Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

I dare say she was brought up as a brat, used to lying and histrionics to get her own way.

But what did she think she would gain by naming Lumumba? You said she did it deliberately without police agency. So, she would have had a plan in mind.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh I see, so you think that the ECHR has been hoodwinked by Dalla Vedova. I guess you think that Italy will vociferously defend itself and raise the court out of its stupor, so that they will realise that Knox is a mendacious, slandering killer after all. Do you think maybe they can order the Italians to re-adopt Nencini, extradite Knox and put her back in Capanne?

You're wasting your time. Ignorance, low intellect, poor reasoning skills, poor judgement, inbuilt bias and monumental hubris are not characteristics which can reasonably be addressed or overcome with any form of argument.

 

[Bill Williams]

What that whole thing proves is that the denizens of that closed, contrary-posts-not-allowed .NUT website allow speculation to build upon surmise, until:

.... someone like Vixen repeats it 3 1/4 years later. As mentioned in that thread on IA in Dec 2012, the "it is reported that" photo is yet another factoid like the bleach receipts then-moderator Michael said he had on file and was prepared to post. Were the bleach receipts ever posted? No. Why? Because there weren't any.

As mentioned back in Dec 2012, the wonderful thing about phrasing something in the "it is reported that" format, is that it renders the claim completely immune from verification. Given that .NUT did not allow any contrary point of view (except on FOAKer Tuesdays!!) who was there to insist that evidence be verified to begin with?

Michael of .NUT is beginning to look good, though. After March 2015 he acknowledged that the legal climate had been changed with the acquittals, and he requested that people on his forum moderate their speech - while not giving up their passion for what they believed was protecting Meredith's legacy. (Take out the hatred spewed at Knox and Sollecito, that is not a bad thing!)

Then Michael retired from the field. Perhaps that makes him the sanest of anyone on either side of this!!!!

But factoids endure. Naked photos. Soon someone is going to claim to have seen the bleach receipt. Someone is going to say that they've seen the striations on the kitchen knife; even though Stefanoni herself said they could not be photographed - why interrupt a good story.

And what's this about a nude cat? Three years from now, someone is going to be reporting THAT is fact.

You are very good at deconstructing, Bill. It's such a shame to waste your talents.

T'wasn't me. T'was Methos. And neither, really, has much to do with Jacques Derrida.

It's called being able to read. Apparently, Methos can read; and keep track of claims offered. Barbie Nadeau writes a sluttly little piece, in her "Knox is a student killer" period, keeping Tina Brown happy back at The Daily Beast with all sorts of tarted-up pieces guaranteed to get anonymous slut-shamers going - but circulation is low and this will give a boost! Through a series of posts, all of a sudden it is presented as factual, when it began as nothing of the sort.

Like the claim "there were no bars on the lower windows", for which you have not 'fessed up, or the claim, "the climber was 6' 7"," (to which you have 'fessed up) your posts here have been a litany of factoids where you simply have passed them on uncritically, without doing what Methos did - search out the origins of the claim.

You're now on about, "Massei bent over backwards for the kids," without one shred of evidence that judges in Italy do that.... indeed, if you had evidence, then I'd join you in saying judges were corrupt; I'd be in the courtroom beside that dude in Florence last year trying to get a private prosecution going against corrupt judges.

From "sex on a train" to "buying frilly underwear", to "PIP were peddling nude photos," you join a whole mass of people completely uninterested in the veracity of the claim. You just hurl it out there (well, the last one anyway) as if it were true, and you're hoping it is true.....

...... because it's such good slut-shaming material!

 

[Diocletus]

Are you trying to claim the nude photos are just an internet rumour?

This person did have the photos and he did try to sell them to the tabloids, who gave him the bum's rush, even though they, too, were in the gutter and looking at the stars, as Oscar Wilde put it.

There are no depths too low to which some of Amanda's supporters will not sink.

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[Vixen]

You're wasting your time. Ignorance, low intellect, poor reasoning skills, poor judgement, inbuilt bias and monumental hubris are not characteristics which can reasonably be addressed or overcome with any form of argument.

Don't do yourself down.

 

[Vixen]

T'wasn't me. T'was Methos. And neither, really, has much to do with Jacques Derrida.

It's called being able to read. Apparently, Methos can read; and keep track of claims offered. Barbie Nadeau writes a sluttly little piece, in her "Knox is a student killer" period, keeping Tina Brown happy back at The Daily Beast with all sorts of tarted-up pieces guaranteed to get anonymous slut-shamers going - but circulation is low and this will give a boost! Through a series of posts, all of a sudden it is presented as factual, when it began as nothing of the sort.

Like the claim "there were no bars on the lower windows", for which you have not 'fessed up, or the claim, "the climber was 6' 7"," (to which you have 'fessed up) your posts here have been a litany of factoids where you simply have passed them on uncritically, without doing what Methos did - search out the origins of the claim.

You're now on about, "Massei bent over backwards for the kids," without one shred of evidence that judges in Italy do that.... indeed, if you had evidence, then I'd join you in saying judges were corrupt; I'd be in the courtroom beside that dude in Florence last year trying to get a private prosecution going against corrupt judges.

From "sex on a train" to "buying frilly underwear", to "PIP were peddling nude photos," you join a whole mass of people completely uninterested in the veracity of the claim. You just hurl it out there (well, the last one anyway) as if it were true, and you're hoping it is true.....

...... because it's such good slut-shaming material!

Massei didn't have to bar all of the spontaneous statements, but did anyway. No doubt to allay any grounds for appeal.

As Mez was raped and murdered and Amanda was at the scene, sexual behaviour does become relevant.

 

[Vixen]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Sorry, it would be completely against my principles to have anything to do with such a picture, and I most certainly would not be passing them on.

I do know a reliable source who has seen them.

I note someone called @zebbidi947 has posted a picture of the nude corpse of Mez to @RudyGuede on twitter, so you see, if anyone leaked questionable material, chances are it was the defence team. For example, Papa Raff passed autopsy pictures to an Italian tv company and a leading member of Injustice Anywhere brags of being in possession of all autopsy photos as well as some woman in New Zealand who taunts the Kercher family with them.

This puts the so-called leak of Amanda's childish scribblings into perspective. (It never happened as claimed by Amanda, anyway.)

 

[Vixen]

Oh I see, so you think that the ECHR has been hoodwinked by Dalla Vedova. I guess you think that Italy will vociferously defend itself and raise the court out of its stupor, so that they will realise that Knox is a mendacious, slandering killer after all. Do you think maybe they can order the Italians to re-adopt Nencini, extradite Knox and put her back in Capanne?

You mean lawyers don't do unscrupulous things?

 

[Vixen]

But what did she think she would gain by naming Lumumba? You said she did it deliberately without police agency. So, she would have had a plan in mind.

Think about it. A four year old child comes up to you and says, 'It wasn't me.'

'What didn't you do?'

'It wasn't me that ate the cake in the fridge, honest.

This is the first you knew about the cake in the fridge.

Kate McCann put herself under suspicion by running back to the 'Tapas Twelve' (supposedly) shouting "They've taken her! They've taken her!"

Why would anyone have special knowledge?

Penny dropped now?

Why were the police very interested in her childish claim she was there but 'Patrick did it'?

 

[LondonJohn]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Not to mention that even if it DID happen (and as you say, nobody's ever actually presented reliable evidence that it did happen), what on Earth kind of bearing would it have on any rational analysis of the guilt/non-guilt/innocence of Knox and/or Sollecito for the Kercher murder?

It never ceases to amaze me how much the intellectual pygmies within the pro-guilt community take an approach which seeks to demonise the characters of Knox or Sollecito, then seeks to demonise the characters of the so-called "supporters" of Knox or Sollecito, then attempts to use those demonisations to bolster a view of guilt. I suppose those of us with intelligence and perspicacity should be somewhat grateful that such people wear their idiocy and bias on their sleeves with such a fanfare - they can safely be discounted as nonentities in the debate.

 

[acbytesla]

I am all for ethical behaviour. I think the idea of higher court (than that of the sovereign state) of Human Rights an excellent concept.

If there were irregularities, let's hear about them.

You ought to know the ECHR dismiss many cases as not well-founded.

You mean as long as the ethical standards are for other people.

And yet the ECHR didn't dismiss this case. Hmm mm... I wonder what that means.

 

[Diocletus]

You mean lawyers don't do unscrupulous things?

No doubt Della Vadova is cunning--just looked at how he tricked the ECHR into reprinting block quotes from Italy's own court opinions on this matter. You know, those quotes that talk about psychological pressure, deprivation of counsel, and violations of human rights.

 

[Kauffer]

Think about it. A four year old child comes up to you and says, 'It wasn't me.'

'What didn't you do?'

'It wasn't me that ate the cake in the fridge, honest.

This is the first you knew about the cake in the fridge.

Kate McCann put herself under suspicion by running back to the 'Tapas Twelve' (supposedly) shouting "They've taken her! They've taken her!"

Why would anyone have special knowledge?

Penny dropped now?

Why were the police very interested in her childish claim she was there but 'Patrick did it'?

This is mostly incoherent. The question is about Knox's motivation and nothing else, when, according to you, she is not suspected of a crime.

According to you, Knox, 'chomping at the bit', went to the police and 'spontaneously' placed herself at the scene of the crime. Why would she do this? What could she possibly hope to gain?

If she is under no pressure to say anything, why does she voluntarily incriminate herself?

You keep suggesting that Knox's actions throughout, were self serving. So, fit this into your theory. How does she serve herself by telling the police she was in the house listening to Lumumba butcher her friend?

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei didn't have to bar all of the spontaneous statements, but did anyway. No doubt to allay any grounds for appeal.

As Mez was raped and murdered and Amanda was at the scene, sexual behaviour does become relevant.

At least you don't deny slut-shaming, at least that's a start.

Otherwise, re-read LondonJohn's post. What does an unproven allegation that a PIP was shopping around nude pictures have to do with this? You've not at all addressed anything in Methos's recreation of the "nude picture" factoid.

 

[Vixen]

At least you don't deny slut-shaming, at least that's a start.

Otherwise, re-read LondonJohn's post. What does an unproven allegation that a PIP was shopping around nude pictures have to do with this? You've not at all addressed anything in Methos's recreation of the "nude picture" factoid.

I do not slut shame. I couldn't care less if someone is slovenly and keeps an untidy abode.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think in practice it will be impossible for the executive branch in Italy to sort this out without involving the judiciary. While it's almost certainly within the power and the remit of the Italian executive to issue pardons (viz. presidential pardons in the US), in cases such as Knox's I would have thought that the standard route would be for the executive, via its senior law officer (viz. Attorney General in the US and UK), to make a request to the judiciary to issue an annulment. In Italy, I imagine this would go via the Constitutional Court, then possibly down to the Supreme Court, where the annulment would be proclaimed.

It will certainly be very interesting to see just how hard the Italian State feels like challenging this situation, and thus how hard they feel like defending the position of the courts. In theory, the state ought to do everything in its power to try to defend its national courts' judgements, since not to do so would be in many ways an implicit attack on its own sovereignty. But I wonder if senior figures in the executive have taken a more enlightened position and have understood the situation properly, and therefore have the appetite to admit failings and apply full remedy as soon as possible. We'll see.........

A couple of notes
1. The US president can only give pardons for federal crimes
2. There have been a number of recent US laws where either state or federal attorney generals have decided not to defend laws because they considered them unconstitutional.

 

[Bill Williams]

I do not slut shame. I couldn't care less if someone is slovenly and keeps an untidy abode.

You've STILL not at all addressed anything in Methos's recreation of the "nude picture" factoid. I guess I need to take a number because you've still not addressed any of Stacyhs's issues with similar factoids you just chuck into this thread.

 

[acbytesla]

You've STILL not at all addressed anything in Methos's recreation of the "nude picture" factoid. I guess I need to take a number because you've still not addressed any of Stacyhs's issues with similar factoids you just chuck into this thread.

Why bother to tell the truth Bill? Some people just find it to be a minor inconvenience. As you can see the story is so much more interesting with nude pics and wild sex orgies. Without these lies the story is just so dull. Give us sex!

 

[Bill Williams]

I do not slut shame. I couldn't care less if someone is slovenly and keeps an untidy abode.

You've STILL not at all addressed anything in Methos's recreation of the "nude picture" factoid. I guess I need to take a number because you've still not addressed any of Stacyhs's issues with similar factoids you just chuck into this thread.

Why bother to tell the truth Bill? Some people just find it to be a minor inconvenience. As you can see the story is so much more interesting with nude pics and wild sex orgies. Without these lies the story is just so dull. Give us sex!

Vixen cannot even keep a consistent narrative. The bathroom was supposed to have been clean enough that whatever was found there had to have been deposited during the murder.

Yet Vixen denies being a slut-shamer by being a cleanliness shamer - all the while polluting the narrative that the bathroom was supposed to have been clean.

Why bother telling the truth? Add to that - why bother with a consistent narrative? Just chuck random factoids into the thread that vilify the American, and ignore everyone else.

 

[acbytesla]

Vixen cannot even keep a consistent narrative. The bathroom was supposed to have been clean enough that whatever was found there had to have been deposited during the murder.

Yet Vixen denies being a slut-shamer by being a cleanliness shamer - all the while polluting the narrative that the bathroom was supposed to have been clean.

Why bother telling the truth? Add to that - why bother with a consistent narrative? Just chuck random factoids into the thread that vilify the American, and ignore everyone else.

It's not just the truth that Vixen tosses out with the bathwater, it's logic. But in all fairness, the Italian courts threw out logic in their administration of the case first. A lot of things baffled me in this case, but beyond a doubt the way the statements were allowed into the trial mystified me most of all.

I'm sure that alone will be enough for the ECHR to rule in Amanda's favor. Italy basically already said we know this is wrong, but so what?

I hate to sound so confident. Especially when considering this case.