Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Annella said:
Vixen, Patrick did NOT shy away from maligning police. As mentioned above, he sold his story to an English tabloid for E75,000 IIRC and I believe the reason his bar was kept closed long after his release from prison was because police wanted him to withdraw his claims of being beaten, called a 'dirty black' and being threatened to 30 yrs in prison. Of course the oddest thing is that the tabloid was never sued nor withdrew the article. It is still there for the world to see.
I put this here for any who stumble into the thread and have never read Lumumbas words.






Your thoughts?
Click to expand...


I don't deny Patrick was roughly treated. From his treatment - inexcusable - you can see police really were taken in by Amanda's calumny against him.

Patrick may have sold his story to the papers, but he knew better than to claim it in court.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, it's against my principles to gamble, with the exception it's for charity fundraising.

We can have a virtual bet, but you need to extend it to three years, given how slow the Italian system is.

Put it on the Chicago Options to hedge my bet, me being a savvy accountant an'all.
Click to expand...

You could put your winnings towards a fund for Meredith?
 
Vixen said:
I wouldn't know what the truth is here. However, I am the kinda person who believes early news reports tend to be historically closer to the truth than later political, PR and lawyer-managed spin.

I have done some historical research surrounding WW2 and WW1. I visited British Library Newspaper Library quite a lot (as well as the RAF Museum nearby).

Reading early TIMES reports (fantastic journalism; very learned) of the Siege of Stalingrad, for example, showed how the news developed before it became fixed in textbooks.

You might mock the press, but many journalists, authors and lawyers, use newspaper archives as valuable research material.
Click to expand...

So why assert that you do know the truth then?

It's very very easy. There is no fingerprint belonging to Raffaele on the inside of the door. Any report, which referred to such a thing is objectively wrong.

There is a wonderful rich tradition of eyewitness accounts of journalists throughout history, particularly in war. As source material it is invaluable. What isn't valuable as evidence, is factually inaccurate material, which is proven to be factually inaccurate by reference to accurate source. The finger print analyst in this case was not Giobbi. The finger print analyst did not report the existence of the print you maintain was discovered and no evidence of it was ever presented in court.

Raffaele's fingerprint found on the inside of the door would have been a game changer - hugely superior evidence than anything else they had against him.
 
Vixen said:
I don't deny Patrick was roughly treated. From his treatment - inexcusable - you can see police really were taken in by Amanda's calumny against him.

Patrick may have sold his story to the papers, but he knew better than to claim it in court.
Click to expand...

So do you believe what Patrick told the Daily Mail?

Amanda's parents made comments to a newspaper and were sued. So how did Patrick manage to get away with his newspaper story?
 
Vixen said:
The science of ecchymosis (bruises and discolouration) is quite a revealing one for pathologists. From the bruising they were able to tell Mez was gripped tightly around the wrists and elbow. and which explained the shoulder dislocation causing Mez to suffer loss of movement in that arm.

Fingertype ecchymosis was found around Mez's nostrils and lower face. Women's hands tend to be significantly smaller than men's and they were able to tell from the bruises it tended towards a more feminine hand (I know plenty of men have small hands).
Click to expand...

What utter nonsense. You have no evidence of this.

The ecchymosis that is particularly interesting in this case is apparent outside the large wound, proving that the murder weapon, a knife with an 8cm blade, was plunged into Kercher to the hilt.
 
Kauffer said:
[/HILITE]

What utter nonsense. You have no evidence of this.

The ecchymosis that is particularly interesting in this case is apparent outside the large wound, proving that the murder weapon, a knife with an 8cm blade, was plunged into Kercher to the hilt.
Click to expand...

OR a hand (Lalli? believed a feminine one) trying to squeeze Mez' neck.
 
Mr Fied said:
So do you believe what Patrick told the Daily Mail?

Amanda's parents made comments to a newspaper and were sued. So how did Patrick manage to get away with his newspaper story?
Click to expand...

Careful not to confuse defamation with calunnia. The former refers to newspaper articles, books, tv, etc, the latter within a court setting, where it gets transcribed and recorded in legal records in posterity. The police have no choice but to challenge it.
 
Kauffer said:
So why assert that you do know the truth then?

It's very very easy. There is no fingerprint belonging to Raffaele on the inside of the door. Any report, which referred to such a thing is objectively wrong.

There is a wonderful rich tradition of eyewitness accounts of journalists throughout history, particularly in war. As source material it is invaluable. What isn't valuable as evidence, is factually inaccurate material, which is proven to be factually inaccurate by reference to accurate source. The finger print analyst in this case was not Giobbi. The finger print analyst did not report the existence of the print you maintain was discovered and no evidence of it was ever presented in court.
Raffaele's fingerprint found on the inside of the door would have been a game changer - hugely superior evidence than anything else they had against him.
Click to expand...

Massei gave the kiddykins a benefit of a doubt wherever he could.
 
Vixen said:
[/HILITE]

Massei gave the kiddykins a benefit of a doubt wherever he could.
Click to expand...

No. There was no evidence presented with regard to the fingerprint you assert exists. How can Massei give anyone the benefit of doubt, where there is no doubt to benefit from?

Once again - There is no fingerprint belonging to Raffaele on the inside of the door.

Would it be rude of me to suggest that as a matter of integrity, you should acknowledge this?
 
Vixen said:
As we discussed, Massei accepted Papa Raff's desperate theory.
Click to expand...

You mean it was Massei who convinced Mignini not to bring up the damning fingerprint in the courtroom? Was Marylin Manson and manga just smoke and mirrors of corrupt Mignini to obfuscate and hide actual evidence of guilt? Please elaborate!:eek:
 
Vixen said:
Careful not to confuse defamation with calunnia. The former refers to newspaper articles, books, tv, etc, the latter within a court setting, where it gets transcribed and recorded in legal records in posterity. The police have no choice but to challenge it.
Click to expand...

They could also investigate it, which in theory they are supposed to do. Of course, in Italy, well...
 
Mr Fied said:
So do you believe what Patrick told the Daily Mail?

Amanda's parents made comments to a newspaper and were sued. So how did Patrick manage to get away with his newspaper story?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Careful not to confuse defamation with calunnia. The former refers to newspaper articles, books, tv, etc, the latter within a court setting, where it gets transcribed and recorded in legal records in posterity. The police have no choice but to challenge it.
Click to expand...

Amanda's parents were sued because of a newspaper article but Patrick was not. This has nothing to do with anything said in court.

All Amanda's parents did was to repeat something that was said in court to a journalist. Patrick actually made accusations against the police to a journalist.

It just seems strange that one party was sued and the other was seemingly forgotten about.

Also, the statement that Amanda was found guilty of was not made in court, but at an illegal/unlawful police interrogation.
 
Vixen said:
Careful not to confuse defamation with calunnia. The former refers to newspaper articles, books, tv, etc, the latter within a court setting, where it gets transcribed and recorded in legal records in posterity. The police have no choice but to challenge it.
Click to expand...

Amanda's parents made the claim in the media and were sued.
Patrick made the claim in the media and was not sued.
 
Mr Fied said:
Amanda's parents were sued because of a newspaper article but Patrick was not. This has nothing to do with anything said in court.

All Amanda's parents did was to repeat something that was said in court to a journalist. Patrick actually made accusations against the police to a journalist.

It just seems strange that one party was sued and the other was seemingly forgotten about.

Also, the statement that Amanda was found guilty of was not made in court, but at an illegal/unlawful police interrogation.
Click to expand...


It could be police perceived Edda and Curt's antics a calculated attempt to pervert the course of justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom