Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

I'm not sure you can call Vibio's comment a "lie".
It's an embellishment off of the equally fanciful misinformation about Knox perhaps having the contact-number of a known drug dealer the contacts' list of her mobile.

All of us embellish, really. What I like here on this thread are the many people able to, "ask the next question."

This is about the fifth time we've been around the block on that issue which Vibio embellishes with the time honoured, pro-guilt lobby use of the proverbial, "may have."

The "next questions" on this are legion. One is: if this is so, why did not Mignini investigate this line, and/or raise it at trial?

Amanda has written about her encounter with Frederico on the train, which has led to one of the very first factoids I ran into three years ago. "Sex on a train," used to be used to buttress this "sex-game gone wrong" theory, because it was supposed to have shown Knox's predilection for unusual sexual acts.

Then we find out there was no such thing as "sex on a train", perhaps some soft-drug use and some sexual activity which is far, far, far from unusual for students abroad. Egads, if those to things resulted in murder and mayhem, college campuses all over the world would be war zones.

But as an embellishment, it certainly is "fun" for the pro-guilt lobby to engage in it.

Point is (getting in touch with one's inner-CoulsdonUK): what does that have to do with any of the court decisions? The latest court decision, one to convict to boot, finds that the meme of Knox's alleged unusual sexual tastes and/or contacts with drug-rings leading to murder......

...... has played absolutely no role. From Satanic rites, to sex-games gone wrong, to disputes over pooh in the toilet, to disputes over rent-money, to the very weirdest motive of all: they just did it for no reason at all......

..... now there is another: but this time found nowhere in any court document at all - murder because of involvement in a drug ring. A drug ring which, it is alleged, murders.

Is this strictly speaking "lying"?

Not really - it is simply another day on the internet. Free speech reigns supreme here, and lack of accountability for what one says is the coin of the realm.

It's not lying. It's just what happens.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

It's a hoax.

The guilters generally are posting out of a sadistic glee at upsetting people.

The Italian-speaking ones even provide unreliable translations.

There is a kind of confusion when sincere, conscientious persons trying to understand the reality of the case encounter these hoaxes and mistake them for sincere statements from those of contrary view. Hoaxes are BS.

Example: Remember the photo of an alleged "Amanda" walking into the car park? Remember how blurry it was - one could not see the person's face? Well, that blurriness was not due to the actual resolution of the camera. It was an artifact intentionally introduced by those promulgating the hoax by their reducing the number of lines per inch (or cm) of the image. Thus, some random person's image could be claimed as may be compatible with Amanda.

 

[Vibio]

Absolutely nothing wrong with the statement:

"Not a national terrorist organization, but evidence may have led to the belief that she was part of part of a (more than local) drug ring. And one that murders."

That may have very well been their reasoning in the early days (the time we are talking about) of the investigation.


------

Another classic:

The Italian-speaking ones even provide unreliable translations.

 

[Vibio]

Not really - it is simply another day on the internet. Free speech reigns supreme here, and lack of accountability for what one says is the coin of the realm.

Yes, the internet is open to everyone.... even the likes of Bill Williams.

Not really - it is simply another day on the internet.

How many hours have put in so far today?


----

 

[Bill Williams]

Absolutely nothing wrong with the statement:

"Not a national terrorist organization, but evidence may have led to the belief that she was part of part of a (more than local) drug ring. And one that murders."

That may have very well been their reasoning in the early days (the time we are talking about) of the investigation.

Ok, Numbers, I see what you mean. I'll go with "hoax" then, rather than....

It's an embellishment off of equally fanciful misinformation​

Always better to use one 4-letter word rather than 8, some of them with 14 letters in them.

 

[Machiavelli]

Exactly. As noted upthread, the Italian authorities seem to be able to just make things up, with no accountability for how that pushes things off the road.

It would not be so bad if this was not limited to claims made in an obscure internet service, like here on ISF. Vibio now just gets to make up out of whole cloth one in a long, long long, series of "may haves", with no other purpose than granting the benefit of the doubt to the Perugian law system which can detain people without lawyer, only make any lawyers available to them just moments before an appearance in court which will further their precautionary detention....

..... such detention which was based on nothing but lies. Massei gets to fill his 2010 motivations report with probablies, and nencini gets to fill his 2014 motivations report with may haves. (Do not the pro-guilt lobby have any evidence?)

And what does the other side say about the issue of them being denied lawyers? That Knox "may have" had a connection to a local drug ring, (and just for some added spice, Vibio adds) one that murders.

All this without so much as a shred of evidence. Even Machiavelli cannot provide the evidence. Machiavelli simply repeats that Knox may have had (ooops, there's that "may have" again) the contact number of a known drug dealer in her mobile. Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo..... in Perugia if you put 20 names/numbers into your mobile, at least one of them is going to be peddling drugs. It's a college town.

When Machiavelli's reasoning falls under the weight of a "so?", even Machiavelli retreats into saying, "Well the only reason I am saying this is a possibility is because I don't want Knox being seen as fundamentally different than Rudy Guede." Then the goalposts REALLY get moved when M. implies, any talk that they are fundamentally different is racist.

(...).

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them, as well as a number of other folks who were not students. And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective.
This said, I believe that a main topic at the core of the innocentisti belief, their main motivation, is a perception that Amanda Knox is somehow anthropologically incompatible with a murder, somewhere far from Rudy Guede. She "can't" be guilty, maybe in virtue of some anthropological value she represents, maybe because is "one of us" as opposed to Rudy Guede.
And also, the theory of her innocence is also opposed to a projection of "Italian authorities" (those picked who happen to be between Knox and her innocence, Mignini the Supreme Court or whoever, there is a projection and rationalization for anyone) as something "other", on which any projection is possible.

 

[Kauffer]

Salduz was a minor! Knox an adult. Also Knox continued to incriminate herself in her handwritten messages. The Saduz case has no, assolutely nothing, in common with AK and RS. Nothing.

I can understand why you might think that - but you are wrong. Salduz is essentially a beacon judgement, lighting the way to the application of a core human rights principle within European member states.

Here is an extract from a joint briefing paper on the draft European directive on the rights of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings, given by the European Bar Association, Amnesty International and others.

Note the reference to the "Salduz principle". Basically, what everyone is trying to do is to find a way to harmonize the differences between common law and civil law systems in order to preserve the procedural rights of suspects and to prevent states from making egregious errors, which require time consuming and expensive referral to the ECHR. But I understand. Italians don't get case law. It's not part of the legal culture. They are going to have to learn.

"However, we understand that some States have objected to express inclusion of the Salduz principle in the Directive text on the basis that their established criminal procedures provide for free production of evidence in the case-file and free evaluation by the judge of the weight to be given to each piece of evidence at trial. We argue that the Salduz rule should be compatible with these systems as it does not explicitly exclude the incriminating statements made without access to a lawyer from the case-file but holds that, ultimately, they can never be used for a conviction. This is a rule no member state objects in principle to its judges respecting. Furthermore, insofar as the objection is that no EU Directive could ever address the issue of admissibility of evidence, in the context of the UN Convention Against Torture, all EU countries are obliged by international human rights law to ensure that evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible and excluded from proceedings.12 There is therefore no principled reason to prevent a rule on admissibility of evidence at EU level.

The Directive must set out as a clear binding standard in the body of the text that any incriminating statement made in violation of the right of access to a lawyer cannot be used for a conviction. By failing to do so, the Directive would fail to reflect the already-existing obligations of all EU Member States and the EU under the ECHR. This would create potential gaps in protection in practice in some Member States, undermining the stated objectives of the Directive, and eroding respect for ECHR case-law.13"

http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/20130415_jointNGObriefindMeasureC.pdf

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them, as well as a number of other folks who were not students. And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective.
This said, I believe that a main topic at the core of the innocentisti belief, their main motivation, is a perception that Amanda Knox is somehow anthropologically incompatible with a murder, somewhere far from Rudy Guede. She "can't" be guilty, maybe in virtue of some anthropological value she represents, maybe because is "one of us" as opposed to Rudy Guede.
And also, the theory of her innocence is also opposed to a projection of "Italian authorities" (those picked who happen to be between Knox and her innocence, Mignini the Supreme Court or whoever, there is a projection and rationalization for anyone) as something "other", on which any projection is possible.

Is this based on that report that one of the cops (Ficcarra?) filed saying she 'would have' dealt drugs (or something like that)? LOL. Utter crap.

 

[Kauffer]

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them, as well as a number of other folks who were not students. And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective.
This said, I believe that a main topic at the core of the innocentisti belief, their main motivation, is a perception that Amanda Knox is somehow anthropologically incompatible with a murder, somewhere far from Rudy Guede. She "can't" be guilty, maybe in virtue of some anthropological value she represents, maybe because is "one of us" as opposed to Rudy Guede.
And also, the theory of her innocence is also opposed to a projection of "Italian authorities" (those picked who happen to be between Knox and her innocence, Mignini the Supreme Court or whoever, there is a projection and rationalization for anyone) as something "other", on which any projection is possible.

You've never been able to produce any evidence whatsoever of contacts with drug dealers. It's just a substanceless claim. You have her phone records and still can't find anything.

As for "anthropologically incompatible with a murder" - no. Rational people here simply demand evidence. Find her prints in blood in Ms Kercher's room and I'll join your group and demand her immediate extradition in shackles. In fact just show me some piece of evidence that can point only to guilt with no other plausible construction possible.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here's what it appears the ECHr is going to be concerned with:

1. Did Knox have a fair opportunity to challenge the admission of the statements? Yes, and she won: the supreme court said that they couldn't be used.

The Supreme Court said the 01:45 statement could be used contra alios on any charge, that the hand written statements could be used as evidence for any purpose, and that the 05:45 statement could not be used, but only in the charges of murder that existed at the time. You forget very quickly, Diocletus.

 

[Diocletus]

The Supreme Court said the 01:45 statement could be used contra alios on any charge, that the hand written statements could be used as evidence for any purpose, and that the 05:45 statement could not be used, but only in the charges of murder that existed at the time. You forget very quickly, Diocletus.

So, let's recap:

1:45 statement: Can't be used against Knox for any reason (but was)

5:45 statement: Can't be used against Knox to prove murder; no comment about whether it can be used to prove callunnia (even though she had no lawyer, ergo this is obviously unusable under the ECHR)

Handwritten statements: Can be used against Knox (even though she had no lawyer, ergo these are obviously unusable under the ECHR)

Yet, apparently, all of these statements were used to prove callunnia, which in turn was used to prove murder. What a trainwreck.

 

[Machiavelli]

You've never been able to produce any evidence whatsoever of contacts with drug dealers. It's just a substanceless claim. You have her phone records and still can't find anything.

Lorenzo's number is there, the convictions are there. Your denial is surreal and frankly unexplainable for any unbiased observer.

As for "anthropologically incompatible with a murder" - no. Rational people here simply demand evidence. Find her prints in blood in Ms Kercher's room and I'll join your group and demand her immediate extradition in shackles. In fact just show me some piece of evidence that can point only to guilt with no other plausible construction possible.

Come on, those folks never "demanded evidence" that Rudy Guede committed a post mortem sexual abuse, that he climbed through the window or that he washed himself in the bathroom. They are ready to pin those on him with zero evidence. Those people do not demand evidence that Stefanoni suppressed results, that Mignini wrote fake interrogations, that Donnino lied or that Quintavalle lied, never demanded evidence to Doug Preston or Mario Spezi, they don't demand evidence the police orchestrated media campaigns, that coerced someone or threatened, or that this and that person conspired this or that plot.
These people, selectively, only demand evidence about Amanda Knox but in fact they do not demand actual evidence, what the do is try to deny the existing evidence. They demand things that respond to no logic and no law requires, not about evidence as a whole but about pieces. And it is a hypocritical show. Because they lie on every line of the papers, they make up things and deny the obvious, they state "Italy is on the hook" trying to reverse the roles, and it's all an imposter; their objections are too often offences to intelligence and justice. They assume that someone linke Amanda Knox could be convicted only by a smoking gun, normal evidence is revolting to them. It's hypocritical, because look how these "demands" of evidence are ex-post rationalizations, like the assertion that you can't measure a bathmat print formulized after the measurements match Sollecito and rule out Guede, these demands are cherry picked and designed for the specific defensive needs, within a drsign that excludes other demands about Guede or others.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is this based on that report that one of the cops (Ficcarra?) filed saying she 'would have' dealt drugs (or something like that)? LOL. Utter crap.

No, it is based on the fact that Federico, Lorenzo and Luciano were caught because of their phone contacts with Amanda Knox.

 

[Machiavelli]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

It's a hoax.

The guilters generally are posting out of a sadistic glee at upsetting people.

The Italian-speaking ones even provide unreliable translations.

(....)

This sounds just like a cheap offensive lie. Where are the unreliable translations?

 

[Desert Fox]

DF,
Are you saying that the Italians are in error in that they are directing their anti-American bias at persons who are not Americans?

More like the wrong Americans. . . .Amanda Knox and Mario Lozano for example.
The pilots with the Cavalese cable car disaster deserve action as well as CIA and military personel related to the Abu Omar kidnapping.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them, as well as a number of other folks who were not students. And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective.
This said, I believe that a main topic at the core of the innocentisti belief, their main motivation, is a perception that Amanda Knox is somehow anthropologically incompatible with a murder, somewhere far from Rudy Guede. She "can't" be guilty, maybe in virtue of some anthropological value she represents, maybe because is "one of us" as opposed to Rudy Guede.
And also, the theory of her innocence is also opposed to a projection of "Italian authorities" (those picked who happen to be between Knox and her innocence, Mignini the Supreme Court or whoever, there is a projection and rationalization for anyone) as something "other", on which any projection is possible.

You've never been able to produce any evidence whatsoever of contacts with drug dealers. It's just a substanceless claim. You have her phone records and still can't find anything.

As for "anthropologically incompatible with a murder" - no. Rational people here simply demand evidence. Find her prints in blood in Ms Kercher's room and I'll join your group and demand her immediate extradition in shackles. In fact just show me some piece of evidence that can point only to guilt with no other plausible construction possible.

Kauffer - Machiavelli is mixing apples and oranges here, and always has. He is getting far, far more clear lately, though, about distinguishing his two main points.

I know of no "Knoxian" who would adhere to the following: "She "can't" be guilty" I have heard over and over again requests (and sometimes demands) for actual evidence that she (and Raffaele) ARE guilty, and if given an innocentisti would gladly convert. Indeed, I have converted in my views on calunnia, just not in the direction Machiavelli would like (It had to do with evidence", not over-psychologizing the opponent).

Both you and "Numbers" appear to be newcomers to this. I detect in neither of you a "dog in this fight." All the two of you have ever done is to ask for evidence of guilt. For me it starts with the murder room. It is a fact, that the whole cottage is the crime scene - what needs explaining is why the centre of that scene, Meredith's bedroom, contains virtually nothing incriminating to either of AK or RS.

(An aside - on the night of Hellmann's acquittal, I was watching events onfold on CNN. Truly, I had no idea on Oct 3, 2011, if AK and RS were guilty or innocent. In fact, like many I was barely aware that RS was co-accused; because of all the hype.

When Jeffery Toobin, CNN legal analyst was asked to comment on the stunning acquittals, he at first did a brief summary of the differences in Italian and US law, and legal practise. As one might find in doing a YouTube search of Toobin's remarks, I was somewhat shocked to hear him conclude: but regardless of the system, there is and perhaps never was any evidence against them.

I scoured what I now regard as the hate sights for that evidence, which the hate sites assured there was plenty. TJMK kept saying there was "all the other evidence." I've not found any.)​

But other than Machiavelli's pop-psychologization of Knoxians, let's get back to his core assertion, and it is only an assertion because in two years of reading Machiavelli assert this, he's never once offered a scintilla of proof:

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them...​

This is like saying that because I have the contact of a financial advisor in my mobile, that I am somehow responsible for the run on my bank, or that someone else defaulted on a loan.

It is the big, "so what?" that Machiavelli is hiding behind, and this is BEFORE he's offered a scintilla of proof.

But then again, even Machiavelli concedes....

And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective.​

That's how weird this is. And with the assertion, which Machiavelli even admits has nothing to do with anything, really, Vibio finds it necessary to move this into.....

...... hoax-land. Maybe Meredith was killed as part of a drug-deal gone wrong, seems to be Vibio's point. Why does Machiavelli need to go there when Vibio and countless of Machiavelli's followers go there for him. Have you EVER seen Machiavelli correct someone like Vibio?

No one had heard that one before. But it certainly doesn't stop the Pro-guilt lobby form tossing these out there like last week's trash.

 

[Welshman]

Kauffer - Machiavelli is mixing apples and oranges here, and always has. He is getting far, far more clear lately, though, about distinguishing his two main points.

I know of no "Knoxian" who would adhere to the following: "She "can't" be guilty, maybe in virtue of some anthropological value she represents, maybe because is "one of us" as opposed to Rudy Guede." I have heard over and over again requests (and sometimes demands) for actual evidence that she (and Raffaele) ARE guilty, and if given an innocentisti would gladly convert. Indeed, I have converted in my views on calunnia, just not in the direction Machiavelli would like (It had to do with evidence", not over-psychologizing the opponent).

Both you and "Numbers" appear to be newcomers to this. I detect in neither of you a "dog in this fight." All the two of you have ever done is to ask for evidence of guilt. For me it starts with the murder room. It is a fact, that the whole cottage is the crime scene - what needs explaining is why the centre of that scene, Meredith's bedroom, contains virtually nothing incriminating to either of AK or RS.

(An aside - on the night of Hellmann's acquittal, I was watching events onfold on CNN. Truly, I had no idea on Oct 3, 2011, if AK and RS were guilty or innocent. In fact, like many I was barely aware that RS was co-accused; because of all the hype.

When Jeffery Toobin, CNN legal analyst was asked to comment on the stunning acquittals, he at first did a brief summary of the differences in Italian and US law, and legal practise. As one might find in doing a YouTube search of Toobin's remarks, I was somewhat shocked to hear him conclude: but regardless of the system, there is and perhaps never was any evidence against them.

I scoured what I now regard as the hate sights for that evidence, which the hate sites assured there was plenty. TJMK kept saying there was "all the other evidence." I've not found any.)​

But other than Machiavelli's pop-psychologization of Knoxians, let's get back to his core assertion, and it is only an assertion because in two years of reading Machiavelli assert this, he's never once offered a scintilla of proof:

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them...​

This is like saying that because I have the contact of a financial advisor in my mobile, that I am somehow responsible for the run on my bank, or that someone else defaulted on a loan.

It is the big, "so what?" that Machiavelli is hiding behind, and this is BEFORE he's offered a scintilla of proof.

But then again, even Machiavelli concedes....

And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective.​

That's how weird this is. And with the assertion, which Machiavelli even admits has nothing to do with anything, really, Vibio finds it necessary to move this into.....

...... hoax-land. Maybe Meredith was killed as part of a drug-deal gone wrong, seems to be Vibio's point. Why does Machiavelli need to go there when Vibio and countless of Machiavelli's followers go there for him. Have you EVER seen Machiavelli correct someone like Vibio?

No one had heard that one before. But it certainly doesn't stop the Pro-guilt lobby form tossing these out there like last week's trash.[/QUOTE

If Amanda was in contact with a drug dealer, this would have been a godsend to the prosecution and this could have been used to attack Amanda's character. If the drug dealer contact story was true, have the prosecution ever used it in preliminary hearings, the three main trials or released this information to the media and if not, why not?

Machiavelli claims Amanda was having sex with at least one drug dealer but is vague on details. Who was the drug dealer Amanda had sex with? When did she have sex with this dealer? What proof exists of this? The fact Machiavelli provides no evidence to back his claim indicates he is lying. This goes back to the point I made in an earlier post. Why do the PGP have to resort to lying and making things up to argue their case? If you have a slam dunk case and solid evidence, you should not have to resort to lying to argue your case.

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli claims Amanda was having sex with at least one drug dealer but is vague on details.

That's weird, so was Meredith.

I think pretty much everyone in Perugia is a drug dealer.

 

[Dougm]

Machiavelli claims Amanda was having sex with at least one drug dealer but is vague on details. Who was the drug dealer Amanda had sex with? When did she have sex with this dealer? What proof exists of this? The fact Machiavelli provides no evidence to back his claim indicates he is lying. This goes back to the point I made in an earlier post. Why do the PGP have to resort to lying and making things up to argue their case? If you have a slam dunk case and solid evidence, you should not have to resort to lying to argue your case.

Ever notice that whenever these types of claims are made against Amanda or Raffaele, they are either:

1) Not backed up with any specific testimony or evidence
2) Delivered with a qualifying phrase, like "may have" or "must have" or "probably"

Not to mention that, even if something like "Amanda had sex with X guy, who, it turns out, was also selling drugs" was true, that person has no connection at all to the actual murder case or charges against her. So what we have here is innuendo, trying to prove something that is, at the very most, prejudicial, and doesn't prove anything related to the actual murder case.

Oh, and if a person "may have" done something, that has a built in reasonable doubt, IMO. The whole case is, as Hellmann pointed out, built on a foundation of weak "may haves", "could haves", etc. As judge Massei pointed out, their guilt was "possible, therefore probable".

 

[Vibio]

. Maybe Meredith was killed as part of a drug-deal gone wrong, seems to be Vibio's point.

Perhaps Bill Williams' imaginary friends "The Lurkers" can point out to him that that's not what I wrote.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ever notice that whenever these types of claims are made against Amanda or Raffaele, they are either:

1) Not backed up with any specific testimony or evidence
2) Delivered with a qualifying phrase, like "may have" or "must have" or "probably"

Not to mention that, even if something like "Amanda had sex with X guy, who, it turns out, was also selling drugs" was true, that person has no connection at all to the actual murder case or charges against her. So what we have here is innuendo, trying to prove something that is, at the very most, prejudicial, and doesn't prove anything related to the actual murder case.
Oh, and if a person "may have" done something, that has a built in reasonable doubt, IMO. The whole case is, as Hellmann pointed out, built on a foundation of weak "may haves", "could haves", etc. As judge Massei pointed out, their guilt was "possible, therefore probable".

What Machiavelli is claiming is that this means that Knox cannot be someone ontologically different that Rudy Guede. That's his sole point.

He is saying this solely to get supporters to give up believing that Knox can't be guilty, because he thinks supporters are racist.

It's a weird, 'round-about argument Machiavelli is making, concluding in nothing.