Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

Excuse me but a reasonable person knows the difference between an error, a mistake, an erroneous assumption and lie.

To call an error a lie, is incredibly childish and disingenuous, to boot.

I have seen this type of reasoning in the comments sections of internet articles for years upon years.
When an "Amanda hater" makes up a lie, it is an "error"
If one of the defendants makes an "error", it is a "lie".
We all understand how this works.

 

[analemma]

Analemma, Analemma, Analemma
May I have a citation please
For they did not mention any liars
So provide where they stated these.

Try this
investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of investigative activity.

 

[analemma]

Try this
investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of investigative activity.

or this neat trick of having Poor,poor,rudy testify without cross examination,
another interesting prosecution trick
"the guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who by choice have always voluntarily avoided examination by the accused or his counsel".

 

[Ken Dine]

I'm sure the Italians would welcome you informing them their laws are written incorrectly.

The Italians already know that, which is why they recently began the process of amending their statutory mess. The Italians decided to start first with their civil code since the many lengthy (and costly) civil suits were scaring away business investment in their country.

Next on the agenda is fixing their criminal laws. Will it work? With their entrenched jurists in control of interpretation, maybe not?

BTW – in exonerating Amanda the judge clearly said that there wouldn't be any point in sending the case back down for further lower court review since there simply wasn't any credible evidence that warranted further review – CASE OVER!

Despite the usual 'Guilters' still kvetching over inane details, this case is clearly OVER!

 

[LondonJohn]

Note that no mention is made of 530 or of multiple forms of not guilty. 530 is the law of the land and there is differences between a 1 and 2 acquittal.

I never said there wasn't resistance to the conversion. The critics think they SHOULD have made changes but they didn't.

1. 530 is not "the law of the land". It's part of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It's meant to be informed and driven by legislation, but it's not legislation itself.

2. My original response within which I posted the link to this academic paper was in reference to your broader assertion that "I'm sure the Italians would welcome you informing them their laws are written incorrectly." Not in specific reference to Section 530.

3. Nor was it the objective of this paper to discuss 530 in particular. In fact, it wasn't really the primary objective of this paper to discuss how dreadfully legislated and codified the Italian criminal justice system is (though this is pointed out loud and clear in the course of the discussion). The main objective of the paper was to examine US-originated criticism of the Italian criminal justice system (particularly in regard to the Knox/Sollecito trial process) in the context of the wider differences between the systems in the US and Italy, and to examine how much of the criticism was justifiable and justified.

4. I and others have supplied decent references which are far more directly related to 530. They all either state or imply that 530 as written is fundamentally imperfect and unrepresentative of the actual legislative position (that the ONLY two verdicts available are guilty or not-guilty, and that all not-guilty verdicts carry exactly the same weight and the same presumption of innocence).

5. I suspect that the main reason why there hasn't been more explicit discussion of 530 in academic and journalistic circles is that it's something of a moot point. The (apparent) fact that 530 is a dog's dinner of a section which is now out of date and non-applicable in strict terms is way, way down the list of things that are wrong with Italian criminal justice. In addition, I suspect that plenty of Italian journalists and academics (who are, after all, among the constituencies who should have the most vested interest in the issue) might well be somewhat reticent to publish direct criticism of the system. After all, we've all observed how the Italian State can abuse its laws to *ahem* "modify" free speech and constitutional criticism by ordinary mortals........

 

[acbytesla]

See what I mean? I've explained it to you a thousand times and still you claim not to understand.

Really? That's what you call a reasoned argument complete with court supported evidence references. Seriously?

Let's try another tack. Do you think Amanda was a good friend to Mez?

I'd say they had a budding friendship.They knew each other for all of 42 days.And while they were both going to school in Perugia, they were not attending the same school. Amanda got a job, so even though they were roommates, they weren't traveling in the same circles.

I do know the texts Meredith sent to Amanda did not show any animosity. I know that Amanda spoke positively about Meredith on her emails home. I know they tanned together on the balcony, they went to a concert andnthe chocolate festival together

While it is possible that Meredith may not have like Amanda, there is no proof, none at all that Amanda harbored any negative thoughts about Metedith.

If for example,Amanda was the one that was killed you could point to the British girls testimony that Meredith harbored negative feelings toward Amanda but not the other way around.

Even this is a stretch. Even if they mildly disliked each other, this is hardly a credible motive for murder.

 

[acbytesla]

We are never going to hear the end of it.

And your point is? Some people in this world consistently hold double standards. One for themselves and one for everyone else. I agree that there IS a difference between an error and a lie. I suggest, no I insist that most of the lies you accuse Amanda of are misunderstandings and errors and NOT lies.

I wish I could say the same thing about the posts I read of yours.

I see you treating this as a debate, something to win, never giving an inch. Instead you might try and open your mind and treat it as a a learning opportunity. Ignore your earlier thoughts and examine the evidence logically. It seems as if you desperately are trying to fill the gaping holes in the case and throug sheer will fill those holes by virtue of your own persuasiveness somehow make them guilty.

Quit trying to fill the holes with nonsense.. It is those holes that make them innocent. You cannot fill them with anything truthful. Otherwise there would be a credible case for guilt.

 

[Vixen]

And your point is? Some people in this world consistently hold double standards. One for themselves and one for everyone else. I agree that there IS a difference between an error and a lie. I suggest, no I insist that most of the lies you accuse Amanda of are misunderstandings and errors and NOT lies.

I wish I could say the same thing about the posts I read of yours.

I see you treating this as a debate, something to win, never giving an inch. Instead you might try and open your mind and treat it as a a learning opportunity. Ignore your earlier thoughts and examine the evidence logically. It seems as if you desperately are trying to fill the gaping holes in the case and through sheer will fill those holes by virtue of your own persuasiveness make them guilty.

Quit trying to fill the holes with nonsense.. It is those holes that make them innocent. You cannot fill them with anything truthful. Otherwise there would be a credible case for guilt.

It was dealt with, but you insist on mentioning at every opportunity.

I have no particular desire to win anything. I do think it's important to get the facts right. It's no good pretending Amanda was "tag teamed" for 15 hours without food or water, it's just simply annoying for those of us who know better.

It's not kind to Amanda to force her to keep up a big lie for the rest of her life. You think you are being kind, but you are misguided. Amanda and Raff could have just pleaded guilty to manslaughter - they had the option - they may have been out by now on parole, almost forgotten by the public and ready to start a new life, with no psychological burden of having to "keep up appearances", with friends and family giving them sideways looks.

I do not have double standards. I have never been in trouble with the law. If I make an error, I put my hand up. I am not a member of the hang'em and flog'em brigade. If my actions lead to consequences for me, I can take it on the chin.

Rudy, Amanda and Raff not only stole Mez' life, they brought sorrow and grief to her family and friends. They stole future grandchildren, joy in Mez' graduation, her first job as a qualified journalist. They have brought shame and ruin onto their own families. They make an impossible demand on their closest kin to keep up a facade of belief in their non-involvement.

That's all wrong. Man up. Admit the crime. Do the time. Say sorry to Mez' family. Say sorry to Patrick and the police you slandered. Take the consequences on the chin. And do you know what? People will have so much more respect for you.

 

[Vixen]

I have seen this type of reasoning in the comments sections of internet articles for years upon years.
When an "Amanda hater" makes up a lie, it is an "error"
If one of the defendants makes an "error", it is a "lie".
We all understand how this works.

People do not hate Amanda. They feel deeply sad that a person could commit an act of such great enormity.

Yes, it was Amanda and Raff facing public prosecution, thus we, the public, are entitled to scrutinise their testimony, or in Raff's case, the lack thereof.

 

[Vixen]

The "pro Knox crowd" is OK with any opinion
The "pro Knox crowd" is somewhat frustrated at the fact that it has had to contend with a whole raft of trolls who, for eight years, have flat out lied and made up lies about the case.
This set of trolls includes the Italian police and lunatic, nutcase prosecutors who are out to make name for themselves by burning an American witch.
As the ISC explains "the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations. Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal"
remember the lie about the Harry Potter book, that said Amanda was a LIAR because the Harry Potter book was discovered at HER house, not Raffelles?
well, the TRUTH is that Amanda HAD two BOOKS, one in each apartment, and the Italian police knew she had two books because the book is shown on the evidence collection video from Rafs apartment, but the police hid the fact their was a second book so they could declare her a liar, but the truth came out when the tape was requested by the defense and the book was on the tape and the Italian police intentionally ignored the fact so that they could call her a liar.
Make no mistake: This was a witch hunt.
There are not as many trolls left: The Italian police, prosecutors, and low level judge trolls have been slapped down by the ISC, but we have some trolls left, that do not care about the truth declared by the ISC, they just want to, as they have always done, make up lies the American witch.

We are still waiting patiently for you to provide a citation of anyone calling Amanda a witch, apart from Paceli, who's paid to perform.

I take it you cannot.

IOW "the witch of America" is something you yourself made up in an attempt to appeal to people's basest instincts. = Logical fallacy.

 

[Vixen]

Try this
investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of investigative activity.

What is it they forgot?

What culpable omissions of investigative activity?

 

[Bill Williams]

People do not hate Amanda. They feel deeply sad that a person could commit an act of such great enormity.

Yes, it was Amanda and Raff facing public prosecution, thus we, the public, are entitled to scrutinise their testimony, or in Raff's case, the lack thereof.

How do you scrutinize someone's lack of testimony, when they have a right to silence, and a further right not to have meaning imbued to that silence?

Civilization turns out to be a fragile item with on-line persecutors.

 

[Vixen]

or this neat trick of having Poor,poor,rudy testify without cross examination,
another interesting prosecution trick
"the guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who by choice have always voluntarily avoided examination by the accused or his counsel".

Raff and Amanda also made spontaneous declarations without being cross-examined.

If they are allowed to do that in Italy, then it's not a "neat trick".

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

 

[Vixen]

How do you scrutinize someone's lack of testimony, when they have a right to silence, and a further right not to have meaning imbued to that silence?

Civilization turns out to be a fragile item with on-line persecutors.

We do not have the fifth amendment in Europe. In the UK, suspects can stay schtum, but they are told inferences can be drawn from their silence.

 

[Bill Williams]

We do not have the fifth amendment in Europe. In the UK, suspects can stay schtum, but they are told inferences can be drawn from their silence.

Italian Constitution says:

The Italian Constitution plays a key role in criminal law because it defines important individual rights that must be preserved even in a state prosecution involving a state crime.

The Constitution guarantees a right to a fair trial, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to remain silent (on grounds of self-incrimination), the presumption of innocence, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and the right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment.

In fact, as said here many times, he defendant when giving testimony in Italy is not even sworn, because it is assumed they are allowed to lie.

 

[Bill Williams]

We do not have the fifth amendment in Europe. In the UK, suspects can stay schtum, but they are told inferences can be drawn from their silence.

As the Marasca report implies, they drew more than inferences in this case. They made up all manner of fantasy!

 

[bagels]

It was dealt with, but you insist on mentioning at every opportunity.

I have no particular desire to win anything. I do think it's important to get the facts right. It's no good pretending Amanda was "tag teamed" for 15 hours without food or water, it's just simply annoying for those of us who know better.

It's not kind to Amanda to force her to keep up a big lie for the rest of her life. You think you are being kind, but you are misguided. Amanda and Raff could have just pleaded guilty to manslaughter - they had the option - they may have been out by now on parole, almost forgotten by the public and ready to start a new life, with no psychological burden of having to "keep up appearances", with friends and family giving them sideways looks.

I do not have double standards. I have never been in trouble with the law. If I make an error, I put my hand up. I am not a member of the hang'em and flog'em brigade. If my actions lead to consequences for me, I can take it on the chin.

Rudy, Amanda and Raff not only stole Mez' life, they brought sorrow and grief to her family and friends. They stole future grandchildren, joy in Mez' graduation, her first job as a qualified journalist. They have brought shame and ruin onto their own families. They make an impossible demand on their closest kin to keep up a facade of belief in their non-involvement.

That's all wrong. Man up. Admit the crime. Do the time. Say sorry to Mez' family. Say sorry to Patrick and the police you slandered. Take the consequences on the chin. And do you know what? People will have so much more respect for you.

lol live life as a convicted murderer from one of the weakest cases in criminal history so you feel better about your silly belief in a conspiracy between three virtual strangers who spontaneously met up for a late night thrill kill and staged a break-in that miraculously resembled almost to the letter the actual break-in of the only man who left time stamped forensic traces at the scene, a knife carrying criminal? Yeah sure that's a good idea.

 

[acbytesla]

It was dealt with, but you insist on mentioning at every opportunity.

I might stop if you stopped misrepresenting the facts in this case. In fact, you continued today to insist that Amanda was pleading with Meredith to spend time with Mez on Halloween, when in fact there isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim.

I have no particular desire to win anything. I do think it's important to get the facts right. It's no good pretending Amanda was "tag teamed" for 15 hours without food or water, it's just simply annoying for those of us who know better.

And who would "those" people be? I don't think Amanda was tag teamed for 15 hours. I think she was weak, tired and easily influenced.

It's not kind to Amanda to force her to keep up a big lie for the rest of her life. You think you are being kind, but you are misguided. Amanda and Raff could have just pleaded guilty to manslaughter - they had the option - they may have been out by now on parole, almost forgotten by the public and ready to start a new life, with no psychological burden of having to "keep up appearances", with friends and family giving them sideways looks.

What? You think that they should have pleaded guilty to crimes that they clearly did not commit because a few idiots on the Internet doubt their innocence? Are you so deluded that you actually think that these great supporting families who have known these 2 great kids their entire lives doubt them even in the slightest? Both of these young people are carrying on productive lives. I for one am proud of them both.

And btw, it is my understanding that there is no plea bargaining in Italy. This according to Machiavelli.

I do not have double standards. I have never been in trouble with the law. If I make an error, I put my hand up.

Frankly, I haven't seen that. You seem willing to do anything to avoid admitting to your errors.

I am not a member of the hang'em and flog'em brigade. If my actions lead to consequences for me, I can take it on the chin.

Rudy, Amanda and Raff not only stole Mez' life, they brought sorrow and grief to her family and friends. They stole future grandchildren, joy in Mez' graduation, her first job as a qualified journalist. They have brought shame and ruin onto their own families. They make an impossible demand on their closest kin to keep up a facade of belief in their non-involvement.

That's all wrong. Man up. Admit the crime. Do the time. Say sorry to Mez' family. Say sorry to Patrick and the police you slandered. Take the consequences on the chin. And do you know what? People will have so much more respect for you.

Total nonsense. There is no credible evidence that anyone other than Rudy Guede had anything to do with Meredith's murder.

You might try and put together a coherent case for guilt. But since no one else can I doubt you can either. No, I know you can't.

 

[acbytesla]

People do not hate Amanda. They feel deeply sad that a person could commit an act of such great enormity.

Yes, it was Amanda and Raff facing public prosecution, thus we, the public, are entitled to scrutinise their testimony, or in Raff's case, the lack thereof.

OH Puuuuhleease!!!! While you don't seem to burn with the hate that the other idiots seem to express, there is little doubt that many of the guilters have been expressing pure hate. I can't tell you the number of death threats I have read. One particularly nasty guy from Prince Edward Island always is writing very crude explicit wishes for Amanda to be killed.

 

[bagels]

If hatred for Amanda wasn't driving the PGP there would be at least one of them out there that believed maybe it wasn't Amanda who delivered the fatal blow with the big kitchen knife. I've never once seen that despite nothing in the prosecution's evidence, even taken at face value, establishes who delivered the fatal blow. Amanda is always delivering the fatal blow because it fulfills a psychological role in their fantasy.