Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Did Barbie change the title? It's now called, "Amanda Knox found someone to marry".

Written in the same tone. Offensive, that is.

Where does Barbie's malice come from? And why is the Daily Best continuing to give her a platform?

Is Tina Brown, our newly fellow American, and former Brit, just showing off for her friends?

I wish/hope, someday, Amanda sues them all. Or better yet, the government does on her behalf. Wouldn't that be a breadth of fresh air?

Even worse, the sidebar link is entitled "Foxy Knoxy found someone to marry". Though it's not unlikely that these headlines might have been concocted by a sub-editor (or equivalent) at the Daily Beast, rather than by Nadeau herself.

I think everyone should bear in mind that a) Nadeau has pinned her colours to the mast in her "reportage" on this case, b) a story like this is good click-bait, and c) the Daily Beast is a urine-poor online news resource that is unlikely to last well beyond next year as a viable entity. That is why her piece appears there......

 

[LondonJohn]

But Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito) did go to jail. In fact, they were remanded in custody from the moment of their arrests and remain locked up for four years. I don't get it. Maybe that's why she deleted it.

You'd think that living in Italy and having a reasonable understanding of the cases involved, she would understand the relative relevance of a) preventive detention, and b) acquittal on first appeal.

That Vogt is clearly here linking the incarceration status of Knox and Schettino vs Guede explicitly to their ethnicity (i.e. whites get to stay out of prison, while blacks get locked up) is a disgrace. She has no right to call herself a balanced reportage journalist. She's no better than a partisan hack, and one with a very poor moral compass to boot. But then, many of us have long known that....

 

[LondonJohn]

It's also very interesting that she chose to use Knox as her comparator, and not Sollecito - who would be more appropriate for her nasty little racist theory since he too is an Italian citizen who's living in Italy. But I think many people can probably figure out why she chose to focus on Knox.....

 

[carbonjam72]

No, it is still there in the subtitle part of the article (above the main heading).

Hi CH,

I must have missed that part, or it wasn't there when I looked.

btw, have you ever expressed an opinion on whether you believe Amanda and Raf had anything to do with this crime, or know more than they have revealed?

I'd be curious to know your thoughts...

 

[carbonjam72]

Even worse, the sidebar link is entitled "Foxy Knoxy found someone to marry". Though it's not unlikely that these headlines might have been concocted by a sub-editor (or equivalent) at the Daily Beast, rather than by Nadeau herself.

I think everyone should bear in mind that a) Nadeau has pinned her colours to the mast in her "reportage" on this case, b) a story like this is good click-bait, and c) the Daily Beast is a urine-poor online news resource that is unlikely to last well beyond next year as a viable entity. That is why her piece appears there......

I'm fascinated by Tina Brown's influence, if any. The fact that she's a Brit, and wrote a forward in Barbie's smear book (and what a forward it was!), and is connected to both the Daily Beast and Newsweek, and Barbie writes for both.

I'm intrigued by her malfeasance. I personally believe her US citizenship should be rescinded over her participation, and use of her position to slander and innocent person, and US citizen. We don't let Nazi's become US citizens, at least not if we can help it (but it can happen). Its so bad, there really ought to be some consequence for her reckless malice. Nadeau I suppose we're stuck with. But we really shouldn't have to take this crap from an interloper, imo.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A wedding to die for

Did Barbie change the title? It's now called, "Amanda Knox found someone to marry".

The words (A wedding to die for) are in red, and inasmuch as they are above the title, maybe I should have called this phrase a supertitle, as opposed to a subtitle. The choice of this phrase is bad manners. It is also bad English to put a preposition at the end of a phrase. "A Wedding for which to die" would at least be grammatically correct, even if equally snarky. Perhaps Ms. Nadeau would have been OK with Ms. Knox serving a prison term then Mr. Sutherland's proposing marriage afterward. In her mind that would have been a proposition to end a murder sentence with.

 

[platonov]

It happens

I copy and paste for you this comment that I posted on TJMK and PMF (some points about Sollecito’s performance at Porta a Porta):


1. About the question: what does he say on whether Knox went out that evening. Did he actually say that?
I listened again to the interview, and what I can say is: if you listen carefully, you can understand he does not state Knox went out that night, but what happens is Bruno Vespa does not understand correctly what he means (but who would?) and he understands that he is talking about the night while he probably talks about the morning. When Sollecito says “Knox went out” and “she came back”, and then soon after he says “she came back in the morning”, Bruno Vespa understands that he is talking about the night; I think most likely Sollecito in his broken speech refers to what she did in the morning, but this is not clear at all. Bruno Vespa asks him more than once to be more precise, whether he is talking about the night; Sollecito also apparently doesn’t get the questions entirely and mixes up topics of when she came back and went out at night and what she did in the morning. He mixes up also Vespa’s questions when Vespa seems to point out he means a different topic, so you don’t always understand what he is taking about and not everything is really clear. But I tend to assume he says that he doesn’t know where Amanda was, rather than stating that “she was out” during the evening. However we should note point 2.

2. Something I found remarkable: Sollecito cites multiple times his interrogation before the GIP Claudia Matteini. He claims what he says that interrogation is his version, it seems that he stands by it. I find this a remarkable point, since in that questioning he states some things, including that Amanda went out during the evening.
<snip>

It’s even weirder than that Mach.
Nencini ruled that RS’s defence’s submission before Massei* regarding the Dec 8th GIP hearing rendered it inadmissible - that being the point of said submission – when laying out the background to his reasons for denying the request to split the defence.
Not that it makes much difference in light of the bigger picture – or the point you made.

*I was imprecise [wrong even ] in an earlier post – I incorrectly attributed the legal reason for this to the April 2008 Cassation submission. That was obviously not insignificant from a practical viewpoint & was a signpost to RS’s trial [Massei] disposition but legally it didn’t affect the Matteini stuff IIUC

If I have this wrong you the lawyers hereabouts will no doubt correct me

 

[platonov]

Strange

Why was the thread so quiet earlier??

One might have thought that Amanda’s marriage announcement would have occasioned an outpouring of joy from her supporters.

 

[Desert Fox]

Would it be possible to post the photos you played around with? I can't tell either way from the photo posted (from La Strada) whether the door is open or closed. The photo is taken from an odd angle and I am not sure if a zoom lens was employed in the taking of the photo. Sometimes I think I can see a floor and bottom of wall and sometimes I think I just see blurs and artifacts.

It took me a few minutes and shrunk the picture just a bit. . . .Still, I think it is clear
All I did was a bit of gamma correction (edit: Other than reduce the size of course)

 

[carbonjam72]

It took me a few minutes and shrunk the picture just a bit. . . .Still, I think it is clear
All I did was a bit of gamma correction

[qimg]http://www.kitsune.addr.com/images/Perugia_%20front_door-gamma_altered.jpg[/qimg]

That's much better, I can see the far wall inside the door. Now, by any chance is there a photo handy from the inside looking out, so as to see the walls by the front door from an inside view.

Give me that shot, and I'm satisfied the door was in fact open in that picture.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's much better, I can see the far wall inside the door. Now, by any chance is there a photo handy from the inside looking out, so as to see the walls by the front door from an inside view.

Give me that shot, and I'm satisfied the door was in fact open in that picture.

Another thing that's worthy of examination is the area where the printed A4 notice saying "Locale Sottoposto a Sequestro" has been taped. That metal gate hinges on the left of the doorway (as seen from the outside), and it looks almost certain that the notice is covering over the fixing/locking point on the right of the doorway when the gate is shut. It looks very possible that the gate hasn't actually been locked shut, but that rather it is the notice and the tape around it that is keeping the gate closed to the right of the doorway.

Note the near-comical way in which by mid-December there has been a ludicrous amount of packing tape added around the notice. I believe that this may be the "crack" investigators' way of providing added "security" - "nobody will be able to get through this much packing tape, so hopefully they won't notice that this gate isn't actually locked shut underneath all this tape"

 

[Machiavelli]

It’s even weirder than that Mach.
Nencini ruled that RS’s defence’s submission before Massei* regarding the Dec 8th GIP hearing rendered it inadmissible - that being the point of said submission – when laying out the background to his reasons for denying the request to split the defence.
Not that it makes much difference in light of the bigger picture – or the point you made.

*I was imprecise [wrong even ] in an earlier post – I incorrectly attributed the legal reason for this to the April 2008 Cassation submission. That was obviously not insignificant from a practical viewpoint & was a signpost to RS’s trial [Massei] disposition but legally it didn’t affect the Matteini stuff IIUC

If I have this wrong you the lawyers hereabouts will no doubt correct me

Yes I think you are correct (except for the fact that it was a Nov. 9th 2007 hearing), I recall it as a Massei decision on a defence instance.

If Raffaele Sollecito demanded Nencini to re-admit the GIP hearing and to be interrogated himself, he would have obtained that, and based on that Nencini could have satisfied in practice the defence request of splitting the positions. By offering Nencini a different version, different from that of Amanda Knox, and be cross questioned on it, and if that version was credible or anyway contained significant element, by doing this factually Sollecito would have opened the door to a separation of the evidence sets and roles.

 

[Machiavelli]

She also ignored that Guede chose the fast track trial, which is essentially equivalent to pleading guilty.

A fast track trial is not equivalent to pleading guilty.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is one state which allows polygraphs, another state that allows jurors to ask questions in court, and other than only needs ten out of twelve for guilt.

On the captain, he is an Italian older white male, they will likely find some way of getting him to avoid a jail sentence. I think that is one of the secrets of the Italian legal system.

One example, if I read it right, was that with the CIA kidnapping, one of the big wig Italian intelligence officers got off while a junior female officer has been imprisoned.

This is an overt attempt to make up prejudicial rationalizations.

 

[Strozzi]

I may have posted info on this before, but as a reminder:

False confession to the judicial authorities is a crime in Italy, called "autocalunnia".
Punishment if convicted for this crime is, IIRC, one to three years imprisonment.

So one who is coercively interrogated in Italy and is compliant or otherwise makes a (false) statement against one's self or another (that the police seek through the interrogation) will be at risk of being convicted of something.

Would that make the police collaborators of the false confession?
If the police steered a confused person to it and insisted to the person that she was in fact there but just doesn't remember it because she is traumatized, would that make the police and police translator-mediator architects of the autocalunnia?

ETA: allow me to add, so all are aware, that Amanda insisted throughout 1+ hours of police interrogation (until police translator Donino arrived) that she was at her boyfriend's flat that evening/night. The police did not like Amanda's denials because it did not fit their hypothesis of the crime, and in order to get Amanda to change her statement of facts to a scenario that fit their hypothesis, police interpreter Donino had to convince Amanda that she was in fact there at the cottage even though Amanda did not remember being there. To persuade Amanda how that could be when Amanda had no memory of being at the cottage, Donino had to convince Amanda that her memory was not working - that she was traumaticized and did not remember being present at the cottage.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree, and even just human nature in general outsiders, inexperienced common folk would look for direction from the Judges and those in the system.

IN Italy even worse because everyone has to live in fear if they say anything bad about the system they can be tossed in prison, and if you say they roughed you up or anything, they can add a 6Yr prison term for Crap-ullunia.

Utter delusional BS

 

[Machiavelli]

I may have posted info on this before, but as a reminder:

False confession to the judicial authorities is a crime in Italy, called "autocalunnia".
Punishment if convicted for this crime is, IIRC, one to three years imprisonment.

So one who is coercively interrogated in Italy and is compliant or otherwise makes a (false) statement against one's self or another (that the police seek through the interrogation) will be at risk of being convicted of something.

If the testimony or placing of evidence is malicious (done in full consciousness and will).
Not if it's coerced lying or made in good faith (not knowing it was false).

 

[Machiavelli]

Would that make the police collaborators of the false confession?
If the police steered a confused person to it and insisted to the person that she was in fact there but just doesn't remember it because she is traumatized, would that make the police and police translator-mediator architects of the autocalunnia?

No. Impossible. Autocalunnia means the witness is malicious, and able to understand and will.

 

[carbonjam72]

If the testimony or placing of evidence is malicious (done in full consciousness and will).
Not if it's coerced lying or made in good faith (not knowing it was false).

Originally Posted by Strozzi
Would that make the police collaborators of the false confession?
If the police steered a confused person to it and insisted to the person that she was in fact there but just doesn't remember it because she is traumatized, would that make the police and police translator-mediator architects of the autocalunnia?
MACH: No. Impossible. Autocalunnia means the witness is malicious, and able to understand and will.

Sounds like Mach has made the argument that Amanda's conviction for calunnia should be reversed.

I know Mach that is not your intent, but it is nonetheless the implication of your argument.

It will be interesting to see if the ECHR agrees with Mach's position. How great would that be?

 

[Kaosium]

Utter delusional BS

Between the Monster of Florence case and this one, more than 40 people had 'investigations' started and/or charges filed on them at the behest of Mignini. In this case that included Amanda's parents and five members of Raffaele's family as well as two Telenorba journalists, Joe Cottonwood, Steve Shea, Frank Sfarzo, Giangavino Sulas and Umberto Brindani of Oggi as well as Fransesca Bene. Some of them are detailed here, others can be found here and some of the ones from the Monster of Florence case here.

Mignini is delusional.