Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

Things have hotted up, I see. PMF people upset with Nina Burleigh and the Daily Mail and McCall keeps getting spanked by thoughtful over the postale police and the 112 calls. There's nothing like a civil war. The guilters' future is just that - perpetual civil war.

As many of us have analysed - sources suggest an extradition request will not be made in the event of a confirmation. That will upset them even more.

They're probably thinking the Daily Mail has pulled a Brutus on them, but if so they misunderstand that paper's agenda. The DM is solely interested in sales / clicks and has no loyalty or firm position on anything. They will publish anything at all about Amanda Knox, because it's pure clickbait.

 

[Diocletus]

Things have hotted up, I see. PMF people upset with Nina Burleigh and the Daily Mail and McCall keeps getting spanked by thoughtful over the postale police and the 112 calls. There's nothing like a civil war. The guilters' future is just that - perpetual civil war.

As many of us have analysed - sources suggest an extradition request will not be made in the event of a confirmation. That will upset them even more.

There was another good one from McCall yesterday. He said that Amanda's ECHR application wouldn't be admitted, but if it is, she would have a decent case for denial of counsel, but even if she wins that, she will only get a few thousand E, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Vibio]

Oh dear Lord... from that Newsweek article:

"The scene in Perugia played out like a colorized version of that harrowing mob scene in Frankenstein—outraged villagers storming the castle to slay the monster who has been terrorizing them. But this bogeyman was a pretty American exchange student sometimes known as Foxy Knoxy, and the villagers were modern-day Italians whipped to a froth by tabloid headlines about resplendent Satanic rituals and depraved sex."

ROTFLMAO.

Will SOMEONE please post these Italian "tabloids" (what ever they may be) that printed such covers? Would someone at least NAME the Italian "tabloids"?

SOMEONE must have saved them...someone must have kept a record of them.... they MUST be on the internet somewhere.

Articles and covers that whipped "the villagers into a froth" !! (LOL I'm dying)

And would someone name the names of the Italian journalists that wrote such stories?

I can't wait to see them.

Thanks in advance.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

There was another good one from McCall yesterday. He said that Amanda's ECHR application wouldn't be admitted, but if it is, she would have a decent case for denial of counsel, but even if she wins that, she will only get a few thousand E, so it doesn't matter.

Yea about that ECHR application, I assume nothing has happened either way? As I said a few months ago I couldn’t see it passing admissibility and judgement before 25th March.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh dear Lord... from that Newsweek article:

"The scene in Perugia played out like a colorized version of that harrowing mob scene in Frankenstein—outraged villagers storming the castle to slay the monster who has been terrorizing them. But this bogeyman was a pretty American exchange student sometimes known as Foxy Knoxy, and the villagers were modern-day Italians whipped to a froth by tabloid headlines about resplendent Satanic rituals and depraved sex."

ROTFLMAO.

Will SOMEONE please post these Italian "tabloids" (what ever they may be) that printed such covers? Would someone at least NAME the Italian "tabloids"?

SOMEONE must have saved them...someone must have kept a record of them.... they MUST be on the internet somewhere.

Articles and covers that whipped "the villagers into a froth" !! (LOL I'm dying)

And would someone name the names of the Italian journalists that wrote such stories?

I can't wait to see them.

Thanks in advance.

Don't know. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or, said another way, what comes around goes around.

 

[Diocletus]

Yea about that ECHR application, I assume nothing has happened either way? As I said a few months ago I couldn’t see it passing admissibility and judgement before 25th March.

Well, everyone knew it wouldn't get to judgment.

As to admissibility . . . it might or might not be over that hurdle.

 

[sept79]

This is from Nencini appeal trial juror Genny Ballerini:

"The jurors constructed a timeline with mobile phone records and statements from the witnesses that showed how the pair could have been at the murder scene at the time of death, but she questioned whether it was sufficient proof to condemn them.

She was equally unconvinced by attempts to portray the pair as bad characters. Prosecutors had painted Amanda as troublesome because she once received a fine from police for being disorderly. 'This seemed to me, excuse me, more nonsense,' she told the weekly magazine."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder.html#ixzz3Uq9viKXC


This is the fault of the judiciary. These jurors aren't even getting instruction on basic points of law. What an epic screw-up.

It's hard for me to process that a noise ticket for a university student party was actually brought into this trial! Wow!

 

[Diocletus]

It's hard for me to process that a noise ticket for a university student party was actually brought into this trial! Wow!

Not only that, but I believe it was proved via a tabloid.

 

[NancyS]

It's hard for me to process that a noise ticket for a university student party was actually brought into this trial! Wow!

She also bought pants and ate pizza

 

[Kauffer]

BARD

The Italian, who was speaking to the country's Oggi magazine, said: "I certainly had many doubts about the guilt of the two young people.

"I was not convinced of their innocence but I thought and I said to the others as well: ‘The evidence that we have is not sufficient to inflict all these years in prison'.
“There was not enough, in my opinion, to justify such a heavy sentence: questionable proof, bizarre testimony and flimsy evidence."

Here's the thing. Mrs Ballerini doesn't understand "Beyond a reasonable doubt". She doesn't understand that where you don't have that level of proof, you cannot convict and you cannot sentence a defendant to any term of imprisonment.

I would bet that if you asked this juror what should have happened, she would probably argue, based on her contention that she wasn't "convinced of their innocence" that the defendants should have been sentenced to a shorter term of imprisonment!

She needed to understand that a vote for acquittal was the ONLY option she had.

They don't do BARD in Italy; that is the fundamental problem.

 

[lonepinealex]

The Italian, who was speaking to the country's Oggi magazine, said: "I certainly had many doubts about the guilt of the two young people.

"I was not convinced of their innocence but I thought and I said to the others as well: ‘The evidence that we have is not sufficient to inflict all these years in prison'.
“There was not enough, in my opinion, to justify such a heavy sentence: questionable proof, bizarre testimony and flimsy evidence."

Here's the thing. Mrs Ballerini doesn't understand "Beyond a reasonable doubt". She doesn't understand that where you don't have that level of proof, you cannot convict and you cannot sentence a defendant to any term of imprisonment.

I would bet that if you asked this juror what should have happened, she would probably argue, based on her contention that she wasn't "convinced of their innocence" that the defendants should have been sentenced to a shorter term of imprisonment!

She needed to understand that a vote for acquittal was the ONLY option she had.

They don't do BARD in Italy; that is the fundamental problem.

This problem isn't isolated to Italy by any means. Nor is the problem of juries being railroaded by dominant members / lying prosecutors. Cf the Russ Faria case.

 

[Kauffer]

This problem isn't isolated to Italy by any means. Nor is the problem of juries being railroaded by dominant members / lying prosecutors. Cf the Russ Faria case.

Where's Henry Fonda when we need him the most?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's hard for me to process that a noise ticket for a university student party was actually brought into this trial! Wow!

She also bought pants and ate pizza

.... before Machiavelli jumps all over you for misrepresenting this, please also note that Knox put on paper booties, swiveled her hips and said, "Huzzah!"

What this speaks to is the first case that the cops assembled against BOTH Knox AND Sollecito..... namely, Amanda's behaviour.

This case was solved before anything else came in on Amanda's behaviour. Before the forensics, before Rudy was even known - the case was closed, solved.

For me it was the hip-swiveling, "huzzah" which proves their guilt. But hold it a minute, there's the issue of Raffaele's separation strategy, because please remember that it is fast becoming a "judicial truth" in Italy, that what convicts one convicts them both. Certainly that is the plain-text-reading of Nencini's motivations report.

We might doubt that eating pizza, buying underwear, and saying, "huzzah" should convict Amanda Knox..... but what does any of that have to do with Raffaele Sollecito? Ok, ok, he shared in the pizza and was there for the underwear buying.....

.... but c'mon, with the "huzzah" Raffaele was nowhere near. Does Raffaele even know what a "huzzah" is?

 

[NancyS]

.... before Machiavelli jumps all over you for misrepresenting this, please also note that Knox put on paper booties, swiveled her hips and said, "Huzzah!"

I'm definitely going to be checking out who is eating a 'Diavolo', the next time I go to Pizza Express :evilpizza:

 

[JREF2010]

She also bought pants and ate pizza

I think it was the pizza that made Edgardo Giobbi, SCS in charge, that deemed the two guilty.

 

[Planigale]

I said that Knox had contacts with drug dealers, because it's a proven fact. At least one of the contacts was sexual it's her own admission (but alternative reasons for contacts are not many, just one).
But I did not da Guede was her pimp. This is one of Bill's inventions.

I think this in an alleged fact. I think before accepting as proved the evidence would have to be put to Knox and subject to challenge. Merely asserting this to be so does not make it a fact, any more than it is a fact that the bloody shoe prints were left by Sollecito is a proven fact (though asserted by the police), nor that Sollecito / Knox phoned 112 after the arrival of the postal police. Nor that Knox was HIV positive. There are many things asserted about Knox / Sollecito that on examination prove to be untrue.

 

[carbonjam72]

Does anyone seriously think the ISC is going to do anything other than convict the pair next week? I'd love to think otherwise, but if they wanted to do the right thing they could have done so years ago.

Yes, I believe cassation will cancel the convictions, without requesting a further re-trial, and leave everyone scratching their heads wondering how they will justify it in their motivation report in 90 days.

At that point, in 90 days, they'll walk themselves back from the edge, reference Dr Gill's new book, reiterate the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, say there's not enough evidence to convict, and no more evidence likely to emerge from a new trial, hence in the interests of justice, blah, blah, blah. In about 130 pages. (Correction: 132.42 pages. I don't want you to think I just got lucky).

Lots of reasons for my belief, many of which are things happening outside the court room (like TV coverage on Porta-porta, and recent final acquittal of Burlesconi (on sex with a minor), and opening of an investigation of Girlanda).

I could be totally mistaken of course, Nina Burleigh wrote in Newsweek today that she thinks conviction at casssation is basically a formality. I guess we'll see soon, but you did ask.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't know what you're talking about. Knox never had sex with Silenzi or Curatalo or any of the other drug-addled denizens of Perugia, which appears to include just about everyone including Nara. And now we find out from Burleigh that even Mignini is addicted to "sinus" medications. What a circus.

Don't laugh, those "sinus remedies" (wink, wink), pack a punch.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, I believe cassation will cancel the convictions, without requesting a further re-trial, and leave everyone scratching their heads wondering how they will justify it in their motivation report in 90 days.

At that point, in 90 days, they'll walk themselves back from the edge, reference Dr Gill's new book, reiterate the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, say there's not enough evidence to convict, and no more evidence likely to emerge from a new trial, hence in the interests of justice, blah, blah, blah. In about 130 pages.

Lots of reasons for my belief, many of which are things happening outside the court room (like TV coverage on Porta-porta, and recent final acquittal of Burlesconi, and opening of an investigation of Girlanda).

I could be totally mistaken of course, Nina Burleigh wrote in Newsweek today that she thinks conviction at casssation is basically a formality. I guess we'll see soon, but you did ask.

My impression is that Nina Burleigh wrote that because the revision appeal is being heard by the same court. However, it is actually a different panel of judges from the same court (which has, IIUC, a total of about 400 judges total in criminal and civil divisions). So maybe there is some chance of a differing decision from the Bruno panel than that from the Chieffi panel.

 

[js202]

I said that Knox had contacts with drug dealers, because it's a proven fact. At least one of the contacts was sexual it's her own admission (but alternative reasons for contacts are not many, just one).

Excellent. So in this glib construction you inform us that Meredith Kercher's and Giacomo Silenzi's association was merely transactional, boiling down to sex and drugs.

Would you say Meredith was the initiator, offering up sex in exchange for Giacomo's marijuana? Or was Giacomo the tempter, inducing Meredith to trade her body so she could have free samples of the crop he was growing downstairs?