The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Skeptic Ginger]

Imaginary Satanic ritual beliefs were in the news today comparing Q-Anon believers to what happened in the mid-80s in the US where daycare employees were accused all over the country of abusing kids in rituals.

Some very bad child interviewers led kids from daycares into telling everyone they were subjected to all sorts of improbable crap. It went on for several years. I was so upset they had sentenced a cook in the Little Rascal's Daycare to life in prison for abusing kids because she refused to falsely admit guilt. I sent her money for her legal defense and bail. I posted about this at the beginning of this thread (part 1).

NPR: America's Satanic Panic Returns — This Time Through QAnon

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Imaginary Satanic ritual beliefs were in the news today comparing Q-Anon believers to what happened in the mid-80s in the US where daycare employees were accused all over the country of abusing kids in rituals.

Some very bad child interviewers led kids from daycares into telling everyone they were subjected to all sorts of improbable crap. It went on for several years. I was so upset they had sentenced a cook in the Little Rascal's Daycare to life in prison for abusing kids because she refused to falsely admit guilt. I sent her money for her legal defense and bail. I posted about this at the beginning of this thread (part 1).

NPR: America's Satanic Panic Returns — This Time Through QAnon

I remember those days, especially the McMartin daycare in Los Angeles as I lived there then. I thought it was ridiculous as it was happening and it turned out to be; prosecutors blinded by furthering their careers on the bodies of people's ruined lives.

[Stacyhs]

I found this quote from Skeptic Ginger's linked article interesting as it applies to the Knox case and especially to the PGP and TJMK's (few remaining) devotees:

Quote:

It's unclear how much support QAnon will continue to receive with Trump out of the White House — polling is mixed about the degree of favorability the conspiracy theory enjoys among the American electorate. But de Young believes that moral panics eventually fizzle as hard evidence of their claims fails to materialize.

"The best available weapon we have is to counter the information with facts, is to keep pressing for more information, because it's in the area of facts that moral panics tend to collapse," de Young says. "They just get ridiculous, except for maybe a very small number of true believers who can tolerate an enormous amount of dissonance."

The PGP, Quennell and his band of fanatical followers saw/see themselves as being on the moral side of the case which was much more important than the factual, evidence driven side. This is one reason their arguments centered so much on Amanda as a person. What they considered her moral failings as a person were trotted out as evidence of her guilt: her 'slutty' sex life, her alleged lack of cleanliness, her quirkiness, etc.

But as the second paragraph above says, it falls apart as they get repeatedly pressed with the hard facts. We saw it happen here and elsewhere. They just kept getting more and more ridiculous as the article says until they finally just disappeared. Except for one or two and then one. And then none. The tiny handful that remain that used to come here have basically holed up over on TJMK where they live in their echo chamber and tell each other that "it's all for Meredith"...whom they never even mentioned on the last anniversary of her murder by Guede.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I found this quote from Skeptic Ginger's linked article interesting as it applies to the Knox case and especially to the PGP and TJMK's (few remaining) devotees:

The "satanic panic" hit wee old Saskatchewan in the 90s, in Martensville. Turns out Mignini wasn't that unusual with his Satanic Rite theory of the Perugia crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marten...al?wprov=sfla1

[acbytesla]

I remember being moderately interested in the Knox story to start. I even thought this girl from Seattle was probably guilty. Then the stories started to come out. A foursome that had gone awry. This was mildly possible. They started and then Meredith backed out and people didn't react well.
But then I hear it was a Satanic ritual. That's when I knew it was ridiculous.

[Stacyhs]

The PGP's idolization of Mignini and presentation as this fantastic prosecutor has always been a defense for the very real problem that he wasn't. He was a narcissist who believed his 'gut feelings' were more important than the actual evidence, and once convinced of his version of what had happened, ignored any evidence that didn't fit it. His handling of the Monster case was atrocious and, as heading the police investigation of the Kercher case, his slap down by the Marasca MR was well deserved. I'm just glad he's retired and no longer in a position to do any more harm.

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The PGP's idolization of Mignini and presentation as this fantastic prosecutor has always been a defense for the very real problem that he wasn't. He was a narcissist who believed his 'gut feelings' were more important than the actual evidence, and once convinced of his version of what had happened, ignored any evidence that didn't fit it. His handling of the Monster case was atrocious and, as heading the police investigation of the Kercher case, his slap down by the Marasca MR was well deserved. I'm just glad he's retired and no longer in a position to do any more harm.

I felt that Vixen and other members of TJMK had fixed viewpoints on certain things regardless of the facts. One fixed viewpoint was that all police/prosecutors are honest, competent, hard working and ethical. This why PGP worship and praise Mignini despite his appalling record and make excuses for his actions. The police/prosecution in the Knox case violated the rights of Amanda and Raffaele during the interrogation, broke numerous Italian laws, suppressed evidence, fed false information to the media, destroyed evidence, lied to Amanda she had HIV and committed perjury. PGP are so fixed in the idea police/prosecutors can do no wrong, they refuse to acknowledge the numerous abuses committed by the prosecution.

[TomG]

I heard a story on YouTube that Rudy's footprints in the hallway had been removed by the Polizia Scientifica to avoid possible contamination in Meredith's bedroom during the investigation. I can't find anything to confirm it yet. Any takers?

Hoots

[Stacyhs]

Who knows with that crew? They certainly didn't seem overly concerned with contamination from their actions the rest of the time considering they didn't bother to change their shoe coverings before going from the hallway into Kercher's room or changing their gloves between handling pieces of evidence. Oh, yeah...according to Stefanoni, that's only necessary when the items are "wet".

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Who knows with that crew? They certainly didn't seem overly concerned with contamination from their actions the rest of the time considering they didn't bother to change their shoe coverings before going from the hallway into Kercher's room or changing their gloves between handling pieces of evidence. Oh, yeah...according to Stefanoni, that's only necessary when the items are "wet".

From the Massei report in 2010, the reasons for the first conviction. In it Massei acknowledges that the emergency medical staff (the 118) entered the murder room without forensic countermeasures.

Originally Posted by in 2010 Massei wrote on page 97

Monica Napoleoni, Deputy Commissioner of the State Police, arrived at the Via della
Pergola house around 13:30 pm, and colleagues of the postal police gave information
about the discovery of the body of a girl. Arriving almost at the same time as the
staff from 118, there was a female doctor and a nurse.......

Everyone who entered had gloves and shoe covers on except the 118 personnel who
certified the death. Soon afterwards, Dr. Chiacchiera and colleagues from the
Scientific Police arrived.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

From the Massei report in 2010, the reasons for the first conviction. In it Massei acknowledges that the emergency medical staff (the 118) entered the murder room without forensic countermeasures.

I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

[Stacyhs]

ECHR condemns Italy for its sexist attitudes toward women in rape case:

Quote:

Judgment on rape at the Fortress, Strasbourg condemns Italy for prejudice against women
Seven defendants accused of gang rape were acquitted in 2008. The girl's lawyer: 'Satisfied, it was recognized that her dignity was trampled on'

The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Italy for violating the rights of an "alleged rape victim" with a sentence that contains "passages that did not respect her private and intimate life", "unjustified comments" and a "language and arguments that convey prejudices on the role of women that exist in Italian society". This is what we read in the documentation released today by the Court based in Strasbourg.

The case concerns a 2015 ruling by the Florence Court of Appeal which acquitted 7 defendants accused of a gang rape that took place in the Fortezza da Basso in 2008 .

The alleged victim of violence appealed to the Strasbourg Court. In her appeal she did not ask the Strasbourg Court to comment on the acquittal of the accused, but on the content of the sentence, which she believes violated her private life and discriminated against her . Today the Strasbourg Court proved her right by granting her compensation for moral damages of 12,000 euros.

"I am satisfied that the European Court of Human Rights has recognized that the applicant's dignity has been trampled on by the judicial authorities". So to ANSA the lawyer Titti Carrano, who represented the 'alleged' victim of the group rape of the Fortezza da Basso. "The sentence of the Court of Appeal of Florence - he added - re-proposed gender stereotypes, thus minimizing violence, and revictimizing the appellant, also using guilty language. Unfortunately, this is not the only case in which a woman's non-credibility is based on the vivisection of her personal, sexual life. This often happens in Italian civil and criminal courts "." For this reason I hope that the Italian government accepts this ruling of the ECHR and does not resort to the Grand Chamber but intervenes so that there is a compulsory training of legal professionals to prevent sexist stereotypes in the sentences ", said Carrano again.

https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cro...xkk9BPHO4SL6-E

Even though Amanda Knox was not the victim of a rape, she was negatively judged for her personal sex life even though it had nothing to do with the crime.

[Stacyhs]

Another example of an innocent man being convicted of a murder he did not commit and prosecutors hiding exculpatory evidence. He was convicted solely on a witness' testimony that was later recanted and which the witness says was coerced by police.

Quote:

Eric Riddick spent nearly 30 years behind bars for a murder he says he did not commit. But on Friday, he walked free.

Quote:

In the summer of 1992, Riddick was convicted of murdering his childhood friend William Catlett based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, and was sentenced to life in prison.

Quote:

The night Catlett was killed after what police have said was a drug dispute, Riddick says he was two blocks away with three friends — a claim he has always maintained. But during the trial, his court-appointed defense attorney never called the three alibi witnesses to testify.

Riddick insists his attorney, who has previously declined to comment when reached by NBC News, did not put on a defense.

The trial rested on testimony from a single eyewitness, Shawn Stevenson, who identified him as the shooter and told police he saw Riddick fire a rifle from a fire escape. But he recanted his statement in a 1999 affidavit.

Riddick has said he did not receive the affidavit until 2003 — and by the time he filed an appeal, it was too late. Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act, or PCRA, says that sentence appeals require a one-year filing deadline unless new evidence is obtained, in which case it must be filed within 60 days.

Riddick's appeal was denied.

Nine years later, in 2012, an examination by forensics firearms expert William Conrad found that Riddick could not have been the shooter.

In December 2017, two of the judges who had denied Riddick's latest appeal acknowledged a flaw in the system. They wrote that it was "clear to all that it is likely that an innocent man sits behind bars for no better reason than a poorly conceived statute."

Quote:

By then, Philadelphia had elected a new district attorney: Larry Krasner, a progressive crusader who had been a civil rights lawyer for 25 years and, before that, a public defender.

Krasner had just hired a new head of the Conviction Integrity Unit: Patricia Cummings, one of the top experts in the United States on innocence. She discovered a long pattern of corruption involving police and prosecutions regularly hiding exculpatory evidence to win convictions.

Quote:

In April 2019, Riddick's lawyer and the three Georgetown students met with Cummings and her team to explain why they believed he was innocent.

The next month, Krasner's office turned over more than 1,000 pages from the prosecutor's file — including reports suggesting that Riddick was not one of the suspected shooters and evidence exculpating Riddick that had not been disclosed.

Quote:

The Conviction Integrity Unit ultimately worked out a deal to release Riddick from prison, although he is not being formally exonerated in the murder case.

The deal entailed that Riddick would plead guilty to a third-degree murder charge and then get time served. The Conviction Integrity Unit said Friday, without presenting evidence, that it believed Riddick was an accomplice in the killing of Catlett but did not fire the fatal shots.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ommit-n1269019

Once again, the prosecutors cannot, or will not, admit they were wrong despite the evidence to the contrary.

Riddick agreed to plea to the lesser degree because it meant he would be freed immediately. After almost 30 years in prison, who could blame him? He still maintains he had nothing to do with the murder of his friend.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

ECHR condemns Italy for its sexist attitudes toward women in rape case:


https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cro...xkk9BPHO4SL6-E

Even though Amanda Knox was not the victim of a rape, she was negatively judged for her personal sex life even though it had nothing to do with the crime.

The ECHR case is J.L. v. Italy 5671/16 judgment published (in French only) 27 May 2021.

The legal summary (in English) may be viewed at:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-13282

The ECHR's legal summary contains strong criticism of the Italian court's motivation report for including a number of irrelevant and sexist statements against the applicant, an alleged victim of rape. According to the legal summary, those statements are consistent with known prejudices against women in Italian society and which tend to deny effective legal protection to victims of gender-based violence.

Here are relevant excerpts from the ECHR's legal summary:

Quote:

Article 8

Positive obligations

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

“Secondary victimisation” of a victim of sexual assault on account of comments in the reasoning of the judgment that were guilt-inducing, moralising and conveyed sexist stereotypes : violation

Facts – Seven men were charged with the gang rape of the applicant. She alleged that the manner in which the criminal proceedings had been conducted, resulting in the acquittal of the defendants, had entailed a violation of her Article-8 rights and interests.
....
(b) The content of the judicial decisions: With regard to the reasoning of the judicial decisions, the Court’s role was not to replace the domestic authorities or to decide on the alleged perpetrators’ criminal responsibility. It had to determine whether or not the domestic courts’ reasoning and the arguments used had resulted in an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and personal integrity, and whether there had been a violation of the positive obligations inherent in Article 8.

Several passages in the court of appeal’s judgment had breached the applicant’s rights under Article 8. In particular, the Court considered the references to the red underwear “shown” by the applicant in the course of the evening to be unjustified, as were the comments regarding her bisexuality, relationships and casual sexual relations prior to the events in question. Equally, the Court found inappropriate the considerations concerning the applicant’s “ambivalent attitude towards sex”. Equally, the Court considered that the assessment of the applicant’s decision to lodge a complaint about the events, which the court of appeal held to have resulted from a wish to “denounce” and to repudiate a “moment of fragility and weakness that was open to criticism”, had been regrettable and irrelevant, as was the reference to the applicant’s “non-linear life”.

The court of appeal’s arguments and considerations had been neither relevant for the assessment of the applicant’s credibility, a matter which could have been examined in the light of the numerous objective findings of the procedure, nor decisive in resolving the case.

The issue of the applicant’s credibility had been particularly crucial, and it could have been justified to refer to her previous relationships with one or other of the defendants or to aspects of her conduct over the evening in question. However, the applicant’s family situation, her relationships, her sexual orientation or her clothing choices, and the subject matter of her artistic and cultural activities, had not been relevant for assessing her credibility and the criminal liability of the defendants. Thus, it could not be considered that this interference with the applicant’s private life and image had been justified by the need to ensure that the accused could enjoy their defence rights.

The positive obligations to protect presumed victims of gender-based violence also imposed a duty to protect their image, dignity and private life, including through the non-disclosure of personal information and data that were unrelated to the facts. This obligation was moreover inherent in the judicial function and arose from national law as well as from various international texts. Accordingly, judges’ entitlement to express themselves freely in decisions, which was a manifestation of the judiciary’s discretionary powers and of the principle of judicial independence, was limited by the obligation to protect the image and private life of persons coming before the courts from any unjustified interference.


In addition, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and GREVIO had noted the persistence of stereotypes regarding the role of women and resistance in Italian society to the cause of gender equality. Equally, both these bodies had pointed out the low rates of criminal proceedings and convictions in Italy, which was simultaneously the cause of victims’ lack of confidence in the criminal justice system and the reason for the low rates of reporting such offences in that country. The language and arguments used by the court of appeal conveyed prejudices existing in Italian society regarding the role of women and were likely to be an obstacle to providing effective protection for the rights of victims of gender-based violence, in spite of a satisfactory legislative framework.

Criminal proceedings and penalties played a crucial role in the institutional response to gender-based violence and in combatting gender inequality. It was therefore essential that the judicial authorities avoided reproducing sexist stereotypes in court decisions, playing down gender-based violence and exposing women to secondary victimisation by making guilt-inducing and judgmental comments that were capable of undermining victims’ trust in the justice system.

In consequence, while acknowledging that the national authorities had sought to ensure in the present case that the investigation and trial proceedings had been conducted in a manner compatible with their positive obligations under Article 8, the applicant’s rights and interests under Article 8 had not been adequately protected, given the content of the judgment delivered by the court of appeal. It followed that the national authorities had not protected the applicant from secondary victimisation throughout the proceedings as a whole, in which the wording of the judgment played a very important role, especially in view of its public character.

Consequently, the Court rejected the Government’s objection alleging the applicant’s lack of victim status.

Conclusion: violation (six votes to one) [of Convention Article 8.1].

The violations of Article 8.1 found in the case J.L. v. Italy have similarities to the defamatory and privacy-invasive approach of the Italian authorities in their treatment of Amanda Knox, including statements in the MRs of the convicting courts of Massei and Nencini.

[Stacyhs]

I was just flipping through the TV channels and happened upon a program showing a video of a real life police interrogation of someone the police suspected of being involved either directly in a murder or an accessory after the fact. It was interesting because the police suggested to him that he wasn't proud of what he'd done so he'd "blocked out" the memory of it and had amnesia. Shades of the Knox interview.

[Bill Williams]

Sollecito reflects on being exonerated, but still being denied compensation for four years in prison. (In Italian.)

https://www.ildubbio.news/2021/06/07...la-mia-storia/

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Sollecito reflects on being exonerated, but still being denied compensation for four years in prison. (In Italian.)

https://www.ildubbio.news/2021/06/07...la-mia-storia/

Here's a Google translation of the headline and the last paragraph of the article:

Quote:

I say no to oblivion: as an innocent I want to be a witness to my story

How is it moving at the judicial level at the moment?

I find myself forced to fight against the state: I was denied compensation for unjust detention, almost as if I had gone to seek the 4 years in prison with my conduct. This is why we turned to the European Court of Human Rights. Furthermore, we are now awaiting an appeal regarding my claim for damages under the law on the civil liability of judges. I am not seeking revenge, but I want justice and will continue to carry on my civil battles. I am innocent, but I carry a lot of damage. I would like to think about something else, I would like to think about my life and instead every time there is someone who remembers me in the square and condemns me without a shot being hurt. In this democratic country, how important are my rights, those of an innocent person? This whole situation disconcerts me, makes me anxious and distressed. The state made a mistake with me, but it continues to fail to recognize its mistakes. If everyone is free to re-trial, if my sentence will be to undergo a life trial, say it clearly and I will take the necessary steps. How can I face my future in this country?

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Sollecito reflects on being exonerated, but still being denied compensation for four years in prison. (In Italian.)

https://www.ildubbio.news/2021/06/07...la-mia-storia/

Google translation of the first several paragraphs:

Quote:

Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox are innocent. This was established by a sentence of the Supreme Court which also heavily criticized the investigations. Furthermore, all the probative acquisitions subsequent to the abbreviated trial which ended with the conviction of Rudy Guede exceeded and excluded the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

In 2017, incredibly, Sollecito was denied compensation for unjust detention because according to the judges it was he who misled the investigators; he subsequently decided to sue the state asking for over three million euros under the law on the civil liability of magistrates. This request was also rejected by the Court of Genoa. But he does not stop and goes on with appeals in all possible places. However, after almost fifteen years from the facts and six from a full acquittal, Sollecito has yet to prove his innocence because, as he says in this interview, “they continue to try and condemn me. What rights can an innocent person have if the magistrates and the press do not respect a sentence of acquittal? ». And he adds: "a guilty person who has served his sentence can rightly claim the right to be forgotten, but I would like to be a witness so that what happened to me does not happen to others".

In your opinion, why so much interest in the affair that has now ended in court in 2015?

On the one hand, this story still arouses interest from a legal and scientific point of view, if only we think about what has been debated on DNA and analysis techniques; on the other hand, the investigation and subsequent processes have had a national and international media impact like few other cases in the world: it is therefore clear that a certain attention persists, and in general I do not see anything strange about it. The problem is how we keep talking about this story.

Why?

I am innocent, I have suffered damage that has never been compensated and I am referring to the four years I spent in prison due to clumsy investigations. Although I was a victim of the judicial system, despite being acquitted, there is still someone who treats me as guilty. All this represents a strong weight that I carry on my shoulders, it is a cross that I embrace every day. In other democratic and civilized countries my story would be told to ensure that what happened to me does not happen again. In Italy, however, they continue to process me.

So you wouldn't be in favor of making use of the right to be forgotten?

I think, for example, that a person who has been sentenced and has served her sentence has every right to want to be forgotten and start living in society again, leaving behind the judicial events. For me it is different: I was the victim of the mistakes made by some magistrates, I spent four years as an innocent in prison. What happened to me could happen to anyone, so I would like to be able to witness my story and hope that what happened to me and Amanda never happens to anyone. I wish I could take the path that is being followed, for example, by Jessica Notaro, the girl attacked with acid by her ex-boyfriend. She was the victim of a brutal crime and is now touring Italy to tell her story about her, to raise awareness as many people as possible. I too am the victim of an injustice, in particular of the errors committed by the Italian State, but instead of being able to be free to report what has happened to me, I am still forced to defend myself from those who have not digested my acquittal.

[Stacyhs]

I actually feel sorrier for Raffaele than Amanda. She came home to a supporting community whereas Raff is living where so many still think he's guilty. He's negatively affected by it on a daily basis more than Amanda is.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I actually feel sorrier for Raffaele than Amanda. She came home to a supporting community whereas Raff is living where so many still think he's guilty. He's negatively affected by it on a daily basis more than Amanda is.

Oh dear. It is a pity Sollecito declined to go into the witness box and testify. The trial is the correct place to proclaim innocence.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Oh dear. It is a pity Sollecito declined to go into the witness box and testify. The trial is the correct place to proclaim innocence.

It's a pity you don't understand that most defendants, even innocent ones, are advised not to testify in court by their lawyers. Not testifying is not an indication of guilt no matter how you try and present it as such.

Raffaele did proclaim his innocence in court several times:

Massei trial:

Quote:

I did not kill Meredith and I was not in that house on the night of the crime

In a spontaneous statements during the trial:

Quote:

First of all, this guy can't have seen me in the company of Rudy Guede because I don't know him, I repeat, this here I think is the third or fourth time that I say it. I repeat that I do not know Rudy Guede, I have never met him in my life and much less do I know him, so it is absolutely impossible!

In the Hellmann trial, RS made this spontaneous statement:

Quote:

"Guede has never seen me before in his life, not even fleetingly. I don't know how he can say I was with Amanda Knox.

"The reality is that Amanda and I are in this situation for nearly four years, we are fighting suppositions and our lives have been destroyed in an absurd manner."

At the beginning of the Nencini trial, RS gave an extensive declaration including this:

Quote:

Now before you I come after a very long history of trials, where they have described me as a cold and ruthless murderer. Obviously I am none of this....

... It’s for this that I’d first like to impress
upon you how absurd these accusations are against me and against... also
against – I speak in the plural – against us, in that period of my life, because
I was one week away from presenting my degree and having had a life like
this ... it’s unreasonable to accuse me of a thing like this if there isn’t at least
a foundation.

....As I was saying, I’ve never met Rudy Guede and I hardly knew Meredith. It
has no real sense that I would have the slightest interest in perpetrating
such an atrocious act against a twenty year old girl. It doesn’t have the
slightest basis in reality. And this is continuing unfortunately for too many
years, because my life now has changed completely for this.

I ask you humbly to be able to look at the reality of everything... all of this
story and to consider the huge mistake that has been made,...

But, per usual, you do a "drive-by" and drop an irrelevant piece of nonsense because it's all you've got.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

But, per usual, you do a "drive-by" and drop an irrelevant piece of nonsense because it's all you've got.

Irrelevant pieces of nonsense that happen not even to be true. At least it is just Vixen. There used to be three webpages devoted to this guilt-sounding nonsense.

This is even before considering that defendants in Italian trials don't have to proclaim their innocence. The process assumes their innocence.

But Vixen just chucks it in anyways. What would be better would be for Vixen (or anyone else) providing the names of **ANY** forensic DNA experts who would agree with the police-version of the DNA evidence.

The are two. One who also went on to say that Stefanoni, the police DNA expert, had not followed international protocols for the handling of forensic testing. And that guy was on her side!

The other? Someone who admitted that anything he concluded about the DNA evidence should be seen in the light that he'd never been allowed to see the EDFs.

Or maybe Vixen could explain why she, six years ago, posted a picture of the lower window at the cottage, the window below Filomena's, to prove that it did not have an external grille on it. Except that's exactly what the picture showed. The grille. In the very photo she posted to prove that there'd been no grille.

But no. For Vixen, someone refusing to testify (rather than offer spontaneous statements) is a sign of guilt. That's the way the guilters rolled for years and years.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Irrelevant pieces of nonsense that happen not even to be true. At least it is just Vixen. There used to be three webpages devoted to this guilt-sounding nonsense.

This is even before considering that defendants in Italian trials don't have to proclaim their innocence. The process assumes their innocence.

But Vixen just chucks it in anyways. What would be better would be for Vixen (or anyone else) providing the names of **ANY** forensic DNA experts who would agree with the police-version of the DNA evidence.

The are two. One who also went on to say that Stefanoni, the police DNA expert, had not followed international protocols for the handling of forensic testing. And that guy was on her side!

The other? Someone who admitted that anything he concluded about the DNA evidence should be seen in the light that he'd never been allowed to see the EDFs.

Or maybe Vixen could explain why she, six years ago, posted a picture of the lower window at the cottage, the window below Filomena's, to prove that it did not have an external grille on it. Except that's exactly what the picture showed. The grille. In the very photo she posted to prove that there'd been no grille.

But no. For Vixen, someone refusing to testify (rather than offer spontaneous statements) is a sign of guilt. That's the way the guilters rolled for years and years.

They still do. And Raffaele didn't 'refuse' to testify; he chose not to which was his right as you rightly pointed out.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

It's a pity you don't understand that most defendants, even innocent ones, are advised not to testify in court by their lawyers. Not testifying is not an indication of guilt no matter how you try and present it as such.

Raffaele did proclaim his innocence in court several times:

Massei trial:


In a spontaneous statements during the trial:



In the Hellmann trial, RS made this spontaneous statement:



At the beginning of the Nencini trial, RS gave an extensive declaration including this:



But, per usual, you do a "drive-by" and drop an irrelevant piece of nonsense because it's all you've got.

Sorry, are you saying Sollecito evaded cross-examination and expalining why he told the police so many lies, including a false alibi?

Let's go through your usual list of excuses:

• He was a foreigner and the Italians don't like foreigners...ah
• He wasn't a drifter or druggie like the Black guy...oh wait.
• He was of really low intelligence and the police tricked him into confessing...oh, he's a fourth year IT student
• He had a rubbish attorney...ah, it was Bongiorno who exerted political influence.
• Oh, it must have been he was in a strange country and he didn't understand Ital - oh I give up
• But he's innocent OK, It's obvs the Black guy what done it.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I was just flipping through the TV channels and happened upon a program showing a video of a real life police interrogation of someone the police suspected of being involved either directly in a murder or an accessory after the fact. It was interesting because the police suggested to him that he wasn't proud of what he'd done so he'd "blocked out" the memory of it and had amnesia. Shades of the Knox interview.

It is a detective's job to solve crimes, is it not? I read a detective's handbook on how to get a criminal to confess and that is exactly what you do in a five-step process, which culminates in 'suggesting' a motive for the crime to the suspect along the lines of 'I suggest you passed by Mrs. Smith's window, saw the wallet, you were hungry, hadn't eaten for days, so you reached in and took it.'

A guilty suspect will miss the 'I suggest' bit and be amazed at the detective's powers of observation and this is the point confessions happen. Nothing false or forced about it.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Sorry, are you saying Sollecito evaded cross-examination and expalining why he told the police so many lies, including a false alibi?

Let's go through your usual list of excuses:

• He was a foreigner and the Italians don't like foreigners...ah
• He was of really low intelligence and the police tricked him into confessing...oh, he's a fourth year IT student
• He had a rubbish attorney...ah, it was Bongiorno who exerted political influence.
• Oh, it must have been he was in a strange country and he didn't understand Ital - oh I give up
• But he's innocent OK, It's obvs the Black guy what done it.

1. "are you saying Sollecito evaded cross-examination?"

You have a reading comprehension problem. No, I clearly said "most defendants, even innocent ones, are advised not to testify in court by their lawyers." Sollecito chose to exercise that right. If you tell me which part of that you are not understanding, I'll be glad to break it down into more simple words. Maybe ones with fewer syllables?

2. "including a false alibi?" What false alibi? The prosecution never proved he had given a false alibi.

3. "He was a foreigner and the Italians don't like foreigners...ah"
Don't be ridiculous. No one has ever claimed Raffaele was a foreigner.

4. "He wasn't a drifter or druggie like the Black guy...oh wait."
I've never said Guede was a drifter. I've stood in front of his apartment in
Perugia. But nice try at bringing in racism. Total fail. As far as being a druggie, Raff smoked weed as did ...oh...Meredith. Want to claim she was a 'druggie', too? Remember that his hair test was negative for narcotics which belies your and other PGPs' attempts to paint him as a "druggie".

5. "He was of really low intelligence "

I've never claimed such a thing nor has anyone I've ever seen. What is this penchant of yours for just making things up? Despertion?

6. "and the police tricked him into confessing...oh, he's a fourth year IT student."
He never "confessed" to killing or participating in killing Meredith. Another Vixen arsefact.

7. "He had a rubbish attorney...ah, it was Bongiorno who exerted political influence."
I've never claimed any such thing. Another Vixen arsefact.

8. "Oh, it must have been he was in a strange country and he didn't understand Ital - oh I give up"
Never said that either. There's a pattern emerging: You seem to be confusing Amanda with Raffaele. Hint: he's the guy, she's the girl.

9. "But he's innocent OK, It's obvs the Black guy what done it."

Hallelujah! You finally got something right. As you're so fond of judicial facts: Sollecito and Knox acquitted for 'not having committed the act' while Guede was confirmed guilty and spent several years in prison. But points to you for dragging in racism.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is a detective's job to solve crimes, is it not? I read a detective's handbook on how to get a criminal to confess and that is exactly what you do in a five-step process, which culminates in 'suggesting' a motive for the crime to the suspect along the lines of 'I suggest you passed by Mrs. Smith's window, saw the wallet, you were hungry, hadn't eaten for days, so you reached in and took it.'

A guilty suspect will miss the 'I suggest' bit and be amazed at the detective's powers of observation and this is the point confessions happen. Nothing false or forced about it.

It's a detective's job to solve crimes, but it's telling how you assume that everyone interrogated is 'a criminal' and therefore getting them to "confess" is great...even when they're innocent.

The goal of an interrogation is not to get the truth, but to get a confession.

You have difficulty understanding what the problem with this is.

Additionally, my post wasn't about suggesting a possible scenario, but about telling the person they have amnesia when they don't give the answer the police want.

I suggest a reading comprehension course; it might help you understand what people actually write.

"A guilty suspect will miss the 'I suggest' bit and be amazed at the detective's powers of observation and this is the point confessions happen. Nothing false or forced about it"

This is patently false as has been proved time and time again. But you know better because .....reasons.

Quote:

Persuaded false confessions occur when police interrogation tactics cause an innocent suspect to doubt his memory and he becomes temporarily persuaded that it is more likely than not that he committed the crime, despite having no memory of committing it.20 Persuaded false confessions typically unfold in three sequential steps. First, the interrogator causes the suspect to doubt his innocence. This is typically a by-product of an intense, lengthy, and deceptive accusatorial interrogation in which the interrogator repeatedly accuses the suspect of committing the crime, relentlessly attacks the suspect's denials (as implausible, illogical, contradicted by the known facts, or simply wrong because of the interrogator's alleged superior knowledge or authority) and repeatedly confronts the suspect with fabricated (but allegedly irrefutable) evidence of his guilt.

To convince the suspect that it is plausible, and likely, that he committed the crime, the interrogators must supply him with a reason that satisfactorily explains how he could have done it without remembering it. This is the second step in the psychological process that leads to a persuaded false confession. Typically, the interrogator suggests one version or another of a “repressed” memory theory. He or she may suggest, for example, that the suspect experienced an alcohol- or drug-induced blackout, a “dry” blackout, a multiple personality disorder, a momentary lapse in consciousness, or posttraumatic stress disorder, or, perhaps most commonly, that the suspect simply repressed his memory of committing the crime because it was a traumatic experience for him.

Once the suspect has accepted responsibility for the crime, the interrogator pushes him to supply the details of how and why he did it. The suspect does not know the facts; he is in the paradoxical situation of believing he committed an act that he wants to confess to but cannot remember. He may believe that if he thinks hard enough, searches his mind, or tries to imagine himself committing the crime, he will somehow be able to remember it and supply the desired details; but he does not remember the crime. Instead, the suspect either guesses or confabulates about how the crime could have occurred, repeats the details that the police have suggested to him, knowingly makes up the details, or tries to infer them from the interrogators’ suggestions.

Persuaded false confessions appear to occur far less often than compliant false confessions. They also tend to occur primarily in high-profile murder cases and to be the product of unusually lengthy and psychologically intense interrogations.7 Once he is removed from the interrogation environment and its attendant influences and pressures, the persuaded false confessor typically recants his confession.

http://jaapl.org/content/37/3/332

Any of this sound familiar to you? Nah............

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

1. "are you saying Sollecito evaded cross-examination?"

You have a reading comprehension problem. No, I clearly said "most defendants, even innocent ones, are advised not to testify in court by their lawyers." Sollecito chose to exercise that right. If you tell me which part of that you are not understanding, I'll be glad to break it down into more simple words. Maybe ones with fewer syllables?

2. "including a false alibi?" What false alibi? The prosecution never proved he had given a false alibi.

3. "He was a foreigner and the Italians don't like foreigners...ah"
Don't be ridiculous. No one has ever claimed Raffaele was a foreigner.

4. "He wasn't a drifter or druggie like the Black guy...oh wait."
I've never said Guede was a drifter. I've stood in front of his apartment in
Perugia. But nice try at bringing in racism. Total fail. As far as being a druggie, Raff smoked weed as did ...oh...Meredith. Want to claim she was a 'druggie', too? Remember that his hair test was negative for narcotics which belies your and other PGPs' attempts to paint him as a "druggie".

5. "He was of really low intelligence "

I've never claimed such a thing nor has anyone I've ever seen. What is this penchant of yours for just making things up? Despertion?

6. "and the police tricked him into confessing...oh, he's a fourth year IT student."
He never "confessed" to killing or participating in killing Meredith. Another Vixen arsefact.

7. "He had a rubbish attorney...ah, it was Bongiorno who exerted political influence."
I've never claimed any such thing. Another Vixen arsefact.

8. "Oh, it must have been he was in a strange country and he didn't understand Ital - oh I give up"
Never said that either. There's a pattern emerging: You seem to be confusing Amanda with Raffaele. Hint: he's the guy, she's the girl.

9. "But he's innocent OK, It's obvs the Black guy what done it."

Hallelujah! You finally got something right. As you're so fond of judicial facts: Sollecito and Knox acquitted for 'not having committed the act' while Guede was confirmed guilty and spent several years in prison. But points to you for dragging in racism.

Re the Nencini appeal Day 5, 25 November 2013 :

Crini outlines the problems with Knox and Sollecito’s alibis. ‘A false alibi is also evidence’, he contends.

CRINI: ‘What is the alibi? …[…]… It is a kind of defensive argument that is used by saying no, that "I did not commit the offense" but that "I was somewhere else when someone obviously committed that offence".
…[of Knox and Sollecito] it is realized that the alibi is actually false, because it is proven that it is false.’

Key is Sollecito’s false claim that he was on the computer that evening.

D’Ambrosio, the computer expert, found no human interaction after 21:10 when the Amélie film crash finished and someone must have clicked on the ‘end’ message. Sollecito’s internet provider, Fastweb back up that there was no activity that night at the salient time. In effect, Sollecito’s lies about this is positive evidence against him.

Let’s recap Sollecito’s alibi, as given to the police:

Statement to police 5 Nov 2007 [excerpt]:

QA I have known Amanda for about two weeks. From the night that I met her she started sleeping at my house. On November 1st, I woke up at around 11, I had breakfast with Amanda then she went out and I went back to bed. Then around 13:00-14:00 I met her at her house again. Meredith was there too. Amanda and I had lunch while Meredith did not have lunch with us.
QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.
QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.
QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.
QA I don’t remember how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.
QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.
QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.

CRINI: "I have nothing to do with the way of murder, I have nothing to do with Via Pergola, because I was in Via Garibaldi "- the singular -" in front of my computer ", with this lightweight drug pastime”.

Thus, Sollecito has insisted he was on his computer on the murder night, yet there is no trace of the interactions he describes. In addition, he never has, to this day, withdrawn his claim Knox went out without him until 01:00, and declined to testify in court under oath. He was no doubt advised by his counsel it would be a mistake to change his alibi.

Pausing for a moment, Sollecito has provided a false alibi from the outset and yet has never amended it, supplied the correct details of what he was doing, nor explained why he said it.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Re the Nencini appeal Day 5, 25 November 2013 :

Crini outlines the problems with Knox and Sollecito’s alibis. ‘A false alibi is also evidence’, he contends.

NEWS FLASH: Nencini was overturned. Sollecito was definitively acquitted by the SC.

As for what he said during the Nov. 5th. interrogation: see what I wrote above about coerced confessions. Additionally, what he described was Amanda's verified actions on the night before: Halloween. Not the night of the murder.

Quote:

"D’Ambrosio, the computer expert, found no human interaction after 21:10 when the Amélie film crash finished and someone must have clicked on the ‘end’ message. Sollecito’s internet provider, Fastweb back up that there was no activity that night at the salient time. In effect, Sollecito’s lies about this is positive evidence against him.

How conveniently you forget that activity on his computer was found at 9:26 PM when a Naruto cartoon was played. D'Ambrosio missed it. But then again, that could be easy considering they were working with a hard disk that had been fried by the police after they had confiscated it while RS was at the police station. Oh, but I forgot...according to you, the police didn't fry the hard disks on the laptops: it was RS himself! Even though all courts found they were damaged after the police took them. Once again, you know better.

Sollecito was acquitted for not having committed the act. Get used to it.

[Stacyhs]

And you still cannot admit that RS declared his innocence at his trials. Typical.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

NEWS FLASH: Nencini was overturned. Sollecito was definitively acquitted by the SC.

As for what he said during the Nov. 5th. interrogation: see what I wrote above about coerced confessions. Additionally, what he described was Amanda's verified actions on the night before: Halloween. Not the night of the murder.



How conveniently you forget that activity on his computer was found at 9:26 PM when a Naruto cartoon was played. D'Ambrosio missed it. But then again, that could be easy considering they were working with a hard disk that had been fried by the police after they had confiscated it while RS was at the police station. Oh, but I forgot...according to you, the police didn't fry the hard disks on the laptops: it was RS himself! Even though all courts found they were damaged after the police took them. Once again, you know better.

Sollecito was acquitted for not having committed the act. Get used to it.

That Naruto download was a P2P download (someone external to Raff adding it to his folders).

the fact that the Supreme Court annulled the convictions doesn't mean all of the evidence against the pair was cancelled. Facts found at a trial remain facts. LEGAL FACT.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And you still cannot admit that RS declared his innocence at his trials. Typical.

In Italy a defendant cannot be charged with lying because the legal assumption is that they would be liars. A spontaneous statement is allowed in Italian courts (that is what a hearing is for, to allow people to speak). However, as 'spontaneous declarations' are not subjected to cross-examination they carry zero legal weight, with the court generally treating such utterances with a pinch of salt. Likewise, if a witness fails to turn up to testify, not much weight is likely to be given to their written witness statement as they have not subjected their claims to cross-examination.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That Naruto download was a P2P download (someone external to Raff adding it to his folders).

the fact that the Supreme Court annulled the convictions doesn't mean all of the evidence against the pair was cancelled. Facts found at a trial remain facts. LEGAL FACT.

The problem is that Meredith was killed as a result of a sequence of actual facts not "legal facts" Some of the biggest lies of the case are legal facts but not actual facts. The big three are:

1. Rudy was an accomplice and did not inflict the fatal wound. (Idiotic)
2. The staged break-in where glass on top of clothing miraculously disappeared when the crime scene photographs were taken. (fantasy)
3. Multiple attackers when there is only evidence of 1 attacker and the victim at the crime scene. Even Massei conceded that one attacker could have done it.

It's the legal facts ascertained in previous trials that make the case irreconcilable. It's the actual facts that solve it. Enter Rudy.

Hoots

[Mr Fied]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That Naruto download was a P2P download (someone external to Raff adding it to his folders).

the fact that the Supreme Court annulled the convictions doesn't mean all of the evidence against the pair was cancelled. Facts found at a trial remain facts. LEGAL FACT.

Why do any country's legal systems have appeals processes if a legal fact is set in stone?

Once a "legal fact" is proven to be false it is no longer a legal fact.

It's not chess, accountancy rocket science.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

8. "Oh, it must have been he was in a strange country and he didn't understand Ital - oh I give up"
Never said that either. There's a pattern emerging: You seem to be confusing Amanda with Raffaele. Hint: he's the guy, she's the girl.

9. "But he's innocent OK, It's obvs the Black guy what done it."

Hallelujah! You finally got something right. As you're so fond of judicial facts: Sollecito and Knox acquitted for 'not having committed the act' while Guede was confirmed guilty and spent several years in prison. But points to you for dragging in racism.

Here we go again, with more Vixen word salads. Words just tossed in, with no dressing. Words which correspond to no facts, either fact facts or those vaunted "legal facts" Vixen claims trumps everything.

Vixen seems immune from blaming someone for the murder, regardless of her race baiting, when his DNA was found in her vagina. Vixen seems unaware that Italy convicted and sentenced the guy.

I'm looking for the seminal JREF/ISF post from long long ago which explained the most succinctly why this legal saga against RS and AK had gone off the rails. Can't find did so I'll summarize confessing up front my feeble memory.

The post said that the trouble with the case against the pair was that the evidence against them was all judicially generated. Meaning that they were mainly derived from sources like Rudy's "fast track" trial where all evidence was, in essence, stipulated - not contested by either his defence or the prosecution.

Including "evidence" against RS and AK which became "legal fact" in a forum which they had no standing to challenge.

If I can find it I will repost. In the meantime this thread will be slow flooded with more word salads which distinguish themselves with inanities.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

the fact that the Supreme Court annulled the convictions doesn't mean all of the evidence against the pair was cancelled. Facts found at a trial remain facts. LEGAL FACT.

..... and the reason for annulling the convictions? Because even if the remaining "legal facts" had been true they still did not show either of RS or AK in the murderroom at the time of the murder.

All that those "legal facts" demonstrated was that the pair had been in a different part of the cottage at a later time......

...... which no one denies. Ok, now you can start your word salad.....

[Bill Williams]

Once more, from the final acquittal, 27 March 2015, the annulment of the Nencini conviction. Marasca-Bruno wrote in support of the annulment:

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is
certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via
della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself,
be considered as proof of guilt.......

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is
hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the
absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be
dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead
numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.

It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not
have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder.

Leading to the concluding remarks, that even if the hypothesized "legal facts" (as Vixen calls them) were true (and that is dubious, but no matter), they still could not be used to justify convicting the pair of murder. M/B rightly note that even if it could be demonstrated that she'd cleaned blood off of her hands, another more important consideration overrules this "legal fact":

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno

9.4.1 ...... Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain (that Knox cleaned blood off of her hands), the trial element would not be
unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely
attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help
someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct
involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact,
resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the
scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her
contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another
part of the house.

And there are plenty of grounds to dismiss that Knox had come into contact with the blood.

But no matter. The words salads will come.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That Naruto download was a P2P download (someone external to Raff adding it to his folders).

Hoooo boy! You've come up with a new one! Congratulations! Amazing how that was never claimed by the prosecution in one...no, two...no, three trials!

Quote:

the fact that the Supreme Court annulled the convictions doesn't mean all of the evidence against the pair was cancelled. Facts found at a trial remain facts. LEGAL FACT.

So tell me: when was Raff's alibi found to be "false" and set as a LEGAL FACT that couldn't be overturned? Seems Hellmann disagreed:

Quote:

In any event, this Court does not find that one can maintain that the alibi offered is false.

This Corte di Assise of second level, however, finds that none of the above elements, whether alone or in conjunction with the others, can serve to prove that the version given by the two defendants was false, as these elements have no unambiguous meaning whatsoever in themselves, and — also in light of what later emerged during the proceedings — can find an explanation different from that adopted [operata] by the Corte di Assise of first level, and more plausible based on notions of common experience.

Marasca referred to it as a failed alibi but not as a false alibi meaning that they could not prove they were at Raff's at the time of the murder.

Quote:

Moreover, one would be dealing, if anything, with a "failed," not a "false," alibi

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Re the Nencini appeal Day 5, 25 November 2013 :

Crini outlines the problems with Knox and Sollecito’s alibis. ‘A false alibi is also evidence’, he contends.

CRINI: ‘What is the alibi? …[…]… It is a kind of defensive argument that is used by saying no, that "I did not commit the offense" but that "I was somewhere else when someone obviously committed that offence".
…[of Knox and Sollecito] it is realized that the alibi is actually false, because it is proven that it is false.’

Key is Sollecito’s false claim that he was on the computer that evening.

D’Ambrosio, the computer expert, found no human interaction after 21:10 when the Amélie film crash finished and someone must have clicked on the ‘end’ message. Sollecito’s internet provider, Fastweb back up that there was no activity that night at the salient time. In effect, Sollecito’s lies about this is positive evidence against him.

Let’s recap Sollecito’s alibi, as given to the police:

Statement to police 5 Nov 2007 [excerpt]:

QA I have known Amanda for about two weeks. From the night that I met her she started sleeping at my house. On November 1st, I woke up at around 11, I had breakfast with Amanda then she went out and I went back to bed. Then around 13:00-14:00 I met her at her house again. Meredith was there too. Amanda and I had lunch while Meredith did not have lunch with us.
QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.
QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.
QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.
QA I don’t remember how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.
QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.
QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.

CRINI: "I have nothing to do with the way of murder, I have nothing to do with Via Pergola, because I was in Via Garibaldi "- the singular -" in front of my computer ", with this lightweight drug pastime”.

Thus, Sollecito has insisted he was on his computer on the murder night, yet there is no trace of the interactions he describes. In addition, he never has, to this day, withdrawn his claim Knox went out without him until 01:00, and declined to testify in court under oath. He was no doubt advised by his counsel it would be a mistake to change his alibi.

Pausing for a moment, Sollecito has provided a false alibi from the outset and yet has never amended it, supplied the correct details of what he was doing, nor explained why he said it.

Oh, dear. Where to start? Maybe here:

Quote:

D’Ambrosio, the computer expert, found no human interaction after 21:10 when the Amélie film crash finished and someone must have clicked on the ‘end’ message.

False. He found the Naruto cartoon downloaded BY RAFFAELE at 21:26, not "someone external" has you falsely claimed earlier. You have ZERO evidence of your ridiculous claim.

Quote:

On the other hand, the examination of Sollecito's computer registered an interaction at 21.20 and then a subsequent one at 21.26 not discovered by the postal police - but by the defendant's consultant D'Ambrosio using different software, MAC), to watch a cartoon (Naruto) lasting 20 minutes, demonstrating that until 21.46 Sollecito was at his house.

(Marasca Bruno report)

Try again.

As for the the Nov 5/6 interrogation....LOL! Once again, it's clear he was mixing up two nights as the description he gives of Amanda going out is exactly what she did on Halloween as confirmed by witnesses. But why would someone get confused during an interrogation where he is illegally without a lawyer, refused a request to a calendar, threatened and hit? But that couldn't possibly have happened because we know the Perugia police never lie or break the law, right? Convicted felons Napoleoni and her cohorts in crime, anyone?

Quote:

In addition, he never has, to this day, withdrawn his claim Knox went out without him until 01:00

Are you serious? In 2012:

Quote:

“Amanda Knox did not leave – could not have left – my house on the night of the murder. She didn’t have her own key, so if she’d gone out alone, she would have had to ring the doorbell and ask me to buzz her back in. Even if I’d been stoned or asleep when she rang, I would have remembered that. And it didn’t happen.”

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And you still cannot admit that RS declared his innocence at his trials. Typical.

Originally Posted by Vixen

In Italy a defendant cannot be charged with lying because the legal assumption is that they would be liars. A spontaneous statement is allowed in Italian courts (that is what a hearing is for, to allow people to speak). However, as 'spontaneous declarations' are not subjected to cross-examination they carry zero legal weight, with the court generally treating such utterances with a pinch of salt. Likewise, if a witness fails to turn up to testify, not much weight is likely to be given to their written witness statement as they have not subjected their claims to cross-examination.

Irrelevant and failed attempt at distraction. That does not address the fact that RS declared his innocence at his trials as I proved which you claimed he did not.

Additionally, he declared his innocence when he pleaded "not guilty".