Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

But consider for a moment the 9/11 analogy. All intelligent, reasonable, objective people realise full well that the Twin Towers (and the Pentagon, and the fourth aircraft that crashed in PA) were hit by aircraft that had been hijacked and seized control of by Islamist fanatics under the organisation of Al Qaeda (which in turn was very possibly sponsored and supported by certain wealthy and influential Saudi interests - but that's a whole other matter!), that all the impact damage, deaths and ultimate collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by nothing more or less than the impacts of these aircraft and subsequent high-temperature fires, and that the US authorities had (with, critically, the lack of benefit of hindsight) no reasonable way to have foreseen the attacks or done all that much more to deal with them once they started.

Yet there are still morons such as Dylan Avery and his ilk - as well as some who on paper would appear to be intelligent and intellectually-qualified - who insist otherwise: that the US Government either knew about and silently condoned the attacks, or that the US Government actually played an active role in the attacks (and the "cover up" afterwards).

My question to you (and other pro-acquittal/pro/innocence commentators) would be this: do you really care what the 9/11 Truthers continue to think and proselytise about loudly and frequently (though thankfully in increasingly dwindling frequency)? You surely must know that a) you know the correct conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, b) you know that the Truthers' "conclusions" are based on fundamentally erroneous, distorted, misrepresented or invented "evidence", c) you are right and the Truthers are wrong, d) you don't really care if any people still get persuaded by the Truthers' "arguments" - after all, you know that any such people must themselves be either incredibly ill-informed, incredibly naive and gullible, intellectually inept, ignorant, or have other pertinent issues (e.g. hatred of "big government", tendency to fantasy thinking, paranoia.....).

And with all that in mind, I invite you (and other pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators) to apply similar reasoning to the issue of the Knox/Sollecito trials process and the Kercher murder. Personally, I don't care what the pro-guilt crowd say - they're wrong, and they're demonstrably wrong. And anyone who's still inclined to buy into all the BS, distortions, misrepresentations and lies that they put about shouldn't be worth getting concerned about either.

Here comes more overblown hyperbole. The Pittsburgh plane 'let's roll!' was brought down by an anti-aircraft missile from the ground by US armed forces panic stricken it was headed for the Pentagon (it was).

Your whole post is a logical fallacy of the 'no true scotsman' variety. 'No intelligent person can possibly think differently from LondonJohn' is the logical fallacy.

Comparing persons - including the police, the prosecutors, the courts and the supreme courts - with flat earthers is a typically transparent tactic by persons devoid of genuine debating points.

 

[acbytesla]

Once again, you are factually incorrect. None of the merits courts nor the supreme court found Rudy to be the deliverer of the fatal wound. That attribution went to Amanda, and there is scientific DNA evidence to this effect. As well as the fatal wound, there were two other major wounds from the other direction by a different knife around the neck and chin area. Finger bruises around Mez' lower face and neck and 23 other, more superficial knife wounds inflicted including on her hands and forearms indicating torture and taunting before death. We know Knife Boy Raff had a knife fetish and had a background history of supposedly attacking a girl in Bari with scissors at school, had knife fantasies of manga-style vampire killing, posed as a mad scientist wrapped in toilet paper wielding a butchers cleaver on social media prior to the murder and Amanda wrote lurid fantasies of rape and murder of young women, sadistically humiliated.

After the murder, Amanda revelled in further sadistic fantasies and wrote that she had an overwhelming urge 'to write a song' about Mez' murder.

There are more obvious candidates than Rudy.

And they made the determination that Amanda made the killing blow based on what evidence? There isn't any actual evidence that Amanda had ever even stepped into that bedroom ever despite living 6 inches away, let alone on the night of the murder. There is no testimony by anyone that she wielded a knife. Not by Rudy, not by Raffaele, not by anyone. No physical evidence, no eyewitness testimony, no evidence whatsoever poInts to Amanda and she delivered the killing blow? This goes to show anyone just how moronic this case was.

This is why the case against her was eventually and finally acquitted. The Supreme Court decided that cases needed to be about evidence and not wild and crazy speculation.

 

[Vixen]

And they made the determination that Amanda made the killing blow based on what evidence? There isn't any actual evidence that Amanda had ever even stepped into that bedroom ever despite living 6 inches away, let alone on the night of the murder. There is no testimony by anyone that she wielded a knife. Not by Rudy, not by Raffaele, not by anyone. No physical evidence, no eyewitness testimony, no evidence whatsoever poInts to Amanda and she delivered the killing blow? This goes to show anyone just how moronic this case was.

This is why the case against her was eventually and finally acquitted. The Supreme Court decided that cases needed to be about evidence and not wild and crazy speculation.

Not so. They were acquitted on grounds of 'police flaws' and 'too much press' (ironic, given Curt Knox paid a PR agency US$2m to pressurise the press into swaying public and legal opinion).

The fact the pair switched off their phones for the night, got off their heads (and each swore they'd never take drugs again afterwards), set the PC to play Amelie whilst the murder was carried out, tortured and restrained Mez all indicates premeditation and a cold-blooded murder by a pair of 'icy cold' sadistic psychopaths, who to this day have no compunction in cashing in to the maximum from the crime.

There was no 'wild speculation'. Law courts are dull sober places and the judges had 10K pages worth of evidence to meticulously wade through. Two merits courts found the pair guilty as charged.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Not so. They were acquitted on grounds of 'police flaws' and 'too much press' (ironic, given Curt Knox paid a PR agency US$2m to pressurise the press into swaying public and legal opinion).

They were acquitted on grounds of "no evidence indicating they were guilty". The "police flaws" you are referring to was the fact they manufactured and misinterpreted the evidence to obtain a flawed conviction in the Massei trial. This is why you keep seeing forensic science reports and legal reports come out that explain why Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

The fact the pair switched off their phones for the night, got off their heads (and each swore they'd never take drugs again afterwards), set the PC to play Amelie whilst the murder was carried out, tortured and restrained Mez all indicates premeditation and a cold-blooded murder by a pair of 'icy cold' sadistic psychopaths, who to this day have no compunction in cashing in to the maximum from the crime.

Generally, you need evidence to support a conviction. While the above may be a wild theory concocted entirely in your head, thankfully courts need evidence to put people in prison and not guilter fan fiction.

There was no 'wild speculation'. Law courts are dull sober places and the judges had 10K pages worth of evidence to meticulously wade through. Two merits courts found the pair guilty as charged.

Through flawed reasoning and manipulations and favors called in by Mignini. Again, there is a reason not a single forensic science expert in the world has published anything in support of the prosecution's case. I wonder why that is? And I also wonder why you keep avoiding this question? Surely you have evidence of a money trail leading all the way to Donald Trump showing that he has paid off all of the international forensic scientists. Surely these accusations of bribery aren't entirely made up in your head. Surely you aren't the craziest person alive.

 

[Kauffer]

Bruno/Marasca's interpretation of ECHR reach

This is what they said in the MR:

2.2. Further, without merit is the request by the defence of Amanda Knox to postpone the present proceedings pending a decision by the European Court of Justice [sic; correctly, Court of Human Rights], where – due to the definitive status of the conviction for the offence of false accusation ["calunnia"], at that time addressed via partial judgment – a complaint has been filed of wrongful and coercive treatment to which investigators allegedly subjected the person under investigation, the appellant, to the point of damaging her will and of harming her moral freedom, in violation of Article 188 of the Italian Code of criminal procedure.

In fact, an eventual pronouncement by the European Court in favour of the same Knox, in the sense of a hoped-for recognition of her unorthodox treatment by the investigators, would not be able, in any way, to undermine the internal [Italian Court] judgment, nor open the prospect for a revision of the verdict and sentence, considering that the libelous accusations which the aforementioned defendant made against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures; and were also confirmed in a memorandum ["memoriale"] bearing her signature, at a moment when the said accuser was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning; and were even repeated, some time later, during the validation of Lumumba's arrest, before the GIP [judge of preliminary investigation] who initiated the proceedings.

So:

1) The callunia verdict is safe, regardless of ECHR judgement because:

A) Knox "confirmed" [the accusation] to Mignini (the post 1:45, pre 5:45 period) when she was "free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures"

B) Knox "also confirmed" [the accusation] in the first memoriale when "she was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquility, free from external conditioning".

C) Knox "repeated" [the accusation] before GIP Matteini

This is curious. Firstly, the 5:45 statement was ruled out completely by Gemelli, so why is the MR referencing it at all? It doesn't exist for an incriminatory purpose. Secondly, whether Bruno/Marasca regard the circumstances of the writing of the 1st memoriale as objectively tranquil, this is not a conclusion based on law. They do not reference in this regard the fact that Knox was formally in custody, and omit a recitation of the law with regard to the necessary protections applied to custodial suspects or whether or not Gemelli correctly interpreted Italian law on this point. They simply take Gemelli's judgement as read and inviolable. However, given the fact that ECHR jurisprudence clearly rejects the use of any statements in the absence of counsel's advice, either Italian law if correctly interpreted to permit the use of the memoriale stands in opposition to the ECHR, or it does not and has therefore been incorrectly applied. This is also true with regard to the 5:45 statement, despite the MR's attempt to rehabilitate it in opposition to Gemelli.

Nevertheless, ECHR jurisprudence trumps ordinary law in Italy, so, whatever else is true, the Italian interpretation permitting the memoriale as a useable incriminating statement is objectively wrong.

With regard to the reference to the accusation against Lumumba "repeated" by Knox to Matteini, this must surely be a gross error as no such repetition took place. Or, have I misunderstood the point the MR makes? Is the MR really trying to suggest that Knox has adopted her statements in the light of counsel's advice? Surely not!

Bruno/Marasca do not appear to be aware that whatever their feelings on the matter, the callunia verdict will be fatally compromised by an Article 6 or Article 3 ruling in favour of Knox. It is not even necessary for the ECHR to recommend the annulment of the verdict or for the Council of Europe to demand it. It is already provided for in the Constitutional Court's intervention to impose a new construction on Article 630 of the CCP.

What do others think?

 

[acbytesla]

Not so. They were acquitted on grounds of 'police flaws' and 'too much press' (ironic, given Curt Knox paid a PR agency US$2m to pressurise the press into swaying public and legal opinion).

The fact the pair switched off their phones for the night, got off their heads (and each swore they'd never take drugs again afterwards), set the PC to play Amelie whilst the murder was carried out, tortured and restrained Mez all indicates premeditation and a cold-blooded murder by a pair of 'icy cold' sadistic psychopaths, who to this day have no compunction in cashing in to the maximum from the crime.

There was no 'wild speculation'. Law courts are dull sober places and the judges had 10K pages worth of evidence to meticulously wade through. Two merits courts found the pair guilty as charged.

No they weren't. The court was critical of the investigation because it yielded no credible evidence! So, they switched of their phones? And this is proof of what? How do you go from turning off your phone to committing a murder? Your logic is absurd. Talk about being "off one's head" That is the most moronic and stupid analysis. You follow the evidence. Turning off your phones so you can do the horizontal mambo is not a clue that leads to a conclusion of murder. It's not obvious like Black opening with F6 and G5 White plays QH5.

Turning off your phones, therefore murder is WILD SPECULATION!

 

[Bill Williams]

This is what they said in the MR:

........................

In fact, an eventual pronouncement by the European Court in favour of the same Knox, in the sense of a hoped-for recognition of her unorthodox treatment by the investigators, would not be able, in any way, to undermine the internal [Italian Court] judgment, nor open the prospect for a revision of the verdict and sentence, considering that the libelous accusations which the aforementioned defendant made against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures; and were also confirmed in a memorandum ["memoriale"] bearing her signature, at a moment when the said accuser was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning; and were even repeated, some time later, during the validation of Lumumba's arrest, before the GIP [judge of preliminary investigation] who initiated the proceedings.

So:

1) The callunia verdict is safe, regardless of ECHR judgement because:

A) Knox "confirmed" [the accusation] to Mignini (the post 1:45, pre 5:45 period) when she was "free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures"

B) Knox "also confirmed" [the accusation] in the first memoriale when "she was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquility, free from external conditioning".

C) Knox "repeated" [the accusation] before GIP Matteini

.......................

With regard to the reference to the accusation against Lumumba "repeated" by Knox to Matteini, this must surely be a gross error as no such repetition took place. Or, have I misunderstood the point the MR makes? Is the MR really trying to suggest that Knox has adopted her statements in the light of counsel's advice? Surely not!

Bruno/Marasca do not appear to be aware that whatever their feelings on the matter, the callunia verdict will be fatally compromised by an Article 6 or Article 3 ruling in favour of Knox. It is not even necessary for the ECHR to recommend the annulment of the verdict or for the Council of Europe to demand it. It is already provided for in the Constitutional Court's intervention to impose a new construction on Article 630 of the CCP.

What do others think?

I believe you have misunderstood the point the MR makes.

The only real issue in front of the M/B panel before their ruling is whether or not they'll grant the postponement of verdict (on the murder charge), until ECHR has ruled on the calunnia conviction concerning Lumumba.

There's two things. One - M/B actually know (by the time of writing the MR) that the defence request to postpone is moot - it would only matter if Section 5 of ISC were inclined to uphold Nencini's conviction.

It's here where Luca Cheli's analysis is key. Bringing us to......

Two - this thread has had copious discussion on what Cheli thought of as the "shadows" plaguing the M/B report. Cheli gives passing mention to the use of a Section 2 acquittal allowing a foothold to the Vixen's of the world; but in the end not even that is a shadow, not really.

There are four shadows, one of which is that M/B have declared for all to read that: questioning before a public prosecutor is by definition, a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures.

Now consider this - M/B had no real need to venture into that territory, because all they needed to answer was the issue of a potential postponement of their own verdict. They did not need to postpone - M/B exonerated the pair.

So there is SOME reason why M/B needed to go the extra needless mile to sneak in that defence of PM's, that when a suspect is in front of one, the context is by definition immune from coercion.

I think there's something else going on - something uniquely Italian! - rather than M/B being unaware of something. I think they are fully aware of something else, uniquely Italian. Something STILL to do with saving face for the Party of the PMs.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

No they weren't. The court was critical of the investigation because it yielded no credible evidence! So, they switched of their phones? And this is proof of what? How do you go from turning off your phone to committing a murder? Your logic is absurd. Talk about being "off one's head" That is the most moronic and stupid analysis. You follow the evidence. Turning off your phones so you can do the horizontal mambo is not a clue that leads to a conclusion of murder. It's not obvious like Black opening with F6 and G5 White plays QH5.

Turning off your phones, therefore murder is WILD SPECULATION!

I turned off my phone last night so it would charge faster. I bet Vixen is on the case trying to connect it to a local murder.

 

[Vixen]

I turned off my phone last night so it would charge faster. I bet Vixen is on the case trying to connect it to a local murder.

Jodi Arias turned off her phone as she approached Travis' area, whom she was on her way to kill (premeditation).

Criminal minds think that way.

So you turned off yours 'to make it charge faster'. Understand the difference between the two examples?

The cause is not the same.

Do try to think logically.

 

[Vixen]

I believe you have misunderstood the point the MR makes.

The only real issue in front of the M/B panel before their ruling is whether or not they'll grant the postponement of verdict (on the murder charge), until ECHR has ruled on the calunnia conviction concerning Lumumba.

There's two things. One - M/B actually know (by the time of writing the MR) that the defence request to postpone is moot - it would only matter if Section 5 of ISC were inclined to uphold Nencini's conviction.

It's here where Luca Cheli's analysis is key. Bringing us to......

Two - this thread has had copious discussion on what Cheli thought of as the "shadows" plaguing the M/B report. Cheli gives passing mention to the use of a Section 2 acquittal allowing a foothold to the Vixen's of the world; but in the end not even that is a shadow, not really.

There are four shadows, one of which is that M/B have declared for all to read that: questioning before a public prosecutor is by definition, a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures.

Now consider this - M/B had no real need to venture into that territory, because all they needed to answer was the issue of a potential postponement of their own verdict. They did not need to postpone - M/B exonerated the pair.

So there is SOME reason why M/B needed to go the extra needless mile to sneak in that defence of PM's, that when a suspect is in front of one, the context is by definition immune from coercion.

I think there's something else going on - something uniquely Italian! - rather than M/B being unaware of something. I think they are fully aware of something else, uniquely Italian. Something STILL to do with saving face for the Party of the PMs.

Clear as a bell. Bruno-Marasca have determined Amanda committed her calunnia of her own free will.

 

[js202]

Thank you for the insider info Vixen.

I don't think anyone denies the people and entities you listed have "big money". However, what we are wondering, is what do these people have anything to do with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito being acquitted by the Italian Supreme Court, and what do these people have to do with the long list of forensic scientists publishing results showing the physical evidence against them was bogus?

Like, for example, you mention Donald Trump was involved. Did Donald Trump wire money to the Italian Supreme Court judges? Did he cut a check to some of the top forensic scientists in the world and tell them to publish papers in support of this random girl from Seattle? Did you witness a secret handshake between him and someone Machiavelli told you was an Illuminati member? What happened exactly?

Also, as another example, you named Richard Branson. One problem that you did not address is that there is not a single professional scientist who has come out in support of the prosecution's evidence. Did Richard Branson team up with Donald Trump and give stock options to every forensic scientist on planet Earth with a note saying "you best not support Mignini if you know what's good for you." and put a horse head under their bedsheets while they were sleeping? That is a lot of forensic scientists to pay off. I wonder what kind of money we are talking about here? Do you have a number in mind?

Of course the other possibility is that you, having absolutely no knowledge of science, are simply wrong about the physical evidence, and it wasn't actually any good and didn't implicate Amanda and Raf. But we know that can't be right because Vixen is actually quite smart and not all that crazy. So Donald Trump and Richard Branson must have paid off every professional scientist in the world to not speak out against this travesty of justice, and this is why Amanda Knox is free. That's why no professional has supported your cause. Does that sound about right, Vixen?

Extraordinary deployment of the ancient rhetorical technique of ridicule. There has never been a more worthy target, of whom I'm aware.

That said, it will make no dent in the delusional thought process of said target, I assure you. But any remaining lurkers should be either 1) summarily convinced; or 2) deeply worried they have succumbed to their version of Brenda Leyland Malady, and get to their local a) shrink or b) pub, posthaste.

Kudos.

 

[Kauffer]

I believe you have misunderstood the point the MR makes.

The only real issue in front of the M/B panel before their ruling is whether or not they'll grant the postponement of verdict (on the murder charge), until ECHR has ruled on the calunnia conviction concerning Lumumba.

There's two things. One - M/B actually know (by the time of writing the MR) that the defence request to postpone is moot - it would only matter if Section 5 of ISC were inclined to uphold Nencini's conviction.

It's here where Luca Cheli's analysis is key. Bringing us to......

Two - this thread has had copious discussion on what Cheli thought of as the "shadows" plaguing the M/B report. Cheli gives passing mention to the use of a Section 2 acquittal allowing a foothold to the Vixen's of the world; but in the end not even that is a shadow, not really.

There are four shadows, one of which is that M/B have declared for all to read that: questioning before a public prosecutor is by definition, a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures.

Now consider this - M/B had no real need to venture into that territory, because all they needed to answer was the issue of a potential postponement of their own verdict. They did not need to postpone - M/B exonerated the pair.

So there is SOME reason why M/B needed to go the extra needless mile to sneak in that defence of PM's, that when a suspect is in front of one, the context is by definition immune from coercion.

I think there's something else going on - something uniquely Italian! - rather than M/B being unaware of something. I think they are fully aware of something else, uniquely Italian. Something STILL to do with saving face for the Party of the PMs.

All this is fine and you are correct that the issue before the court was a motion to suspend proceedings pending the ECHR ruling. Indeed, if cassation had confirmed guilt in the murder trial then an adverse ECHR ruling on the procedural rights issue would have also negated that verdict, oddly, even though a further application would have been made to the ECHR, who would have likely considered both cases together.

Regardless of all this, however, the Bruno MR goes further in countenancing an interpretation that no effect on the callunia verdict would be forthcoming from the ECHR's consideration of that matter, regardless of its judgement.

Right now, the official position of the Italian Supreme Court derived from this judgement is in opposition to the ECHR and perhaps more importantly, its constitutional court's position. That's a major deal, I believe. And moreover, it takes this position without any recitation of the law, either ordinary Italian law, ECHR law or the constitutional court's ruling as to which is a superior source, or to prior rulings in the case. I find it truly extraordinary that this court has essentially refuted the constitution with an erroneous lay and not a legal interpretation of the relevant events.

With regard to my question, which you highlighted, it was in relation to the comment in the MR that Knox repeated her accusation in front of Matteini. I see this has been discussed on other boards and the position seems clear that that is exactly what the MR stated - so my interpretation was correct and furthermore that the MR is wholly wrong about it. Knox said nothing to Matteini.

 

[acbytesla]

Jodi Arias turned off her phone as she approached Travis' area, whom she was on her way to kill (premeditation).

Criminal minds think that way.

So you turned off yours 'to make it charge faster'. Understand the difference between the two examples?

The cause is not the same.

Do try to think logically.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO LOGIC. One may turn off their phones for a thousand reasons. The least common I'm sure is to commit a murder. It is NOT evidence of a crime in any way.

What's extra bizarre about this moronic logic is that it suggests premeditation and a conspiracy. It suggests that Amanda turned to her new boyfriend of 5 days, "hey, I don't have to work and you don't have to take Ms. Popovic to the train station, let's go murder my roommate." and Raffaele replies "we better turn off our phones". Oh, I forgot, the two only had a moderate and limited grasp of the other's language.

It's not their thinking that I'm concerned about, it's the kind of stupid beyond all measure thinking that draws that kind of link that worries me.

 

[Bill Williams]

Clear as a bell. Bruno-Marasca have determined Amanda committed her calunnia of her own free will.

Actually, no. M/B believe that PM's are institutionally immune from coercing a suspect. All suspects. Even 20-y.o. foreigners whose roommate has just been murdered and where it is in the middle of the night in an interrogation room.

For anyone who believes that, I have swampland in Florida to sell you.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

This is just one example of how bizarre their thinking is. I say "follow the evidence" and she replies with this kind of nonsense. It isn't following the evidence in any way. It doesn't tie them to the murder scene. In fact, no evidence ties them to the murder scene whereas Rudy is chained to the murder scene. It is unequivocal that Rudy was there during the murder.

So Vixen says they turned off their phones?? This is the quality of their case They turned off their phones, the British virgins didn't like Amanda, they smoked pot, there is Amanda's DNA inside her own home, fat old men and feeble women think an easy climb would be impossible. Amanda was different. Yep, clearly based on this evidence Knox must be guilty.

I know I am supposed to be understanding of the mentally challenged....but sometimes some of them make that task more than just a little difficult.

acbytesla,
Literally their entire, *entire* reasoning process for the past 8 years has been various versions of "affirming the consequent". Everything they say is affirming the consequent. "Amanda's DNA was found in the house therefore she committed the murder". No, retards, she lived there. It was in the house because she sheds skin cells like every other human. "Amanda turned her phone off because she was a vile demon sex murderess." Jesus Christ you people are morons. People have other reasons to turn off their phone. "Amanda's DNA was on the knife!!." Ughhhh, she USED IT TO CUT BREAD SO SHE TOUCHED IT. OF COURSE HER DNA WAS ON THE KNIFE.

It is astounding to me these people know how to find the internet to make dumb posts.

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla,
Literally their entire, *entire* reasoning process for the past 8 years has been various versions of "affirming the consequent". Everything they say is affirming the consequent. "Amanda's DNA was found in the house therefore she committed the murder". No, retards, she lived there. It was in the house because she sheds skin cells like every other human. "Amanda turned her phone off because she was a vile demon sex murderess." Jesus Christ you people are morons. People have other reasons to turn off their phone. "Amanda's DNA was on the knife!!." Ughhhh, she USED IT TO CUT BREAD SO SHE TOUCHED IT. OF COURSE HER DNA WAS ON THE KNIFE.

It is astounding to me these people know how to find the internet to make dumb posts.

I know,!!?? They leave my head shaking in dismay after every post. You CAN'T start with the conclusion EVER! Yet they do it consistently.

Amanda was spending a bit too much in their view, therefore Amanda was a drug fiend. Never mind that no testimony was made describing her as such. Or any drug tests. Yet in their moronic and illogical minds they draw that conclusion? Totally baffles me

Amanda had sex with 2 boys in Italy and the guilters draw the conclusion that's she's a prostitute. Again, no testimony from anyone that a logical mind would use. Nope, they pull it out of thin air or perhaps somewhere more odorous?

The fuzzy bathmat track. It vaguely looks like both Rudy's and Raffaele's sample prints but these are the only prints they were compared to. This is scientifically absurd. And if half the people looking at your conclusion and disagree your logic is flawed.

"Amanda is a sociopath". Maybe my favorite absurd guilter meme. It is the ultimate "affirming the consequent" fallacy. Only a sociopath would murder their roommate. And Amanda murdered her roommate therfore she is a sociopath. And we know that Amanda killed Mez because she's a sociopath.

Never mind that no one who knows her describes her in this fashion. Or that any psychological testing concluded this. She just is.

They demonstrate day in and day out the most bizarre thinking although using the word "thinking" is unfair to that term.
.

 

[Mike1711]

I have no idea how the status of the cell phone even made it into court? Absurd.

Perhaps not wearing underwear could be deemed an intention to rape?

Anyway I must remember to turn my cell phone on if I ever decide to murder someone. That'll throw the police off track.

 

[Planigale]

Once again, you are factually incorrect. None of the merits courts nor the supreme court found Rudy to be the deliverer of the fatal wound. That attribution went to Amanda, and there is scientific DNA evidence to this effect. As well as the fatal wound, there were two other major wounds from the other direction by a different knife around the neck and chin area. Finger bruises around Mez' lower face and neck and 23 other, more superficial knife wounds inflicted including on her hands and forearms indicating torture and taunting before death. We know Knife Boy Raff had a knife fetish and had a background history of supposedly attacking a girl in Bari with scissors at school, had knife fantasies of manga-style vampire killing, posed as a mad scientist wrapped in toilet paper wielding a butchers cleaver on social media prior to the murder and Amanda wrote lurid fantasies of rape and murder of young women, sadistically humiliated.

After the murder, Amanda revelled in further sadistic fantasies and wrote that she had an overwhelming urge 'to write a song' about Mez' murder.

There are more obvious candidates than Rudy.

I have corrected you on this multiple times. That you say this again just shows you will not accept facts. The courts are clear. The did not rule on who stabbed the victim. The case was never put to them by the prosecution that Guede stabbed Kercher. Since the case was not put they could not come to a judgement.
There is no scientific evidence that Knox wielded the knife. The Manga Sollecito had included NO knife killing of vampires. (Actually vampires did the killing this was not Buffy!)

I really should not bother with you lies.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have no idea how the status of the cell phone even made it into court? Absurd.

Perhaps not wearing underwear could be deemed an intention to rape?

Anyway I must remember to turn my cell phone on if I ever decide to murder someone. That'll throw the police off track.

And to confound the issue even further, one could make a very persuasive argument that since Sollecito in particular would almost certainly have had sufficient technical understanding of cellular networks to know that (pre-GPS) a primitive and approximate technique can be used to locate a handset based on its relative connectivity to adjacent base stations....

..... a guilty Sollecito (and Knox, of course) setting out on a pre-meditated journey to attack Kercher would have been FAR FAR better off simply switching on his phone (and that of Knox, of course) and leaving both handsets on a windowsill in his apartment so that they had the best chance of having signal coverage. Then Knox and Sollecito could have gone out without their cellphones and committed their foul and evil murder alongside virtual stranger Guede, safe in the knowledge that their cellphones could potentially provide them with an alibi if they were ever questioned about the murder: "Look officer - the cellphone records show that our cellphones were in or near my (Sollecito's) apartment all through the evening and night of the murder, and I think you'll agree that this tends to strongly support the notion that we (Knox and Sollecito) indeed did spend the whole of that evening and night in my apartment".

 

[Planigale]

This is what they said in the MR:

2.2. Further, without merit is the request by the defence of Amanda Knox to postpone the present proceedings pending a decision by the European Court of Justice [sic; correctly, Court of Human Rights], where – due to the definitive status of the conviction for the offence of false accusation ["calunnia"], at that time addressed via partial judgment – a complaint has been filed of wrongful and coercive treatment to which investigators allegedly subjected the person under investigation, the appellant, to the point of damaging her will and of harming her moral freedom, in violation of Article 188 of the Italian Code of criminal procedure.

In fact, an eventual pronouncement by the European Court in favour of the same Knox, in the sense of a hoped-for recognition of her unorthodox treatment by the investigators, would not be able, in any way, to undermine the internal [Italian Court] judgment, nor open the prospect for a revision of the verdict and sentence, considering that the libelous accusations which the aforementioned defendant made against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures; and were also confirmed in a memorandum ["memoriale"] bearing her signature, at a moment when the said accuser was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning; and were even repeated, some time later, during the validation of Lumumba's arrest, before the GIP [judge of preliminary investigation] who initiated the proceedings.

So:

1) The callunia verdict is safe, regardless of ECHR judgement because:

A) Knox "confirmed" [the accusation] to Mignini (the post 1:45, pre 5:45 period) when she was "free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures"

B) Knox "also confirmed" [the accusation] in the first memoriale when "she was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquility, free from external conditioning".

C) Knox "repeated" [the accusation] before GIP Matteini

This is curious. Firstly, the 5:45 statement was ruled out completely by Gemelli, so why is the MR referencing it at all? It doesn't exist for an incriminatory purpose. Secondly, whether Bruno/Marasca regard the circumstances of the writing of the 1st memoriale as objectively tranquil, this is not a conclusion based on law. They do not reference in this regard the fact that Knox was formally in custody, and omit a recitation of the law with regard to the necessary protections applied to custodial suspects or whether or not Gemelli correctly interpreted Italian law on this point. They simply take Gemelli's judgement as read and inviolable. However, given the fact that ECHR jurisprudence clearly rejects the use of any statements in the absence of counsel's advice, either Italian law if correctly interpreted to permit the use of the memoriale stands in opposition to the ECHR, or it does not and has therefore been incorrectly applied. This is also true with regard to the 5:45 statement, despite the MR's attempt to rehabilitate it in opposition to Gemelli.

Nevertheless, ECHR jurisprudence trumps ordinary law in Italy, so, whatever else is true, the Italian interpretation permitting the memoriale as a useable incriminating statement is objectively wrong.

With regard to the reference to the accusation against Lumumba "repeated" by Knox to Matteini, this must surely be a gross error as no such repetition took place. Or, have I misunderstood the point the MR makes? Is the MR really trying to suggest that Knox has adopted her statements in the light of counsel's advice? Surely not!

Bruno/Marasca do not appear to be aware that whatever their feelings on the matter, the callunia verdict will be fatally compromised by an Article 6 or Article 3 ruling in favour of Knox. It is not even necessary for the ECHR to recommend the annulment of the verdict or for the Council of Europe to demand it. It is already provided for in the Constitutional Court's intervention to impose a new construction on Article 630 of the CCP.

What do others think?

Yes, B/M argument seems illogical. Your analysis is good. Although I remain in my belief that at the end of the day the conviction will stand. (I may be wrong, and I can see good reasons why I may be).