Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Any predictions or analysis of Raffaele’s impending court case next week? Apologies if I have missed any recent posts covering this.

It would be great to hear an opinion from you!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Samson]

Alibi, which means the person was somewhere else when the crime was committed, must be the proper term to describe Guede's whereabouts. He was somewhere else - he was in Filomena's toilet swaying to his tunes and relieving himself of a bad kabob - when the victim was murdered by someone else. Yea, yea, I know. His DNA was found in her vagina and the inside of his fingers were badly sliced when the knife slipped in his grip and he didn't summon help and he went dancing at the disco later that night and he fled the country a day later and he was detained by police in Milan a week or so earlier with a laptop stolen fron a Perugia lawyer's office where the thief threw a brick through an upper window and climbed up the outside of the building to gain entry. But the authorities had already publicly committed to their Amanda story and publicly pronounced "case closed" and they couldn't unwind that.

Interestingly, Vibio, poster here, suggested recently Amanda was indeed in the kitchen when the murder was committed, but she remains a die hard guilter, not allowing this as an alibi defence in any way. I am not sure what Mr Pink is really suggesting, except maybe there are none so guilty as one Amanda Knox. She is the guiltiest of guilty, a pinup example of guilty, a study for all time. Someone so guilty she makes Rudy look saintly.
I know it should be obvious to me, I will just work harder to understand.

 

[platonov]

Consistency

Platonov's trollish posts notwithstanding it would do folk well to read Kassim's stuff.

Trollism is the doctrine or ideology of being trollish. Just a thought.

That’s a little unkind, and inaccurate to boot. Pointing out that ‘strawmen’ aren’t ‘strawmen’ isn’t being trollish.
Although, to your credit, once the C&P’ing is removed I see you share my taste for brevity.
However, when it comes to a basic understanding of the case or the law – there we part company it seems.

All that aside, It’s good to see that you & Bill are apparently of one mind on this issue.

 

[Numbers]

Any predictions or analysis of Raffaele’s impending court case next week? Apologies if I have missed any recent posts covering this.

You appear to know more about it than most of the posters here, including myself.

Could you inform us again about this part of the case? Something about Honor Bound, the book written by Raffaele Sollecito with Andrew Gumbel?

What is at stake in the case, what are the allegations? Who is the plaintiff, and who the defendant?

If the book loses, will all the copies in Italy be burned, like in the good old days of the Fascist/Nazi era?

 

[Samson]

Any predictions or analysis of Raffaele’s impending court case next week? Apologies if I have missed any recent posts covering this.

CoulsdonUK, I suggest you read the latest main article onTJMK for a fair and impartial analysis, including

Charges of criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, incarceration for contempt may begin immediately, before the contempt charge is adjudicated and the sentence decided. Depending on the jurisdiction and the case, the same judge who decided to charge a person with contempt may end up presiding over the contempt proceedings.

 

[platonov]

You appear to know more about it than most of the posters here, including myself.

Could you inform us again about this part of the case? Something about Honor Bound, the book written by Raffaele Sollecito with Andrew Gumbel?

What is at stake in the case, what are the allegations? Who is the plaintiff, and who the defendant?

If the book loses, will all the copies in Italy be burned, like in the good old days of the Fascist/Nazi era?

Steady on old boy (girl)
That kind of stuff gets moved to AAH pretty quickly on this thread.
Ask Samson – or Supernaut – or halides1.

 

[Diocletus]

Any predictions or analysis of Raffaele’s impending court case next week? Apologies if I have missed any recent posts covering this.

I predict a hatchet job.

 

[Desert Fox]

CoulsdonUK, I suggest you read the latest main article onTJMK for a fair and impartial analysis, including

Charges of criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, incarceration for contempt may begin immediately, before the contempt charge is adjudicated and the sentence decided. Depending on the jurisdiction and the case, the same judge who decided to charge a person with contempt may end up presiding over the contempt proceedings.

If they imprison him over this, it might backfire on the Italian judiciary in the long run. To the outside world, it will look exactly what it is, trying to silence critics and destroying free speech.

 

[Samson]

Steady on old boy (girl)
That kind of stuff gets moved to AAH pretty quickly on this thread.
Ask Samson – or Supernaut – or halides1.

platonov, a quick perusal of your "threads started" shows a strong predilection for the twighlight zone. Don't be like Oates

 

[carbonjam72]

Honor Bound's Offending Pages - courtesy of A. Vogt

You appear to know more about it than most of the posters here, including myself.

Could you inform us again about this part of the case? Something about Honor Bound, the book written by Raffaele Sollecito with Andrew Gumbel?

What is at stake in the case, what are the allegations? Who is the plaintiff, and who the defendant?

If the book loses, will all the copies in Italy be burned, like in the good old days of the Fascist/Nazi era?

I think Mach gave a few responses on this in response to my similar question a few pages up-thread. (I'll try to find it)

Also, Andrea Vogt listed the offending pages from honor bound that Dr Mignini is pickled over, and has a web link that will up date on it.

Much as I hate to give the journo-troll any traffic, here is her link:
http://thefreelancedesk.com/feb-2011-modena-buk-literary-festival/

Here's Andrea's "update", such as it was from Oct 8, 2014:

UPDATE October 8, 2014
Raffaele Sollecito and the U.S. based British writer Andrew Gumbel, who was the ghostwriter on Sollecito’s book “Honor Bound,” published by Simon and Schuster, have been ordered to trial in Florence over allegedly false claims about the Perugian prosecutor who secured convictions of Sollecito and Knox in the trial of first instance. The court order, signed by Florence judge Limongi and deposited in the Florence court clerk’s office September 18, sets a preliminary hearing for January 22, 2015 in Florence. It cites the addresses of two different Perugia attorneys as the legal addresses for Sollecito and Gumbel, who are not required to appear in court. The order for “rinvio di giudizio” lists specific offending passages in the preface and on pages 75, 101, 102, 146, 147, 176, 177, 178,n 185 216, 217 and 219-222. The 11-page order is in response to a complaint filed by lawyers on behalf of Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, the original prosecutor in the Perugia case. A number of the claims refer to criminal abuse of office allegations that were thrown out by courts in Italy.
The January 2014 Florence appeal that resulted in confirmation of their convictions was handled by a different prosecutor named Alessandro Crini. Judge Alessandro Nencini, who found the two guilty, issued a lengthy reasoning report (scroll down to May 4 update for details) laying out the evidence and legal arguments that led to his decision. An English-language translation of that court document was released this week and posted online by an group of volunteer translators. It is available here: Nencini English Sentencing Report . (*please note the page 2 disclaimer about the document’s source). I obtained and read the original Italian language court document and having done a first read over this translation, confirm its accuracy.

Those convictions, and the 25 and 28.5 year sentences for Sollecito and Knox, respectively, are up for review by the 5th Section of the Court of Cassation March 25, 2015.

By the time the highest court makes what could be the final ruling on the case, nearly seven and a half years will have passed since Briton Meredith Kercher’s body was found brutally murdered in the flat she shared in Perugia with Amanda Knox, an American student from Seattle studying abroad in Italy. Kercher, from the Coulsdon district of South London, was 21 at the time. Knox and the young man she was dating at the time, Raffaele Sollecito, were arrested in the days following the 2007 murder, then convicted in the first instance, after a lengthy trial, in 2011. That conviction was upheld on appeal in Florence in February of this year. A prior acquittal in Perugia that resulted in Knox’s release and return to the U.S. was overturned and annulled by Italy’s supreme court, which ordered the appeal to be heard in a different venue (Florence). In an ironic twist of how history repeats itself when cases are drawn out over so many years, this Court of Cassation hearing is set for the same exact date (March 25) as the Court of Cassation hearing date in 2013 that resulted in the annulment of Knox’s acquittal. Judicial reform that would shorten the time it takes for cases to get through Italy’s clogged court system is one of the reforms Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has been pressing for in his “Unblock Italy” initiative. Court observers speculate that the more than year-long lag time between the appeal ruling the Court of Cassation review could be due to the fact that no-one is sitting in jail waiting for the Cassation to pronounce a ruling. Knox remains free in the U.S., though still occasionally snapped by paparazzi. Sollecito is still in Italy, but his passports were confiscated. But time has taken its toll on the united front the two showed in their joint defense early on. Over the summer, Italian gossip magazines closely chronicled an uptick in hostilities between the two camps, publishing a series of inflammatory tweets by a few of Knox’s more voracious followers. However the clamorous debates and navel-gazing that heats up the internet, big screen and opinion pages is unlikely to factor into the Cassation review, reportedly to be led by “relatore” Judge Paolo Antonio Bruno, who has been involved in a number of high profile cases in Italy (upholding convictions in the controversial Marta Russo murder and Lavitola bribery cases and ruling in 2012 against two dozen police functionaries for grave violence in the G8 “Diaz” case in Genoa).

 

[Numbers]

Duplicate. See update below.

 

[platonov]

platonov, a quick perusal of your "threads started" shows a strong predilection for the twighlight zone. Don't be like Oates

I’m not sure what that means. Help me out here.

This Oates character – did he declare that a lowlife who stabbed a young woman in the neck while she was restrained was ‘one tough nut to crack’’ and then disappear when his argument/admiration was exposed to scrutiny.

Is that it?

 

[Bill Williams]

That’s a little unkind, and inaccurate to boot. Pointing out that ‘strawmen’ aren’t ‘strawmen’ isn’t being trollish.
Although, to your credit, once the C&P’ing is removed I see you share my taste for brevity.
However, when it comes to a basic understanding of the case or the law – there we part company it seems.

All that aside, It’s good to see that you & Bill are apparently of one mind on this issue.

It is really for others to decide. A strawman argument is to frame "the other side's" argument in a manner that they would not frame it. Then you argue with the strawman you've created.

The difficulty I have with your posts, Platonov, is that I have not seen one, really, that actually frames an issue the way an innocentisti would frame it - my opinion is that this is because you'd rather deal with the silly rhetoric (Britney) etc..

So here's one. Guilters have a dilemma. They claim that Amanda Knox spontaneously accused Lumumba of murder, in a manner that basically caught Ficarra and Napoleoni off guard; and at that point Knox became a suspect.

If I am making a strawman argument here, point it out.

Because there are two other issues. One is that upon Mignini's arrival (which poster Machiavelli here on this thread said Mignini told him was 2 am), "spontaneity" was still an issue, given that Mignini invited Knox to continue making spontaneous statements, and he would act as if only a notary.

Further - backing up to before Knox herself was even in the interrogation room, Raffaele at his interrogation was asked why he was defending "that cow" and "that whore". They demanded that he reconcile her whereabouts of 5 evenings' previous, without giving him the tools to sort out Wednesday from Thursday, him not even aware of what was at stake.

When he was handed his statement to sign, a statement compiled by Chiacchiera (I'm assuming), he complained that the confusion between Wednesday night and Thursday night was still reflected in it. His protestations to change it (with Knox's whereabouts in the balance) were denied.

The police were suspicious of Knox, because of what the police claimed was her unknown whereabouts on Nov 1.

Being suspicious of someone makes them a suspect. Therefore, Knox was denied rights from the git-go, from even before Napoleoni told Ficarra to go out into the hall and re-question her.

If you can make a post dealing with this, then you will be immune from being accused of delving in strawmen arguments, solely for trollish reasons.

 

[Numbers]

Any predictions or analysis of Raffaele’s impending court case next week? Apologies if I have missed any recent posts covering this.

Coulsdon,

To save you the trouble I have just looked at TMJK. They have counted 7 malicious statements (in their opinion, which will probably be identical to that of the Italian court) in just the 20 page Introduction.**** TMJK also says there were another 200 malicious statements in the remainder of the book (not clear to me if this was an exact count or an estimate).

The penalty for alleged malicious comments in a book in Italy is severe.

I predict that indeed the book will be burned.
Anyone in Italy who has read it will be confronted by the Inquisition.
Anyone in Italy who knows anyone who has read the book will have his/her name entered on a list for future reference.

****Urgent ETA: I should have written: 20 malicious statements in the 7 page Introduction!! With such a high maliciousness content, the book will be burned twice!!
ETA2: Another little typo: It turns out that TJMK is the site, not TMJK. But TMJK may also have valuable information.

 

[platonov]

I suspect aliens are also involved.

Coulsdon,

To save you the trouble I have just looked at TMJK. They have counted 7 malicious statements (in their opinion, which will probably be identical to that of the Italian court) in just the 20 page Introduction.**** TMJK also says there were another 200 malicious statements in the remainder of the book (not clear to me if this was an exact count or an estimate).

The penalty for alleged malicious comments in a book in Italy is severe.

I predict that indeed the book will be burned.
Anyone in Italy who has read it will be confronted by the Inquisition.
Anyone in Italy who knows anyone who has read the book will have his/her name entered on a list for future reference.

****Urgent ETA: I should have written: 20 malicious statements in the 7 page Introduction!! With such a high maliciousness content, the book will be burned twice!!

A new conspiracy – this TMJK ? control the Italian judiciary.
Probably best to leave this stuff to the experts.

ps Where do the Nazis (about whom we have mixed feelings it appears) fit in here?

 

[platonov]

He must be a disinfo agent

It is really for others to decide. A strawman argument is to frame "the other side's" argument in a manner that they would not frame it. Then you argue with the strawman you've created.

The difficulty I have with your posts, Platonov, is that I have not seen one, really, that actually frames an issue the way an innocentisti would frame it - my opinion is that this is because you'd rather deal with the silly rhetoric (Britney) etc..

So here's one. Guilters have a dilemma. They claim that Amanda Knox spontaneously accused Lumumba of murder, in a manner that basically caught Ficarra and Napoleoni off guard; and at that point Knox became a suspect.

If I am making a strawman argument here, point it out.

Because there are two other issues. One is that upon Mignini's arrival (which poster Machiavelli here on this thread said Mignini told him was 2 am), "spontaneity" was still an issue, given that Mignini invited Knox to continue making spontaneous statements, and he would act as if only a notary.

Further - backing up to before Knox herself was even in the interrogation room, Raffaele at his interrogation was asked why he was defending "that cow" and "that whore". They demanded that he reconcile her whereabouts of 5 evenings' previous, without giving him the tools to sort out Wednesday from Thursday, him not even aware of what was at stake.

When he was handed his statement to sign, a statement compiled by Chiacchiera (I'm assuming), he complained that the confusion between Wednesday night and Thursday night was still reflected in it. His protestations to change it (with Knox's whereabouts in the balance) were denied.

The police were suspicious of Knox, because of what the police claimed was her unknown whereabouts on Nov 1.

Being suspicious of someone makes them a suspect. Therefore, Knox was denied rights from the git-go, from even before Napoleoni told Ficarra to go out into the hall and re-question her.

If you can make a post dealing with this, then you will be immune from being accused of delving in strawmen arguments, solely for trollish reasons.

Oh, Bill.

Bill, Bill, Bill.

Just look up this page - no's 7 & 8.

Seriously

 

[Machiavelli]

Saul Kassin's article on internalized false confessions rebuts the notion that the pseudo-incident must be in the distant past. He goes through both cases (including Billy Wayne Cope) and also experiments: "Overall, 69% of all subjects signed the confession, 28% internalized guilt, and 9% manufactured details to support their newly created false beliefs."

As you pass by there, have a look also at things that Kassin has written before; like the fact that ionterrogation lenght is an absolute key factor, and "nobody confesses falsely in an hour" (hardly Kassin found one of those suspects having had an interrogation shorter than 14 hours).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-false-confession
Knox "confessed" after 2.5 hours; not in the way Kassin describes it (but in the way Donnino describes the event); and just after she was told Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi.
But in fact, she did not confess: she accused an innocent black man, also of sexual violence (which she did not know about), while she attempted to cut for herself an innocent role.
We could also point out many other things Kassin previously said, for example that a claim of internalized false confession is very tempting for a guilty subject, since it's typically seen as a possiblity of an easy way out for a defendant seeking to withdraw from a confession.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh, Bill.

Bill, Bill, Bill.

Just look up this page - no's 7 & 8.

Seriously

The only two choices are you don't understand the concept, or your presence here is to continually divert.

Please take a crack at the guilters' dilemma.

 

[Bill Williams]

As you pass by there, have a look also at things that Kassin has written before; like the fact that ionterrogation lenght is an absolute key factor, and "nobody confesses falsely in an hour" (hardly Kassin found one of those suspects having had an interrogation shorter than 14 hours).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-false-confession
Knox "confessed" after 2.5 hours; not in the way Kassin describes it (but in the way Donnino describes the event); and just after she was told Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi.
But in fact, she did not confess: she accused an innocent black man, also of sexual violence (which she did not know about), while she attempted to cut for herself an innocent role.
We could also point out many other things Kassin previously said, for example that a claim of internalized false confession is very tempting for a guilty subject, since it's typically seen as a possiblity of an easy way out for a defendant seeking to withdraw from a confession.

None of what you claim applies to Knox. As early as the third memorandum she was "withdrawing from a confession".

We've been around this block 100s of times.

Perhaps you can answer this: If "Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi", why was she not considered a suspect at that point?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
ps Where do the Nazis (about whom we have mixed feelings it appears) fit in here?

Makes a little salad mix: the "Fascist/Nazi" burning book copies in Italy (actually the fascists never made stakes of book copies in Italy, but it's a detail).