Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

All for naught! Yesterday afternoon it became illegal to say publicly that she or Raffaele is guilty of murder. They'll keep thinking it of course, but open season on A & R is finally over.

Yes. Regrettably, some are still doing it.

 

[LondonJohn]

A link for anybody that is interested:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/will-amanda-knox-be-dragged-back-italy-murder-case-314970.html

About 50% of the comments I read argued for guilt. I had not seen such a high percentage of anti-Knox and Sollecito comments on any other article I could remember reading. One thing that is going on appears to be that the pro-guilt side are really motivated and a few people make a whole lot of posts.

Yes, that's exactly what's going on. There's a hard core of pro-guilt activists who have explicitly stated that they're obsessed with "winning" the battle on online newspaper/media comment sections and twitter. They see it in their warped minds as some sort of noble duty.

As I and many others have said so many times before, a study of the online landscape in this case - particularly a study of the phenomenon of the pro-guilt campaign, its motivations, and the prevailing psychopathy of those involved - will be a fascinating and highly worthwhile topic for a doctorate dissertation or any other type of academic research.

 

[Desert Fox]

A link for anybody that is interested:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/will-amanda-knox-be-dragged-back-italy-murder-case-314970.html

About 50% of the comments I read argued for guilt. I had not seen such a high percentage of anti-Knox and Sollecito comments on any other article I could remember reading. One thing that is going on appears to be that the pro-guilt side are really motivated and a few people make a whole lot of posts.

Yes, that's exactly what's going on. There's a hard core of pro-guilt activists who have explicitly stated that they're obsessed with "winning" the battle on online newspaper/media comment sections and twitter. They see it in their warped minds as some sort of noble duty.

As I and many others have said so many times before, a study of the online landscape in this case - particularly a study of the phenomenon of the pro-guilt campaign, its motivations, and the prevailing psychopathy of those involved - will be a fascinating and highly worthwhile topic for a doctorate dissertation or any other type of academic research.

If you find old online newspaper articles from when the Governor of Virginia pardoned the Norfolk Four, there are people screaming guilt as well. In some papers, they are far more common than those that argue innocence. I suspect it would be the same for the West Memphis Three.

You will always have those wo argue guilt.

 

[Planigale]

Are there not private dining clubs and drinking clubs at UK universities, with secret or not-so-secret initiation rites? Members profit from their association with these private clubs at uni and in their later lives. Practically the same thing.

Well, because you can drink from 18, drinking clubs aren't something I've heard of per se. You go to the student union bar, or you have a house or corridor party with BYOB. There was wine soc., but anyone could join, there was a CAMRA group (likewise). Cambridge has something called the Pitt club which is a men only club, in a rather nice building. They did have good parties, but rather unattractive men. There is something similar at Oxford called the Grid. Most colleges have a 'social' club or two that organise parties (which involves drinking so I guess they are drinking clubs). These tend to come and go. Most are pretty open although college specific. The right sort of girl can have quite a round of parties (there are some girls clubs as well, there is a reason for the phrase 'Cambridge Bicycle'). I'm not sure they have any influence outside of the social. Probably useful if you are wanting to be a journalist or politician. Most of the law students are too serious and left wing to want to join anything too elitist, any way the inns of court have enough of that. I cannot say it is something there seems to be much of at London, but since I don't drink and aren't a socialite I may have missed this and anyway they are mostly undergraduate, PhD students just obsess about their PhD then you suddenly find yourself worrying about jobs, housing, marriage and not leaving it too late to have children.

ETA
In science and medicine and law these clubs are utterly irrelevant, all three are pretty elitist, you are dependant on the class of your degree / post grad qualifications / and continued hard work and success. In science Mentors are important. The Royal Society should be the closest thing to the Masons or the Illuminati. But secrecy is really anathema to science.

 

[NancyS]

A seriously good idea for the Kerchers if they want to understand what efforts Italy really expended in finding who murdered their daughter Meredith; from:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/europe/amanda-knox-guilt-innocence/

Maresca says the Kerchers could try to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and argue that Italy failed to find those culpable of killing their beloved daughter and sister but they have yet to make that decision.

"If they think Italy hasn't fulfilled the duty, they could sue Italy," Canestrini told CNN.

Such a claim could be made based on the final conviction handed down to Rudy Guede, a man from the Ivory Coast who was convicted for his role in Kercher's murder in 2008 in a fast-track trial that is still under seal.

When the high court ruled definitively on his case in 2010, they wrote explicitly in their reasoning that he was one of three assailants but did not name who they were.

Barbie really isn't very bright - although I guess she wants to keep dining out on the "there are still so many unanswered questions", for as long as possible

 

[lonepinealex]

Yes, that's exactly what's going on. There's a hard core of pro-guilt activists who have explicitly stated that they're obsessed with "winning" the battle on online newspaper/media comment sections and twitter. They see it in their warped minds as some sort of noble duty.

<snip>

Well as I said a couple of pages ago, to me it's clear that the innocencisti won both the battles and the war, leaving the ISC with only one option to save face - complete exoneration. They didn't throw the guilters so much as a "reasonable doubt" bone. They are factually innocent, and no backsies, bitches!

Within a few days there will be no online arena for the guilters to fight their battle on anyway, except the remaining forums. It's not like people are going to continue to churn out articles forever. I hope for Amanda and Raff's sake the press lose interest soon. They need to get on with their lives.

 

[lonepinealex]

I hope that Maresca leaves the Kerchers' lives as soon as possible, and that will maybe give them a chance to find the truth. They are intelligent people, and it would only take one of them to start asking questions about the stories they've been fed...

Optimistic I know!

 

[NancyS]

I'm still amazed at how many articles are still asking, if not AK/RS, who killed Meredith Kercher? Even the guardian can't seem to be able to look beneath the multiple attackers nonsense http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...her-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-italy-case

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, 36 hours on and still there's pretty much zero sign of sober reflection among the pro-guilt commentators - let alone any articulation of doubt or regret over the "certainties" that they were parroting for so many years. Instead, yet more of the nasty mix of rationalisation, accusations, and self-comfort, mainly based on the (obviously comforting) supposition that Knox and Sollecito will still suffer for the rest of their lives.

One post from "Thoughtful" this morning epitomised an important facet of the mindset of so many pro-guilt commentators:

Folks, I just want to say that I am still here, reading everything you say, but I have found myself unable to post. Every single possible word falls short. I am literally speechless. I am thinking that stilicho and The Machine may be feeling the same.

Many other pro-guilt commentators have expressed similar extreme emotional responses. I think it speaks very loudly to their deep internal motivations around this debate. I think they need, deep inside, for Knox and Sollecito to be evil killers (and of course the warped mantra that the SC ruling merely makes things worse by letting them "get away with it" feeds directly into that). I think that there's almost certainly something very deeply wrong in their own lives and/or their own mental constitutions.

Seriously, I think that if people who consider themselves to be rational, intelligent and balanced are reduced to weeping or incapability to "find the words" after a ruling to acquit defendants who were accused of murdering a person whom they never even knew, it's time for them perhaps to step back and think very carefully about their reaction. Apart from everything else, they ought to consider whether it's healthy for them to have reacted in such an emotionally-invested way, and whether perhaps they ought to look for answers in healthier, more constructive places than campaigns to convict and imprison people.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and once again, the pro-guilt commentary is the gift disgusting, vitriolic hatred that keeps on giving exposing its ugly head:

Meredith is at peace, she got to live her dream (she went to study in Italy). Those weeks in Perugia would have been so exciting and will have brought her much joy.

Amanda is not at peace (just look at the photos when she hasn't got her PR face on). Why does she feel the need to win the hearts and minds of the general public? The court verdict isn't enough for her, otherwise she would stay away from the media and politely decline interviews as the Kerchers have done. The problem is people can see through the charade and the more she appears in public, the more people will realise that her story doesn't add up.

If I had the choice of being Meredith or Amanda (and nobody else), I would rather be dead than be Amanda.

No, Mandy Pandy, you are not the lucky one. Luck doesn't come into it. Meredith was the kind, beautiful, decent one.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

I don't know that repasting their bilge here serves much purpose. And is their extreme emotional investment in a matter of no rational interest to them really so unlike our own?

 

[carbonjam72]

I disagree in part - I think that when the ECHR finds that Amanda's conviction for calunnia was a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, and that Italy must take appropriate action to address that violation, that will make sense.

I am not sure why the CSC said anything about the calunnia at this point. Maybe they wanted to reaffirm Hellmann, otherwise they might be seen as acquitting on the calunnia conviction. I believe the Italian courts must maintain that conviction or admit that the police violated Italian procedural law during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007 and also violated Italian criminal law, CP Art. 377-bis, which provides for a prison sentence of from 2 to 6 years for anyone who, through threats or violence, induces anyone to make false statements to a judicial authority.

Mach might know the answer to this, and I'm pretty sure he would actually. But my guess is that the issue of aggravated calunnia got sent back down to Nencini from ISC when they overturned Hellman.

So Nencnini ruled on it, and found there was aggravated calunnia. Therefore ISC this time was obliged to either accept or reject nencini's conclusion of aggravated calunnia. Since the previous ISC panel had already confirmed the calunnia conviction from Hellman, the ISC this time was rejecting Nencini's finding of aggravation, and I'm guessing here, declining to overturn their previous finding of calunnia from Hellman (I think they could have overturned the previous conviction if they wanted to, but that would be unbelievably self-contradictory).

I also agree that ISC's original intent is to continue blaming Amanda for the statements extracted under coercion, because otherwise, Italy's legal system comes across like a bunch of violent thugs terrorizing innocent people into false confessions.

I have no doubt ECHR will find Amanda rights were violated, and the calunnia will get thrown out. We can look forward to another interview from Patrick Lumumba , not to be confused with the political figure with whom he tried to fabricate a kinship, decrying the rampant racism at play in allowing Amanda's claims to be accepted by ECHR.

The thing about Patricks position, is that the public sympathy for his plight, and the tabloid's willingness to pay for his interviews, can only lessen as realization of the gross injustice that has occurred and in which he is now playing a part. He is a victim yes, but he is in the act of shooting himself in both feet, and then putting them both in his mouth.

I heard Raf has a press conference scheduled for Monday at 12 noon in Italy. Good for him. I imagine he may have something to say about his ongoing trial in Honor Bound. WOuld be great if he asked for the trial of Rudy Guede to get "unsealed" so every on can see the truth about what Guede said about the crime initially.

By the way, where is CoulsdonUK in all this? CUK was delighting in the prospect of Raf's trial for Honor Bound coming at the same time as this verdict was due. I suppose CUK will lament that the family's wishes to affirm the convictions were not met, and thus they were cheated.

Come on CoulsdonUK, come back here and take your victory lap!

 

[Diocletus]

Thinking about the verdict a little more. As I understand, the isc went beyond simply acquitting, and affirmatively absolved the defendants from any involvement in the crime (declared that they didn't do it).

If my understanding is right, I think that this shows a high degree of hostility to the prior decisions, especially Chieffi and Nencini's directed verdict. I expect to see a very interesting motivation report, and I think it some respects it is going to strongly call Chieffi into question and serve as an indictment against Chieffi for overreach and stupidity.

 

[carbonjam72]

From that article:



What the heck? Since they didn't record his interviews, how could they possibly show that he misled them into -- wait for it -- arresting him? Is that really what Canestrini is suggesting here?

That Raffaele forfeits his 48 million euros if they can show that he fooled the detectives into thinking he was guilty?

I thought the statute Numbers showed a few posts upthread, was that the limit for comp was set at about 500,000 euros (and change). So that the most that could be had. I can't imagine Italy will put up much of a fight in comping Amanda and Raf for this.

Is the comp determined by a government office? I would think so, and then defendants can challenge in court if unhappy. Otherwise, no one would ever get paid. (of course they only pay 12 million Euros a year, doesn't sound like a lot given how crazy the court system.

 

[carbonjam72]

The idea that the Kerchers didn't want to be on TV is ludicrous, as is the oft-repeated assertion that they "maintained a dignified silence". They, unlike the defendants, had no purpose, let alone obligation, in inserting themselves into the process in the first place and if they really didn't want to be on TV then they wouldn't have held press conferences.

It could be argued that their appointment of a lawyer was justified, to ensure that their daughter's effects were taken care of and her death was investigated adequately, but in reality Maresca has done the opposite, and has simply taken the side of the prosecution - including in suppressing evidence contrary to the family's express wishes. Then there is John Kercher's book, which is reported to be focussed on Amanda Knox in a way that misrepresents the facts to favour the prosecution.

No, the Kerchers' part in this case has been anything but silent, and in many respects, anything but dignified.

I've browsed extract of Kercher's book, and its appalling.

It came out after the Hellman acquittals. It praised the TJMK website as a reliable source for info, and argued as though it had been written on that site. It's basically a guilter screed, with the same crazy hyper malicious evidence free speculation.

I noticed a section where Kercher is going through Massei's verdict. And when he comes to Curatolo, simply glosses over how Massei addresses the heroin bumb, literally in one sentence, something like, 'Massei addresses Curatolo's testimony'.

It's not a rational work. It's a mad cry of grief. It's understandable that he's grieving. But that expression of it in his book is twisted and irresponsible.

 

[katy_did]

I don't know that repasting their bilge here serves much purpose. And is their extreme emotional investment in a matter of no rational interest to them really so unlike our own?

I was going to say that I was quite emotional when they were acquitted and I'm sure I would've been so had they been convicted as well. I doubt I'd still be here discussing the case after so many years if it were a purely intellectual involvement.

But LJ is made of sterner stuff than I.

 

[Desert Fox]

Just read this on Injustice Anywhere:
Michael on pmf.net has just published a photoshop picture depicting Amanda Knox in the electric chair, marked "Guilty".

Someone should talk to him. Urgently.

I am a very big supporter of free speech but that just seems horrid.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, I have to confess to some feeling of schadenfreude vis a vis the guilter response.

The Machine and Stilicho are gone. Jumped off bridges for all I know.

Scant words out of the likes of SomeAlibi, Hugo, Fiona. The dumber ones of the bunch--bard, bedelia, smacker, johnQ, etc--have been reduced to mumbling nonsense, like some inmates in an asylum.

A few of the nuts are reinventing whole new conspiarcy theories and trying to convince themselves that this will never end because of all of the "new lawsuits" and "complaints" that will be filed. The ECHR will even step in! Lol.

Speaking of all of this, though, where is Machiavelli to explain to us how the mafia and masons rigged this thing? I'm curious. But Skeptical.

 

[Diocletus]

I don't know that repasting their bilge here serves much purpose. And is their extreme emotional investment in a matter of no rational interest to them really so unlike our own?

Well, yeah, it is. We were lashing out against injustice. They were motivated by hate.

 

[Bill Williams]

I hope that Maresca leaves the Kerchers' lives as soon as possible, and that will maybe give them a chance to find the truth. They are intelligent people, and it would only take one of them to start asking questions about the stories they've been fed...

Optimistic I know!

Acc. to this CNN piece by Barbie Latza Nadeau, Maresca is in conversation with the Kerchers about taking Italy to the ECHR - for stating in Rudy's verdict that there were three killers, but in exonerating RS and AK failing to find who the other two were.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/europe/amanda-knox-guilt-innocence/index.html

And, of course, because this is Nadeau - the headline is "Amanda Knox: The fine line between guilt and innocence." Ok, Nadeau does not do the headlines, but c'mon people - this was the most drastic exoneration and annulment of any sense of guilt possible, short of the judges coming down from their lofty perches and slapping Marecsa et al.!

Also, Barbie still cannot resist:

"Because she initially admitted to a role in the crime, she wouldn't likely win (a wrongful imprisonment suit). If a suspect lies to investigators before they are arrested, it is difficult to prove they were falsely imprisoned," Canestrini says.​