Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

I think that, although some people chat about this, and other cases, online with an agenda, some just find it entertaining and fun to talk about. As frequently or infrequently as they find interesting or enjoyable. I've spoken to several people offline who think the entire practice of debating these cases on an online forum is strange.

If we decide everyone on this forum is talking about this or other cases because they are trying to affect some change or outcome, then maybe it is a waste of time for those people to keep talking about a case that has long ago been solved. But maybe they just find it fun. It's not an impediment to anyone else's case, it's just a conversation.

Totally agree. I think this case is still interesting for a lot of reasons. We are just now getting a lot of new information that could have been made available years ago.

I was always under the impression that Nara took far longer to be known than making her formal statement on November 27, 2007. More and more is coming out about the downstairs etc.

Obviously some people were part of the support group from early on and others joined later and for them perhaps the exoneration is all that matters. Others may think they were part of "setting her free". And a very few, maybe just one, are part of the prosecution. Others were and some still intrigued as to what actually happened from the crime itself to the investigation etc.

I doubt that any of the online chatting or sites did anything that influenced the ISC. All the books, analyses, PPs etc. probably had no effect at all.

 

[bagels]

Personally, I think race is a red herring here. Rudy just happens to be an Ivorian.

The idea Rudy could not possibly have associated with Amanda or Raff is a very American one. You have segregation there we just do not have in Europe.

Isn't the more racist you claim Americans are the stronger support you give to the argument that Amanda wouldn't have associated with Rudy?

Seems you have a real dilemma here

 

[Dougm]

Totally agree. I think this case is still interesting for a lot of reasons. We are just now getting a lot of new information that could have been made available years ago.

I was always under the impression that Nara took far longer to be known than making her formal statement on November 27, 2007. More and more is coming out about the downstairs etc.

Obviously some people were part of the support group from early on and others joined later and for them perhaps the exoneration is all that matters. Others may think they were part of "setting her free". And a very few, maybe just one, are part of the prosecution. Others were and some still intrigued as to what actually happened from the crime itself to the investigation etc.

I doubt that any of the online chatting or sites did anything that influenced the ISC. All the books, analyses, PPs etc. probably had no effect at all.

I used to think that no one actually involved with the case noticed the online campaigning at all. Until Mignini brought it up in his closing argument in the Hellmann appeal! He seemed to think the online campaign for innocence was something to tell people not to pay attention to.

Who knew?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

No, they will not. You should be overjoyed that, at last, on Sept. 7th, Amanda will be able to substantiate her claims of torture and police brutality, in her day in court.

Amanda will not be in court on September 7th. Even if Italy manages to rule on the issue before it expires, nothing will ever come of it. I do believe it will expire, just like the slander charges against Curt and Edda. Remember those charges? They expired. Italian prosecutors appear to like to use slander lawsuits to shut people up during trials, but in the end nothing ever comes of those charges. It's all for show.

You can attempt to hype up the nonsense if you like. It's laughable to see the few pro-guilt people that are left trying with all their might to hang onto the possibility that Amanda will be destroyed. It's really delusional thinking. I will stick to reality. You can cling to your fantasies.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

That would be a shame. Getting an innocent person freed is a tremendous achievement; getting a system to change prevents the need to do it so often.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Bill Williams]

Totally agree. I think this case is still interesting for a lot of reasons. We are just now getting a lot of new information that could have been made available years ago.

I was always under the impression that Nara took far longer to be known than making her formal statement on November 27, 2007. More and more is coming out about the downstairs etc.

Obviously some people were part of the support group from early on and others joined later and for them perhaps the exoneration is all that matters. Others may think they were part of "setting her free". And a very few, maybe just one, are part of the prosecution. Others were and some still intrigued as to what actually happened from the crime itself to the investigation etc.

I doubt that any of the online chatting or sites did anything that influenced the ISC. All the books, analyses, PPs etc. probably had no effect at all.

I used to think that no one actually involved with the case noticed the online campaigning at all. Until Mignini brought it up in his closing argument in the Hellmann appeal! He seemed to think the online campaign for innocence was something to tell people not to pay attention to.

Who knew?

There goes "the butterfly effect".

"Influenced" and "no effect" are not exactly precise terms. Heck, even Nencini blabbed after the 2013-2014 Florence trial that one of the popular judges said that she was hearing one thing in court and another in the media.

Who knows, maybe she was contributing to one of those non-existent Italian-language forums about the case that Machiavelli says he's unaware of.

Did the discussion on JREF/ISF become decisive for the March 27, 2015 exonerations? Not in a million years. But "no effect"?

Some Master's student in forensic-communications needs to fire up their thesis to peel back those layers. Heck, maybe Stefanoni herself can do it and finally get a real doctorate.

 

[Samson]

Totally agree. I think this case is still interesting for a lot of reasons. We are just now getting a lot of new information that could have been made available years ago.

I was always under the impression that Nara took far longer to be known than making her formal statement on November 27, 2007. More and more is coming out about the downstairs etc.

Obviously some people were part of the support group from early on and others joined later and for them perhaps the exoneration is all that matters. Others may think they were part of "setting her free". And a very few, maybe just one, are part of the prosecution. Others were and some still intrigued as to what actually happened from the crime itself to the investigation etc.

I doubt that any of the online chatting or sites did anything that influenced the ISC. All the books, analyses, PPs etc. probably had no effect at all.

The suggestion is that online sites helped tune the arguments that were used to change public and government opinion, rather than the sites themselves, on which point I imagine you are probably right.
Here is another example

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10631984&postcount=892

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Totally agree. I think this case is still interesting for a lot of reasons. We are just now getting a lot of new information that could have been made available years ago.

I was always under the impression that Nara took far longer to be known than making her formal statement on November 27, 2007. More and more is coming out about the downstairs etc.

Obviously some people were part of the support group from early on and others joined later and for them perhaps the exoneration is all that matters. Others may think they were part of "setting her free". And a very few, maybe just one, are part of the prosecution. Others were and some still intrigued as to what actually happened from the crime itself to the investigation etc.

I doubt that any of the online chatting or sites did anything that influenced the ISC. All the books, analyses, PPs etc. probably had no effect at all.

I understand much of the "intrigue" during the course of the trails, but I do find it odd that some continue to spend their days endlessly debating every detail of the case. At what point do you give it up? What drives that infatuation? It is more of a curiosity to me. What makes a person here want to come observe supporters at an event that they have never met? Or does a person attend just hoping to catch a glimpse of Amanda Knox? I have often wondered if those who are not supporters are actually the ones that are infatuated with Amanda Knox. And even possibly infatuated with the attractive victim. How dark is the infatuation of some online posters? What makes a person want to learn about intimate details that have no bearing on anything at all? what purpose does it serve? What does it accomplish?

Taking a position of support is not unusual. Taking a pro-guilt position is seen far less often and something I think we can learn from.

There is still much that can and should be discussed. I think this case should be used as a learning tool. Randy made good points about holding Mignini accountable for misconduct. Now that is a good topic. That is forward thinking. Prosecutors should be held accountable for their actions.

Of course, people can talk about whatever they want. No one is stopping them. Just as I can come here to explore what the possible reasoning is for the continued debate.

On the second point, we have seen positive developments in several cases that were sparked by public outcry. I have no doubt that public perception can play a role in encouraging further investigation. We do not want a system where mobs of people are given the power to overturn court decisions. That is not the intention. The goal is to bring attention to cases of possible wrongful conviction so that the cases are investigated further. Finding the truth should always be the goal.

 

[Numbers]

Amanda will not be in court on September 7th. Even if Italy manages to rule on the issue before it expires, nothing will ever come of it. I do believe it will expire, just like the slander charges against Curt and Edda. Remember those charges? They expired. Italian prosecutors appear to like to use slander lawsuits to shut people up during trials, but in the end nothing ever comes of those charges. It's all for show.
You can attempt to hype up the nonsense if you like. It's laughable to see the few pro-guilt people that are left trying with all their might to hang onto the possibility that Amanda will be destroyed. It's really delusional thinking. I will stick to reality. You can cling to your fantasies.

I think the slander (civil defamation actions) and criminal calunnia charges are intended to intimidate and cause financial harm to certain targets. They are not merely for show. In this case, the intimidation may not have been really effective, despite whatever Mignini intended, because the targets choose not to be intimidated.

Thus, although Amanda is charged with continuous aggravated calunnia against the police, she did state (IIUC) in each of her appeals that she had been hit and threatened by the police during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation. In fact, her repeating these allegations in each of her appeals forms the basis for the "continuous" part of the charge.

I believe and hope that the ECHR will take notice of these attempts at intimidation by the Italian authorities and make appropriate inferences from them when that Court judges Amanda's application regarding her conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen is demonstrating in this thread why Knox should not got back to Italy while the legal foolishness continues, despite the exonerations.

In grand strawman fashion, Vixen tries to sell this as if torture has ever been claimed. Vixen has also demonstrated no appreciation for what a suspect-centric investigation is. Up until March 27, that seemed to be winning the day in Italian courts.

No doubt Vixen approves.

"Bill", have you not been listening to the party line? To save Numbers the trouble, Amanda has put in a claim to ECHR under Article 3 : Torture.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda will not be in court on September 7th. Even if Italy manages to rule on the issue before it expires, nothing will ever come of it. I do believe it will expire, just like the slander charges against Curt and Edda. Remember those charges? They expired. Italian prosecutors appear to like to use slander lawsuits to shut people up during trials, but in the end nothing ever comes of those charges. It's all for show.

You can attempt to hype up the nonsense if you like. It's laughable to see the few pro-guilt people that are left trying with all their might to hang onto the possibility that Amanda will be destroyed. It's really delusional thinking. I will stick to reality. You can cling to your fantasies.

This upcoming case is not a low level charge of slander "diffamazio"(sp_?); it is the serious criminal charge of calunnia: aiming to subvert the course of justice by falsely claiming police brutality and coerced confession. She has already served a three-year sentence for the same charge, upheld by your hero, Hellmann, and rubberstamped by ISC Chieffi.

 

[Vixen]

I understand much of the "intrigue" during the course of the trails, but I do find it odd that some continue to spend their days endlessly debating every detail of the case. At what point do you give it up? What drives that infatuation? It is more of a curiosity to me. What makes a person here want to come observe supporters at an event that they have never met? Or does a person attend just hoping to catch a glimpse of Amanda Knox? I have often wondered if those who are not supporters are actually the ones that are infatuated with Amanda Knox. And even possibly infatuated with the attractive victim. How dark is the infatuation of some online posters? What makes a person want to learn about intimate details that have no bearing on anything at all? what purpose does it serve? What does it accomplish?

Taking a position of support is not unusual. Taking a pro-guilt position is seen far less often and something I think we can learn from.

There is still much that can and should be discussed. I think this case should be used as a learning tool. Randy made good points about holding Mignini accountable for misconduct. Now that is a good topic. That is forward thinking. Prosecutors should be held accountable for their actions.

Of course, people can talk about whatever they want. No one is stopping them. Just as I can come here to explore what the possible reasoning is for the continued debate.

On the second point, we have seen positive developments in several cases that were sparked by public outcry. I have no doubt that public perception can play a role in encouraging further investigation. We do not want a system where mobs of people are given the power to overturn court decisions. That is not the intention. The goal is to bring attention to cases of possible wrongful conviction so that the cases are investigated further. Finding the truth should always be the goal.

You have it tits over arse, as we say in England. It was Amanda who hyped up the promiscuous sex and all the soft porn in her book to (a) make it look as though she was persecuted by uptight moralistic Roman Catholics, and (b) try to make her exceedingly dull self-serving book sell better.

She's no better looking than anyone else of her age. Mez was far more attractive, a natural beauty who didn't need to pick up strange men.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I think the slander (civil defamation actions) and criminal calunnia charges are intended to intimidate and cause financial harm to certain targets. They are not merely for show. In this case, the intimidation may not have been really effective, despite whatever Mignini intended, because the targets choose not to be intimidated.

Thus, although Amanda is charged with continuous aggravated calunnia against the police, she did state (IIUC) in each of her appeals that she had been hit and threatened by the police during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation. In fact, her repeating these allegations in each of her appeals forms the basis for the "continuous" part of the charge.

I believe and hope that the ECHR will take notice of these attempts at intimidation by the Italian authorities and make appropriate inferences from them when that Court judges Amanda's application regarding her conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

I agree with you. I think there are certainly slander charges filed that are intended to be followed through. There are also charges, like the slander charges against Curt and Edda that were done for show. Nothing ever came of them and they were allowed to expire. What the charges did was made it more difficult for Curt and Edda to speak publicly about the case. The prosecution was attempting to intimidate and silence, but it was not with the intention to actually prosecute but rather a show of force, much like a bully.

These acts of blatant abuse of power need to be exposed and stopped.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Vixen, while speaking as her actual self on Facebook, asked me to never speak to her again. After reading the drivel posted here, I am happy to oblige.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Bill", have you not been listening to the party line? To save Numbers the trouble, Amanda has put in a claim to ECHR under Article 3 : Torture.

Vixen - Article 3 says:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Please research things before advancing strawmen arguments.

Indeed, the Wikipedia article on this offers the Bamber case in the UK as an example, where torture is not at issue, but life sentences. It says that as a result of a 16-1 vote to equate life sentences in England with degrading punishment, is a violation of Article 3, with no mention of torture.

If guilters did not exaggerate, they'd have no case to make.

But at least Vixen was able to use a weasel phrase, "party line", in a sentence.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, while speaking as her actual self on Facebook, asked me to never speak to her again. After reading the drivel posted here, I am happy to oblige.

It wasn't me.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - Article 3 says:

​

Please research things before advancing strawmen arguments.

Indeed, the Wikipedia article on this offers the Bamber case in the UK as an example, where torture is not at issue, but life sentences. It says that as a result of a 16-1 vote to equate life sentences in England with degrading punishment, is a violation of Article 3, with no mention of torture.

If guilters did not exaggerate, they'd have no case to make.

But at least Vixen was able to use a weasel phrase, "party line", in a sentence.

Er, I think you'll find it was Bamber's, Charles Bronson's and Knox' victims who were the ones degraded.

It is the USA that has life without parole. In the UK, if you are diagnosed a Borderline Sociopath Criminal, which is extremely rare, then you are unlikely to be given parole, although these people are allowed to apply for it. The one other guy I can think of - apart from Ian Brady (who would have fried on Old Smoky in the USA) - is some guy who killed his cell mate and then began eating his brains.

Incidentally, failing to offer Amanda a comfort break does not quite qualify as "degrading treatment" in the grand scheme of things.

ETA Your leader did order you to stop arguing. At least, I don't have to toe any party line of twisting and spinning the truth.

Your big weakness is in thinking guilt can be explained away by prolix sophistry by use of "clever" spin. Rather like the Bell Curve guys trying to blame all society's ills on single mums to forward their far right political agenda.

It's not clever, it's tiring.

 

[Vixen]

Isn't the more racist you claim Americans are the stronger support you give to the argument that Amanda wouldn't have associated with Rudy?

Seems you have a real dilemma here

Amanda wasn't choosy about who she slept with

Promiscuity can be a classic symptom of sociopathic recklessness.

 

[Bill Williams]

Er, I think you'll find it was Bamber's, Charles Bronson's and Knox' victims who were the ones degraded.

It is the USA that has life without parole. In the UK, if you are diagnosed a Borderline Sociopath Criminal, which is extremely rare, then you are unlikely to be given parole, although these people are allowed to apply for it. The one other guy I can think of - apart from Ian Brady (who would have fried on Old Smoky in the USA) - is some guy who killed his cell mate and then began eating his brains.

Incidentally, failing to offer Amanda a comfort break does not quite qualify as "degrading treatment" in the grand scheme of things.

ETA Your leader did order you to stop arguing. At least, I don't have to toe any party line of twisting and spinning the truth.

Your big weakness is in thinking guilt can be explained away by prolix sophistry by use of "clever" spin. Rather like the Bell Curve guys trying to blame all society's ills on single mums to forward their far right political agenda.

It's not clever, it's tiring.

What on earth are you going on about?

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok, sorry Vixen. I get it. Yes, Bruce Fischer is my leader. It's been a while since anyone used that, so it slipped by.

Yes, you got me on that one.