ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 14th September 2018, 06:18 PM   #1281
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Taking Commodi's words out of context? Would this be the tv chat show?


So perhaps you can attempt to put Commodi's (sic) words into the correct context? Tell us what she really meant to say there.......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 06:20 PM   #1282
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do you understand the phrase, 'limited to the mobile phones'?
Oh, lordy and palm to forehead. The VERDICT of GUILTY was limited to the mobile phones!

The VERICT of ACQUITTED was assigned to the "residual charges of Chapter D".

Nencini makes it even clearer:

Quote:
The sum of 300 euro was certainly in the bedroom occupied by Meredith Kercher and it was not found after her murder, just as her credit cards were not found; such that the sum of money and the credit cards constituted an object of the theft noted in letter D) of the indictment. It is surely of interest to observe, after the elevated indictment relative to the theft of the sum of the money and the credit cards, there was no further trace of those goods in the court documents or in the minutes of the proceedings. The only reference is on page 471 of the sentence handed down by the Court of Perugia at the first trial, which reads: “the total of the given evidence that was evaluated singularly demonstrates a overall and unitary picture, without holes or incongruencies, that demands as a necessary and strictly consequential result the attribution of the hypothesized facts of the crime to both of the defendants to which is therefore declared the criminal responsibility, with exclusion of the objects of letter D) that are other than the cell phones, of which no evidence emerged incriminating the defendants, for which they are acquitted of the rest of the indictment because the crime doesn’t subsist.”

Rudy Hermann Guede was also absolved of the theft (in his case of the entire indictment) according to article 530,2 by the GUP of the Court of Perugia for not having committed the act. One understands that the Judge evaluated the circumstance as totally devoid of proof, because in the entire body of the sentence there is no evaluation on the subject.

In any case, and noting that both of the defendants and Rudy Hermann Guede were all absolved of the theft in relation to the indictment with reference to the 300 euro and the two credit cards
What part of "both defendants and Rudy"..."absolved of the theft ….with reference to the 300 euros and two credit cards" are you still having trouble understanding?

Your refusal to admit the charges were "dropped" is ludicrous.



Quote:
This means: 'only the mobile phones theft was an issue for this court'. ('Issue' as in the legal meaning of the word.)
ROTFLMAO.

Quote:
Kimo sabe 'residual'? That means 'an issue considered of trivial note'.
Residual means "remaining" as in "a quantity remaining after other things have been subtracted or allowed for . In this case, the residual charges of Chapt D, the cc and money, that had not been allowed for in the GUILTY VERDICT of the phones.

Honestly, Vixen. I'm embarrassed for you.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 14th September 2018 at 06:21 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 06:23 PM   #1283
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Taking Commodi's words out of context? Would this be the tv chat show?
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
So perhaps you can attempt to put Commodi's (sic) words into the correct context? Tell us what she really meant to say there.......
Yes, Vixen. Please do tell us what Comodi was really saying. Put it in context for us.

Someone cue the "Entertainment Tonight" theme song.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 06:28 PM   #1284
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Taking Commodi's words out of context? Would this be the tv chat show?
Yes that must be it - except that you didn't provide the context....
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2018, 02:01 PM   #1285
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Quote:
Your refusal to admit the charges were "dropped" is ludicrous.
Correction: were NOT dropped.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 11:53 AM   #1286
Mike1711
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
...'due to insufficient evidence'. Not 'not guilty' as we know it.

M-B made it clear the pair are highly suspicious and Knox was definitely at the murder scene as of the time of the murder, she named Patrick to deflect away from her knowing it was Guede.

Why would your sweet little pure angel want to protect this 'local burglar from Africa'?

Think about it.

Let us know when the penny drops.
As I said...the case was not dismissed. Get it?

It is common for high court judges to go easy on lower court blunders. Read the complete bungling of the lower court Judge Masipa in the Oscar Pistorius case and how the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa gingerly avoiding offending the lower court and then, by implication the legal system.

AK didn’t want to protect the African murderer. She didn’t even know the revolting man’s name. Ask yourself this question...Why would Guede say AK wasn’t there? ...and suddenly remember she was there after her arrest? Why didn’t he just tell the incredible story as strung by the foolish prosecution which pretty much made him an accessory and not the murderer? Why did he wait and then blurt out, “Oh yes. That’s exactly how it happened, ummmm but I’m not going give evidence at the AK/RS case.”

Of course it was due to insufficient evidence which effectively means the case should never have gone to court. ...and just to rub your nose in it, it is only a fool who imagines that a case that should never gone to trial (yes...it should have been dismissed for insufficient evidence) implies somehow that there is an underlying guilt.

Oh, the penny has dropped with a thunderous crash. Did you not hear it? Perhaps I should ask that you prove that you didn’t hear it and failing such proof pronounce that the penny has dropped and you refuse to acknowledge it.

We can all play games. Like chess, some of us are better than others at the game.

Last edited by Mike1711; 16th September 2018 at 11:55 AM.
Mike1711 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 01:49 PM   #1287
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
As I said...the case was not dismissed. Get it?

It is common for high court judges to go easy on lower court blunders. Read the complete bungling of the lower court Judge Masipa in the Oscar Pistorius case and how the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa gingerly avoiding offending the lower court and then, by implication the legal system.

AK didn’t want to protect the African murderer. She didn’t even know the revolting man’s name. Ask yourself this question...Why would Guede say AK wasn’t there? ...and suddenly remember she was there after her arrest? Why didn’t he just tell the incredible story as strung by the foolish prosecution which pretty much made him an accessory and not the murderer? Why did he wait and then blurt out, “Oh yes. That’s exactly how it happened, ummmm but I’m not going give evidence at the AK/RS case.”

Of course it was due to insufficient evidence which effectively means the case should never have gone to court. ...and just to rub your nose in it, it is only a fool who imagines that a case that should never gone to trial (yes...it should have been dismissed for insufficient evidence) implies somehow that there is an underlying guilt.

Oh, the penny has dropped with a thunderous crash. Did you not hear it? Perhaps I should ask that you prove that you didn’t hear it and failing such proof pronounce that the penny has dropped and you refuse to acknowledge it.

We can all play games. Like chess, some of us are better than others at the game.
The highlighted part above is essentially what the remaining guilter-PR campaign is claiming. With this latest speaking engagement by Knox in Cincinnati, and with the requisite leafleting campaign of the likes of Peter Quennell and the gang at TJMK, imagine actually trying to follow-up on these sorts of statements - that something dropped for lack of evidence (or an actual acquittal based on a lack of evidence) - is legal shorthand that the court really thought of the pair as guilty(!!!!).

Add this to Co-prosecutor Comodi admitting in 2017 - admitting on film! - that the effect of the 2015 Supreme Court acquittals means that neither AK nor RS are guilty of anything; and the picture gets rounded out for someone briefly taken-in by that guilter-PR campaign.

Like you say, we can all play games, but it is a mystery why some don't just read court documents.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 16th September 2018 at 01:57 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 02:05 PM   #1288
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
As I said...the case was not dismissed. Get it?

It is common for high court judges to go easy on lower court blunders. Read the complete bungling of the lower court Judge Masipa in the Oscar Pistorius case and how the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa gingerly avoiding offending the lower court and then, by implication the legal system.

AK didnít want to protect the African murderer. She didnít even know the revolting manís name. Ask yourself this question...Why would Guede say AK wasnít there? ...and suddenly remember she was there after her arrest? Why didnít he just tell the incredible story as strung by the foolish prosecution which pretty much made him an accessory and not the murderer? Why did he wait and then blurt out, ďOh yes. Thatís exactly how it happened, ummmm but Iím not going give evidence at the AK/RS case.Ē

Of course it was due to insufficient evidence which effectively means the case should never have gone to court. ...and just to rub your nose in it, it is only a fool who imagines that a case that should never gone to trial (yes...it should have been dismissed for insufficient evidence) implies somehow that there is an underlying guilt.

Oh, the penny has dropped with a thunderous crash. Did you not hear it? Perhaps I should ask that you prove that you didnít hear it and failing such proof pronounce that the penny has dropped and you refuse to acknowledge it.

We can all play games. Like chess, some of us are better than others at the game.
Guede's story was constantly shifting according to what new info he found out. Even his foster family admitted Guede was an "inveterate liar" who "lied to protect himself.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 07:15 AM   #1289
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Nothing destroys a belief more than one of the original prosecutors herself debunking a component of the conspiracy theory you've been advancing.

What I am talking about is co-prosecutor Maneula Comodi, with lead PM Giuliano Mignini sitting right there, saying that the 2015 Italian Supreme Court have now ruled out Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of being part of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

No matter. The purveyors of the guilter-PR campaign will simply wait a week or two, and then double-down on their theory that the 2015 Supreme Court had not vindicated the pair - but rather that that Court had ruled that the pair had been almost, but not quite guilty.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 04:09 PM   #1290
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
So perhaps you can attempt to put Commodi's (sic) words into the correct context? Tell us what she really meant to say there.......
She was being wry.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 04:12 PM   #1291
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Mike1711 View Post
As I said...the case was not dismissed. Get it?

It is common for high court judges to go easy on lower court blunders. Read the complete bungling of the lower court Judge Masipa in the Oscar Pistorius case and how the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa gingerly avoiding offending the lower court and then, by implication the legal system.

AK didnít want to protect the African murderer. She didnít even know the revolting manís name. Ask yourself this question...Why would Guede say AK wasnít there? ...and suddenly remember she was there after her arrest? Why didnít he just tell the incredible story as strung by the foolish prosecution which pretty much made him an accessory and not the murderer? Why did he wait and then blurt out, ďOh yes. Thatís exactly how it happened, ummmm but Iím not going give evidence at the AK/RS case.Ē

Of course it was due to insufficient evidence which effectively means the case should never have gone to court. ...and just to rub your nose in it, it is only a fool who imagines that a case that should never gone to trial (yes...it should have been dismissed for insufficient evidence) implies somehow that there is an underlying guilt.

Oh, the penny has dropped with a thunderous crash. Did you not hear it? Perhaps I should ask that you prove that you didnít hear it and failing such proof pronounce that the penny has dropped and you refuse to acknowledge it.

We can all play games. Like chess, some of us are better than others at the game.

Casus belli.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 04:21 PM   #1292
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She was being wry.
She was being wry? That conclusion is based on exactly what?

Tell me, Vixen. Was Nencini being "wry" when he said the following?

Quote:
In any case, and noting that both of the defendants and Rudy Hermann Guede were all absolved of the theft in relation to the indictment with reference to the 300 euro and the two credit cards
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 05:24 PM   #1293
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She was being wry.
As are you.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 01:16 AM   #1294
RoseMontague
Published Author
 
RoseMontague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Elon, NC
Posts: 7,117
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Nothing destroys a belief more than one of the original prosecutors herself debunking a component of the conspiracy theory you've been advancing.

What I am talking about is co-prosecutor Maneula Comodi, with lead PM Giuliano Mignini sitting right there, saying that the 2015 Italian Supreme Court have now ruled out Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of being part of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

No matter. The purveyors of the guilter-PR campaign will simply wait a week or two, and then double-down on their theory that the 2015 Supreme Court had not vindicated the pair - but rather that that Court had ruled that the pair had been almost, but not quite guilty.
I'm quite content to let them hold on to that belief, not that the evidence against them was strong, but rather they were fighting against a system that favors the prosecution. It was really a close call and could have gone either way.
__________________
"I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 08:58 AM   #1295
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
I'm quite content to let them hold on to that belief, not that the evidence against them was strong, but rather they were fighting against a system that favors the prosecution. It was really a close call and could have gone either way.
I assume the second "them" refers to AK and RS.

The close call was a coin flip between protecting the system vs. protecting the truth. Italy is still stuck mid-transition between Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial.

Me, I go back to what CNN's Jeffrey Toobin said on the night of the Hellmann acquittals in 2011 - (paraphrase) "This acquittal just shows that someone cannot be convicted without evidence, not even in Italy."

Add this to what Barbie Nadeau had told the CNN audience the night of the Dec 2009 convictions; "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker. This very well could be overturned at appeal."
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 09:41 AM   #1296
sept79
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I assume the second "them" refers to AK and RS.

The close call was a coin flip between protecting the system vs. protecting the truth. Italy is still stuck mid-transition between Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial.

Me, I go back to what CNN's Jeffrey Toobin said on the night of the Hellmann acquittals in 2011 - (paraphrase) "This acquittal just shows that someone cannot be convicted without evidence, not even in Italy."

Add this to what Barbie Nadeau had told the CNN audience the night of the Dec 2009 convictions; "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker. This very well could be overturned at appeal."

Yet it was proven that there was no evidence of Knox/Sollecito in the victim's bedroom nor were the footprints in the hallway tracking the victim's blood. Which says that Massei ignored exculpatory evidence. Why? Pressure from his superiors? To appease the Italian masses? Confidence that an appeal would find Knox/Sollecito innocent? Other?
sept79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 03:10 PM   #1297
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by sept79 View Post
Yet it was proven that there was no evidence of Knox/Sollecito in the victim's bedroom nor were the footprints in the hallway tracking the victim's blood. Which says that Massei ignored exculpatory evidence. Why? Pressure from his superiors? To appease the Italian masses? Confidence that an appeal would find Knox/Sollecito innocent? Other?

Not to mention that Nadeau's very statement - "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker" - shows a fundamental inability on her part to understand how the criminal justice system is designed to work (even in Italy....). It's not an equal "battle" between prosecution and defence. If the prosecution case is "weak", then the defendant(s) must be acquitted. End of story. Doesn't matter how "weak" or otherwise the defence case is. The prosecution case must be rock-solid strong in order to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. (And there are rock-solid justifications in law and in ethics as to why it's entirely the burden of the accuser to prove the accusation, and if that can't be done, then the accusation must be withdrawn and the accused person must remain presumed innocent of the accusation.)

So if Nadeau believed what she said, then necessarily she ought to have believed that Knox and Sollecito were wrongfully convicted in 2009. Unfortunately, Nadeau appears to possess neither the legal training nor general intelligence to understand the full implications of what she said.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 03:35 PM   #1298
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,542
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Not to mention that Nadeau's very statement - "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker" - .............
For the sake of transparency, I am quoting Nadeau **from memory**.

At times I've looked for a video of Nadeau's words to CNN that night in 2009, and once was successful in finding it, but neglected to save the link. I'd not even started following this case until 2011, and had found it when trying to discover what had been wrong with Nadeau's reporting.

The Winterbottom film from 2014 covered that issue, pretty much trashing the likes of Nadeau and Nick Pisa.

So proceed with this caveat in mind.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 18th September 2018 at 03:38 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 04:17 PM   #1299
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Bill, that reminds me of the idea that AK and RS had to "prove" they had an alibi. An indisputable alibi most certainly can ascertain innocence, but the lack of one does not ascertain guilt in any way. How does a person, who lives alone and spent the evening quietly reading a book, prove they were home the night a crime happens?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 10:50 PM   #1300
RoseMontague
Published Author
 
RoseMontague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Elon, NC
Posts: 7,117
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Bill, that reminds me of the idea that AK and RS had to "prove" they had an alibi. An indisputable alibi most certainly can ascertain innocence, but the lack of one does not ascertain guilt in any way. How does a person, who lives alone and spent the evening quietly reading a book, prove they were home the night a crime happens?
The computer evidence would have certainly helped.
__________________
"I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 10:55 PM   #1301
RoseMontague
Published Author
 
RoseMontague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Elon, NC
Posts: 7,117
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I assume the second "them" refers to AK and RS.

The close call was a coin flip between protecting the system vs. protecting the truth. Italy is still stuck mid-transition between Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial.

Me, I go back to what CNN's Jeffrey Toobin said on the night of the Hellmann acquittals in 2011 - (paraphrase) "This acquittal just shows that someone cannot be convicted without evidence, not even in Italy."

Add this to what Barbie Nadeau had told the CNN audience the night of the Dec 2009 convictions; "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker. This very well could be overturned at appeal."
Yes. Raffaele and the Knox girl. I had my doubts the final result would go their way. Toobin is wrong, we have seen it happen not only in Italy but in other countries as well.
__________________
"I have hated the words and I have loved them, and I hope I have made them right".
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 12:40 AM   #1302
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
Yes. Raffaele and the Knox girl. I had my doubts the final result would go their way. Toobin is wrong, we have seen it happen not only in Italy but in other countries as well.
I also had serious doubts that they would be acquitted. Not because I doubted their innocence but, after seeing the ridiculous findings of Massei, the previous S. C., and Nencini, I had no faith in the Italian courts.

As for the computers, don't you know that it was Raffaele who burned the hard drives in order to destroy evidence and not the police?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th September 2018 at 12:50 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 06:41 AM   #1303
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I also had serious doubts that they would be acquitted. Not because I doubted their innocence but, after seeing the ridiculous findings of Massei, the previous S. C., and Nencini, I had no faith in the Italian courts.

As for the computers, don't you know that it was Raffaele who burned the hard drives in order to destroy evidence and not the police?
Of course, as we know, much of the data was eventually recovered and once the defense experts had an opportunity to properly scan the data they uncovered the Naruto cartoon being opened at 21:26. Given all of the physical evidence that essentially proved Meredith was already attacked at this point, the computer evidence should have helped significantly.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 10:39 AM   #1304
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Of course, as we know, much of the data was eventually recovered and once the defense experts had an opportunity to properly scan the data they uncovered the Naruto cartoon being opened at 21:26. Given all of the physical evidence that essentially proved Meredith was already attacked at this point, the computer evidence should have helped significantly.
The key word here is "should". But, as we know, the prosecution was hell bent on claiming the murder occurred well after the evidence pointed to an earlier time. They had to do that in order to fit it to a scream that some claimed to have heard during at an unspecified time by an unspecified person in a neighborhood where screams were not uncommon. They had to fit it to a drug addled addict's claim of seeing the pair. How any court could have accepted Curatolo as being credible is unfathomable.

ETA: I read Nara Capezzali's testimony again and she seemed very defensive and sometimes very irritated whenever she was challenged by the defense regarding her contradictory testimony. I also find it interesting how certain she was about being told about the murder the morning after she heard a scream about 9:30 A.M. which was hours before the murder was even discovered. She was also certain she saw posters of AK, RS, PL and RG that same day when no such posters existed and there was no connecton to RG yet. But this woman is supposed to be a credible witness. Incredible.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th September 2018 at 12:06 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 12:53 PM   #1305
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The key word here is "should". But, as we know, the prosecution was hell bent on claiming the murder occurred well after the evidence pointed to an earlier time. They had to do that in order to fit it to a scream that some claimed to have heard during at an unspecified time by an unspecified person in a neighborhood where screams were not uncommon. They had to fit it to a drug addled addict's claim of seeing the pair. How any court could have accepted Curatolo as being credible is unfathomable.
Exactly. The courts SHOULD have....

- Acknowledged the computer evidence meant at least one of them was still at Raffaele's apartment at 21:30
- Accepted that the clothes Meredith was wearing, the failure to call her mother back and the stomach content analysis indicated Meredith was attacked shortly after arriving home, so well before 21:30.
- Disregarded the knife evidence, not just because the knife was removed from it's sterile collection bag at the police station (something that deserved FAR more criticism that it received) but because science proved sample 36B was not connected to Meredith.
- Accepted that Amanda and Raffaele did not know Guede and that the likelihood of the two of them conspiring with Guede to do anything, let alone commit a violent crime, was practically non-existent.
- Admitted that it was not possible to conduct a selective clean-up and as such, the complete lack of forensic trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room was evidence of their non-involvement.
- Concluded that the very late collection of the bra clasp, considering the scene was not secured, and the very improper way that it was collected, rendered the DNA results unreliable.
- Allowed for a sound test to be performed which would have proven that Nara's testimony was unreliable (and any reasonable person would have concluded her additional testimony of hearing multiple people running in opposite directions stunk of coaching)
- Seriously questioned why three witnesses came forward so late, and only after having the same reporter speak to them, to provide testimony that, in each case, had serious contradictions.

Etc., etc., etc. This brings back memories of my initial reaction after reading the Massei report. I was literally stunned with how often the court speculated, assumed, fabricated, disregarded available innocent interpretation, dismissed contradictory evidence and ignored definitive scientific results. It was clear the court's decision to convict was predetermined and the report was an effort to justify it - and it failed miserably.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 01:03 PM   #1306
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 625
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The key word here is "should". But, as we know, the prosecution was hell bent on claiming the murder occurred well after the evidence pointed to an earlier time. They had to do that in order to fit it to a scream that some claimed to have heard during at an unspecified time by an unspecified person in a neighborhood where screams were not uncommon. They had to fit it to a drug addled addict's claim of seeing the pair. How any court could have accepted Curatolo as being credible is unfathomable.

ETA: I read Nara Capezzali's testimony again and she seemed very defensive and sometimes very irritated whenever she was challenged by the defense regarding her contradictory testimony. I also find it interesting how certain she was about being told about the murder the morning after she heard a scream about 9:30 A.M. which was hours before the murder was even discovered. She was also certain she saw posters of AK, RS, PL and RG that same day when no such posters existed and there was no connecton to RG yet. But this woman is supposed to be a credible witness. Incredible.
The testimony of Nara lacked credibility and was full of holes. If Nara said she had seen posters of AK, RS, PL and RG before the body had been discovered and no such poster existed, this indicates Nara and was delusional and was suffering from mental disorders. PGP villify Amanda for having mental disorders eg calling Amanda a psychopath but were perfectly happy for someone with mental disorders to provide testimony against Amanda. Yet another example of vile hypocrisy by PGP.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 04:30 PM   #1307
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
The testimony of Nara lacked credibility and was full of holes. If Nara said she had seen posters of AK, RS, PL and RG before the body had been discovered and no such poster existed, this indicates Nara and was delusional and was suffering from mental disorders. PGP villify Amanda for having mental disorders eg calling Amanda a psychopath but were perfectly happy for someone with mental disorders to provide testimony against Amanda. Yet another example of vile hypocrisy by PGP.
I don't think Capezzalli had mental disorders. I do think she may have heard someone scream and/or someone(s) running up the metal stairs at sometime, but that it was unconnected to Meredith's murder. As she testified, she heard a lot of noises all the time because of where the car park was in relation to her apartment and the type of people who hung out there at all hours of the night. A girl had been raped in the parking garage and a drug addict had overdosed and died, too. Not a nice area.
I don't think she was intentionally lying, but I do think she made assumptions from what she later learned and incorporated them into her "memory". After all, she did not go to the police with this story until 25 days after the murder. By that time, it had been all over the news and in the newspapers. I also think she was confused about when things she included in her testimony actually happened. This would explain claiming she saw posters of all four suspects when it was impossible and that she found out about the murder hours before it was discovered. She simply was not a reliable witness.

Reading the testimony, I also think Mignini was leading her. Whenever Bongiorno, especially, zeroed in on contradictory testimony, Mignini interrupted. He did it so often that Bongiorno protested to the judge.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th September 2018 at 04:44 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.