Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - below you claimed I jumped in with a post disconnected to the drug dealers' thread. It is not disconnected as this series of posts shows. It is all part and parcel of the attempt to take various unconnected factoids, throw them at Amanda Knox, and see if one sticks.

You've even been challenged to provide some proof - any proof - that the drug dealers in Knox's phone list is true. You just claim it - and so far the only thing posted is allegedly some sort of court/police document in comic sans serif font!!!!

I can't believe you are still peddling this 'dirty old man' porn version? Can't you and Mignini just go to the cinema and see Fifty Shades of Grey, I'm sure it is more realistic than this sexed up nonsense - This kind of nonsense is incredibly sexist and offensive to women

A drug dealers ring was caught thanks to Knox's phone calls, they phoned each other even after the murder, and she admitted to having sex with one of them. These are facts and nothing of your sentiments will change them.

We disagree. I think it is proven, because the police wouldn't have busted the drug dealers ring without Ms. Knox's phone contacts, her phone calls were the link to them. This is a proven fact.
Moreover, I do consider the presumption of truthfulness of some statements, such as Knox's statement that she had sex with Federico, the Perugian newspapers (plus my direct sources) reporting that the dealers were actually tried and convicted, and the police report about the activities of the three.

So fact one; was merely having phone contact with Knox grounds for arrest (being busted)? Are you really saying the Perugian police were unaware of these dealers until they went through the phone calls of Knox? Since we have transcriptions of Knox's phone conversations we know that whatever was communicated was not related to drugs, that would have been used against Knox.

Fact two; Knox did not say she had sex with Frederico. If you have evidence to the contrary please quote it. The police report does not say say this.

Fact three; we have a record of Knox's phone calls please identify which were these calls.

in the absence of definite facts I think these are hearsay based allegations.

I wonder why so many people seem to have problem understanding this story. It's not that strange, not something bizarre.
A drug dealers' ring made of three individuals (Federico, Lorenzo, Luciano, the latter being the boss) were caught. The reason why they were caught was their contacts with Amanda Knox.

I have learned by reading a few books and some of the The Massei courtroom testimony,
that Miss Kercher's new boyfriend was growing marijuania, right?
...... Or was the Amanda Knox drug dealing phone contact investigation simply another way to get the she-devil witch?

Very stupid question, there was no "she-devil" hunt, only a normal investigation, and the drug dealers ring - that was discovered by chance from Federico's contacts - was not used in the Knox trial. So your question is out of place.

At trial, did Mignini ever invent dialog and put it into the defendant's mouth, which he claimed said, "It is easy to believe Knox said... 'You were such a little saint… now you are going to be forced to have sex'."?

A post disconnected from the discussion topics, that was drug dealers, no she- devil myth ( not even drug dealers story used) and about investigations.

As you see, the whole issue of this alleged connection between drug dealers, Amanda Knox, and her sex life.... which even you once claimed had nothing to do with the crime committed against Meredith Kercher.....

..... is simply an extension of what NancyS said upthread: I can't believe you are still peddling this 'dirty old man' porn version? Can't you and Mignini just go to the cinema and see Fifty Shades of Grey, I'm sure it is more realistic than this sexed up nonsense - This kind of nonsense is incredibly sexist and offensive to women

I believe your only reason to try to keep alive this evidenceless lie against Amanda Knox is precisely because Mignini, at trial, said things like:

"It is easy to believe Knox said... 'You were such a little saint… now you are going to be forced to have sex'."​

It's all part and parcel of trying to keep that lie alive throught sheer repetition and the refusal to 1) provide surnames to those three people, 2) supply any phone records to support your claim about Knox's contacts list - much less than your claim that Knox actually called one of these people after the murder....

All the while, while Nencini-trial popular-judge Genna Ballerini has told the Daily Mail in England that her court-peers had access to phone records relevant to this case. (In her account, those phone records suggested to her that AK and RS could not have even been at the cottage at the T.O.D., but that's another matter!)

 

[Bill Williams]

Pending a link to a source - it has been announced that Rudy Guede has just had two years' prison time added to his record, for his break-in at Milan.

Are there any more questions as to Rudy Guede's abilities to break-in through Filomena's window?

 

[acbytesla]

Once again, you assert and provide no proof. (Unless you're talking about the court document with no surnames on it, with an undecipherable signature, in comic sans serif font!)

More assertions. No facts.

What is really bizarre is why Mach or any one mentions this. It is totally irrelevant to the case. It is in none of the documents regarding the murder of MK. Its only purpose is to smear Amanda. I'm really curious why any of the guilters mention it. It is sad and desperate.

 

[Machiavelli]

Pending a link to a source - it has been announced that Rudy Guede has just had two years' prison time added to his record, for his break-in at Milan.

Are there any more questions as to Rudy Guede's abilities to break-in through Filomena's window?

He was convicted for possessing stolen goods, not for breaking into somewhere. He didn't breake anything in Milan. Just for sake of accuracy.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
I believe your only reason to try to keep alive this evidenceless lie against Amanda Knox is precisely because Mignini, at trial, said things like:

But the information is in the records, newspaper articles from Il Giornale dell'Umbria and other Umbrian news sources, well alive itself, will remain alive and well forevel doesn't need resuscitation.
It's only worth to remind how the truth is already obviously estabished and in the records, when comments attempting to deny it, like Diocletus' (or yours), pop out.

 

[Bill Williams]

But the information is in the records, newspaper articles from Il Giornale dell'Umbria and other Umbrian news sources, well alive itself, will remain alive and well forevel doesn't need resuscitation.
It's only worth to remind how the truth is already obviously estabished and in the records, when comments attempting to deny it, like Diocletus' (or yours), pop out.

You mean like the "record" which was in comic-sans-serif font, with no identification on it?

 

[Bill Williams]

He was convicted for possessing stolen goods, not for breaking into somewhere. He didn't breake anything in Milan. Just for sake of accuracy.

Like my post said, this is pending a source. I note that you did not provide one either - just another assertion.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are entitled to your wrongful opinion. But read the ECHR case-law carefully if you wish to inform yourself of the actual state of the law.

It is important to distinguish a statement made without counsel, especially when the person is under police questioning or police custody, and one made voluntarily and clearly by those who are free, such as someone who writes a letter to police, or who comes to the police and says that he/she wants to accuse someone. These latter situations are different from the police custody/questioning situation, and your argument is disingenuous to not acknowledge that difference.

I can spot two things.
First, the highligted words make me smile: the definition of "voluntarily and clearly" is of a subjetive nature, it means it implies an assessment, like by a judge, that a statement was voluntary. Or maybe some declaration to that effect.
It happens that "voluntary" is the term used by Amanda Knox herself, in 2009, to describe her own hand written statement. Which happens to be considered by judges a malicious false testimony, and it is certainly a calunnia as for criminal jurisprudence.

Second thing, apart from the willfulness question, your response is a reiteration of the same fallacy: your limiting the immunity to situations of custody or of quetionings, is simply a pointless argument, it only confirms the problem: your interpretation creates an immunity. A legal shield which is obviously undue and not provided by any Convention.
A person under custody, a prisoner, must respect the law just like any other citizen. The fact that someone does not enjoy full freedon or has special duties does not exempt him from the obligation to respect the law and cannot grant him a license or an immunity for his/her unlawful actions.
It's obvious.

 

[Machiavelli]

You mean like the "record" which was in comic-sans-serif font, with no identification on it?

No, I mean the newspaper sources reporting about the dealers trials.
However, also the police paper in sans-serif font is a source.

 

[Machiavelli]

What is really bizarre is why Mach or any one mentions this. It is totally irrelevant to the case. It is in none of the documents regarding the murder of MK. Its only purpose is to smear Amanda. I'm really curious why any of the guilters mention it. It is sad and desperate.

In this circumstance, it's because Diocletus mentioned it.

 

[Kauffer]

This from 'The Guardian':

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-highest-court-could-lead-to-new-legal-battle

But, is the hilite correct?

"If it does not uphold the conviction, the court could also decide to send one or both defendants back to trial, but it does not have the power to acquit Knox or Sollecito outright."
I think it does have that power.

The next bit is correct, which is one of the reasons why the trial was unfair. The use of this 'evidence' was illegal.

"The court’s latest conviction relied on a written confession Knox made – and then later retracted – after being questioned by police, in which she said she had been in the house when the murder occurred but not participated in the crime, and that her boyfriend was not there."

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I mean the newspaper sources reporting about the dealers trials.
However, also the police paper in sans-serif font is a source.

The font is called "Comic Sans". Comic being the operative word.

As the Wikipedia article on the font explains: "It is classified as a casual, non-connecting script for use in informal documents inspired by comic book lettering."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Sans

And yes, it appears that the Italian State Police actually do use this font on their official documents. But that says it all really, doesn't it............

 

[LondonJohn]

This from 'The Guardian':

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-highest-court-could-lead-to-new-legal-battle

But, is the hilite correct?

"If it does not uphold the conviction, the court could also decide to send one or both defendants back to trial, but it does not have the power to acquit Knox or Sollecito outright."
I think it does have that power.

The next bit is correct, which is one of the reasons why the trial was unfair. The use of this 'evidence' was illegal.

"The court’s latest conviction relied on a written confession Knox made – and then later retracted – after being questioned by police, in which she said she had been in the house when the murder occurred but not participated in the crime, and that her boyfriend was not there."

I share your belief that the Supreme Court has the power to quash the convictions entirely. I don't think it will do so (there's a very small possibility of this happening in the case of Sollecito's convictions IMO), but I think it has that power in principle.

And yes, the previous SC ruling essentially ordered the Nencini appeal to take the "confession/accusation" evidence into account. More than that, of course, every trial from Massei onwards was wholly improper in that it allowed the triers to hear (and rule upon) every single word of Knox's various statements from the 5-7 November 2007 - even though theoretically they were supposed to put pretty much all of it magically back out of their heads when considering the murder-related charges.

If the SC confirms the murder convictions, I predict that this will be one of the strongest strands (among many strong strands) of an application to the ECHR. The original Massei decision to try the criminal slander case in concurrence with the murder charges was hideously wrong and unlawful, and the SC instruction to the Nencini court was just as bad.

 

[acbytesla]

At trial, did Mignini ever invent dialog and put it into the defendant's mouth, which he claimed said, "It is easy to believe Knox said... 'You were such a little saint… now you are going to be forced to have sex'."?

Machiavvelli's comment is absurd considering Miginni called Amanda "lucerifina" during the trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I think it's very interesting indeed that both Burleigh's Newsweek article and this Guardian article quote well-informed sources as predicting that in the event of confirmation of the convictions, the Italian state will not even request Knox's extradition (thus making the issue of whether or not the USA would grant extradition entirely moot).

An interesting spin-off from this is that pro-guilt commentators would automatically jump on this - if it happened - as a flat-out denial of "justice for Meredith". However, I'd suggest that a better reading of it would be that Italy realises that the US would hold that Knox had been wrongfully convicted.

I don't think that anyone should be in doubt that if an ordinary citizen (such as Knox) had been correctly convicted in Italian courts of a serious crime such as murder on the basis of proper evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the US would have no hesitation in extraditing that person back to Italy to serve a prison sentence (and of course Italy would have no hesitation in making an extradition request). The very suggestion that Italy wouldn't even seek extradition should serve as a huge red flag (to any reasonable, rational person) that there is something very wrong with the situation here.

 

[carbonjam72]

This from 'The Guardian':

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-highest-court-could-lead-to-new-legal-battle

But, is the hilite correct?

"If it does not uphold the conviction, the court could also decide to send one or both defendants back to trial, but it does not have the power to acquit Knox or Sollecito outright."
I think it does have that power.
The next bit is correct, which is one of the reasons why the trial was unfair. The use of this 'evidence' was illegal.

"The court’s latest conviction relied on a written confession Knox made – and then later retracted – after being questioned by police, in which she said she had been in the house when the murder occurred but not participated in the crime, and that her boyfriend was not there."

I think the distinction here is canceling or quashing the convictions, as opposed to declaring an acquittal.

In the former, the case may or may not get sent back down for re-trial. So if cancelled/Quashed, with no re-trial ordered, than the defendants aren't formally acquitted, but are no longer tried again? Is that right? Could that be what the Guardian author means by this?

As opposed to confirming an acquittal that has come before them, which would then be a final acquittal. Since the lower court hasn't presented an acquittal, there's nothing to confirm as final. Would that explain the difference?

But does seem like kind of a limbo to be in, since I don't believe murder has a statute of limitations.

(Could you imagine if Mignini bequeathed the murder charges in his will to one of his daughters who has become a prosecutor when she grows up, and decides to pursue Amanda and Raf when they are Grandparents? Ok, I'll stop.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Machiavvelli's comment is absurd considering Miginni called Amanda "lucerifina" during the trial.

No, that was Lumumba's lawyer, Pacelli, wasn't it?

But the disgraceful invention by Mignini of words put into Knox's mouth saying "You were such a little saint… now we are going to force you to have sex" is bad enough in and of itself, frankly. Disgusting, immoral and highly unethical.

 

[christianahannah]

Machiavvelli's comment is absurd considering Miginni called Amanda "lucerifina" during the trial.

I don't think, but am not totally certain, that Mignini called Amanda a luciferina

 

[carbonjam72]

Guede's sentence lengthening Mean anything?

Pending a link to a source - it has been announced that Rudy Guede has just had two years' prison time added to his record, for his break-in at Milan.

Are there any more questions as to Rudy Guede's abilities to break-in through Filomena's window?

Am I nuts to interpret the raising of Guede's sentence at this time, as one more indication that cassation plans to cancel the convictions?

This is so that people will have more of a feeling that at least someone has been punished for the murder, and Guede's sentence reduction to 16 years and failing, is a bit galling to the victim's families?

 

[christianahannah]

No, that was Lumumba's lawyer, Pacelli, wasn't it?

But the disgraceful invention by Mignini of words put into Knox's mouth saying "You were such a little saint… now we are going to force you to have sex" is bad enough in and of itself, frankly. Disgusting, immoral and highly unethical.

Thanks for the confirmation of my post, though I couldn't recall who said it.

Is the transcript of Mignini's closing arguments or of this particular comment public?