Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

When she graduated from middle school in 2001, l guess Amanda was awarded the Manvel Schaffleur Award, given to the student who “best exemplifies academic excellence, community service, enthusiasm, kindness, and total integrity in all matters, large and small," because she was a spoiled brat given to histrionics! She just held her breath until she turned blue, threw herself down on the floor and threw a tantrum until she got that darn award!

In honesty, somebody can change a lot between middle score and graduating high school (and beyond)

 

[acbytesla]

In honesty, somebody can change a lot between middle score and graduating high school (and beyond)

Sure they can. Not that Vixen would actually know one way or the other. She keeps projecting what Amanda is actually like to fit her own confirmation bias. (Damn it she's guilty so that must mean she has a screw loose and must be a bitch)

Why not take the position you don't know anything about Amanda's personality Vixen? You must know that in truth you have no idea. You keep coloring her as evil. Why be arrogant when you are actually ignorant?

 

[Desert Fox]

Sure they can. Not that Vixen would actually know one way or the other. She keeps projecting what Amanda is actually like to fit her own confirmation bias. (Damn it she's guilty so that must mean she has a screw loose and must be a bitch)

Why not take the position you don't know anything about Amanda's personality Vixen? You must know that in truth you have no idea. You keep coloring her as evil. Why be arrogant when you are actually ignorant?

I agree, just throwing a bit of caution before Vixen argues something similar. Everything I have read indicates that Amanda is basically a decent individual.

I have a new argument though that could be used although it is silly. Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder but wear wearing thick wetsuits so they would not leave any evidence behind.

 

[Numbers]

Some guilters have stated they consider the statement not incriminating to Amanda, and, therefore, by its alleged failure to be incriminating, does not fall under the protection of ECHR case-law.

In the ECHR judgment ALEKSANDR ZAICHENKO v. RUSSIA 39660/02 18/02/2010, the following statement establishes ECHR case-law, which refutes the claim by the guilters that Amanda Knox's coerced statement alleging Lumumba's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher does not fall under Article 6 protection, even if it were not considered as incriminating to Amanda:

54. Bearing in mind the concept of fairness in Article 6, the Court considers that the right not to incriminate oneself cannot reasonably be confined to statements of admission of wrongdoing or to remarks which are directly incriminating.... Testimony obtained under compulsion which appears on its face to be of a non-incriminating nature - such as exculpatory remarks or mere information on questions of fact - may later be deployed in criminal proceedings in support of the prosecution case, for example to contradict or cast doubt upon other statements of the accused or evidence given by him during the trial or to otherwise undermine his credibility.
___
I thank Kauffer for pointing out this ECHR case in a post on this forum.

 

[acbytesla]

Some guilters have stated they consider the statement not incriminating to Amanda, and, therefore, by its alleged failure to be incriminating, does not fall under the protection of ECHR case-law.

In the ECHR judgment ALEKSANDR ZAICHENKO v. RUSSIA 39660/02 18/02/2010, the following statement establishes ECHR case-law, which refutes the claim by the guilters that Amanda Knox's coerced statement alleging Lumumba's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher does not fall under Article 6 protection, even if it were not considered as incriminating to Amanda:

54. Bearing in mind the concept of fairness in Article 6, the Court considers that the right not to incriminate oneself cannot reasonably be confined to statements of admission of wrongdoing or to remarks which are directly incriminating.... Testimony obtained under compulsion which appears on its face to be of a non-incriminating nature - such as exculpatory remarks or mere information on questions of fact - may later be deployed in criminal proceedings in support of the prosecution case, for example to contradict or cast doubt upon other statements of the accused or evidence given by him during the trial or to otherwise undermine his credibility.
___
I thank Kauffer for pointing out this ECHR case in a post on this forum.

I would agree with them that in reality it isn't. However, the problem with that is the Perugian authorities thought the statements were very incriminating. *Note that they immediately arrested both Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick and held a press conference.

No, that dog won't hunt.

 

[Bill Williams]

Some guilters have stated they consider the statement not incriminating to Amanda, and, therefore, by its alleged failure to be incriminating, does not fall under the protection of ECHR case-law.

I would agree with them that in reality it isn't. However, the problem with that is the Perugian authorities thought the statements were very incriminating. *Note that they immediately arrested both Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick and held a press conference.

No, that dog won't hunt.

This dynamic is what sinks guilter thought. True, there is not one uniform guilter-monolith, most guilter chatter exists to take slutted-up pot-shots at Amanda Knox and those folks really don't care about a consistent guilter-narrative - it's just another day on the internet with the venom spewed.

What is key is the lack of internal debate. For those who once believed that the 1:45 am and 5:45 am memorales were the key to this case, and that the wrongful naming of Patrick was proof that two students were engaging in some sophisticated cover-up of their crimes.....

..... where are those providing the "push-back" against those who now say that since those memorale are **not** incriminating, that ECHR should not be touching their application? Potential objectors there remain silent, because afterall the purpose is to incriminate the former students regardless.

 

[Numbers]

Some guilters have stated they consider the statement not incriminating to Amanda, and, therefore, by its alleged failure to be incriminating, does not fall under the protection of ECHR case-law.

In the ECHR judgment ALEKSANDR ZAICHENKO v. RUSSIA 39660/02 18/02/2010, the following statement establishes ECHR case-law, which refutes the claim by the guilters that Amanda Knox's coerced statement alleging Lumumba's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher does not fall under Article 6 protection, even if it were not considered as incriminating to Amanda:

54. Bearing in mind the concept of fairness in Article 6, the Court considers that the right not to incriminate oneself cannot reasonably be confined to statements of admission of wrongdoing or to remarks which are directly incriminating.... Testimony obtained under compulsion which appears on its face to be of a non-incriminating nature - such as exculpatory remarks or mere information on questions of fact - may later be deployed in criminal proceedings in support of the prosecution case, for example to contradict or cast doubt upon other statements of the accused or evidence given by him during the trial or to otherwise undermine his credibility.
___
I thank Kauffer for pointing out this ECHR case in a post on this forum.

I would agree with them that in reality it isn't. However, the problem with that is the Perugian authorities thought the statements were very incriminating. *Note that they immediately arrested both Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick and held a press conference.

No, that dog won't hunt.

This dynamic is what sinks guilter thought. True, there is not one uniform guilter-monolith, most guilter chatter exists to take slutted-up pot-shots at Amanda Knox and those folks really don't care about a consistent guilter-narrative - it's just another day on the internet with the venom spewed.

What is key is the lack of internal debate. For those who once believed that the 1:45 am and 5:45 am memorales were the key to this case, and that the wrongful naming of Patrick was proof that two students were engaging in some sophisticated cover-up of their crimes.....

..... where are those providing the "push-back" against those who now say that since those memorale are **not** incriminating, that ECHR should not be touching their application? Potential objectors there remain silent, because afterall the purpose is to incriminate the former students regardless.

I don't mean to imply that every guilter has the same view point, or that all have claimed that any of Amanda's statements were not incriminating.

On this forum, however, one or two have presented the argument that Amanda's statement was not incriminating, and that she was simply presenting a kind of witness statement - perhaps focusing on the aspect that she stated (under coercion) that she had observed Lumumba going into Meredith's room the night of the murder.

However, as acbytesla points out, that statement was actually the major basis for her arrest, as stated in the arrest warrant. So objectively, the Italian authorities considered it incriminating.

The point is that whether or not the Italian authorities considered them incriminating, none of the statements Amanda made from the start of the interrogation on Nov. 5, 2007 to the time that she was first able to consult with a lawyer on Nov. 8, 2007 may be used to convict her of anything, according the ECHR case-law. In fact, in Italian procedural law relating to the use of evidence, no evidence gathered contrary to Italian procedural law may be used to convict someone of a crime. And it is against Italian procedural law to gather statements to be used as evidence from a person who is, or should be considered, a suspect, without informing her of her right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, that anything she says may be used against her, and that anything she says about the liability of another person makes her take on the responsibilities of a witness (apparently a warning against false accusations).

These laws include: CPP Articles 191 (Unlawfully gathered evidence), 63 (Incriminating statements), 64 (General rules for questioning), and 350 (Investigative questioning of the suspect).

That the Italian authorities ignored their own laws and Constitution in wrongfully convicting Amanda Knox of calunnia (false accusation) against Patrick Lumumba will be one factor that the ECHR will note when it passes judgment that Italy violated Knox's Convention rights.

 

[Kauffer]

This dynamic is what sinks guilter thought. True, there is not one uniform guilter-monolith, most guilter chatter exists to take slutted-up pot-shots at Amanda Knox and those folks really don't care about a consistent guilter-narrative - it's just another day on the internet with the venom spewed.

What is key is the lack of internal debate. For those who once believed that the 1:45 am and 5:45 am memorales were the key to this case, and that the wrongful naming of Patrick was proof that two students were engaging in some sophisticated cover-up of their crimes.....

..... where are those providing the "push-back" against those who now say that since those memorale are **not** incriminating, that ECHR should not be touching their application? Potential objectors there remain silent, because afterall the purpose is to incriminate the former students regardless.

Yes, it's clear from Zaichenko and elsewhere, that Article 6 protections apply to the callunia case - there was an operative right to silence and no valid waiver of that right. The right extends to any statements Knox made.

 

[acbytesla]

This dynamic is what sinks guilter thought. True, there is not one uniform guilter-monolith, most guilter chatter exists to take slutted-up pot-shots at Amanda Knox and those folks really don't care about a consistent guilter-narrative - it's just another day on the internet with the venom spewed.

What is key is the lack of internal debate. For those who once believed that the 1:45 am and 5:45 am memorales were the key to this case, and that the wrongful naming of Patrick was proof that two students were engaging in some sophisticated cover-up of their crimes.....

..... where are those providing the "push-back" against those who now say that since those memorale are **not** incriminating, that ECHR should not be touching their application? Potential objectors there remain silent, because afterall the purpose is to incriminate the former students regardless.

Another obvious contradiction to the idea that the statements weren't incriminating is simply there is absolutely no case of callunia without the statements. Patrick wouldn't even be involved without them. Whoever suggested this is a moron.

 

[Anode]

In honesty, somebody can change a lot between middle score and graduating high school (and beyond)

Very true but the claim was "she was brought up as a brat, used to lying and histrionics to get her own way".

Being "brought up as a brat" most definitely includes the years of middle school. Being a parent myself I can tell you that those years lay the foundation.

 

[acbytesla]

Very true but the claim was "she was brought up as a brat, used to lying and histrionics to get her own way".

Being "brought up as a brat" most definitely includes the years of middle school. Being a parent myself I can tell you that those years lay the foundation.

Are there really any years that aren't important ?

 

[Desert Fox]

Very true but the claim was "she was brought up as a brat, used to lying and histrionics to get her own way".

Being "brought up as a brat" most definitely includes the years of middle school. Being a parent myself I can tell you that those years lay the foundation.

I could ague the difference but I think all of us agree that Amanda was generally a decent individual. Many people who I have argued for innocence have no actually been as nice people as she seems to be.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't mean to imply that every guilter has the same view point, or that all have claimed that any of Amanda's statements were not incriminating.

On this forum, however, one or two have presented the argument that Amanda's statement was not incriminating, and that she was simply presenting a kind of witness statement - perhaps focusing on the aspect that she stated (under coercion) that she had observed Lumumba going into Meredith's room the night of the murder.

However, as acbytesla points out, that statement was actually the major basis for her arrest, as stated in the arrest warrant. So objectively, the Italian authorities considered it incriminating.

Yes, it's clear from Zaichenko and elsewhere, that Article 6 protections apply to the callunia case - there was an operative right to silence and no valid waiver of that right. The right extends to any statements Knox made.

Another obvious contradiction to the idea that the statements weren't incriminating is simply there is absolutely no case of callunia without the statements. Patrick wouldn't even be involved without them. Whoever suggested this is a moron.

Don't miss the point, though. Where is their version of Grinder calling everyone "in-house" who believes different from them an idiot? And calls them out as such?

I mean both would believe in iron-clad guilt, particularly for Knox - because that is the way they roll. But they have no Grinder willing to call everyone out - in-house - on inconsistencies and confirmation biases, even within their over-all tent.

My point is when this dynamic is missing and obviously missing, it suggests that they're in it not for the evidence, not because they're committed to a time-line based on that evidence.....

...... they just want to see one person burn. They don't care - even to notice - that Raffaele must burn too, he truly was collateral damage to the all out assault to "get" Knox. And they'll sign on to the latest regardless - in this case, saying that the application to ECHR is without merit because the memorales from the interrogation were never that incriminating to begin with!

 

[acbytesla]

Don't miss the point, though. Where is their version of Grinder calling everyone "in-house" who believes different from them an idiot? And calls them out as such?

I mean both would believe in iron-clad guilt, particularly for Knox - because that is the way they roll. But they have no Grinder willing to call everyone out - in-house - on inconsistencies and confirmation biases, even within their over-all tent.

My point is when this dynamic is missing and obviously missing, it suggests that they're in it not for the evidence, not because they're committed to a time-line based on that evidence.....

...... they just want to see one person burn. They don't care - even to notice - that Raffaele must burn too, he truly was collateral damage to the all out assault to "get" Knox. And they'll sign on to the latest regardless - in this case, saying that the application to ECHR is without merit because the memorales from the interrogation were never that incriminating to begin with!

I can't grasp the phenomenon of their hatred for Amanda. You would think she was a one person Manson family in their minds. Raffaele and Rudy are total afterthoughts. Virtually everything the guilters think they know about Amanda is from wild speculation and people that have accumulatively spent about a couple of hours with her at most. They ignore the opinions of people that have known her for years.

The big question is why? There are murders committed daily. And the evidence against Amanda is pathetically small at best ...or is at worst? Is it because she is privileged? Or white? Or is it because she is beautiful? Or simply is it that she is a women who had sex?

 

[Desert Fox]

I can't grasp the phenomenon of their hatred for Amanda. You would think she was a one person Manson family in their minds. Raffaele and Rudy are total afterthoughts. Virtually everything the guilters think they know about Amanda is from wild speculation and people that have accumulatively spent about a couple of hours with her at most. They ignore the opinions of people that have known her for years.

The big question is why? There are murders committed daily. And the evidence against Amanda is pathetically small at best ...or is at worst? Is it because she is privileged? Or white? Or is it because she is beautiful? Or simply is it that she is a women who had sex?

I just recently watched an animated movie "Justice League: War" and Wonder Woman puts her lasso around a protester against her.

This might be it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4nkPZsH_E

Basically, just jealousy

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree, just throwing a bit of caution before Vixen argues something similar. Everything I have read indicates that Amanda is basically a decent individual.

I have a new argument though that could be used although it is silly. Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder but wear wearing thick wetsuits so they would not leave any evidence behind.

Don't be silly. Where would they get wetsuits in Perugia? Chris and Edda, knowing that their daughter would grow up to be a murdering psychopath, gave her a "My First Little DNA and Fingerprint Finding and Analysis Kit" for her 6th birthday. She took it to Perugia with her. Thank goodness they sprung for the deluxe kit that included luminol or she would not have been able to distinguish Raff's and her DNA and fingerprints from everyone else's!

 

[Stacyhs]

In honesty, somebody can change a lot between middle score and graduating high school (and beyond)

True. During those 4 years is when a person usually changes from exhibiting "kindness, and total integrity in all matters, large and small" to being a murdering psychopath with no soul.

 

[acbytesla]

True. During those 4 years is when a person usually changes from exhibiting "kindness, and total integrity in all matters, large and small" to being a murdering psychopath with no soul.

Hey!! Quit talking about me like that. After all I exhibit dangerous psychopathic traits such as liking parties and sex.

 

[bagels]

It doesn't matter if Amanda is or is not a secret psychopath, the main thing about this case is the crime scene is covered in the forensic evidence, and looks exactly like the work of, a local burglar named Rudy Guede, who killed Meredith Kercher during a botched burglary attempt, after being captured alone by the cottage on CCTV, and breaking into it in virtually identical manner to one of his known previous idiosyncratic break-ins two weeks earlier, and having no established communications channels with Amanda or even a mutually fluent language, save a brief physical proximity once due to him knowing a resident that lived in a separate unit.

Anything else is just fantasy and delusion people picked up because they couldn't get over tabloid pictures of Amanda giving the evil eye next to a knife sinisterly wrapped in an evidence bagged next to an article about how she "blamed an innocent black man." That is literally the foundation, and entire basis of, the PGP belief. And it's impenetrable.

 

[Desert Fox]

Anything else is just fantasy and delusion people picked up because they couldn't get over tabloid pictures of Amanda giving the evil eye next to a knife sinisterly wrapped in an evidence bagged next to an article about how she "blamed an innocent black man." That is literally the foundation, and entire basis of, the PGP belief. And it's impenetrable.

One thing that few people seem willing to understand just how "persuasive" police interrogations can be. One might be willing to eventually implicate your own mother if you are interrogated long enough.

Or as Eric C. Wilson of the Norfolk Four puts it:
During his trial, Eric C. Wilson testified that he was lying to police when he confessed that he raped Michelle Moore-Bosko. He made up the story in order to stop an aggressive Detective Ford from harassing him. "At that point in time, if they told me that I killed JFK, I would have said that I handed Oswald the gun," he said. Wilson said Detective Ford was "very aggressive, very threatening, very angry."