• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Still lying by omission.
Click to expand...

This is what you said about London John and the barrage of phantom texts that Amanda sent to Meredith on Halloween.

But it matters little. No one is going to sue Amanda for this. I wonder if they are going to publish the book in Italian?
 
Vixen said:
Didn't see her there "all evening". Raff, too, denies Amanda was at his "all evening".


Donnino suggested amnesia. However, it's obviously a logical fallacy for Amanda to claim this was the reason she suddenly started seeing Patrick do all those things. So her memory suddenly came back? She called them "flashbacks" so IMV there is a lot of authenticity in her account, albeit carefully protecting Rudy and herself from being implicated.
Click to expand...

She didn't say she got flashes of Patrick because she was told she had amnesia. She said the police harassed, yelled, and forcefully insisted she was there and the person in the text message was who she met at the cottage and they had proof she was there, and they wouldn't let her deny being there as an option, and the cherry on top is manipulating her by telling her she has amnesia, transforming the vague police reconstruction forced into her mind as the only story they were accepting into "memories." A coercive interrogation resulting in a false statement isn't an exciting new revelation and has a significant historical basis. And your last point is wrong, by admitting to being at the scene of a staged break-in that she later informed the police was genuine, she was very clearly implicating herself in the crime. The real killer probably would have remembered they spent hours staging a break-in and discovery and not tell the police they invited the killer in through the front door.


I see. This made Raff see flashing blurry images of Amanda going out for the evening between 8:45 and 01:00.
Click to expand...

No, you just throw out one straw man after the other. Raff lied after caving into strong threats from the harassing police, thinking he was choosing the easy way out by cutting his losses with this girl he just met that the police insisted was involved in a murder of a girl he barely knew. It was a poor strategy on his part but interrogation tapes of the cops saying "protect her and we'll beat you to bloody pulp and put you in prison for 30 years" probably wouldn't play out favorably for the cops. And again, it makes little sense to immediately give up his accomplice to the police if she can implicate him and take them right to his knife.
 
Grinder said:
Yes you should.
Click to expand...

Now I'm lost. I have. Are you really asking if I agree with him?

Plain talk, Grinder, plain talk. What is it that's eating you, and perhaps i can respond directly to that.... rather that this guessing game.
 
Grinder said:
[ ]

There is no way to make the Meredith murder a "normal" crime seen frequently. Rudi did not have anything in his background that would point to a violent character.
Click to expand...


I seem to recall that Guede was known to have improperly groped women when he got drunk, which is a form of aggression. While groping isn't on the same level as a sexual murder, even so, Guede was obviously a sexually frustrated man.

TruthCalls said:
Agreed on both points, Grinder, but with one caveat... during my research I discovered that a majority of those who commit B&E's are not violent criminals and, in many cases, they break in without possessing a weapon. Their mindset is to steal, not to assail. It was my impression that the assaults are typically spontaneous and a result of opportunity. That is, if someone stumbles across a burglary in progress the odds are pretty good they will be assaulted in an effort to somehow shut the witness up. If it is a female who runs across the burglar then the assault can easily take on a sexual nature. I don't understand the dynamics of it but when one person gains power and control over another it often drives a sexual response. IOW, most sexual assaults as a result of a burglary gone bad did not start out with sexual assault in mind.

This is what I think happened with Guede. He only intended to steal. He didn't expect anyone coming home. He was surprised by Meredith, had no easy way out, and reacted violently out of fear. At some point he had power and control over Meredith and it turned sexual.

I've often wondered if she locked the front door when she got home and if, had she not, would Guede just have escaped undetected? I don't think Guede was a violent person and probably would have preferred just getting out of there.
Click to expand...


Just to add, in this particular case the victim knew who Guede was by sight, so if Guede couldn't escape the cottage without being seen by Meredith, then on the spur of the moment killing Meredith may have seemed to Guede as his only option to avoid jail, as well as to obtain the money he desperately needed.

While most burglaries don't involve murder and rape, this Los Angeles case that does involve burglary, rape & murder, will shock your senses – Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez
 
bagels said:
She didn't say she got flashes of Patrick because she was told she had amnesia. She said the police harassed, yelled, and forcefully insisted she was there and the person in the text message was who she met at the cottage and they had proof she was there, and they wouldn't let her deny being there as an option, and the cherry on top is manipulating her by telling her she has amnesia, transforming the vague police reconstruction forced into her mind as the only story they were accepting into "memories." A coercive interrogation resulting in a false statement isn't an exciting new revelation and has a significant historical basis. And your last point is wrong, by admitting to being at the scene of a staged break-in that she later informed the police was genuine, she was very clearly implicating herself in the crime. The real killer probably would have remembered they spent hours staging a break-in and discovery and not tell the police they invited the killer in through the front door.
Click to expand...

If only there was some kind of invention that could record sound and play it back.

If only.
 
acbytesla said:
If only there was some kind of invention that could record sound and play it back.

If only.
Click to expand...

I was reading a police interview in another case I'm interested in and this is how it started:

1Pdqpgc.gif


Imagine the difference civil rights could have played in the Kercher case.
 
Vixen said:
Still lying by omission.
Click to expand...

How would you assess her if she did the following:

* While posting in this thread, completely invent evidence, like saying there is video footage of Guede and a female entering the cottage
* Refuse to provide any cite for that evidence when challenged

If Amanda Knox did this, would you call her a liar, confused, mistaken? Or some other name?

Just curious.
 
Last edited:
Dougm said:
How would you assess her if she did the following:

* While posting in this thread, completely invent evidence, like saying there is video footage of Guede and a female entering the cottage
* Refuse to provide any cite for that evidence when challenged

If Amanda Knox did this, would you call her a liar, confuses, mistaken? Or some other name?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

That's not lying through omission. More like through comission.
 
Vixen said:
Nope, Nencini was assessing the robustness of Massei's verdict.
Click to expand...

Nope, Nencini was ruling on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. The Court of Second Instance is a de novo trial. The court reviews the evidence and issues a verdict which can be completely different from the Court of First Instance. It can use the findings from the lower court but its role is not to merely uphold or overturn the lower court, but to establish it's own verdict.
 
Ken Dine said:
I seem to recall that Guede was known to have improperly groped women when he got drunk, which is a form of aggression. While groping isn't on the same level as a sexual murder, even so, Guede was obviously a sexually frustrated man.
Click to expand...

I believe there was one witness that said he bothered women. Rudi had until very recently before the murder been living with a woman in Milan, how do you know he was any more frustrated than the average Joe?

Just to add, in this particular case the victim knew who Guede was by sight, so if Guede couldn't escape the cottage without being seen by Meredith, then on the spur of the moment killing Meredith may have seemed to Guede as his only option to avoid jail, as well as to obtain the money he desperately needed.
Click to expand...

Oh course we don't have any verification that he desperately needed money. It seems his foster mom was still helping him and he had been doing some work. I guess you're not in the school of thought that it was Rudi that stole the 2000 from the Nursery

While most burglaries don't involve murder and rape, this Los Angeles case that does involve burglary, rape & murder, will shock your senses – Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez
Click to expand...

Yes Rudi is just like the Night Stalker:rolleyes:
 
Grinder said:
Why don't you cite something on this? It is not just I that doesn't agree with your assessment others including Cheli don't. Apparently Amanda understood the difference.

You have not demonstrated any high level understanding of the Italian system and certainly not to Cheli's level.

I would say it is more of a bete noir for you. Do you still maintain that the different paragraphs don't really exist except for jurists over 45?
Click to expand...


Umm... now you're inventing my position to try to make a point. Not very edifying. And in any case, you're the only one who keeps bringing it up :)

Why don't you contact Cheli and ask him? I'm not really very confident about your understanding either, by the way - especially since you were labouring under the delusion that Cheli is/was a lawyer, and since you seem to take it as a (blindly) default position that he has a superior understanding of this section of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and how it is applied in practice.....

I am highly confident that my position is the correct one. My position is that Italian courts only ever issue 530.1 acquittals when either a) they have ruled that no crime was ever even committed, or b) they can state with a very high degree of certainty that the defendant is factually innocent.

The problem is that the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure is fundamentally clumsy and faulty in respect of acquittals (as well as in many other areas). In law and in fact, criminal defendants in Italy can only now be found guilty or not guilty. The rest is a combination of window dressing and reversion to prior practices and protocols which have bled through into the codes as they stand today.

But.... evidence, you say. Well, there was already an academic paper referenced earlier in the thread. Re-read that one for starters.

Next, I might present a piece written by Italian Professor and crime writer Alessandro Perissinotto. It makes direct reference to the inability of 530 to accurately reflect the proper judicial rules of Italy in the present day (he points out that "there was a time when you could be acquitted due to lack of evidence". I don't know about you, but that illustrates my position rather well, don't you think?

http://worldmeets.us/lastampa000047.shtml#.VhQx8Um23IU


Next, the current Wikipedia article on the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure makes it explicitly clear that once can only be found guilty or not guilty in Italian criminal trials these days, and that there are only a specific actual number of ways of acquittal (which do not tally with 530 as it is currently (incorrectly) written:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

But perhaps if you think the author(s) of that Wikipedia article have got it as wrong as I have, you ought to contact Wikipedia and do them the public service of telling them the article is factually wrong (together with your correction).


And finally (for now), another article in the Economist points out clearly just how unfit for purpose the Italian criminal justice system is. 530.1/530.2 is just one manifestation of this ugly mess:

http://www.economist.com/news/europ...laws-italys-criminal-justice-system-innocente


Knox and Sollecito were acquitted of the murder (and the theft and the break-in) because (in the court's judgement) they did not commit the crime, under 530.2. Simple as that. 530 is unfit for purpose as it is currently written. Simple as that.
 
Dougm said:
How would you assess her if she did the following:

* While posting in this thread, completely invent evidence, like saying there is video footage of Guede and a female entering the cottage
* Refuse to provide any cite for that evidence when challenged

If Amanda Knox did this, would you call her a liar, confused, mistaken? Or some other name?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for Rudy, Amanda and Raff, they are the ones under discussion, not me.

An Italian newspaper published clips of this grainy footage. Period.
 
LondonJohn said:
Do you know who (and what) Luca Cheli actually is? (hint: I do). He's an intelligent, well-informed and interested amateur. He is not an expert. He is not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Yes he has made that clear for years. I once referred to him as a lawyer but corrected that.

Are you an Italian lawyer?

Dear god - Dalla so what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom