Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

"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.

This is the article to which you refer:

Article 3 – Prohibition of torture

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
The jurisprudence for this has developed over the years, so we are not here talking about the use of racks and disembowelling. Inhuman and degrading treatment manifests itself in numerous ways.

Being hit by a police officer in a lawyerless interrogation certainly counts, but much more besides.

In the UK, the imposition of whole life sentences for prisoners, without hope of early release or parole, comes under this article.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

Prolix sophistry is in fact necessary to explain how a bleach cleaned kitchen knife too big for the mortal wounds has managed to retain any of the victim's DNA on the blade as well as some bread and how and why it was transported in the first place - or how the placement of Amanda's DNA on the handle is indicative of a stabbing motion, or why there's no evidence of slaughtering, knifing Amanda in the room where the killing took place.

 

[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.

Prolix sophistry is in fact necessary to explain how a bleach cleaned kitchen knife too big for the mortal wounds has managed to retain any of the victim's DNA on the blade as well as some bread and how and why it was transported in the first place - or how the placement of Amanda's DNA on the handle is indicative of a stabbing motion, or why there's no evidence of slaughtering, knifing Amanda in the room where the killing took place.

It's hard to know how to respond to Vixen's wandering musings.

First she makes some reference to Knox claiming to be tortured.

Then she's shown that no such claim has ever been made.

Then Vixen trots out a favourite weasel phrase by suggesting I've departed from the "party line", because Knox is appealing to the ECHR on the ground "of torture" contained in Article 3 of the convention, which is a strawman of Vixen's because.........

Article 3 refers also to "degrading treatment."

To all this Vixen continues the strawman stream-of-consciousness with.....

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

Is anyone saying that the application to ECHR is because of the withholding of a "comfort break"? Well, no, but that is an interesting point because what the PLE did at interrogation was prevent a suspect from seeing to menstrual issues. Wonder what ECHR will make of that?

Then this:

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.​

Huh!? Aside from the inanity, there's this, "guilt can be explained away". What guilt? You mean the guilt Vixen assumes which (apparently) grants her permission to say all sorts of slutty things about someone she's never met?

Over to you Kauffer. Vixen just chucks in the factoids and ad hominems at too great a rate.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is the USA that has life without parole.

Prolix sophistry is in fact necessary to explain how a bleach cleaned kitchen knife too big for the mortal wounds has managed to retain any of the victim's DNA on the blade as well as some bread and how and why it was transported in the first place - or how the placement of Amanda's DNA on the handle is indicative of a stabbing motion, or why there's no evidence of slaughtering, knifing Amanda in the room where the killing took place.

It would be nice if Vixen once, even if only by chance, got facts right.

The UK has had prison terms without parole since 1983. There are currently 60 such individuals....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs

Can anyone point to something Vixen has got correct?

 

[Kauffer]

It would be nice if Vixen once, even if only by chance, got facts right.

The UK has had prison terms without parole since 1983. There are currently 60 such individuals....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs

Can anyone point to something Vixen has got correct?

The spelling of her nom de plume would be one and judging from an earlier account, we should give her the benefit of the doubt with regard to the correct manner in which to wear a bikini. As for the case, I've not spotted any obvious instances where anything is right.

 

[Bill Williams]

The spelling of her nom de plume would be one and judging from an earlier account, we should give her the benefit of the doubt with regard to the correct manner in which to wear a bikini. As for the case, I've not spotted any obvious instances where anything is right.

Why would someone wish to make a wrong, and demonstrably wrong point? That's a headscratcher.

Even Machiavelli tries to hide his errors under an avalanche of dietrology.

All so they can feel righteous when they make slutty posts.

 

[Grinder]

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.

She said media not online chat rooms. Most likely she was talking about TV and newspaper/magazine coverage. I believe Mignini was also referring to media not chats.

If any side had effect, I'd say the PG side had more influence with "journalists". People like Barbie and Vogt were more influenced by the PG fake experts than any significant reporters were influenced by PI experts.

As I've said before, the early PI positions that turned out to be false, such as "Amanda never met Rudi" actually hurt later more accurate information coming from the PI side. I think the early, early attacks on Mignini, though most likely deserved, were counterproductive.

So I guess confusing online to media is the butterfly effect?

Perhaps the ISC report if it ever comes out will prove me wrong and they will be quoting you

I do think the DNA experts may have had some influence but not our's here, with the exception of Chris H.

I think the accusations of infatuations with either the victim or the exonerated is a straw man with the exception of PQ. One of the saddest aspects of the case has been the comparison of the two main females in beauty, smarts and likability. They were similar in all aspects.

 

[Numbers]

"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.

Once again, Vixen has contributed a post that contains a misstatement that is misleading.

As Bill and Kauffer have already pointed out, the full text of Convention Article 3 reads as:

ARTICLE 3
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

A review of Amanda Knox's blog entry that stated she had lodged an application to ECHR claiming Italy had violated her Convention rights in convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba and of her book, Waiting to be Heard, and of ECHR case-law, suggests that she may have two claims under Article 3:

1. Inhuman or degrading treatment, in relation to the treatment she received from the Italian police during her interrogation of Nov. 5/6; and

2. Failure of the Italian authorities to conduct an effective investigation of her credible claim of inhuman and degrading treatment by the Italian police, which claim she provided in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6, 2007 and in her testimony given in 2009.

Actions of police that may be considered inhuman or degrading treatment include acts of "minor" violence against someone unwarranted by any physical action by that person, threats - especially those intended to coerce incriminating statements, and denial of sleep, food or bathroom facilities for those in need.

Relevant case-law includes, but is not limited to, Gagfen v. Germany.

 

[Dougm]

Amanda wasn't choosy about who she slept with

Promiscuity can be a classic symptom of sociopathic recklessness.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you really think Amanda's sexual history was promiscuous compared to others her age? Do you really think her sex life was somehow worse than Meredith's?

You continually prove you know nothing about the facts of the case.

 

[Grinder]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you really think Amanda's sexual history was promiscuous compared to others her age? Do you really think her sex life was somehow worse than Meredith's?

You continually prove you know nothing about the facts of the case.

Yes. Whether or not one slept with more men than the other just doesn't matter. The PGP also try to make a big deal of Amanda's drug consumption while ignoring Meredith's alcohol consumption. Go back and read the early reports and many of the people speaking of Meredith were bar tenders and owners.

While Raf could have developed into a long term relationship it hardly seems that Giacomo was likely to be long term for Meredith. But of course it doesn't matter.

 

[Bill Williams]

So I guess confusing online to media is the butterfly effect?

Perhaps the ISC report if it ever comes out will prove me wrong and they will be quoting you

I do think the DNA experts may have had some influence but not our's here, with the exception of Chris H.

I've sent my own version of a Marasca-esque motivations report to Rome, and even had it translated into (what I'm told is) impeccable Italian legalese. Even has an acceptable level of dietrology to keep Machiavelli happy. So far, no response. Dr. Marasca said he'd read mine before the end of September and if mine's better, he'll simply substitute it for his.

Arguably since 2005 the lines are blurring between "media" and "online". My buddy the reporter here has been under pressure from his employer (major newspaper) to create/maintain an on-line blog. Some of the old stalwarts who we thought were untouchable have been let go because they refused.

So, yes, confusing mainstream media and on-line IS the butterfly effect.

Oh yes:

 

[Bill Williams]

Once again, Vixen has contributed a post that contains a misstatement that is misleading.

As Bill and Kauffer have already pointed out, the full text of Convention Article 3 reads as:

ARTICLE 3
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

A review of Amanda Knox's blog entry that stated she had lodged an application to ECHR claiming Italy had violated her Convention rights in convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba and of her book, Waiting to be Heard, and of ECHR case-law, suggests that she may have two claims under Article 3:

1. Inhuman or degrading treatment, in relation to the treatment she received from the Italian police during her interrogation of Nov. 5/6; and

2. Failure of the Italian authorities to conduct an effective investigation of her credible claim of inhuman and degrading treatment by the Italian police, which claim she provided in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6, 2007 and in her testimony given in 2009.

Actions of police that may be considered inhuman or degrading treatment include acts of "minor" violence against someone unwarranted by any physical action by that person, threats - especially those intended to coerce incriminating statements, and denial of sleep, food or bathroom facilities for those in need.

Relevant case-law includes, but is not limited to, Gagfen v. Germany.

I can't believe I'm taking your side on this, Numbers. As you well know, I am completely skeptical that ECHR will do anything other then the politically expedient thing. It will all depend on whether or not they believe it is worth it (or counterproductive) to embarrass Italy.

Then again - think of my own track record for predictions, and smile.

 

[kwill]

Amanda wasn't choosy about who she slept with

Promiscuity can be a classic symptom of sociopathic recklessness.

I think it's the wink at the end of the first sentence that makes it so squeegy. How much illicit pleasure has been had by people examining this one college student's sex life?

The second sentence is supposed to justify the first one, right? It's okay to focus on the sniffing of panties because -- as everyone knows -- getting laid is the path to sociopathic recklessness, and murder can only be next.

Ugh. The only thing that surprises me at all is that people who make comments like these don't realize that they're exposing themselves. In the meantime, wow -- another lovely day here in the Pacific Northwest. Blue skies & soft breezes all the way.

 

[Numbers]

I can't believe I'm taking your side on this, Numbers. As you well know, I am completely skeptical that ECHR will do anything other then the politically expedient thing. It will all depend on whether or not they believe it is worth it (or counterproductive) to embarrass Italy.

Then again - think of my own track record for predictions, and smile.

Yes, your "taking {my} side" on this issue is a bit alarming, due to your track record.

But I do have the ECHR case-law as back-up. Otherwise I would have to consider changing my position!

 

[acbytesla]

Amanda wasn't choosy about who she slept with

Promiscuity can be a classic symptom of sociopathic recklessness.

Really? Maybe the person just likes sex. Maybe they aren't frigid prudes or ugly hags who couldn't get a man interested in them.

Why do women engage in slut shaming Vixen? As you clearly are doing. Why?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

I won't address the silly leader crap but I do think my comments are often taken out of context. Of course people like to cherry pick. I am the last person you will ever see trying to silence conversation. I am hopeful that people will begin to talk about reform and how to prevent wrongful convictions like this in the future. This case is an excellent learning tool. There are many issues worth discussing. I stand by my comment that it is pathetic to keep arguing details of this case with people like Vixen. There is no point to it. That is my opinion only of course. People can carry on for eternity if they like.

 

[bagels]

Really? Maybe the person just likes sex. Maybe they aren't frigid prudes or ugly hags who couldn't get a man interested in them.

Why do women engage in slur shaming Vixen? As you clearly are doing. Why?

I think Vixen thinks it goads us. I personally don't care about AK. She could be the psychopath narcissist Machiavelli swears she is for all it matters, doesn't change the fact that Meredith was self evidently killed and raped by Rudy Guede.

 

[Ken Dine]

[ ]

As I've said before, the early PI positions that turned out to be false, such as "Amanda never met Rudi" actually hurt later more accurate information coming from the PI side. I think the early, early attacks on Mignini, though most likely deserved, were counterproductive.

That would depend on your definition of "MET"?

Amanda & Meredith did both go downstairs to the boys' apartment once while Guede was there, and perhaps one of the boys generally introduced both gals at that time, but there wasn't any evidence that I've seen which stated Amanda was actually introduced to Guede, or that she had ever talked to Guede at that time, or at any other time.

Once walking home from the bars Amanda & Meredith bumped into the boys and walked home with them, and Guede was with the boys, but Amanda & Meredith walked together and never interacted with Guede.

Amanda may have also seen Guede around town, but no one ever saw them speak to each other, and since they didn't share a common language, speaking together would be difficult even if they did want to talk.

Personally, I don't view Amanda's few encounters with Guede as ever having "met him" in the usual sense. To actually "meet" someone usually implies an introduction, perhaps a handshake, and after sharing a few pleasantries, usually a more meaningful exchange between them.

I do think the DNA experts may have had some influence but not our's here, with the exception of Chris H.

Since Italian trials are generally conducted in the media, I would say that DNA expert Peter Gill's appearance on Italian TV shortly before the March 27th exoneration, in which Gill explains to Italy how contamination affected the Amanda Knox case making Stefanoni's DNA results worthless, was very influential:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2...contamination-affected-the-amanda-knox-c_news

I think the accusations of infatuations with either the victim or the exonerated is a straw man with the exception of PQ. One of the saddest aspects of the case has been the comparison of the two main females in beauty, smarts and likability. They were similar in all aspects.

I generally agree, but as between most individuals, there were notable differences between Amanda & Meredith.

Amanda was a younger quirky outgoing west-coast American gal, and Meredith was a socially more reserved Brit, which is probably why Meredith prefered hanging with her English friends who shared the same cultural background.

Meredith was probably into drinking alcohol more than Amanda was. Indeed, before coming to Italy Meredith was busted in England on a Drunk & Disorderly charge, which in America would be a misdemeanor. Amanda's only brush with the law was taking responsibility for a loud party, a mere infraction (i.e., not a crime).

Both Amanda & Meredith seemed to be good students.

Sexually, Amanda may have had more recent experiences, such as bonking the guy on the train. And while Amanda did bring a few guys around to the cottage, it seems that it was more for social reasons than for sex.

Meredith was bonking one of the boys downstairs (Giacomo), which probably wasn't a good decision on her part. Most women would avoid such a sexual relationship so close to home.

Meredith also wasn't very happy how her relationship with Giacomo was going since she complained about him to her English friends. Apparently, Meredith felt Giacomo was a player and just using her for sex.

In the days before the murder, with Giacomo out of town, Meredith was out with her English friends drinking and carousing.

In the week before the murder Amanda had met Raffaele and they both seemed to have mutual affection for each other, so Amanda's love-life appeared to be much better than Meredith's love-life at the time of the murder.

Indeed, Amanda was spending most of her time at Raffaele's apartment, so she wasn't around much to bug Meredith even if her personality at times did grate on Meredith.

Both gals often text-messaged each other signing with X0s (kisses & hugs), so while they came from different backgrounds, they got along well enough.

Meredith clearly wasn't a saint (but an above average young woman), and Amanda clearly wasn't a She-Devil killer, and likewise Amanda was an above average young woman.

Mignini's sexual fantasies about these two young foreign women was utter nonsense that only a demented "Guilter' could believe.

 

[acbytesla]

I think Vixen thinks it goads us. I personally don't care about AK. She could be the psychopath narcissist Machiavelli swears she is for all it matters, doesn't change the fact that Meredith was self evidently killed and raped by Rudy Guede.

There is no question about that.

But this is a subject that interests me a great deal. Why do some people engage in trying to make women feel ashamed of being interested in sex? Amanda's number of secular partners was not outrageous and who hasn't had a one night stand? So why make a big deal about it in this case?

Frankly, I'm not very interested in arguing the case any more, but the social phenomenon interests me greatly. Why do people come to this forum now that the case is over? What drew them to the case in the first place? Bruce is not wrong about this being a little bizarre

I fully admit that if Amanda hadn't been the pretty girl next door my interest probably would not have been as strong. I also know that the world wide slut shaming drew me in as I think that there is this unhealthy double standard toward male/female interests in sex. Why? And shouldn't that be a relic of the past?

I'm really not interested in Amanda except to hope she has a fulfilling and happy life. I'm afraid that she won't be able to put this behind her. I might suggest that she doesn't try since it might be impossible. That like it or not, this will follow her forever. She is a modern day Hester Prynne. And possibly like Hester, turning her back on it may not be the answer.

 

[acbytesla]

That would depend on your definition of "MET"?

Amanda & Meredith did both go downstairs to the boys' apartment once while Guede was there, and perhaps one of the boys generally introduced both gals at that time, but there wasn't any evidence that I've seen which stated Amanda was actually introduced to Guede, or that she had ever talked to Guede at that time, or at any other time.

Once walking home from the bars Amanda & Meredith bumped into the boys and walked home with them, and Guede was with the boys, but Amanda & Meredith walked together and never interacted with Guede.

Amanda may have also seen Guede around town, but no one ever saw them speak tio each other, and since they didn't share a common language, speaking together would be difficult even if they did want to talk.

Personally, I don't view Amanda's few encounters with Guede as ever having "met him" in the usual sense. To actually "meet" someone usually implies an introduction, perhaps a handshake, and after sharing a few pleasantries, usually a more meaningful exchange between them.

LMAO. Excuse me for laughing Ken, but I have had many, many, many similar exchanges over this with Grinder although the argument was focused on if Amanda "knew" Rudy. I have always said that while Amanda "knew of" Rudy she in fact did not "know" Rudy. Even the Bible suggest that "knowing" someone means to have had several with them.

But I've been on that Merry Go Round (Carousel to all you Brits) with Grinder all too many times.