa, I expect we'll know who his lawyers are.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:30 am   Post subject: Re: FLORENCE APPEALS COURT DECISION   

Ergon wrote:
Attached is a copy of the Appeals Court decision filed February 10, 2017. Source:
It notes he had changed his story 5 times.


WOW!

I just can't figure these Italian courts out!

Based on what we've seen so far, I don't suppose the court's reasoning will be clear - I fully expect to see yet another morass of overly ornate and legally meaningless turns of phrase ... what happened to the unspecified "clamorous failures", "investigative amnesia" and unspecified "culpable omissions" cited by the Supreme Court???

Are we to conclude that those unspecified shortcomings do NOT apply to the interrogation of Sollecito but DO apply to the interrogation of Knox?!

They were too "NICE" / "SUGARCOATED" with Knox ... but perfectly neutral when dealing with Solly the Blade?! LOL

And if these shortcomings pertain only to the collection of biological traces at the crime scene rather than to the interrogations, why do they NOT apply equally well to the collection of Guede's biological traces?!!! (Same crime scene, same police, same forensics team - Is there one rule for wealthy whites and another for disadvantaged blacks?!)

And, if the translations are correct, why, oh WHY, did the Supreme Court fail to evaluate uncertainties in respect of the DNA evidence in light of the their endorsement of the finding that Knox was there, likely with Solly?!!!

Passive tertiary transfer of touch DNA is a LOW probability event, even under ideal conditions in a lab*, so why is the court leaning toward a low-probabilty transfer scenario rather than a higher-probability transfer scenario that actually FITS with their endorsement of the finding that Knox WAS THERE, likely WITH SOLLY (to wit, PRIMARY &/or SECONDARY transfer in the course of a fight/stabbing/staging)?!!!

This ruling against Solly the Blade (notably NOT a US citizen) makes it that much more difficult to resist the idea that (per the report by Newsweek/ Kneepads Nina noted above) the State Department rattled its YUUUUUUUUGE American Saber so loudly that the Italians buckled for the sake of unfettered access to rich Californians seeking to buy Ferraris, Panerais and Persols ;-)

The more I learn about Italian courts, the less I like them - my brother (the rich doc) seems to feel the same way about their cars - he sold his Ferrari F430 and, instead of upgrading to a 458, came home with this JAW DROPPER (for my fellow PMF car buffs):

Hidden Content: show
Image


This incredible McLaren MP4-12C Spider was "my" car for a little while this fall (I felt like I was James Hunt!) but, cry as I might, my brother wouldn't let me keep it warm on the coast for the rest of the winter as it's still too pristine - hopefully I'll get to 'babysit' it next winter, after he's had enough time to put a few scuffs on it - I don't want to be the first one to scrape that air dam or curb those rims! The damn thing is so expensive it'll make your palms sweat! LOL


I suppose Solly was hoping to get something like this McLaren, but it's over $268K US (over 250K Euro), so that settlement he wants so badly wouldn't come remotely close to covering the cost of the car AND a home commensurate with the car (you can't drive a car like that and live in a crappy 1 bedroom condo that only costs 250K!).

Evidently, helping people can be far more rewarding than hurting them - My brothers were fully licensed doctors, with their own prescription pads, by the time they were just 25. What's Solly now? 32? He's half way through the productive part of his life, maybe even more than half way, and his idea of "honor bound" freedom is going on the internet to brag about stabbing people and making fun of the girl he was accused of killing?

Does anyone now doubt Follain's claim that Solly made a Vaseline "joke" about Meredith to Laura and Filomena ... when tears were still wet ... and the killer was still at large?

I'd love to learn what a forensic psychiatrist would make of this guy.


* Mariya Goray, Roland A.H. van Oorschot "The complexities of DNA transfer during a social setting" Legal Medicine 17 (2015) 82-91


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:05 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Hi, guermantes, It appears the not very bright Sollecito, finding a judicial misconduct bandwagon he can jump on http://www.errorigiudiziari.com/?s=Amanda+Knox may well be trying to compensate himself by suing the judges who had him remanded (until acquitted by others).


Hi Ergon, yeah, I think Sollecito is desperate for money and will do just about anything to get it, but, as Enrico Costa has said, judges are not obliged or required to compensate him ("...the compensation measure is not transmitted to the holder [subject] of disciplinary action that evaluates his competence. For the mistakes made so far, only the State has paid (I do not cease to repeat it); a magistrate who errs has no responsibility...") So, Sollecito, if he sues Mignini for "damages", will likely lose. He should keep this in mind. Is he going to sue Massei and Nencini, too? ;)


I see zero grounds against Mignini or any judge. If the grounds are that he was maltreated, all he can possibly point to is the Napolitano police interview on 5-6 Nov where he in effect confessed after being shown proof in phone records that he lied - but he freely repeated everything to Matteini a couple of days later in the memo that starts by saying he never wants to see Knox again. I'll believe an appeal when I see one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:50 am   Post subject: Re: FLORENCE APPEALS COURT DECISION   

Jackie wrote:
The more I learn about Italian courts, the less I like them - my brother (the rich doc) seems to feel the same way about their cars - he sold his Ferrari F430 and, instead of upgrading to a 458, came home with this JAW DROPPER (for my fellow PMF car buffs):...


Hi Jackie

I'd suggest to avoid generalizing too broadly (if you are serious!) about Italian courts from a single case.

We've had many positive comments from non-Italian lawyers, one being Dershowitz, another Wendy Murphy. Other cases we have followed have gone like clockwork.

It was very unusual circumstances that allowed Bongiorno in particular (then head of the justice committee in parliament that weighed in on all police and court budgets) to game the system with Di Nunzio in 2010 and Sollecito via his late uncle in 2013.

Police and prosecutors on the whole keeping grinding away commendably, despite constant risk of assassination and very limited ability to fight back against toxic PR. They are polled as very popular.

I think you would have liked Renzi's thwarted reforms. They would have cut down heavily on appeals and the crazy Supreme Court load. Under them this case might well have concluded in 2009.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, guermantes, AFAIK Bongiorno is representing him in his appeal of the judgement by Silvia Martuscelli, Paola Masi and Anna Favi. He of course has separate representation in the defamation case filed AGAINST him by Mignini re the charges in his book, Honor Bound. If we get the details of the rumoured appeal in Genoa, I expect we'll know who his lawyers are.


There's some argument as to whether Alfredo Brizioli the book lawyer is a real lawyer; he seems to have no court track record.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... minefield/

On a previous trip by RS to London for another interview another lawyer Tiziano Tedeschi sat beside him, and answered some questions, but I believe he never did court work for RS. He above all wanted the RS team to go all out against Knox - instead they went all out against Guede and 1/2 out against Knox.

I'm suspicious of Bongiorno heading for the Supreme Court. This judgement (which reflected fellow judge Nencini being pretty ticked) could leave the Fifth Chambers judges (the ones bent by RS) pretty ticked in turn.

If the appeal goes to First Chambers they in turn are ticked at Marasca and Bruno for rubbing their noses in it. That is what we should wish for. Good post here by James Raper to read as context for last Saturdays judgment and this possible new appeal.

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

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

guermantes wrote:
Just for the record:

February 11, 2017

Raffaele Sollecito, no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment: "He helped to cause it with lies to investigators"

[border]...
The lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, who defends the young man with Luca Maori, has already announced an appeal to the Court of Cassation. Reserving a more complete reading of the document, Bongiorno speaks of "a multitude of errors in the reconstruction of facts, as well as document-related...



Bongiorno seems to find more sympathy at the Supreme Court level...

Does anyone understand what kind of influence, if any, an MP on the Justice Committee has over the training/ selection/ appointment/ assignment/ evaluation/ censuring / retirement of Italian judges and justices?
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:19 am   Post subject: Re: FLORENCE APPEALS COURT DECISION   

Fast Pete wrote:
Hi Jackie

I'd suggest to avoid generalizing too broadly (if you are serious!) about Italian courts from a single case.

We've had many positive comments from non-Italian lawyers, one being Dershowitz, another Wendy Murphy. Other cases we have followed have gone like clockwork.

It was very unusual circumstances that allowed Bongiorno in particular (then head of the justice committee in parliament that weighed in on all police and court budgets) to game the system with Di Nunzio in 2010 and Sollecito via his late uncle in 2013.

Police and prosecutors on the whole keeping grinding away commendably, despite constant risk of assassination and very limited ability to fight back against toxic PR. They are polled as very popular.

I think you would have liked Renzi's thwarted reforms. They would have cut down heavily on appeals and the crazy Supreme Court load. Under them this case might well have concluded in 2009.


Hi Pete,

IIRC, in a Knox-related TV interview Professor Dershowitz, while noting that, in a number of ways, the Italian system afforded accused more protection than the US system, also mentioned that he 'didn't exactly love it'.

I wish he'd been given the time to expand on that. In other interviews, he mentioned the possibility of political interference ... I suppose that might be one of his complaints ... I'm sure he's familiar with the writings of Montesquieu.

Do you understand the nature of the relationship between members of the Justice Committee and judges and justices?

(I'm amazed that a sitting MP, on the Justice Committee no less, is allowed to act as a defense lawyer before the very courts that could be affected, however indirectly, by her decisions.)
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:13 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

hugo wrote:
Jackie wrote:

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/106960680/
"Miss Hayes had expressed fear about testifying... lives near the Cantwell home, 2346 South Keystone Avenue, testified she was a friend of Cantwell's and heard him admit to the murder Nov. 1. She said she was standing in the kitchen of Cantwell's home with Cantwell and several other persons when the defendant said, "I wrapped it around her neck and squeezed,"

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/107626090/"Daniel Cantwell ... reportedly faiied two lie detector (polygraph) tests administered by Indianapolis police when he claimed to have no personal knowledge of the death He passed a third test arranged by his parents."



That's good archive-ferreting, Jackie. I definitely did not know that a witness said she heard Daniel Cantwell confess to the murder of his mother's tenant Miss Jones.

Curious that the Indiana jury took only half an hour, if I recall aright, to acquit Daniel Cantwell. But then the defendant's father was a prominent and powerful local politician. I wonder if there's any remaining physical evidence on which modern DNA analysis could be conducted, but I suppose the double-jeopardy rule means they can't go there.


Witness tampering?

"...A 16-year-old witness in the murder trial of Daniel F. Cantwell testified Thursday in Hancock Superior Court she was urged to change the statement she gave police by a private investigator for a law firm representing Cantwell..."




Mental health issues?

"...The Marion County prosecutor's office offered plea bargains of suspended jail terms if Cantwell would plead guilty to a manslaughter charge and agree to indefinite confinement for mental health treatment."

I wonder what led the state to make this offer ... what did they see?

I wonder what became of Daniel Cantwell ...

I'll bet you can't find too many senators with a family background this ... tainted - seems she was primed from the get to believe the dubious proposition that police officers would frame an innocent kid for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with said kid.

And, of course, she'd be no stranger to the strategy of turning a straight-forward murder trial into a "political football"...
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:30 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

hugo wrote:
Jackie wrote:
Can you believe these Team Knox translations of Boninsegna?!
____________________________________
"All these reported events {of police officers hugging Knox or holding her hand during the interrogation and, possibly, of the interpreter speaking of her own traumatic amnesia and urging Knox to remember while holding or touching Knox's shoulder} do not appear, very understandably, this also being evidence that they were reckoned as anomalous, in any written report. However, they have been presented, and even stressed multiple times, by the witnesses {that is, the police including the police interpreters} heard, with the manifest aim of pointing out at the fair, indeed nice, treatment reserved for Knox. In this way the witnesses and the civil parties have, probably, meant to introduce an element of support to their case, disproving at the same time the defendant’s accusations against them. But they probably did not realise, and this too is likewise characteristic, that in such a professional context, the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24). And this because of the obvious and textbook-like reason that she was a subject who had to be enabled to defend, in an unhampered way, her personal freedom against the power of the State, since the latter had, through its law enforcement, already marked her as a person under investigation."
-------------------------------------------------
The cops were TOO "NICE" to Knox?!

So "nice", in fact, that their "SUGARCOATED" approach somehow violated her human rights?! LOL Now I really have heard it all.

This will come as a COMPLETE shock to anyone who has followed Knox's American PR campaign, which was very effective in selling the great unwashed on the idea that she was 'tag-teamed' by dozens of bully cops who slapped her and yelled at her for "53 hours" nonstop ... without a bathroom break! LOL

Why are the Italians rolling over for this humiliation??? (Mmmmmmm ... What would Ferrari, Panerai and Persol DO without ACCESS to all of those rich Californians?!)

Evidently, in Italy (and the rest of the EU), there is almost no concern for 'crime control' - the bad guys aren't the problem, it's the cops! So, it seems, they've focused almost exclusively on 'due proccess' concerns ... to such a ridiculous extreme that, apparently, a cop can blow a case just by offering a few kind words or the comforting touch of a hand to a stone-cold guilty suspect! :shock:


Italy is rather different from Britain, though. Note that Boninsegna is not saying that police should have interviewed Knox under caution, as they would have done in Britain. Italian police can't do that. They can't interview suspects. They can't conduct interviews under caution. Once someone is a suspect, all police questioning must end. So Boninsegna is saying that, as soon as Sollecito withdrew Knox's alibi, she should have been completely immune to all police questioning forever. She should only have been interviewed by the prosecutor, on a voluntary basis, with notice given in advance and time to prepare with her lawyers, and she should have been able to end the interview at any time she wanted if she became in the least uncomfortable, as happened with the Mignini interview in December.

Police should not have been able to question her at all. Italian procedure really is that dysfunctional.


I'm looking forward to learning when, exactly, someone in Italy becomes a "suspect" entitled, at state expense, to a both a 'caution' and a lawyer of their choosing.

I'll be stunned, shocked and amazed - to the point of having to lie down - if the test is subjective (as the last 6 Knox-lovers on ISF maintain despite the fact it's painfully obvious they are all lay people who have never even set foot in an accredited school of law).

If the Italians have allowed 'due process' concerns to completely eclipse 'crime control' concerns, there could be no undercover ops in Italy - Imagine the absurdity of a system that would require police to afford mere 'suspects' (bare/ subjective suspicion with no objective basis upon which to think it likely they've committed a crime) the opportunity to exercise the right to a lawyer BEFORE they are held in custody/ arrested on the basis of 'probable cause':

Crockett and Tubbs pull up in the Ferrari and say to the SUSPECTED dealer du jour, "Psst, never mind the Rolexes and the fancy car, we're actually undercover cops and, although we don’t yet have enough evidence to get a warrant for your arrest, we SUSPECT,on purely subjective grounds, that you're selling drugs, so, under Knox-Groupie Law, we now have to tell you that you have the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. Now that we've got that wrinkle out of the way, let's get your lawyer on the phone, get back into character, and do this drug deal so we can establish PROBABLE CAUSE for your arrest! Here’s the cash, now do you want to show me what's in your suitcase?” LOL
Image


Last edited by Jackie on Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline corpusvile


Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:38 pm

Posts: 349

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, guermantes, AFAIK Bongiorno is representing him in his appeal of the judgement by Silvia Martuscelli, Paola Masi and Anna Favi. He of course has separate representation in the defamation case filed AGAINST him by Mignini re the charges in his book, Honor Bound. If we get the details of the rumoured appeal in Genoa, I expect we'll know who his lawyers are.


He's being represented for the defamation (I think it might be Calunnia actually due to deal making being illegal in Italy but am not certain) charge by Alfredo Brizioli, Ergon, former defendant in the Narducci affair. He was acquitted, rest had charges dropped due to prescrizione/statutes expiring. Mario Spezi was co-defendant.
http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/mostro-di-firenze-il-giudice-assolve-alfredo-brizioli-prescrizione-per-tutti-gli-altri
Dunno if he's still gonna be representing Knife Boy but that was what I last heard.

http://corrierefiorentino.corriere.it/firenze/notizie/cronaca/15_giugno_04/sollecito-ancora-processo-abda57c2-0ab4-11e5-852e-2f97c7f97696.shtml
Quote:
Sollecito, che respinge le accuse contestate, era in aula al momento della decisione del gup insieme al suo difensore, l’avvocato Alfredo Brizioli.


Brizioli was also acquitted of being part of a burglary ring in his youth (with alleged Mafia involvement afaik) and was a friend of Francesco Narducci, himself a suspect in the Monster of Florence murders.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: FLORENCE APPEALS COURT DECISION   

Jackie wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
It was very unusual circumstances that allowed Bongiorno in particular (then head of the justice committee in parliament that weighed in on all police and court budgets) to game the system with Di Nunzio in 2010 and Sollecito via his late uncle in 2013.


Do you understand the nature of the relationship between members of the Justice Committee and judges and justices?

(I'm amazed that a sitting MP, on the Justice Committee no less, is allowed to act as a defense lawyer before the very courts that could be affected, however indirectly, by her decisions.)


Hi Jackie

Agreed, this could really be worth our closer look. The committee and its members are quite powerful for sure. It is through them that a system designed to be very fair has been bent and bent again to give perps excessive breaks and to make things harder for cops and prosecutors and judges.

Some balance in the system is achieved by the Council of Magistrates which has developed packages of periodic reforms, and theoretically by the President who is the ultimate head of the system with some real powers (he can issue receive petitions and issue pardons if he wants). But the present President was nominated by PM Renzi and considered unlikely to help create a just outcome in Meredith's case.

MP Rocco Girlanda was on that committee and used it to gain access to Knox in prison for "monitoring of her conditions" several dozen times. He used that to write a book and petition the former president to order and investigation of the Perugia cops and prosecutors (ignored).

If you are interested, perhaps with James Raper, you could write up a list of reforms you would like to see. I've mentioned on TJMK a few times that justice is an unusual sector because it doesnt fall under any agency of the UN so theres little chance for national systems to learn from one another, one of the main function s of the UN. Machiavelli knows who all the good reformers are and what they would like to see.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:39 pm   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Jackie wrote:
I'm looking forward to learning when, exactly, someone in Italy becomes a "suspect" entitled, at state expense, to a both a 'caution' and a lawyer of their choosing.

I'll be stunned, shocked and amazed - to the point of having to lie down - if the test is subjective (as the last 6 Knox-lovers on ISF maintain despite the fact it's painfully obvious they are all lay people who have never even set foot in an accredited school of law).


Jackie:

Sure thing. See the description here and my further notes below.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... g_charged/

Quote:
Let’s see what happens in Italy to the legal status of a person who, while considered a “persona informata dei fatti” which means “a person who could yield useful information” in relation to a brutal murder, suddenly becomes a suspect in the eyes of the police.

If while interviewing the “person who could yield useful information” the suspicion arises that such person could have played an active role in the crime, their status then turns into that of a suspect. The police can then detain that suspect up to 48 hours.

Those 48 hours are the period within which a prosecutor - if he believes that the evidence of guilt is meaningful - can request a validation of the arrest by the Judge of Preliminary Investigation (the GIP).

If the judge agrees with the prosecutor that a serious indication of guilt exists, a warrant for the arrest is issued by the judge, and the person’s detention is thus validated.

Immediately, as soon as the status of “person who could yield useful information” status changes into the status of a suspect, the suspect person has a right to legal counsel. This legal counsel normally immediately appeals for the release of the suspect.

Thus setting in motion what can be a LONG sequel of hearings - for which in US and UK common law there is no such equivalent. Each hearing is headed by a different judge. This judge examines prosecution and defence arguments, and decides if the suspect may be released on any of these bases:

Seriousness of the clues presented by prosecution

Likelihood of repeating a similar crime

Likelihood of fleeing the country during the ongoing investigation

Danger of tampering with, or fabricating evidence

If every one of the defence appeals fails, in front of a number of different judges, in a number of different hearings, and the investigation is officially closed, the suspect then goes on to a pre-trial hearing.

Once again here, yet another judge rules either to clear and release the suspect by rejecting the submitted evidence, or to send the suspect to trial on the basis of that evidence, thus making the charges official.
Judicial decisions on bail, house arrest, or jail

Now that the charges are official, the judge can decide if the defendant must await trial under house arrest, or in freedom, of if the defendant must remain in jail.

If the judge, based on their knowledge of the crime and the defendants, estimates that the chances of re-offending or fleeing the country are high, the suspect must remain in jail.

So nobody in Italy can be detained without a reasonable suspicion, a long series of judicial hearings (any one of which could set them free) or eventual official charges.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have not in fact been incarcerated for over one year due to zealous police or a bizarre prosecutor or the complicity of a number of judges throughout the process.

They have been incarcerated because an articulate and balanced process of law has officially and very fairly established there are strong indications that they willingly participated in the vicious murder of Meredith Kercher.


In Merediths case it was Mignini (for the first several days) and then Matteini (for an indefinite period) who established their provisional status and made them sign.

IGNORED ENTIRELY by those sheep like London John on ISP you quote (have they read ANYTHING other than the RS and AK books?) is all those judicial reviews.

The GIP can initiate hearing after hearing, and interview all cops and the prosecutors and scientific team. Witnesses too. There is zero equiv in the US.

This was done in spades in Meredith's case. Scroll to the bottom here and click through to Posts #13 to #18.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _overview/

So not only the GIPs (Matteini and Micheli) but Mignini and the Supreme Court had hearings that gave RS and AK good shots at a break. Fail after fail there.

Do also read this post as, if Sollecito is arguing he was browbeaten, he is in effect accusing her.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... napoleoni/

Do also read this post, which shows how Sollecito's claim was already shot down in 2008 BY THE SUPREME COURT.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... _expected/

Finally, the cops and Mignini were very SURPRISED when RS and then AK broke on 5/6 Nov. RS was there only to clear up a discrepancy between his statements and phone records - and AK was not even meant to be there, and she was only working on a list of names.

The status of both their interviews was NOT interrogation, it was "summary/recap" with a possible witness which could have been done on street corners or in a car. DEFENSES agreed to that at trial when Comodi told them to not to use the term "interrogation" and they readily agreed.

There was NO pre-planning, NO trap, and NO monitoring from behind one way glass. No need for recording of course. And no need for the writeups RS and AK both signed - those documents were purely their idea - unlike the holding warrants Mignini explained and asked them to sign.

After AK signed hers, she chose to babble on to Mignini for half an hour. Her choice. He was not especially interested, nabbing Patrick was now first thing on his mind.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:54 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

hugo wrote:
Italy is rather different from Britain, though. Note that Boninsegna is not saying that police should have interviewed Knox under caution, as they would have done in Britain. Italian police can't do that. They can't interview suspects. They can't conduct interviews under caution. Once someone is a suspect, all police questioning must end. So Boninsegna is saying that, as soon as Sollecito withdrew Knox's alibi, she should have been completely immune to all police questioning forever. She should only have been interviewed by the prosecutor, on a voluntary basis, with notice given in advance and time to prepare with her lawyers, and she should have been able to end the interview at any time she wanted if she became in the least uncomfortable, as happened with the Mignini interview in December.


Hugo

It was Knox that shrugged off a lawyer and persisted in talking while they tried to calm her down. SHE insisted on writing both statements that night and beating Mignini's ear. How would Boninsegna explain these?

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _Florence/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... r_Mignini/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _released/

Anyway, we now know Boninsegna is yet another with known mafia ties, though he hasnt been nailed yet - the CSM did try.

Theres plenty in Italian on the web and even a couple of videos of him being "arrested" by a citizen. I have been sent many links. Quite reminiscent of Marasca and Bruno.

News of this flared up right after he delivered his short-form sentence early 2016 on Knox v questura. Maybe because he was so angry he decided to take the prosecution down a peg. The only document he read appears to have been Knox's book.

We'll post on how his judgement on Knox v is worth zilch. The ISF sheep are getting shorn.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi, Pete, since the ECtHR has requested a copy of the Boninsegna ruling I hope the Italian Minstry of Justice has filed an adequate response to this and to whether Knox had been denied access to a lawyer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:16 am   Post subject: Re: FLORENCE APPEALS COURT DECISION   

Fast Pete wrote:

Hi Jackie

Agreed, this could really be worth our closer look. The committee and its members are quite powerful for sure. It is through them that a system designed to be very fair has been bent and bent again to give perps excessive breaks and to make things harder for cops and prosecutors and judges.

Some balance in the system is achieved by the Council of Magistrates which has developed packages of periodic reforms, and theoretically by the President who is the ultimate head of the system with some real powers (he can issue receive petitions and issue pardons if he wants). But the present President was nominated by PM Renzi and considered unlikely to help create a just outcome in Meredith's case.

MP Rocco Girlanda was on that committee and used it to gain access to Knox in prison for "monitoring of her conditions" several dozen times. He used that to write a book and petition the former president to order and investigation of the Perugia cops and prosecutors (ignored).

If you are interested, perhaps with James Raper, you could write up a list of reforms you would like to see. I've mentioned on TJMK a few times that justice is an unusual sector because it doesnt fall under any agency of the UN so theres little chance for national systems to learn from one another, one of the main function s of the UN. Machiavelli knows who all the good reformers are and what they would like to see.


Well, Pete, I'm just trying to understand the Italian system and I can't begin to imagine how a sitting MP can continue to act as a defense lawyer for private citizens (esp. wealthy ones).

Can you imagine the advantages available to a private American citizen in, oh, say 1995-2001, if it were possible for them to hire a 'Senator Hillary Clinton' as their personal lawyer when seeking to vindicate their legal rights before a Supreme Court comprised of 2 of her husband's nominees (GInsburg and Breyer)?!

Who appoints justices to the Supreme Court of Italy, and what kind of relationship, if any, can a sitting MP on the Justice Committee have with that person or persons???

How are justices on the Supreme Court assigned to individual cases and what kind of relationship, if any, can a sitting MP on the Justice Committee have with the person or persons involved in that process???
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:35 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Fast Pete wrote:
...
Anyway, we now know Boninsegna is yet another with known mafia ties, though he hasnt been nailed yet - the CSM did try.

Theres plenty in Italian on the web and even a couple of videos of him being "arrested" by a citizen. I have been sent many links. Quite reminiscent of Marasca and Bruno...


If this were true, Pete, and many, or even just a few, Italian judges and justices are/were completely corrupt, there never really was any chance of seeing Justice done in this case.

On what basis do you come to this conclusion and, if there's any merit to it, why are there no justices, current or former, speaking out against some of these (ridiculously "reasoned") judgments?

If the translations are accurate, they appear to be filled with erroneous conceptions of not only the BARD standard but the test for sufficiency, so I can understand the temptation to suspect something's up, but why couldn't the poor reasoning be explained by political expediency/pressure from the US State Dept, or simple incompetence, rather than organized crime?

Whatever the cause may be, I'm at the point where I figure I'm about as likely to find justice in Italy as I would be in Mexico (no one travels there expecting the police and courts to come to their rescue if trouble strikes).
__________________________________________________

PS Funniest ISF post of the day (funny because it's just so damned TRUE!):

Hidden Content: show
Image

Yo! Briars! Don't forget his RANK HYPOCRISY !!! (since he likes dictionaries so much, that's "hy·poc·ri·sy" / həˈpäkrəsē / noun "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-Dqj4fHmM


PPS Most Intriguing ISF post of the day (intriguing but, ultimately, not satisfying .... unless there is MORE, a whole lot MORE! Replete with corroboration from Guede and, even then, it's too late):

Hidden Content: show
Image


Last edited by Jackie on Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:10 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Fast Pete wrote:

Anyway, we now know Boninsegna is yet another with known mafia ties, though he hasnt been nailed yet - the CSM did try.



That would explain a lot, because his interpretation of the law was distinctly mafia-ish. There has to be some room for 'person of interest' status which allows the police to continue questioning until they have something more concrete to give the person suspect status. To claim they had no right to speak to Knox after Sollecito withdrew her alibi is being obstructive.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:16 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Jackie wrote:

PS Funniest ISF post of the day (funny because it's just so damned TRUE!):

Hidden Content: show
Image




As yet, though, no one seems to have explained to Bill that 'assoluzione', the word Boninsegna used to describe Knox's acquittal, which Bill keeps obsessively translating as 'absolution', is simply the Italian word for acquittal. It's no stronger than that. It only translates as 'absolution' when used in a religious context. And, if you think about it, absolution by a priest doesn't mean that you didn't commit the sin. It actually means that you did.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:48 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

hugo wrote:
Jackie wrote:

PS Funniest ISF post of the day (funny because it's just so damned TRUE!):

Hidden Content: show
Image




As yet, though, no one seems to have explained to Bill that 'assoluzione', the word Boninsegna used to describe Knox's acquittal, which Bill keeps obsessively translating as 'absolution', is simply the Italian word for acquittal. It's no stronger than that. It only translates as 'absolution' when used in a religious context. And, if you think about it, absolution by a priest doesn't mean that you didn't commit the sin. It actually means that you did.

Coming from a United Church of Canada minister, that actually is funny, hugo nw)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:36 pm   Post subject: Re: FLORENCE APPEALS COURT DECISION   

Jackie wrote:

Who appoints justices to the Supreme Court of Italy, and what kind of relationship, if any, can a sitting MP on the Justice Committee have with that person or persons???

How are justices on the Supreme Court assigned to individual cases and what kind of relationship, if any, can a sitting MP on the Justice Committee have with the person or persons involved in that process???


Except on the Constitutional Court, where a third of the judges are appointed by the President, a third by Parliament (which may well give the Justice Committee some influence) and a third by the lower courts, the appointment, dismissal and transfer of judges is reserved for the CSM, the Superior Council of Magistrates.

Entry to the judiciary is by competitive exam. Eleven years' service qualifies the judge for promotion to appeal rank, and a further seven qualifies for Cassation rank. If the CSM awards the promotion, a job at the higher level does not necessarily follow at once. It depends when there's a slot, and informally it may depend on the judge's connections. From the Nineties till very recently, lawyers who weren't judges could be appointed to Cassation on 'exceptional merit'. Apparently, since the Marasca-Bruno fiasco (neither of those two being an actual judge), Cassation have said they don't want any more non-pro judges.

The CSM is made up of the President, the senior judge and senior prosecutor from Cassation, sixteen other judges... and eight lay members elected by Parliament in a secret ballot for a four-year term each. So a well-connected chair of the Chamber of Deputies' Justice Committee might well have some swing with the CSM.

The assignment of cases is a mystery. At least, I don't know how that is done. I think Bongiorno was voted out of office before Meredith's case was irregularly shunted to the Fifth Section at Cassation. But you never know what informal back-channel connections might be in play.

http://www.csm.it/documenti%20pdf/siste ... nglese.pdf
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:26 pm   Post subject: Said a legitimate DNA expert to the BBC ...   

Image

Relatively low probability tertiary transfer during processing by CSIs, or a much higher probability primary transfer in the course of a fight/stabbing/staging???


If his DNA was just lying around a cottage he's only entered twice for a matter of minutes, just waiting to be tracked into a murder room, why wasn't it all over the floors, pedals, belts and seats of his own damn car, that he's presumably entered countless times for extended periods???

Granted, I have no experience grading introductory chem midterms at Beach U, but the lack of Solly's DNA in his own car would seem to demonstrate just how unlikely tertiary (and even primary) transfers are outside of ideal conditions in a lab. (As does the apparent absence of Knox's DNA inside the murder room despite the fact she LIVED in that shared cottage for many WEEKS - why wasn't her DNA also passively tracked in by the allegedly sloppy "Keystone Cops"???)

Can anyone cite so much as a single sentence of the Supreme Court's judgment where the question of primary versus tertiary transfer is evaluated in light of Solly's LIES to police???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64

Can anyone cite so much as a single sentence of the Supreme Court's judgment where the question of primary versus tertiary transfer is evaluated in light of their affirmation of the finding that Knox WAS THERE, in all likelihood WITH SOLLY???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64

I'm amazed to see that many Italian judges, and even Supreme Court justices, do not appear to understand that the BARD standard is PROBABILISTIC (it is NOT akin to "assoluta certezza"!) and that its application requires an evaluation of 'each piece of evidence in relation to the whole' (they do not appear to make any effort to assess the degree to which independent pieces of evidence are able to reinforce one another). I'm becoming convinced this may reflect the fact that many of them are of an age where their law school studies would have occurred well before Italy's relatively late adoption of the BARD standard.


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: Said a legitimate DNA expert to the BBC ...   

Jackie wrote:
I'm amazed to see that many Italian judges, and even Supreme Court justices, do not appear to understand that the BARD standard is PROBABILISTIC (it is NOT akin to "assoluta certezza"!) and that its application requires an evaluation of 'each piece of evidence in relation to the whole' (they do not appear to make any effort to assess the degree to which independent pieces of evidence are able to reinforce one another). I'm becoming convinced this may reflect the fact that many of them are of an age where their law school studies would have occurred well before Italy's relatively late adoption of the BARD standard.


The reformed adversarial system only dates from 1988, so no, senior Italian judges have no education relating to the RD standard in adversarial trials. QED. They still think they're inquisitors who can determine truth by rhetorical devices and social prestige.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Ergon wrote:
hugo wrote:
Jackie wrote:

PS Funniest ISF post of the day (funny because it's just so damned TRUE!):

Hidden Content: show
Image




As yet, though, no one seems to have explained to Bill that 'assoluzione', the word Boninsegna used to describe Knox's acquittal, which Bill keeps obsessively translating as 'absolution', is simply the Italian word for acquittal. It's no stronger than that. It only translates as 'absolution' when used in a religious context. And, if you think about it, absolution by a priest doesn't mean that you didn't commit the sin. It actually means that you did.

Coming from a United Church of Canada minister, that actually is funny, hugo nw)


Woah! Hugo! That one gave Billy a big cup o' STFU for one whole morning! He's usually up at the crack of dawn posting every few hours with or without case-related news to discuss! But NOT this AM! (Reminds me of the time he suddenly went missing after the translation of Nencini was published, putting the lie to Billy's idiotic and fraudulent claims about what was written on "page 243" LOL)

Alas, it seems the screech is flowing again this afternoon... same old same old ... brace for another 11,000 repetitions of his hopelessly biased and woefully uneducated lay opinion drin-)

[In the course of this online battle, I've developed a theory that, apart from moderators, the number of posts someone makes is usually inversely proportional to the value of that person's opinion.]

And, Ergon, what kind of a "minister" in what kind of a "church" talks like this over matters of OPINION about the affairs of government:
Hidden Content: show
Image
?! Seriously! NONE of my Christian friends, relatives or associates, whether Protestant or Catholic, buy that this poster could really be a "minister". Maybe he really is a "36 year old hockey player" who routinely 'drops the gloves' instead of a red-faced ... whatever.

In any event, ISF really is losing its appeal for me now that it's down to the final 6 or so Knox fans (no lawyers, no doctors, no geneticists, no CSIs, no cops, no Italian speakers) - unless Mach lights it up, I don't really learn anything.

After Grinder's unfortunate passing, Planigale was my last hope for a reasonable, rational, intelligent, fair and relatively open-minded PIP that seemed to know how to stay within the bounds of her education and experience (I'm guessing mostly physics with some chemistry and maybe a smattering of biology?). I really do want to see if someone of the PIP persuasion can answer my questions and draw my attention to something I've missed, but all of these ban-crazy forums are making it impossible for intelligent exchanges to occur.

And then I saw this:
Hidden Content: show
Image


Why did she, of all people, have to blow it like this?! Why do PIPs who have never set foot in an accredited school of law feel they are in a position to make authoritative sounding (but completely made-up & usually erroneous) pronouncements about the law?????????????????????????????????????????

I've seen dozens upon dozens of lay people attempting to do this since 2007. From LooneyJohn over half a decade ago to Planigale today, in 2017. It's one of the more curious, if not bizarre, FOAKer traits. (Is it just lawyers with them or is it any professional: see a dentist on TV => figure it's easy, start giving out half-googled amateur dental advice on internet forums? Why go to university for 4 years, right?!)

Nevertheless, I appreciated Planigale's citation of a study published in 2015 that proved tertiary transfer of touch DNA can, in fact, occur. (Sadly, she does not seem concerned that this study was not published until AFTER the evidence and arguments phase of this case was completed ... how, then, could it have legitimately 'informed' the Supreme Court's "reasoning"?) Plus, anyone can have an off day. And it's Valentine's Day. So I'll pretend I didn't see Planigale's post.

But, for the record Planigale, as I tried to point out to Billy the Liar in a post titled (IIRC) "Morin for a Moron", the Supreme Court of his (alleged) homeland set out the common law state of affairs on this point quite nicely in R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 SCR 345:

"The law is clear on this point: the members of the jury can arrive at their verdict by different routes and need not rely on the same facts. Indeed, the jurors need not agree on any single fact except the ultimate conclusion."

To wit: From a common law point of view, Planigale, the Italian judges and justices, any given set of triers, and even PGP, for that matter, do not have to agree on each and every fact in order to share a valid/ 'legally correct' conclusion as to G/NG. Triers can vary widely in terms of which subset of the evidence and arguments advanced they find persuasive, as long as they agree on G/NG.


________________

PS Sorry for all of the picture edits - I hope it's not messing up anyone's screen - I'm having trouble keeping up with Billy's vulgarities - the more I look, the more I find - it's amazing! I just found one where he delights in the opportunity to call Barbie Nadeau a "bed-hopping, drug using tabloid hack", you know, the way Jesus would :roll: (Is it the screech talking???)


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:20 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Hi Sallyoo,

thanks for your comment on an opinion piece published on the "Fino a prova contraria" website, which means "until proven otherwise", and the heads-up about tonight's Porta a Porta. I'm transferring your post from the Links subforum to the Main Discussion thread.

Your post was in reply to this translation of an article by Annalisa Chirico, a journalist of Il Giornale, which, as we all know, is the Sollecito-friendly publication. So, no surprise there that she would criticize the Florence Court of Appeal ruling. I was planning on translating her piece in full, but couldn't find the time for it; I'll try to do this in the next couple of days.

February 12, 2017

Sollecito, no compensation. Being innocent is not enough
By Annalisa Chirico, Il Giornale

For the Italian justice you can be innocent and, at the same time, guilty. The Court of Appeal of Florence rejected the claim for wrongful imprisonment advanced by Raffaele Sollecito: "Too many silences and lies"

The ruling (dispositivo), published by http://www.finoaprovacontraria.it (until proven otherwise, ed) website, refers to the so-called article of law on contributory negligence. In essence, a citizen, even if acquitted, who has contributed with intent or gross negligence to misleading investigators and magistrates, cancels his right to obtain compensation for the unfairly imposed detention.

In the case of Sollecito, after four years in prison and definitive acquittal, this right is eliminated, pulverized, no compensation, no euro, nothing. For the judges of the Third Criminal Division, "contradictory or false statements, and the subsequent absence of clarifications" by the young engineer behind bars would have contributed to the implementation and continuation of preventive detention.


FINO A PROVA CONTRARIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sallyoo's post is pasted below:

Well, this bit of translation is pretty gobsmacking.

"For the judges of the Third Criminal Division, "contradictory or false statements, and the subsequent absence of clarifications" by the young engineer behind bars would have contributed to the implementation and continuation of preventive detention."

It is a (okay, I'm being pedantic) spin of what the judgement says, which is - For the judges of the Third Criminal Division, "THE contradictory and false statements, and the subsequent absence of clarifications, CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY to the initial and continuing detention".

And at no point in the Florence judgement, refusing compensation, is the bleater referred to as 'a young engineer'. He's variously a subject, a suspect, the accused, the boyfriend of Knox, or the applicant.

This - (although kudos to the finoprovacontraria site for having published the ruling accessibly) - does not augur well for tonight's Porta a Porta, 23.45 on Rai Uno - the talk show with Bruno Vespa, which promises to discuss il caso Sollecito. So far the only known participant is the lady journalist (who probably quite honourably) interests herself in 'miscarriages' of justice, and who IS finoprovacontraria, and who penned the silliness which Guermantes links to.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The Feb. 15 Porta a Porta episode is available to watch online:

http://www.raiplay.it/video/2017/02/Por ... cf440.html

The relevant segment starts at ~ 1hr 12min 30sec (the last 15 minutes).

Present in the studio:
Francesco Sollecito, father of Raffaele
Simonetta Matone, judge
Roberta Bruzzone, criminologist
Annalisa Chirico, journalist, owner (?) of the "Fino a prova contraria" website
Guglielmo Gulotta, professor of forensic psychology at the University of Turin

On the phone:
Raffaele Sollecito

Of course Sollecito Sr. looks and sounds indignant and self-righteous. In the end, it doesn't matter what they say. They can seethe with rage over the latest Court of Appeal judgment as much as they like. It doesn't change anything. Not yet anyway, until the Supreme Court rules on Sollecito's next appeal.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:14 am   Post subject: endless PR   

Hi, Guermantes!

Was the show a one-sided PR vehicle, or was there at least one person invited to support/ explain the decision to deny compensation?

Any mention of Solly's foray onto FB to brag about stabbing people and make fun of Meredith's murder?
Image

Only slightly more revolting than Knoxy's latest attempt to capitalize on HER crime and punishment (salacious 'gay for the stay' Valentine's Day story about her brush with lesbian love in prison k-(( ).

From London to Dublin to Seattle, the comment sections say it all - If she keeps it up, she'll be about as popular as Casey Anthony.

Image

The Disgusting Duo's 'post-acquittal creep-out contest' really is becoming quite something to behold, but the one that scares me the most is Guede: I hear he wants another free degree and, in Italy, we all know what that requires. If Meredith's bros are waiting for him when he gets out, to give him what he really deserves, I won't shed a tear. They'd be doing the world a favor (Guede hasn't done a SINGLE thing to demonstrate sincere remorse or "rehabilitation" - he's still gaming the system, still trying to shift blame, still withholding details that fit with the evidence.)


Last edited by Jackie on Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:32 am, edited 9 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: endless PR   

Jackie wrote:
Hi, Guermantes!

Was the show a one-sided PR vehicle, or was there at least one person invited to support/ explain the decision to deny compensation?


Hi Jackie, I could understand what they were saying only to 50%, especially as they were talking too fast. As you know, I'm not a native Italian speaker and use Google and Microsoft to help me translate newspaper articles. So perhaps our Italian-speaking members, like Sallyoo, could give us a brief synopsis?

From what I understood, it was very much a one-sided presentation of Sollecitos' point of view. Judge Matone tried to explain on which points of law the court judgment was based, but Bruno Vespa didn't seem to be interested and cut her short. You have to keep in mind that each of the six guests spoke for about 2 minutes, so it was pretty rushed.

Jackie wrote:
Any mention of Solly's foray onto FB to brag about stabbing people and make fun of Meredith's murder?


No, he wasn't asked about it, out of politeness I guess. ;) BUT he WAS asked about his FB activities in his other interview on Bianco e Nero (episode of Feb 13). See my post below.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

It was to be expected that Sollecito and his PR team would go on the offensive after the Florence court's decision to deny him compensation. So, on Monday the 13th, he was a guest on La7's programme "Bianco e Nero" (Black and White) and was interviewed by Francesca Lancini about his legal case in general and his insensitive / offensive comments on Facebook in particular. She asked him why, if he was found innocent, would he frequent social networks and do such a thing? He tried to downplay his behavior as harmless (as usual.) Here is what he said: "There has been unprecedented violence against me, I have been massacred for years, also in the media. What's wrong with making jokes on social networks to relax (defuse stress)?" He also said in the interview that there had been "violenza e abuso" (violence and abuse) and "pressione psicologico" (psychological pressure) during his and AK's interrogations (on Nov. 5-6). It's obvious that, over the years, he has become very good at lying, especially in front of people who know nothing about his trial(s).

Interview with Raffaele Sollecito:

BIANCO E NERO

At about 9 min, Giulia Bongiorno joined him at the table. She started out by saying that his compensation claim was rejected for two reasons ("per due ragioni"): contradictory statements and a false alibi. She said that his alibi was confirmed by technical data obtained from his computer. Then she tried to elicit negative emotions from the audience by attacking people who were in charge of the investigation (Monica Napoleoni et al. ) Transcripts of wiretaps of Sollecito's family members were produced, and Bongiorno quoted from them such bad words as "stronze" (those "bitches") and "vipere" (vipers, poisonous snakes) that were used by those who were wiretapping in relation to Sollecito's aunt and stepmother.

That was all I could get out of it. ;)

Errori Giudiziari tweeted about this interview:

Quote:
Raffaele Sollecito was wrong to make jokes on Facebook. But he is not required to be loved by the general public, as the journalist appears to reproach him in this interview. Because--it's clear once and for all--according to the Italian justice, he didn't kill Meredith Kercher. Listen very carefully to the last part of the video (from about 9:30), one in which the lawyer Bongiorno describes (documents in hand) the balance and serenity with which investigators conducted investigations: does it seem to be a regular thing?
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:43 pm   Post subject: lies and alibis   

Thanks, Guermantes!

"Julia Bongiorno ... started out by saying that his compensation claim was rejected for two reasons: contradictory statements and a false alibi. She said that his alibi was confirmed by technical data obtained from his computer."

WHICH "alibi" was "confirmed", Bongiorno, #1, #2, #3, #4 or alibi #5 ?! LOL

_________________________________________________________

Well, it's been interesting catching up, folks, but my horrible February Flu is almost over and I've got to get back at it. It's a shame I didn't cross paths with Michael the Founding Father, The Cat from Oz, Olleo (aka Crockett), dgfred, and the rest of the old group who are still willing and able to sift through the ashes in search of some kind of understanding, but I'll be back - these ECtHR applications are going to take YEARS to play out.

In the meantime, I have one more thing to ask of the unemployed FOAKers busily, and pointlessly, cross-posting between ISF and IA, round the clock, day in, day out (they seem to have shifted today from pretending they're lawyers to pretending they're forensic geneticists):

Image

1) WHO wrote all of this stuff;

2) What are their CREDENTIALS; &

3) Were any of these assertions TESTED IN COURT by way of CROSS-EXAMINATION?????????????????????????????????


I ask because none of these claims appear in any of the court documents I've seen translated.

Indeed, the last time I checked, the "DNA expert" you lot were trotting around turned out to be an engineer/materials scientist who, I'll bet, has not got so much as TWO genetics courses on his university transcripts (IIRC, he's now teaching introductory PHYSICS at a small, not-exactly-prestigious community college).

To make matters worse, I've seen numerous references to a dio or del cletus, cletian del ... whatever (I'll go with cletus del roy, the "slack-jawed yokel" from The Simpsons ;-) who, when asked about his education (if any) in genetics, or professional experience (if any) in genetics, refuses to give even the slightest HINT of a detail.

Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7qhVJIPfck

You can't expect reasonable people to believe unsourced claims on a biased website set up by the defendant's family and friends when they're being offered by what appear to be academic fraud artists and anonymous posters like "cletus" who refuse to even CLAIM professional training of ANY kind.

Who really wrote these claims about "malpractice" and criminal conduct ("destroying evidence", "perjury", etc.), and what degrees and professional experience are they claiming to have???

You like to make fun of "not a real doctor" Stefanoni, but she really is EMPLOYED by a real police force, and has real training in forensic genetics, with real experience processing real crime scenes, and has what it takes to be recognized as a real expert by a real court of law. She's not a retiree who's never set foot in a forensic genetics lab, or a bored chem 101 teacher who's never even seen a real crime scene much less processed one.

Seriously, FOAKers, there are only about 6 people on either side of the discussion now, no one else cares anymore, there's no audience to sway, so let's get real: WHO (in general terms) is making these assertions, WHAT is their TRAINING and EXPERIENCE, WHERE did they get their information, WHY are NONE of these claims of perjury, evidence tampering, etc., supported by ANY of the court documents?

Only a monumental dunce would fall for unsourced, defamatory claims of CRIMINAL conduct that aren't backed up by court judgments.

And you'd have to be an even bigger dunce to PUBLISH them ...

(I'm told the furrier and "Frank" are, in accord with their role in the PR games, struggling/ essentially judgment proof - are YOU?

Show me an intelligent man with a big bank account, nice cars, beautiful homes and college-bound children to finance, and I'll show you a man who doesn't publish assertions that a particular stranger has, as a matter of fact, committed a CRIME until a court of law says it's so.)
Top Profile 

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Well - hopefully (and many thanks Guermantes for moving my pearls of wisdom into plain sight....Jeez, this is the most opaque 'board' in the world!)

So, in response to the requests for how the porta a porta of Feb 15th went, and whether it was a Sollecito love in, here is my very rough account. Guermantes has identified the participants - Raf and Papadoc, (say no more); the lady Magistrato Matone who is a regular, usually sensible voice; Bruzzone, the criminologist famous for her cultivated blonde hair and six inch heels, (but who has a brain); the new girl on the block Annalisa Chirico who has realised that 'innocence project' stuff is there to be exploited, and a rational fellow called Gulotta.

So: the intro covered the background to the case reasonably accurately. Intro says his silence counted against him. He told lies and contradictions.
RS: (on phone) Says he doesn't like the sentence.
FS: (Clapping from the audience when he is introduced) "This opens doubts, I'm gobsmacked and worse. Judges can't agree. He's totally innocent".
Matone: I've had a quick look, very detailed judgement, (ffs lady, why didn't you read it properly - you knew you were booked for the show). He was unjustly imprisoned but you don't get money cos you told lies. Verdict doesn't say you're not innocent.
Bruzzone. Worried because it's dangerous to send this confused message to the public. (Matone perhaps disagrees, she's saying 'no' off camera).
RS: (on phone) I've read the sentence, it's rubbish, nobody asked me to speak. Full of errors, I rang 112 before the pp arrived, they blew up my computer, violence confusion pressure - nothing was my fault. How do I remember when Dad rang? I was pressured, I wasn't a suspect, they didn't even let me have a lawyer.
Chirico: This is a 4th grade of process, 12 pages of rot. They're innocent, he'd only known her for a few days, they weren't lovers he was only 20. This is Italy not Burkhino Faso. It's quite okay to forget stuff. Violence. 10 year process and he's innocent. Should be innocent til proved guilty, shouldn't have been in prison. Shameful ordinance.
Gulotta: Law says no money for unjust detention if you told lies. Sollecito stayed silent - his right, but stupid. Also lied.
FS: He didn't choose to stay silent - it's just that nobody asked him. His first statement on 2nd Nov was quite consistent, then he forgot, on 5th he was asked to imagine stuff, and the poor darling understandably didn't remember.
RS: (on phone, asked how his life had changed). Nothing has changed in my life, it's a nightmare, it's hell.
Matone: Cassation will hear appeal, wait for that.

This is NOT a translation, it's an opinionated precis - but I'll stand by it. On the whole, I think even those Italians who didn't switch off (at about 01.30, bedtime) on hearing the name Sollecito wouldn't have considered it a tremendously friendly transmission. But it's all about reinforcement of beliefs, and if you think 'he got away with it' it will look a bit pro Solly, if you think he's innocent you'll think he was hard done by. Vespa said almost not a word. The only bit which really jarred with me was the 'clapping' when the audience learned they would be party to the esteemed opinion of Papadoc. That looked staged to me.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks a lot, Sallyoo! Great synopsis.

Here is Annalisa Chirico's blog post that I promised to translate. She didn't come up with any new arguments that could be described as "mind-blowing" or "revolutionary in their novelty." Just the usual pro-innocence chatter (Sollecito couldn't remember; he was pressured, confused, etc)

February 12, 2017

Sollecito, no compensation. Being innocent is not enough
By Annalisa Chirico, Il Giornale

For the Italian justice, you can be innocent and, at the same time, guilty. The Court of Appeal of Florence rejected the claim for wrongful imprisonment advanced by Raffaele Sollecito: "Too many silences and lies"

The ruling (dispositivo), published by http://www.finoaprovacontraria.it website, refers to the so-called law on contributory negligence. In a nutshell, a citizen, even if acquitted, who has contributed with intent or gross negligence to misleading investigators and magistrates, may see his right to obtain compensation for an unjust detention significantly diminished.

In the case of Sollecito, after four years in prison and definitive acquittal, this right is canceled (revoked, obliterated), pulverized, no compensation, not a single euro, nothing. For the judges of the Third Criminal Division, “contradictory or false statements, and the subsequent absence of clarifications” by the young engineer behind bars would have contributed to the initiation (enforcement) and continuation of preventive detention (precautionary measure.)

But what would constitute “false statements”? “I have never avoided interrogators – comments the protagonist to Il Giornale on yet another twist in the judicial odyssey lasting nearly ten years - I have read the decision, I am aghast. I hear the echo of the sentence of conviction, perhaps they are fond of miscarriages of justice”. Sollecito is shaken, did not see it coming. “I thought I had experienced the darkest pages of Italian justice. I’m forced to acknowledge that my harsh detention was justified”.

In the hours following the discovery of the body of Meredith Kercher, the British student brutally murdered in the apartment on via della Pergola in 2007, Sollecito answers questions of investigators, attempts to reconstruct in detail his and Amanda’s (his girlfriend of five days) movements, tries to fix the times of entry and exit from her Perugian apartment, [tries to remember] if Amanda was ever absent in the course of the night, if his father had phoned from Puglia towards dinner time or before going to sleep; Raffaele does not avoid answering questions but struggles to remember exactly, he contradicts himself, justifies the imprecision by admitting he smoked some pot as do college students all over the world; during the interrogation of guarantee before the investigating judge he declares: 'I told you a load of cr** because I was upset, I was scared and I was afraid ... I can say that I do not remember exactly when Amanda was out, if she was out ... I do not remember '.

But there's more. In the ruling / ordinance (ordinanza) of 12 pages, we read that the silence maintained by the suspect after validation of arrest hearing (interrogation of guarantee) [Sollecito was held for six months in solitary confinement] contributed to misleading the judges. In other words, the exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right, the result of an assessment of defense that it would be prudent to remain silent, becomes a sign of innocence by half: Sollecito is still on trial. To remove all doubt, it is stated [in the ruling] that the judgment of acquittal issued by the Supreme Court had found an "element of strong suspicion against Sollecito" because of contradictory statements. There is no trace instead of the complaints expressed by the SC judges on the work of the PM: "blatant failings or investigative amnesia and guilty omissions of investigators”, they wrote.

For the murder of Kercher, an Ivorian citizen is serving a final sentence of sixteen years in prison. Now, the culture of suspicion that has annihilated individual rights is the same that says candidly to the president of ANM Davigo that even the innocent may be guilty.


http://www.finoaprovacontraria.it/solle ... to-negato/
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:56 pm   Post subject: MADELEINE MCCANN'S PARENTS REQUEST REVIEW CASSAZIONE RULING   

An article in Portuguese Resident
Hysteria mounts as McCann parents revealed to be “fighting” defeat in Portugal’s Supreme Court
Quote:
According to a report in today’s Correio da Manhã, the couple consider the court has been “frivolous” in upholding last year’s decision, on appeal, to free former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral from paying any damages for his thesis on their daughter’s disappearance: the best-selling book “Maddie: The Truth of the Lie”.

The basis of the so-called frivolity, says CM, is the reference the panel of judges made to the couple not having been considered “innocent” in the affair.

Source: Correio da Manhã
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:48 am   Post subject: RUDY GUEDE APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT   

OGGI
Quote:
The appeal to the Supreme Court: Meanwhile, his lawyers Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi, after the Court of Appeal of Florence had branded as inadmissible their request filed for a new trial, filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme court judges may then cancel with the order issued from Florence, or confirm it, putting an end for ever in the judicial history of Rudy Guede who has always said he is innocent.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jamie


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:42 pm

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: RUDY GUEDE APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT   

Ergon wrote:
OGGI
Quote:
The appeal to the Supreme Court: Meanwhile, his lawyers Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi, after the Court of Appeal of Florence had branded as inadmissible their request filed for a new trial, filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme court judges may then cancel with the order issued from Florence, or confirm it, putting an end for ever in the judicial history of Rudy Guede who has always said he is innocent.


It is interesting that after the review appeal hearing in December 2016, it looked as though Guede accepted his fate and was not going to appeal.

The timing of this appeal has given rise to speculation that the Florence verdict against Sollecito may have triggered it.

See: https://krissyg1.com/2016/12/19/rudy-gu ... d-fiction/

When the Sollecito decision is translated, we''l be better able to see how it impacts on Guede and even Knox (ECHR).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline rocklee1957


Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:47 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito's aunt, Sara Achille interview - February 28, 2017

http://www.panorama.it/news/cronaca/raf ... la-pagare/

Here is automatic software translation :

Sara Achille is the aunt of Raffaele Sollecito, her guardian angel in the battle against Justice who has stolen some of the best years of his life, since 2007 he was involved with Amanda Knox in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Sara is the wife of Joseph, who is the brother of Franco, the dad of Raffaele.
She was a preschool teacher who is now retired, this woman was his familiar Perry Mason for all these years, one who has studied all the fact up to learn them by heart, page by page, including commas. A maniac work looking for every little contradiction, a detail that might have escaped to her, to bring to the attention of the Legal Raffaele, Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori.
-Lady, how did you welcome the decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence which denied compensation to Raffaele for his wrongful imprisonment?

-It was a written judgment.

-What do you mean?

-I did not expect anything different.

-Because?

-It seems to me that initially there was an anomaly. A claim for unjust detention is brought to a decision of a Court that is next to the one that issued the sentence ...the Court of Appeal of Florence is the one who condemned Raffaele in the second degree.
But they are not, however, the same judges. They are colleagues who share their decision on compensation would in fact certified that others were wrong.

-Do you think there was some kind of environmental factor?

-I do not accuse anyone, mind you. But the question I think is legitimate.

-In this decision, what did not convince you?

-In order it refers to elements which then have been explained during the investigation, and have not entered in the pleadings. So I wonder how they can represent the basis for the denial of compensation.

-You refer to the contradictions in the initial declarations of Raffaele? In any case, can you explain how?

-He was told that Amanda had admitted to being out that night. And he, cleverly, was led to say: If you say so, then it means that you are confused. Those statements were made four days after the death of Meredith. Raffaele was not able to change version, it was them who told him that Amanda had changed. Then they went to her and told her that Raffaele had betrayed her, and then led them in contradiction.

- The statements of your nephew in the end, still remains.

-Yes, but all that happened on this night when he was there as a person informed of the facts, and passed it to suspect that they didn't read them their rights,and was not given the opportunity to call a lawyer. They made him also take off his shoes, and took him to his cell barefoot. That night his civil rights were violated , he was not allowed to call a lawyer, or to call his father. We have been not been informed of this until the next day at lunch time on television. Does it seem worthy of a normal country, all this mess ?

-No.

-Here, with the decision to reject his compensation, they trampled Raffaele and his dignity. In this state there is no respect for human dignity. It is a state , please remember, which never admits its mistake.

-Let's step aside. Did you read what your nephew wrote on Facebook? At a minimum, with references to murders and rapes, there are some bad taste jokes.

-It is true, and I called him.

-To tell him what?

-That it was wrong.
-And he?

-He told me there were Guilty groups, and he just came to defend himself. It felt like someone who can neither hold back nor deal with it in a serious way. Eventually chose irony, play the game, and the others have well understood that it was a mistake and that in fact he was a guy like any other one.

-Does it has any link with Raffaele or to those who denounced him?

-With Raffaele. I clearly said that the problem is his.

-What do you mean?

-He does not realize that until the end of his days, Raffaele will never again be a free man.

-His, is a strong statement.

-It is so, indeed. It is as if Raffaele was on probation or house arrest. He must pay attention to every small step, because a banana peel for him can have catastrophic effects.

-He is saying that he will remain marked for life, chased by his story?

-Yes, he lives a drama. But as a boy who wants to regain his life, he refuses to accept this reality.

-You are, however, unable to accept that?

-No, of course, it is not right. He has the right to live. But the situation is this, and he must decide if he wants to preserve his serenity or carry on being devoured by this scum who does their job, in a seedy way.

-Because?

-Because they end up exploiting his every word. This is what they do in turn (Selvaggia Lucarelli, who has condemned the post of Sollecito's Facebook,for instance), condemning all those who instigate hatred on social. Because this is what they do? Every time they write something about Raffaele.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Thanks for the article, rocklee1957. The Sollecito family is busy rewriting history, but Raffaele's statements and testimony speak for themselves; he would not corroborate that Knox was with him all night. Never walked it back, and even when questioned in later interviews, claimed not to remember because of, drugs.

His excuses re his Facebook posts are of the same tenor.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:42 am   Post subject: FLORENCE ORDINANZA RAFFAELE SOLLECITO   

Attached is the English translation of the Florence Appeals Court report denying compensation to Raffaele Sollecito.


Note:
Quote:
This translation was done by a group of unpaid volunteers who are regular posters on the Perugiamurderfile.org message board devoted to discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, in November of 2007. The translation and editorial team was international in its make-up.

It was completed in February 2017, having been undertaken for the sole purpose of promoting a better understanding of this complex case, and to ensure that the facts are readily available to the English-speaking world without selective emphasis, misstatement or bias.

It has been translated on a “best efforts” basis, and has gone through multiple rounds of proofreading and editing, both to ensure its accuracy and to harmonize the language insofar as possible. Persons fluent in both Italian and English are invited and encouraged to contact PMF if they find any material errors that influence the meaning or intention of the judges. All such corrections will be investigated, made as required and brought to the attention of the public. The original Italian document is twelve pages long.

As with any translation, some terminology in Italian has no direct equivalent in English. Explanations have been provided where relevant. Similarly, readers are encouraged to submit any questions about legal or other concepts that may arise as they peruse the report. Our goal is to make the report as clear and as accurate as possible; to this end, it will be amended whenever doing so promotes this goal.

As the report was written and published in Italian, that language prevails in the event of a dispute over interpretation. This English-language version is provided for readers' convenience only; accordingly, it is a free translation and has no legal authority or status.

This translation may be freely copied or otherwise reproduced and transmitted in the unedited pdf format, provided that the translation or any excerpt therefrom is accompanied by the following attribution: "From the translation prepared by unpaid volunteers from http://www.perugiamurderfile.org to promote a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the death of Meredith Kercher and the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the English-speaking world".


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

Offline Sallyoo


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:20 pm

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Sollecito has got another begging bowl out, it really is very difficult to believe anybody has this much cheek.

This time he's asking mugs for €20.000 to - wait for it - improve his grave site. Kickstarter has a semi-English language version of this appeal for money (to add, remember, to the €60,000 which Puglia gave him for this ill advised venture). So far, last time I looked, it had received zero. I hope that remains the case.

"BeOnMemories is a new Web Service with a glare to the future." A fortuitous mistranslation!

Hidden Content: show
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804509712/beonmemories?ref=project_tweet


Attachment:
Cheek.JPG


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: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:22 pm   Post subject: Re: lies and alibis   

Jackie wrote:
..., The Cat from Oz, ...


Had disappeared into the haze of the local heatwaves for a moment there, but am back more or less unmelted now. :)

I had been approaching Screech-posts with the initial assumption that the poster(s) would naturally want to improve the line of their argument (or any argument), like anyone else would I imagine, but if they want to end up treating it as a pearls-before-swine thing, there's nothing I can do about that. co-)


In any case, there really is no shortcut, not even for law-students:


Quote:
“To make sense of half a year's work takes half a year.”

— Richard Krever,
Mastering Law Studies and Law Exam Techniques, 8th edition, (2014)
[LexisNexis Butterworths, 2014], p 24.
ISBN 9780409333008
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 Mar 01, 2017 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: Crime Control vs. Due Process   

Jackie wrote:
... Billy ... He's usually up at the crack of dawn posting every few hours with or without case-related news to discuss! But NOT this AM! (Reminds me of the time he suddenly went missing after the translation of Nencini was published, putting the lie to Billy's idiotic and fraudulent claims about what was written on "page 243" LOL)

Alas, it seems the screech is flowing again this afternoon... same old same old ... brace for another 11,000 repetitions of his hopelessly biased and woefully uneducated lay opinion drin-)

[In the course of this online battle, I've developed a theory that, apart from moderators, the number of posts someone makes is usually inversely proportional to the value of that person's opinion.]




There is some wisdom available:


Quote:
“When I was young I was a regular night owl for working and writing but I am now much more careful about the quality of material from the extremes of the day. Many years later I still have the late-night habit, but I no longer entirely trust what I generate. (For the same reason, it’s a good idea to leave emails and letters that you write late at night and only send them the next morning, when you’ve had a chance to assess them in the light of day.)”

— Steve Ball,
The Complete Guide to Writing Your Dissertation: Advice, techniques and insights to help you enhance your grades, (2012)
[HowTo Books, 2012], p102.
ISBN 9781845284541



and:

Quote:
“drunkenness is not a good basis for writing academic prose, for example”

— Ball, p101.


I always get the impression that young Bill thinks that his learning phase has ended with his milk teeth and that school is permanently out, and his head-in-the-sand approach to what he thinks other people will make of his posts is a bit, shall we say, less than an achieving of his full potential.

I wonder if he wonders why no-one believes what he says, and whether that trait is shared with anyone else, because if it were, there might be some guidance available, should he choose it. On the other hand, if he wants to live inside his own bubble, that's his choice. (But why try to post 'converting' posts, like a missionary? That's being pulled in two directions, that is. Two different masters. (Would explain the allure of screech therapy, though.))
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 Mar 01, 2017 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

Poor Raffaele!

No-one believes his load of balls about why he told the first load of balls. And so romantic it was, too.

The way *out* of a hole is not to dig deeper!
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 Mar 02, 2017 5:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

The Journalists’ Adjective


Some idle thoughts of a linguistic nature on a Thursday afternoon



Quote:
Proceedings of The International Association of Forensic Linguists’ Tenth Biennial Conference 2012
Held: July, 2011, Aston University’s Centre for Forensic Linguistics


Maria Bortoluzzi and Lieve Gies
Wikiforensics and the transcoding of innocence and guilt in the Meredith Kercher case, 325

PDF




See also Rumpole’s list at
http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewto ... 1&p=127066






Two linguists, Bortoluzzi from the University of Udine and Gies from the University of Leicester, have found that, after putting a bunch of words from discussions of the Meredith Kercher case, including parts of the Massei Report, through an app (WMatrix software), one semantic field stands out: that of “the category of cleaning and personal care”.

Fair enough, with physical and character evidence relating to unflushed toilets and house-keeping, not to mention the other evidence and claims involving marks, stains, washing, showering, detergents and puddles and mops, DNA and contamination.

Fair enough also, that discussion-board talk of physical cleanliness and dirt-and-disorder imagery flows over metaphorically into discussions of moral character and “images used to represent immorality and guilt”, and that, as per IP’s view of the world, “the Italian legal system becomes an immoral polluter who behaves unethically and unprofessionally”.

What I find interesting beyond all that, though, is the narrative lens that they apply, – both to lay down the narrative foundation of their analysis and later to draw analytical inferences therefrom –, seems so under-analysed and, to be blunt, amateur, for university-level writing that it is surprising it made it into print (unless the goal is to reflect back on the university?).

It comes down to using the journalist’s adjective. Or an over-reliance on it, in place of thought and analysis.

Greengrocers have their apostrophe, which they attach to everything, whether or not it needs it. Journalists (meaning the untrained modern lot) and their imitators like to use adjectives, and then go on to treat adjectival opinion as reality.
For example, in the Abstract, we find:
Quote:
British exchange student X”
Italian university town of X”


Fair enough: These are Homeric epithets, and add colour (meaning, memorable mental ‘hooks’ on which to hang narrative hats and coats), and they act as short-hand mnemonics.

But take a microscopic analysis: what is left out is as important as what is put in, when it comes to adjectives. Because it is a choice.

Meredith is described via her nationality and student status.

To be balanced, in terms of citizenship status, there are actually four:
= UK citizen, US citizen, Italian citizen, Ivory Coast citizen
and the corresponding jurisdictions.

There are also four studentship statuses:
= exchange student, drifting/floating course attendee, out-of-towner student, dropout

And study subjects:
= politics and journalism student, language student, computer science student, undecided


Swapping and interchanging these descriptors and attributes won’t change the relevance of the evidence, but they would change the background ‘human-interest’ context (and the target of Bruce’s attacks!).



An Abstract is a bit tight to manoeuvre in, linguistically speaking.


In the Introduction, the journalist’s adjective is deployed.

Quote:
“it soon emerged that one of the co-accused was X”

: soon (substantive view): there is a case to answer, and not particularly complex
: soon (conspiracy view): yes, of course it emerged soon; in fact, why did it take so long?


Quote:
flatmate X, a US citizen

: flatmate X who had recently shacked up with an Italian-citizen male student in his bed-sit


Quote:
“the press … took an intense interest”

As Wikipedia would say, ‘intense’ according to who?
Compare: slight interest, mild interest, no interest, legal interest.
So ‘intense’ codes for ‘salaciously sexual’.
How the ‘interest’ manifested itself is also interesting in its own right: all of it, after the first shock, being click-bait.


Quote:
Dubbed ‘Foxy Knoxy’ by the British tabloid press, X”

Slightly skewed history here.
Try: “Having dubbed herself ‘Foxy Knoxy’ on her social networking page, a nickname taken up with alacrity by the tabloid press (at least by the British contingent, with the American ones competing in angling for an exclusive interview and a scoop), X”

There is also the unasked question about “tabloid”. In how many other murder cases, anywhere, did it matter what the tabloid press thought about the case?

And, from the international perspective, the mention of “British tabloid” introduces a target.


Quote:
“X quickly emerged as the main protagonist in media discourse,”

‘quickly’ implies an easy case, reinforcing ‘soon’. The tabloid hounds have found their quarry.
‘main’ implies others, who are being overlooked; ‘protagonist’ is for screenplays.


Quote:
Italian former boyfriend X”

‘former’ is never explained (understandably so from Raffaele’s defence’s point of view).
‘boyfriend’, despite Amanda’s various unsuccessful attempts at explaining Raffaele’s status, seems to have been dubbed onto him (by the screenplay, perhaps?), which in turn implies reality and media representation are pulling in different directions. So who is holding the reins of the media horses?

Quote:
Ivorian citizen X”

‘Ivorian’ instead of Ivory Coast; lack of familiarity with geography points to a certain trait; copy-paste takes care of the rest.


Quote:
Salacious stories about X”

If we’re talking about tabloids (why?), the ‘salacious’ is, by definition, necessary, and par for the course. An unsalacious tabloid wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.



Quote:
“Internet discussion of the case largely mirrors coverage in the mainstream media: it is Knox who commands most of the attention online. Guede, by contrast, is the least talked about.”

‘largely’: how much is ‘largely’?
‘mainstream’ media now (suddenly tabloid has been dumped, like totally; that was a short romance)
‘least talked about’: who decided that? Are we back in script-land? Who decided the focus, and why?


Quote:
“One of the most eye-catching features of relevant Internet discussions is X”

Try ‘most mundane’.

‘Most boring’

‘Most common’

If B&G are surprised, does that mean they’re not Internet-savvy? Not versed in their specialist subject? (Hint of Vecchiotti beginning to appear.)

They’re actually talking about:

Quote:
“the role of the amateur-expert who engages with complex legal and forensic evidence either to express a firm belief in Knox’s innocence or express the conviction that she is guilty”

‘complex’ is contrasted with ‘amateur’.

Without realising it, B&G have exactly described every single jury-member on entering the jury box: ‘amateur-expert’ (admittedly, waiting to be led through the evidence by professionals, and being trained-up when and where required).

‘Complex’, according to who? What is ‘complex’ about it?

Legally, it is straightforward: a case is being presented, there is evidence from which inferences are asked to be drawn, the defence attempts a rebuttal. Same as any other legal case. If there is any difficulty in understanding the evidence and what it means, experts are called in to explain.

It is understandable that a pair of linguists could find a legal case ‘complex’, but complexity has never been a reason for a court not to decide a case.

‘Firm’ belief, and ‘conviction’ (in the sense of a belief), is a subliminal hinting of ‘cult’, and everyone knows where cults stand in the hierarchy.


Quote:
“Online commentators are not in a position to examine any actual forensic evidence but are merely limited to making metadiscursive statements about documents which were produced in the legal context of prosecution, trial and appeal.”

No ‘actual’ evidence, whatever that means (presumably, transcripts are not as good as actually being there, listening).

Online commentators and jury members are both the same in being ‘merely limited’ to basing their thinking on what was ‘produced’ in court (or in Italian courts, what was accepted into the court file).


Quote:
“what we have termed ‘wikiforensics’ …the activity whereby Internet users, as a pastime or on a freelance basis, extensively ponder the evidence, motives and modus operandi of the suspects. It also involves scrutiny and criticism of the workings of the criminal justice system.”

Sherlock Holmes had a hobby of ‘extensively pondering’ the evidence, as do investigative journalists.

In B&G’s ‘wikiacademica’ world, they must be taken to mean that anyone not officially part of a case can say anything they want, and it will be of no import. On the Internet or not, is irrelevant.


Quote:
“We aim to examine how innocence and guilt are constructed in online communities.”

how constructed: that would be interesting.
online: why restrict it? ‘judicial truth’ is not restricted to the screen.

Quote:
“Our preliminary findings suggest that the most ardent followers of the case relate to the legal-forensic process by constructing narratives which specifically strengthen their convictions.”

preliminary: = incomplete, under-cooked
most ardent: = like a fan, lacking in rigour/logic
narratives: = story, fairy-tale
convictions: = beliefs, assumptions; the conviction brought down by a jury is different.


Quote:
“first, we will briefly outline some of the contextual elements that are relevant to our analysis”

contextual: some, not all; what were the criteria for leaving out the other contextual elements


Quote:
“Secondly, we aim to show how online communities are starkly divided into two opposing camps, involving the so-called ‘guilters’ and ‘innocentisti’”

starkly divided, opposing: = a false dichotomy; Creation Science pages are not science pages and Creation Science is not a ‘camp’ equal to science; and likewise Bruce’s/IP’s lobbying is not an impartial examination of the evidence (or even a partial examination of the evidence, for that matter). Someone discussing the evidence is not the opposite of Bruce; the opposite of Bruce is Raffaele, and his defence counsel Giulia Bongiorno, who have been sniping and attacking Amanda and her position at every turn – Bruce’s eyesight is not keen enough to see it, that is all.


innocentista: “upholder of an accused person’s innocence” (Ragazzini 2009)
colpevolista: “one who considers an accused person to be guilty” (Ragazzini 2009) - too hard to spell that, so say 'guilter' instead ;) .


Bruce’s categorisation of non-Bruce views is simplistic, naive, and misleading; B&G’s adoption of it speaks to their skill level in summarising a ‘complex’ case.



Quote:
“Next, we explore how social networks seek to connect with the forensic-legal evidence through lexical fields which denote dirt and pollution, but which also act as a powerful proxy for the moral character of the suspects and the probity of forensic and legal procedure.”

seek: = try, not succeed
powerful: this must be a reference to the strong correlation between purity/impurity vocabulary and moral topics, but what is a ‘powerful proxy’?
proxy: = metaphor, not ‘stand-in for’.




In their Context section, B&G say:

Quote:
“wikiforensics represents a distinct category of Internet sleuthing which involves a form of forensic crowd-sourcing where users pool their knowledge with the aim of solving problematic crime cases.”

distinct category: no it isn’t
sleuthing: like an amateur, Mr Holmes
crowd-sourced knowledge pooling: is exactly the function and purpose of the jury, the bastion and pinnacle of the common law system of the administration of justice
problematic: again with the problematic; B&G have a problematic, complex apprehension of what the case is and entails (admittedly, giving credence to Bruce/IP as a reasoned-stance source would do that to them, just like giving credence to a Creation Science page will give a linguist a problematic and complex apprehension of what geology is or what the dinosaurs were doing).

And so on.


They do have some worthwhile points to ponder, though.

The conclusion (it almost seems as if written by a different person (=non-Bruce, in the above terminology)) raises some questions (which the non-IP discussion has also high-lighted, multiple times): why is Rudy a polluter, not Raffaele (IP have latched onto Rudy); why Amanda is promiscuous, not Raffaele; where has the victim gone; and (following IP):

Quote:
Finally, to what extent does the slippage between forensic contamination and institutional corruption represent legitimate criticism of Italian justice, and to what extent does it harbour a negative cultural stereotype which depicts the Southern European official as untrustworthy, incompetent and corrupt?


He who asserts, must prove.

Charging someone with murder, and then prosecuting a case on the evidence, is not corruption. Or being untrustworthy or incompetent, for that matter.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

10:00 thursday US east coast time. TJMK is down. THANKS Ergon for emailing to warn me. The hoster knows and they usually act very fast.

Pete
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:35 pm   Post subject: PEER REVIEW PSYCHOLOGY JOURNALS   

You're welcome, Pete. Hope it's back up soon.

An article in yesterday's Nature
Quote:
Peer-review activists push psychology journals towards open data
Editor asked to resign from journal for saying he’ll review only papers whose data he can see.
Gautam Naik
01 March 2017
~An editor on the board of a journal published by the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA) has been asked to resign in a controversy over data sharing in peer review.

Gert Storms — who says he won’t step down — is one of a few hundred scientists who have vowed that, from the start of this year, they will begin rejecting papers if authors won’t publicly share the underlying data, or explain why they can’t.

The idea, called the Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative, was launched by psychologists hoping to increase transparency in a field beset by reports of fraud and dubious research practices. And the APA, which does not ask that data be made available to peer reviewers or shared openly online, seems set to become an early testing ground for the initiative’s influence. With Storms’ situation still unresolved, the society’s council of editors will discuss whether it should change its policies at a meeting in late March.

I wonder if Professor Saul Kassin was ever challenged for his "self-reported" study on False Confessions or ever made the data public or available for peer review. Maybe that's why Psychology is such an imperfect field and its conclusions, not always replicable.

One might also ask Professors Gill and Hampikian whether they ever made the "raw data files" of their studies publicly available? I might better comment on their studies of tertiary transfer of DNA if I knew just what they mean by 'complete profiles were transferred'.

Veering off again, I loved the way the FSA (ETA: sorry, FSS for UK's Forensic Science Services) said findings of Madeleine McCann's DNA in the rental car were 'inconclusive'. How, so? That's why peer review has to be open and transparent.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline hugo


Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:20 pm

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIX. MAIN DISCUSSION, AUG 1 -   

A couple of noticeable things about the Florentine judges' report:

One is, it comes down to a fairly narrow technical point. To be barred from compensation, the former defendant must have withheld information which, had it been known, would have materially altered the picture in regard to his liability to detention. (A fairly characteristically stupid ruling by Cassation.) The picture built up by investigators was that Sollecito was guilty of murder. So the Florentine judges, relying on the Fifth Division Marasca-Bruno ruling as 'judicial fact', argue that Sollecito could have given true information which would have shown him as complicit to a lesser degree (failing to prevent or report the crime, the minimum case compatible with the Fifth Division's findings), so he might have got house arrest, or possibly no restriction of liberty at all.

Since Bongiorno is determined to appeal, I wouldn't altogether put it past Cassation to overturn the ruling on the grounds that Marasca-Bruno left open the distinct possibility that Knox and Sollecito took part in the murder, in which case Sollecito couldn't have given true information contrary to the investigators' theory, so he's protected by the 'right to lie' and, being so obviously guilty, he's totally entitled to compensation. (Which may well be the point of the Cassation ruling on the subject. It looks like a pro-mafia ruling: the guiltier you are, the more you deserve a bounty for getting away with it.)

The other thing is, the Florentine judges remark that they can't legally refer to the Hellmann report, or any of the Hellmann process, because it was 'completely annulled' by the First Criminal Division of Cassation (except for the calunnia verdict). As far as I know, that's correct. Which makes it extraordinary that the bent Marasca-Bruno court rested their entire ruling on Hellmann. The 'objectively wavering process', which led logically to the finding that the evidence must be 'insufficient and contradictory', requiring acquittal, was simply a reference to the Hellmann acquittals. But those acquittals no longer existed in law and it was illegal for Marasca and Bruno to refer to them, or to the supposed findings of Conti and Vecchiotti, since the First Division had ruled those 'experts' dishonest. Marasca and Bruno simply pretend that the First Division's ruling never happened. Still, Italy is not a duly organised polity under the rule of law, and we knew all that was coming as soon as Marasca threatened the Kerchers' lawyer with legal action for referring to Conti and Vecchiotti as dishonest, even though their dishonesty is a judicial fact established by Cassation itself.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 32 of 34 [ 8264 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

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 


28,901,457 Views