Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

When PGP such as Machiavelli constantly accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying the following should be remembered :-

• Machiavelli constantly lies on this forum. These lies include Amanda having sexual relations with drug dealers and evidence of a clean up.

You deny the documented fact that Amanda Knox had phone contact with drug dealers and had sexual contact with at least 1 of them?

• The prosecution lied on a massive scale. PGP slavishly support and defend the prosecution

.

In the small pro-Knox supporters conspirational minds.

• Books and documentaries on the case often contain falsehoods some of which are detailed here http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-media-lies/ . The PGP never complain about these falsehoods. John Kercher's book Meredith which was full of falsehoods received glowing 5 star reviews on Amazon by the PGP and slavish praise was heaped on John Kercher.

The authors of books and documentaries are not witnesses or suspects in murder cases.
Don't forget Bachrac, Dempsey, Sfarzo and all the US mainstream media btw.

• Rudy lied he had a date with Meredith and someone else came into the cottage to attack Meredith. The PGP never condemn Rudy for lying and many see Rudy as a hero.

Don't miss an opportunity to state some BS.

• The PGP have set up a website themurderofmeredithkercher.com which was full of falsehoods

It is full of authentic trial documents actually.

In view of the above it is hypocritical for the PGP to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when they lie themselves or condone the lies of others.

Your looks like a justification, the kind: others lie, so it's good for Knox and Sillecito to lie. Interesting implicit admission that they are liars.

 

[Machiavelli]

"Riti"

NO ritual killing theories in prosecution arguments.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is NO "ritual killing theory". I repeat - can you hear me? - there was NO ritual killing theory, there has never been one. The prosecution theory has never been about a premeditated murder. Speculation about Halloween only referred to the theme of the home "little party" sex game.

Have you read page 46 and page 49 of Mignini's closing to Micheli?

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Mignini-Closing.pdf

Tell the good readers here again, Machiavelli, that there never was a ritualistic killing theory.

And it must be higlighted that, in any case, for individuals morbidly attracted by mingling sex and violence, it is far from being unlikely the connection of such a project with the Halloween tradition, because, if it is true that the night between October 31 and November 1st had passed (and Meredith had spent it with her fellow countrywomen), it is as much true that, at about 9 pm on November 1st and for the following three hours, it was still All Saints’ Day and that what had not been done on the night of the eve of All Saints’ Day [i.e. Halloween’s night] could be realized on the night between the latter and the Day of the Deads.”​

Moreover the three, and particularly Sollecito, were, all of them, addicted to the erotic-homicidal “cultural” suggestions we have talked about and that night was still All Saints’ Day, the catholic “heir” to Samhain, the celtic New Year’s Day, with all the implications having their focus on the eve of the celebration, that is on the night between October 31 and November 1st.​

Do you care to revise your point of view, Machiavelli, or am I still pushing a strawman argument???

In my view, what Mignini pushes above is referred to by Micheli as "a fantasy". Do you care to deny Micheli said that?

 

[Machiavelli]

Why then did Micheli have to refer to it as a fantasy? Even the press sympathetic to Mignini interpreted it as a rebuke to him.

Now your position seems to be that he never advanced it. Good for you. This is spoken as-if a lawyer who is now trying to say that a point lost, was a point never made to begin with.

(...)

Maybe you forgot about the old times when you were asserting that Mignini pushed a satanic ritual killing theory, and you miserably failed to find a proof of that. All what you had was the Halloween paragraph from the prosecution arguments, those arguments where Mignini argued about a sex game gone wrong theory (not a ritualistic nor premeditated murder).

 

[Numbers]

Dvorski v Croatia will be heard by the ECHR Grand Chamber on 21 Jan 2015.

The ECHR home page in the box which displays this information has a link to a fact sheet with summaries provided by the Registry of some of the interrogation-without-lawyer cases the ECHR has judged.

1. Some posters have claimed that Ms. Knox was not a suspect but a witness during her interrogation by police, and later "interview" by the prosecutor, on Nov. 5/6, 2007, and therefore was not entitled to a lawyer. They also maintain that the statement she wrote on her own volition on Nov. 6 and 7, 2007, which indicated her previous statements were unreliable, are also usable as evidence to convict her.

2. There are at least two ECHR cases of particular interest regarding the views summarized in paragraph 1. These cases are Brusco v. France 1466/07 and Dayanan v. Turkey 7377/03. Below are summaries copied from the Registry document.

Brusco v. France
The applicant, who was suspected of having masterminded an aggression, was taken into police custody and questioned as a witness, after being made to swear to tell the truth.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself) of the Convention. According to the Court, the applicant was not a mere witness but a person “charged with a criminal offence”, and as such should have had the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer until his 20th hour in police custody. Had a lawyer been present, he would have been able to inform the applicant of his right to remain silent.


Dayanan v. Turkey
The applicant, who was charged with, and subsequently convicted of, being a Hezbollah member, did not have the assistance of a lawyer while he was in police custody.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with 6 § 1 of the Convention. It found that that restriction (which was systematic, as it was prescribed by the relevant provisions of Turkish law) of the right of an individual deprived of his liberty to have access to a lawyer was sufficient for it to be able to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, even though the applicant had remained silent while in police custody.

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe you forgot about the old times when you were asserting that Mignini pushed a satanic ritual killing theory, and you miserably failed to find a proof of that. All what you had was the Halloween paragraph from the prosecution arguments, those arguments where Mignini argued about a sex game gone wrong theory (not a ritualistic nor premeditated murder).

What I asserted was that John Kercher wrote in his book, that he'd been told by Mignini that this case was tinged with Satanism. I also asserted that Barbie Nadeau reported in her book that Manuela Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with the Satanism angle.

Take up your complaint with Mr. Kercher and with Ms. Nadeau. If you believe they have said these things without proof, take it up with them!

There is also this from a conference Mignini spoke at:

 

[Machiavelli]

Have you read page 46 and page 49 of Mignini's closing to Micheli?

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Mignini-Closing.pdf

Tell the good readers here again, Machiavelli, that there never was a ritualistic killing theory.

​

​

Do you care to revise your point of view, Machiavelli, or am I still pushing a strawman argument???

In my view, what Mignini pushes above is referred to by Micheli as "a fantasy". Do you care to deny Micheli said that?

You are pushing a straw mam argument, of course you are, and my position is adamant, and unchanged. I know well the content if the 2008 closing argument and well the Micheli "fantasy" phrase: nothing supports your straw man argument.
What is the "project" Mignini refers to in the Halliween paragraph? Is it a ritualistic killing? No, it is not. It is a sex game, it was a "festino", a little game, a little party; the killing was unpremeditated.

 

[Numbers]

.....

Your looks like a justification, the kind: others lie, so it's good for Knox and Sillecito to lie. Interesting implicit admission that they are liars.

I won't bother to deal with your other absurd statements, but I feel compelled to defend the English language against your abuse of meaning and logic.

Welshman wrote:

In view of the above it is hypocritical for the PGP to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when they lie themselves or condone the lies of others.

That statement does not have any implicit admission whatsoever that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are not telling the truth.

You, Mach, are choosing to place this meaning into Welshman's statement purely arbitrarily. That may fit with your agenda of hatred, but it has no source in the words or implication of the statement.

 

[Machiavelli]

What I asserted was that John Kercher wrote in his book, that he'd been told by Mignini that this case was tinged with Satanism. I also asserted that Barbie Nadeau reported in her book that Manuela Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with the Satanism angle.

Take up your complaint with Mr. Kercher and with Ms. Nadeau. If you believe they have said these things without proof, take it up with them!

There is also this from a conference Mignini spoke at:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971526af3cd3ec23.jpg[/qimg]

So you are in love with straw men. You want to quote John Kercher? Then quote him (I don't see any quote). What you are unable to quote is a closing argument from a trial paper that is not contrary to you theory: Mignini's arguments are pushing a charge of non premeditated murder, not a ritualistic murder; they argue about a sex gam gone wrong, not about a ritual killing. Yes there are some undue speculations about the possible ritualistic theme of the party and the night chosen, expressed in a doubting form as mere possibility ("it is not unrealistic..."), which Micheli dismissed calling them fantasies (but Micheli also acknowledged that the same prosecution had already dropped those speculations), but the word "ritual" is never used, nor the word "satanic", even less the concept of "ritual killing". The theory is about a sex game gone wrong, during which some argument or violent behavior burst out, getting out of control, and the improbable ritualistic elements attached are only speculations about the possible theme of the original idea about the sexual meeting ("festino"). They are quite out of place, and - in my opinion - they only express an attempt by a well-educated person from a distant generation to "make sense" of psychologies and behaviours - but they are obviously completely irrelevant to the scenario, which is about a non premeditated murder that occurs within the context of some argument or aggressive behavior in which there was a sexual element. That was the theory and has never changed.

Your picture about the conference organized by the magazine "Delitti & Misteri" (theme-focused on the "Bestie di Satana" murders) shows your intent to use straw men. You seem to try to take advantage from not talking about what Mignini said in that conference. In fact Mignini said he never had experience of Satanic-themed crimes, except once (not one of those known cases), albeit they may exist (he had kind of layman skeptical attitude). He debunked the existence of satanic themed motives on cases that were rumored about (such as the Foligno Monster murders, where there was no satanic motive but the press was titillating with tho idea).

 

[Bill Williams]

So you are in love with straw men. You want to quote John Kercher? Then quote him (I don't see any quote). What you are unable to quote is a closing argument from a trial paper that is not contrary to you theory: Mignini's arguments are pushing a charge of non premeditated murder, not a ritualistic murder; they argue about a sex gam gone wrong, not about a ritual killing. Yes there are some undue speculations about the possible ritualistic theme of the party and the night chosen, expressed in a doubting form as mere possibility ("it is not unrealistic..."), which Micheli dismissed calling them fantasies (but Micheli also acknowledged that the same prosecution had already dropped those speculations), but the word "ritual" is never used, nor the word "satanic", even less the concept of "ritual killing". The theory is about a sex game gone wrong, during which some argument or violent behavior burst out, getting out of control, and the improbable ritualistic elements attached are only speculations about the possible theme of the original idea about the sexual meeting ("festino"). They are quite out of place, and - in my opinion - they only express an attempt by a well-educated person from a distant generation to "make sense" of psychologies and behaviours - but they are obviously completely irrelevant to the scenario, which is about a non premeditated murder that occurs within the context of some argument or aggressive behavior in which there was a sexual element. That was the theory and has never changed.

Your picture about the conference organized by the magazine "Delitti & Misteri" (theme-focused on the "Bestie di Satana" murders) shows your intent to use straw men. You seem to try to take advantage from not talking about what Mignini said in that conference. In fact Mignini said he never had experience of Satanic-themed crimes, except once (not one of those known cases), albeit they may exist (he had kind of layman skeptical attitude). He debunked the existence of satanic themed motives on cases that were rumored about (such as the Foligno Monster murders, where there was no satanic motive but the press was titillating with tho idea).

Machiavelli - people reading all this can choose for themselves. You have provided a lot of text - food for thought, as we say here. Still you also have provided no text either. So there we are.

My view is this - you are very sensitive to this accusation, and no wonder. Your intent is to vigourously refute the claims, because even you recognize how damaging they are. But once again, you need to refute it to the right people - to Mr. Kercher and to Barbie Nadeau.

Perhaps you should call Nadeau, "an approximate reporter". That was your assessment of her last time we went around this.

 

[Machiavelli]

I won't bother to deal with your other absurd statements, but I feel compelled to defend the English language against your abuse of meaning and logic.

Welshman wrote:


That statement does not have any implicit admission whatsoever that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are not telling the truth.

You, Mach, are choosing to place this meaning into Welshman's statement purely arbitrarily. That may fit with your agenda of hatred, but it has no source in the words or implication of the statement.

Welshman accused me of lying all the time. His arguments were stuffed with straw men and strains. He is not in a good position to complain, and not the best cause for advocates.

 

[Bill Williams]

Welshman accused me of lying all the time. His arguments were stuffed with straw men and strains. He is not in a good position to complain, and not the best cause for advocates.

Machiavelli - you do not put "advocates" on to a spectrum with good ones at one end and bad ones at the other. You believe all advocates for Sollecito and Knox are criminals, liars, and erect strawmen.

I now regret introducing the term to you, because you do not know what it means.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - people reading all this can choose for themselves. You have provided a lot of text - food for thought, as we say here. Still you also have provided no text either. So there we are.

My view is this - you are very sensitive to this accusation, and no wonder. Your intent is to vigourously refute the claims, because even you recognize how damaging they are. But once again, you need to refute it to the right people - to Mr. Kercher and to Barbie Nadeau.

Perhaps you should call Nadeau, "an approximate reporter". That was your assessment of her last time we went around this.

I don't need to refute anything. It is refuted by the very same trial papers that you quote by the way. It is not the person who denies, who asserts is the one who needs to prove what he says.
It's time you stop with the trite childish arguments that consists in using Nadeau and Kercher as "human shields". It's childish and dishonest: you should prove what you say, not try to use others, and face the fact that you can't back your assertions.

I'll add that I am equally sensitive to all the pro- Knox supporters "myths", those false postulates of their conspiracy theory.

 

[Bill Williams]

It looks like there was an Italian police investigation into the TJMK/PMF hate groups. Other than this, I don't know anything about it.

Machiavelli:

On another matter.... do you know what this is about?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't need to refute anything. It is refuted by the very same trial papers that you quote by the way. It is not the person who denies, who asserts is the one who needs to prove what he says.
It's time you stop with the trite childish arguments that consists in using Nadeau and Kercher as "human shields". It's childish and dishonest: you should prove what you say, not try to use others, and face the fact that you can't back your assertions.

I'll add that I am equally sensitive to all the pro- Knox supporters "myths", those false postulates of their conspiracy theory.

Machiavelli, calm down.

Wow. Your posts are riddled with assertions, and rarely provide anything to back them up.

As opposed to:

“Ms. Nadeau herself reported (Angel Face, p. 158) that Mignini wanted to reintroduce the Satanic ritual, but Comodi blocked this …”

Look it up.

 

[carbonjam72]

None of this says much. There's, apparently, lots of room below where the .jpg ends at the bottom.

Still, when people post about Masonic conspiracies and knowing the exact amount which Judge Hellmann was bribed with...... this pic is just too good to be true from this side of the fence.

My bet is if the blanked out parts were revealed it would not be as sinister....

It occurred to me that maybe the Sollecito's filed a complaint for defamation/slander/calunnia/libel, or whatever the hell they call it, I'm dizzy with this already. Italians have more words for insulting their honor than Eskimos have for snow.

Mach suggested that anyone can file a complaint, and that the police are obligated to investigate, so perhaps its just a formality.

But my more conspiracy minded side wants to believe that somebody in the justice department is preparing the stage for potential prosecutions after they acquit Amanda and Raf. After all, the daily stream of hate filled lies and slanders on those sites really ought to be considered criminal acts, imo.

 

[codyjuneau]

It looks like there was an Italian police investigation into the TJMK/PMF hate groups. Other than this, I don't know anything about it.

Boy is that interesting! Especially as that report must have been generated after the split of PMF in the Spring of '11. Why would the Polizia di Stato be looking into PMF and TJMK for a case they had investigated 3.5 years before and which they were done with in court for more than a year?

.
Maybe the tech guy noticed that they were getting a boat load of Internet traffic between the police station and those sites.

Cody
.

 

[carbonjam72]

.
Maybe the tech guy noticed that they were getting a boat load of Internet traffic between the police station and those sites.

Cody
.

Am I wrong, or could the initials signature in the upper right hand corner under P.M Cancelere, kind of look like a G..M.. ?

 

[Desert Fox]

.
Maybe the tech guy noticed that they were getting a boat load of Internet traffic between the police station and those sites.

As long as they stay away from hard drives. . . .

 

[codyjuneau]

Am I wrong, or could the initials signature in the upper right hand corner under P.M Cancelere, kind of look like a G..M.. ?

.
I have no idea CJ.

Do you have a sample of what you think it might match?

Cody
.