Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strawberry]

You have been told they were not friends. John Kercher reveals in his book, Meredith that a friend travelling back to England said Mez complained for the whole duration of the flight about Amanda's conduct. If only she had moved out FAST!

Your covering your ears and singing, la, la, doesn't contradict this fact.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>

The above specimen is a clear example of how someone doesn't mind slandering a murder victim if they think it suits their hate campaign against the defendant.

Vixen, just so as you know, your post describes Meredith as a person who was two faced and boring. I doubt she was, but your post characterises her that way. And you're only describing her that way because in your simple but hateful little mind you think its evidence that the two girls didn't get on. It isn't. If your anecdote was to be taken seriously, it would simply be evidence that Meredith was the type of girl who bitched about other girls behind their back. We have no descriptions of her behaviour with Amanda that are anything other than friendly, and we have no evidence that Amanda spoke badly about Meredith behind her back.

So basically, you've made a young woman who was brutally murdered sound very unlikeable. Go you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, what lead Amanda Knox to become a suspect, is that she portrayed herself walking at home bringing the murderer with her, a black man she knew, after meeting him in Piazza Grimana that night, that they wanted to have fun, and that she was in the kitchen covering her ears while her companion raped and killed her roomate. Subsequently, she added that she had also memories of blood on her boyfriend's hand.
While she was saying this, in another room her boyfriend was admitting to having told lies on her girlfriend's request.
Until that point, btw, Amanda Knox had maintanied a previous unrealistic, inconsistent shower-mop story about the morning of Nov. 2.


the sms text: Knox did not write "see you later", she wrote "ci vediamo più tardi".
Meanwhile, in the other room her boyfriend was withdrawing her alibi.
The police understood the "see you later" excuse from Knox, they understood it was possible; but as Vixen says, police are not your mates. You may have an explanation, that's not enough to clear suspicion.

...... and while you are in full guilter reconstructionist mode, the rest of Italy is talking about their innocence and the screw ups of people like Mignini.

You and I can go like this all day. In fact we have! And Italy is getti g on with business despite your claims that "someone" is about to blow the lid off of Marasca's report.

Yawn.

 

[Bill Williams]

The thing is, Machiavelli, you folks have been telling us innocentisti for years what this whole thing is "really" about.

You seem to believe that you get to reinvent this crime, until finally AK and RS, are convicted.

Just today Vixen reinvented stuff straight out of thin air - the "see you later" SMS was now meant for RUDY, sent to Lumumba by mistake..... or as a ruse.... or there really is still some undiscovered connection between Rudy and Amanda....

Good Lord man. You are a fantasist, and good for you for being one. At some weird level there's some enjoyment to be had reading your bobbing and weaving.

Marasca acquitted them, dude... or quashed the guilty verdict - take your pick.

You're working awfully hard to show it ain't so. Great! Good for you!

 

[Desert Fox]

No, there are some things that are facts.

While it may be true that Meredith made a few negative comments about Amanda to the British girls, there is no evidence that she complained to her Italian roommates about Amanda other than the issue with the toilet brush. It is also a fact that Amanda and Meredith appeared to get along to the Italian girls.

There are no reports of loud arguments ever. And most importantly, there is no evidence that AMANDA didn't like Meredith. NONE.

There is also no motive for Raffaele. There is also, no real connection to Rudy.

Those are FACTS.

My message was targeted at Vixen, adding to what you stated.
Basically, we cannot trust John Kercher to be in any way objective with regards to Amanda and Meredeth being friends.

 

[acbytesla]

My message was targeted at Vixen, adding to what you stated.
Basically, we cannot trust John Kercher to be in any way objective with regards to Amanda and Meredeth being friends.

You gotta feel for John Kercher. It's hard enough to lose a daughter, but to be deceived by the prosecutors about the facts and to be yanked around like this. I'm sure Mignini etc. told them there was no doubt that A&K were involved. I'm sure he quickly learned to hate the kids with the fire of a thousand suns. You can't just turn something like that off.

 

[Desert Fox]

You gotta feel for John Kercher. It's hard enough to lose a daughter, but to be deceived by the prosecutors about the facts and to be yanked around like this. I'm sure Mignini etc. told them there was no doubt that A&K were involved. I'm sure he quickly learned to hate the kids with the fire of a thousand suns. You can't just turn something like that off.

I don't hate him just like I don't hate the parents of Michele Moore-Bosko thinking the Norfolk Four killed their daughter. I just believe he is wrong and leave it at that.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't hate him just like I don't hate the parents of Michele Moore-Bosko thinking the Norfolk Four killed their daughter. I just believe he is wrong and leave it at that.

I have felt admittedly felt angry towards them, but it's over now. I just hope they can heal now.

 

[Mike1711]

The problem is that you confuse "western" with the sets "common law" and "adversarial".
You don't get that justice systems can be civil law based and with inquisitorial mechanisms, and be fair.
Anyway you don't get the principle that trial events and officers are to be judged in accord to the system they are part of. The meaning of something depends on the context, law and system it is part of, like the meaning of a word depends on the language.

By "western" law I refer to law within a democracy. All laws within a democracy protect the rights of the accused, regardless of the historical evolution of the law. This is relevant for "common law" (or "case law") which sits happily within an "adversarial" legal system

To a great extent your reply is trite and misses the point, so I will try again. South Africa, where I live, has Roman Dutch Law as its legal system and this has parallels to Italian Law. The workings of the systems are not rocket science.

The underlying premise of criminal law practiced within any democracy is that the defendant be given a "fair trial". This is without exception and regardless of the legal system practiced within the democracy. In a democracy defendants rights are enshrined and inalienable whilst obligations are encumbant on the state (from which the state cannot "contract out"). One of states obligations is transparency. In the AK/RS case the lack of state transparency is hideously obvious and contrary to a fair trial.

It is absolute nonsense that in an "adversarial" system the state is allowed the latitude to twist, withhold AND SUBVERT (the semen stain and DNA, amongst many other examples) evidence.

It is abundantly apparent that the generally incestuous and corrupt relationship between the prosecution (read Mignini) and the police has compromised many inalienable rights of AK/RS to a fair trial.

Roll on the EHRC take on the case. It is not so much that the Italian Legal System is wrong but more that the legal power base has shifted to the state, and that power has corrupted the legal process by ignoring its own values and laws.

 

[Mike1711]

You write nonsense. And you know that. Yet you try hard to rationalize your denial.
Bruno/Marasca obviously did not "throw tidbits" in direction "of other courts". They violated art. 628 going against the points of law established by Chieffi's court, which they cannot overturn anyway.
Those fact findings ate from courts of merits they have annulled and they had no duty to highlight that they agreed if they didn't intend to confirm. If they confirmed fact findings, they confirmed fact findings. Period. They eve emphasized the reasons they say they find convincing.
Legally those facts are valid as for judicial truth, including civil litigation.
Hellmann did not just acquit, he convicted of calunnia, Bruno/Marasca pointed out the calunnia conviction will remain solid and emphasized the elements even though they were not asked to express themselves on calunnia.
Those are not tidbits. They are judicial facts explained over pages.

The mainstream press, I am told, actually talked very little. Articles were very small and didn't have debates following. And the press doesn't "get" meanings the way you think. The press avoids meanings (besides the fact that they don't actually read court documents). The Italian press avoids issues for reasons completely different from your fantasy, actually for reasons nearly the opposite of that. Even journalists that I know are reluctant to speak about cassazione, and they share exactly my opinions about Knox. Mainstream media stay away from the rid of attacking Cassazione because of political and economical reasons (not talking about lawsuits), just like Catholics do not criticize the Pope in loud voice, there is no press freedom of mainstream media, it's not because they "get" things of your imagination.
This doesn't mean that talk doesn't exist or that SC report is an unimportant detail. Actually things will emerge, I'm rather certain mainstream media will resist, that won't take initiative, but will reluctantly talk about those facts too.

The SC report is a fact. As for what I observe, you decide to react to such fact with rationalization and downplaying and denial of its true content about Amanda Knox.

In terms of law in many countries appeal courts may only overrule on "points of law". Some countries confine this limitation to the state only.

It is a fine line for courts but "they were not at the scene of the crime" is a point of law (it is a legal nonsense to guilty of an act of murder when the parties were not at the scene).

The "suspicion" that AK/RS were at the house (however ludicrously small) is a lower court finding which creates a "point of fact" (don't get me started on the meaningless translation of "judicial truth"). The "point of fact" remains as a legality, but only as a "suspicion". It should not necessarily be read to be an endorsement of the lower court finding.

The ISC merely repeats the suspicion (point of fact) but overrules the finding of guilt because on a point of law AK/RS cannot have committed a murder in absentia.

Machiavelli, you are twisting the way things work to make the sensible sound ridiculous. It is either ignorance or a failure to admit your failing, that drives you.

 

[anglolawyer]

'See you later' not suspicious

'I will see you later' suspicious

'I will see you later. Have a good evening' not suspicious

'I will see you later. Have a good evening' suspicious

 

[Ken Dine]

You have been told they were not friends. John Kercher reveals in his book, Meredith that a friend travelling back to England said Mez complained for the whole duration of the flight about Amanda's conduct. If only she had moved out FAST!

Your covering your ears and singing, la, la, doesn't contradict this fact.

I know that you'd never lie, but I'm a tad confused about this flight Meredith supposedly had taken back to England where she was complaining about Amanda the entire way?

As I recall, Amanda returned from Germany and moved in, and then met Meredith for the 1st time in the last few weeks of September. Meredith was killed about 6 weeks later on Nov 1st.

When Meredith was killed, she was preparing to fly home for a visit in a few days, but that trip home of course never happened. It seems doubtful that Meredith would have flown home in October with her early November trip home already scheduled?

So then, you're claiming that some time in October 2007, that Meredith had enough time to get disgusted with Amanda, and that Meredith then flew back to England sometime in October complaining about Amanda the entire way?

About 2 weeks before she was murdered Amanda & Meredith went to the chocolate festival together. The next week Amanda & Meredith attended a concert together, where Amanda met Raffaele.

Funny that Meredith's family never mentioned all that you now claim when they testified back in 2009? (See below article).

The only things negative the Kerchers had said about Amanda, was that she sang too much, and they also mentioned the toilet-brush incident.

In her testimony Meredith's mom described their relationship as being, "all right.”

John Kercher also testified that Meredith had told him she was surprised that Amanda found a boyfriend so quickly, but I guess John Kercher didn't know Meredith was bonking the guy downstairs?

Based upon the testimony of the Kerchers, it appears that it was Amanda who didn't want to hang around with Meredith's English girlfriends instead of the other way around:

Meredith Kercher's Family Testifies at Knox Trial
By ANN WISE
PERUGIA, Italy, June 6, 2009

[ ]

Kercher-Knox Relationship 'All Right'

"She was always on about the chocolate festival," said Meredith Kercher's father, John, and her sister said that in their few phone calls, "We talked a lot about the chocolate festival here because I always had chocolate in my room."

Meredith Kercher was due to go back to England for her mother's birthday, just days after she was killed, and she was going to bring "a suitcase of chocolate" for her sister, her mother said today with a laugh.

Meredith Kercher and her accused killer Amanda Knox shared a determination to go to Italy, and both worked hard get there.

Knox worked a series of jobs in Seattle to put the money together for her Italian experience. And Meredith also worked two jobs that summer, said her sister, to save money to come to Italy.

But their approach to life in Italy was different, it seemed to emerge again today.

According to Arline Kercher, the relationship between Meredith and Amanda "was all right,” but Meredith had told her that Amanda, after being invited to lunch by Meredith to meet her English friends, told her that "she didn't want to socialize with English people, she wanted to socialize with Italians" to better learn the language.

Stephanie said Meredith had told her that only now that she had a roommate, Amanda, who had a habit of singing loudly all the time, did she realize how annoying it could be. And she apologized for having done so when they were younger.

Meredith had also told her parents that she was surprised to see Amanda take up a boyfriend the first week she was in Perugia.

John Kercher said that Meredith mentioned Amanda to him only twice.
“She spoke to me about her, about the fact that she was surprised how soon Amanda had gotten a boyfriend" when she arrived in Perugia, and "she told me a couple of weeks before she died that she was upset that Amanda never seemed to flush the toilet.”

Stephanie Kercher described her sister as strong and passionate, a fighter. Would she have defended herself, she was asked?

"Absolutely, 110 percent," Stephanie said with no hesitation. "Mez had a strong personality, and physically she was very strong. She was very passionate about things that were important to her -- family, friends, coming to Italy," continued Stephanie. "She fought for her place here, and she would have fought to the end."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7772960&page=1

 

[Annella]

'See you later' not suspicious

'I will see you later' suspicious

'I will see you later. Have a good evening' not suspicious

'I will see you later. Have a good evening' suspicious

Machiavelli is trying his best to cloud the sms from Amanda to Lumumba with his usual BS.

Mach said " the sms text: Knox did not write "see you later", she wrote "ci vediamo più tardi".

Sorry, but Amanda wrote just as I used to say to people I expected to see in next few days.... 'ci vediamo piu tardi' I could have used ci vediamo tra poco, ( see you soon) or ci vediamo dopo...another version of see you later.
The literal Italian translation of 'ci vediamo piu tardi' to English is...'see you later'. This has been covered, endlessly!
The fact Machiavelli and more importantly, the Italian investigators could NOT understand how an English speaker new to the Italian language could translate an English phrase into Italian 'literally' is scary! And that one simple misunderstanding created 8 years of absolute horror. That Machiavelli is still perpetuating this merda is disgusting.

 

[Annella]

You have been told they were not friends. John Kercher reveals in his book, Meredith that a friend travelling back to England said Mez complained for the whole duration of the flight about Amanda's conduct. If only she had moved out FAST!

Your covering your ears and singing, la, la, doesn't contradict this fact.

<SNIP>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Sadly, John Kercher 's book was full of errors and blatant lies. And Vixen, you covering YOUR ears and singing la la blardy la will never contradict this fact. A lesson here:

http://injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=39734#p39734

 

[Bill Williams]

In terms of law in many countries appeal courts may only overrule on "points of law". Some countries confine this limitation to the state only.

It is a fine line for courts but "they were not at the scene of the crime" is a point of law (it is a legal nonsense to guilty of an act of murder when the parties were not at the scene).

The "suspicion" that AK/RS were at the house (however ludicrously small) is a lower court finding which creates a "point oi if fact" (don't get me started on the meaningless translation of "judicial truth"). The "point of fact" remains as a legality, but only as a "suspicion". It should not necessarily be read to be an endorsement of the lower court finding.

The ISC merely repeats the suspicion (point of fact) but overrules the finding of guilt because on a point of law AK/RS cannot have committed a murder in absentia.

Machiavelli, you are twisting the way things work to make the sensible sound ridiculous. It is either ignorance or a failure to admit your failing, that drives you.

I think I'm going to put you on speed dial!

 

[Bill Williams]

'See you later' not suspicious

'I will see you later' suspicious

'I will see you later. Have a good evening' not suspicious

'I will see you later. Have a good evening' suspicious

The trouble, AL, is you're trying to achieve clarity. The guilter case, on the other hand, has always been to keep things fuzzy - enough at least so that they can keep moving the goalposts as needed.

Did you see Vixen's version? That this SMS was really meant for Rudy? But that Knox had simply sent it in error to Lumumba or worse as a divertive ruse?

 

[anglolawyer]

The trouble, AL, is you're trying to achieve clarity. The guilter case, on the other hand, has always been to keep things fuzzy - enough at least so that they can keep moving the goalposts as needed.

Did you see Vixen's version? That this SMS was really meant for Rudy? But that Knox had simply sent it in error to Lumumba or worse as a divertive ruse?

She said that? Golly.

 

[carbonjam72]

Just saw an Italian article where Stephanie Kercher and Maresca discuss the motivation report. I imagine a Daily Mail article will be soon to follow.

Anyway, here's the link to the original, and a google translate below.

http://www.quotidiano.net/omicidio-meredith-1.1295179

The idea that innocent people suffered for 8 years doesn't seem to occur to, nor trouble her in the least. But they don't speak Italian, and were lucky to have Maresca explaining what was really happening every step of the way. 'Rasputin' comes to mind.

Sister Mez: Justice absurd. "And Amanda is away from us"
Stephanie Kercher: after years of processes we do not know the truth
ERIKA PONTINI
Amanda Knox at his home in Seattle (Reuters)
*BECOME A FAN OF QUOTIDIANO.NET


Perugia, September 13, 2015 - "NO, MEREDITH not received the justice he deserves. There were too many conflicting results and no clarity on what happened that night. Justice is at least know the truth, and we do not have even that."

Stephanie Kercher, sister of Mez - killed in Perugia on Nov. 1, 2007 - the "end" of the trial for the murder of Via della Pergola with a single culprit, just Riec not to accept it. Calm as always in these long eight years of agony, he agrees to speak on behalf of his family, after the publication of the reasons for the sentence that sent acquitted, forever, Amanda and Raffaele, and given the legal truth a single culprit, Rudy Guede.

Eight years and five contradictory processes ... What idea have you made of the Italian justice system?
"To be honest I find it incredibly difficult to understand how so many judicial authorities may contradict each other. The system would need to be simpler, and above all the process much faster. After eight years we're not even close to the truth about What really happened that night. "

The Italian state has protected you in any way?
"We have received support from the Italian State, as well as by our lawyer and his associates, but also by the police and the community. Without that, it would be a battle even tougher."

Do you think the justice of your country you would have protected better?
"I know our system well enough to comment. What I think, in this case, is that the involvement of people of different nationalities have made everything more difficult. For us, the victims' families, the language barrier in some circumstances He helped us understand what was really happening. "

After the crime what made you more harm?
"We are a family torn by grief trying to find a way to resist and remember Meredith. The hardest thing we had to endure? I do not have any conclusion, he did not put a final point to this tragedy."

Now that were acquitted forever would you meet Amanda and Raffaele? What would you tell them?
"They are free to continue their lives and I think that would be better. We have no reason or need to meet them. As for us, we are a family who lost someone so close, we should have the right to try to live."

Amanda said she would pray at the tomb of Meredith, Raffaele has published a picture of him standing next to a portrait of her sister. These utterances interpreted as a sign of closeness?
"I had already requested that the circumstances of the situation the two of them do not have to visit the grave of Meredith and I'm still not convinced. For us it is a place to meet again and recall the happy times we spent together with her. To go against our wishes Personal is disrespectful and unacceptable. Meredith should have at least the right to rest in peace at last. "
*
TECHNICALLY critic against the reasons for the sentence is the Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, that the decision of the Supreme Court, is "a symptom of obstinate Italian justice to put a lid on it in this case."

A judgment that refers to a doubt?
"It is surprising more, repeat the judges, that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could be present in the house, but not at the crime scene, also keeping open the question of their participation in the crime. How can I assume that if I'm five meters from ' murder, not least know what's going on, can not least ingervenire? ".

Rudy then only culprit?
"The Supreme Court reiterates that the manner of the crime, Guede could not be just, it remains to identify the person or persons who participated ...".

ERIKA PONTINI

 

[Vixen]

Except Guede was not even in her phone?

I feel sure Rudy had a disposable phone. It's quite common for ppl to do their petty crime (ticket touting, drug dealing, theft) on anonymised phones. If Mez had two phones - both legit, I should add - how do you know Rudy had none, and Amanda only had one?

 

[Vixen]

Let's see, on Halloween evening Meredith said goodbye to Amanda with a kiss. Yea, it cooled a lot.

It's a girly thing. All bs.

The fact Mez blatantly snubbed Amanda - even with "love youxxxx" - should speak volumes.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Vixen]

You have to be really careful about after the fact statements. John Kercher things that Amanda is some sex crazed evil woman who murdered his saintly virginal daughter, no matter what the evidence. Of course he cannot accept that they were friends.

A view that was upheld by two fact-finding merits courts.

Massei said her actions were a choice of evil. Amanda herself brags about her promiscuity in her book, so yes, she was sex-crazed, by her own account.