• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
You think rape and murder for'futile motive' is normal? Oh well, I am sure even Charles Manson has his fans.
Click to expand...

That one made me chuckle. I thought it was due to a satanic ritual that was delayed a day. Or jealousy. Or theft. Or a sex game gone wrong. Or unflushed feces. Take your pick. The trouble is, dear Vixen, that they have been definitively acquitted of the crimes (that Guede committed) unlike Manson. Or haven't you heard?
:jaw-dropp
 
Vixen said:
What are you on about?

You know very well what I'm "on about". I've seen plenty of your little photoshopped pics.

You make up silly stories about Amanda and Raff's faces lighting up when they skyped at a Friends of Amanda Knox conference.

Now you are telling me what I did or didn't see when you were not even there. Are you now psychic besides having a 99% accurate memory?

Raff wrote to a girlfriend, 'Amanda is a bitch. You don't know what she's really like.'
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the beloved by PGP Kelsey Kay who found her 5 minutes of fame in the tabloid "Star", famous for such accurate stories as "Kate Middleton pregnant with twins! Makes royal history!" and the gossip rag "Radaronline", which is still telling us all about Jennifer Aniston's (non-existent) pregnancies. Such a reliable sources of information. Kay had no proof whatsoever that he ever said any such thing.

Personally, I don't go to gossip rags for my information.

It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds.

Now who is twisting words? I never said, nor implied, any such thing. I said there was genuine warmth between them. What is contemptible is your need to twist that into my saying they are "lovebirds".
 
Last edited:
Mike1711 said:
The rules according to Vixen.

I remember as a student I had a particularly good party one night. When I awoke I had to look in the rubbish bin to see if I had eaten anything. An empty pizza carton proved to me that I had. I sat there trying to remember when I ate it. I simply couldn't remember buying it or eating it.

Didn't AK and RS smoke a joint or three??
Click to expand...

And your room mate was discovered dead in a locked room?
 
Bill Williams said:
Fortunately the M/B court set out quite well the **legal** reasons why Nencini should never have convicted based on the evidence in front of his court. M/B said a court is not allowed to convict when all it does is substitute a hunch for what the evidence means.

As for the rest, other courts which make reference to the M/B decision disagree with you. For instance the later Boninsegna court said that M/B rendered a clear exoneration.

That you continue to substitute your own opinions for what Italian jurists are saying about it is, frankly, laughable - and exposes your agenda and confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

To add to your well-stated point, Boninsegna also wrote the following in the motivation report definitively acquitting Amanda Knox of calunnia against the police and prosecutor Mignini:

... the only correct approach required towards Knox, indeed the mandatory approach, was that of informing her of her legal rights, which have been proclaimed, not by chance, sacrosanct by our Constitution (article 24). And this because of the obvious and textbook-like reason that she was a subject who had to be enabled to defend, in an unhampered way, her personal freedom against the power of the State, since the latter had, through its law enforcement, already marked her as a person under investigation.
Click to expand...

And here is the Italian Senate's translation of Article 24 of the Italian Constitution:

Art. 24
Anyone may bring cases before a court of law in order to protect their rights
under civil and administrative law.
Defense is an inviolable right at every stage and instance of legal proceedings.The poor are entitled by law to proper means for action or defense in all
courts.
The law shall define the conditions and forms of reparation in case of judicial
errors.
Click to expand...

The highlighted clause in Article 24 is embodied in Italian procedural law through articles including, among others, CPP Art. 63 and 64; these require warning the person who is questioned while under investigation that she is a suspect and that she therefore is entitled to consult a lawyer.

The prosecutor and police did not follow the Italian Constitution and Italian procedural law in the Nov. 5/6 interrogations of Knox and Sollecito.

Knox was convicted of calunnia against Lumumba based upon her statements in the interrogation, in which she did not have a lawyer, and secondarily on the basis of her disclaimer(s) or revocations(s) written while she was in custody without access to a defense lawyer.

According to ECHR case-law, a conviction of a person based on statements made when that person was interrogated without a lawyer present to provide defense is a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Articles 6.3c with 6.1. The applicable cases include, among others, Salduz v. Turkey, Brusco v. France, Dayanan v. Turkey, and Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia.

Thus, when the ECHR issues its final judgment in Knox v. Italy, Italy will, under its solemn treaty obligations, and its Constitutional Court decision 113/2011, be required to use its judicial system to review ("retry" in a revision trial under CPP Articles 629, 630, and 632) the conviction for calunnia but in accordance with the Convention (and its own laws), excluding Knox's statements made without a defense lawyer as a basis for any conviction. That is, Knox will then be acquitted on the charge of calunnia against Lumumba in accordance with Italian law.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Ah, yes, the beloved by PGP Kelsey Kay who found her 5 minutes of fame in the tabloid "Star", famous for such accurate stories as "Kate Middleton pregnant with twins! Makes royal history!" and the gossip rag "Radaronline", which is still telling us all about Jennifer Aniston's (non-existent) pregnancies. Such a reliable sources of information. Kay had no proof whatsoever that he ever said any such thing.

Personally, I don't go to gossip rags for my information.

It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds.

Now who is twisting words? I never said, nor implied, any such thing. I said there was genuine warmth between them. What is contemptible is your need to twist that into my saying they are "lovebirds".
Click to expand...


Reptiles are warm?
 
Vixen said:
And your room mate was discovered dead in a locked room?
Click to expand...

And there was a hand print of a known burglar smeared in blood along with his DNA in the victim's vagina and everywhere else in the room? A break in matching the exact same style of his previous break in shortly before? A burglar no one knew? Who admitted to being there and still does to this day?

Oh, must have been a Samhain pagan murder ritual involving this burglar and two other people who didn't leave evidence of themselves. After all, those other two people had smoked pot and didn't remember exactly when they ate.

Is that what your logic tells you Vixen?
 
Vixen said:
And your room mate was discovered dead in a locked room?
Click to expand...

There are murders every night...luckily my memory lapse didn't come to Mignini's notice. He would have charged me after "proving" that I "lied".

...but you miss the point. Proof of a mistake (untruth) is not proof of something else.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Grinder says he didn't notice any 'genuine warmth'.
Click to expand...

I can't help how Grinder interprets what he sees or doesn't see. I saw what I saw and so did those at my table who said the same thing. When two people break out in huge smiles the entire time they were speaking to each other, it indicates a warm relationship to me. Perhaps you can photoshop their faces onto two battling opponents for the fun of it.

And you still haven't admitted that you twisted my words, which you clearly did.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
To add to your well-stated point, Boninsegna also wrote the following in the motivation report definitively acquitting Amanda Knox of calunnia against the police and prosecutor Mignini:



And here is the Italian Senate's translation of Article 24 of the Italian Constitution:



The highlighted clause in Article 24 is embodied in Italian procedural law through articles including, among others, CPP Art. 63 and 64; these require warning the person who is questioned while under investigation that she is a suspect and that she therefore is entitled to consult a lawyer.

The prosecutor and police did not follow the Italian Constitution and Italian procedural law in the Nov. 5/6 interrogations of Knox and Sollecito.

Knox was convicted of calunnia against Lumumba based upon her statements in the interrogation, in which she did not have a lawyer, and secondarily on the basis of her disclaimer(s) or revocations(s) written while she was in custody without access to a defense lawyer.

According to ECHR case-law, a conviction of a person based on statements made when that person was interrogated without a lawyer present to provide defense is a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Articles 6.3c with 6.1. The applicable cases include, among others, Salduz v. Turkey, Brusco v. France, Dayanan v. Turkey, and Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia.

Thus, when the ECHR issues its final judgment in Knox v. Italy, Italy will, under its solemn treaty obligations, and its Constitutional Court decision 113/2011, be required to use its judicial system to review ("retry" in a revision trial under CPP Articles 629, 630, and 632) the conviction for calunnia but in accordance with the Convention (and its own laws), excluding Knox's statements made without a defense lawyer as a basis for any conviction. That is, Knox will then be acquitted on the charge of calunnia against Lumumba in accordance with Italian law.
Click to expand...


That begs the question as to whether Amanda was 'denied a lawyer', when she wasn't even a suspect as of the time of her calumny.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
And there was a hand print of a known burglar smeared in blood along with his DNA in the victim's vagina and everywhere else in the room? A break in matching the exact same style of his previous break in shortly before? A burglar no one knew? Who admitted to being there and still does to this day?

Oh, must have been a Samhain pagan murder ritual involving this burglar and two other people who didn't leave evidence of themselves. After all, those other two people had smoked pot and didn't remember exactly when they ate.

Is that what your logic tells you Vixen?
Click to expand...


Is that Mike's alibi?
 
Mike1711 said:
There are murders every night...luckily my memory lapse didn't come to Mignini's notice. He would have charged me after "proving" that I "lied".

...but you miss the point. Proof of a mistake (untruth) is not proof of something else.
Click to expand...

Nobody said it was. If you recall, Hellmann-Zanetti court was heavily criticised for dealing with the evidence piecemeal. You have to look at the evidence as a whole.

Sure, it might just be a 'coincidence':

  • The pair turned off their phones within minutes of each other before the murder
  • Raff got his dad to lie for him about the pipes leaking before 20:40.
  • Amanda insisted the pipes broke after 23:00 and that she saw blood on Raff's hands.
  • Amanda claimed she was home with Raff all evening, but police pinged her near the cottage.
  • Three independent witnesses heard the piercing scream circa 22:30.
  • An indpendent neighbour heard loud rattling on the metal staircase circa 22:30 of several footsteps running.
  • Amanda's DNA was found in five different locations mixed with Mez' blood.
  • Raff's footprint was found on the bathmat in Mez' blood.
  • Raff's DNA was on the bra clasp which was underneath the sheet under the body under the duvet, under the scattered papers from the post-mortem 'burglary'.
  • Amanda falsely told police Patrick raped and murdered Mez.
  • The murder weapon was found in Raff's apartment with Mez DNA on the blade and Amanda's on the knife hilt.
  • Etcetera, etcetera.
  • Luminol, the forensic toolkit to identify concealed blood spill, highlighted the pair's bare footprints in the hallway and Amanda's room.
  • Amanda claimed to not remember what she had doen on the murder night.
  • Raff claimed he could not vouch for Amanda between 20:45 and 01:00, when he claims she returned home.

OK, each of these factors alone can be explained away, piece by piece. But what a court does is look at the evidence as a whole. The pair were convicted on the basis of overwhelming evidence against them.

You can take one piece at a time, but hey, look it's now in the shape of a whole car.
 
Stacyhs said:
I can't help how Grinder interprets what he sees or doesn't see. I saw what I saw and so did those at my table who said the same thing. When two people break out in huge smiles the entire time they were speaking to each other, it indicates a warm relationship to me. Perhaps you can photoshop their faces onto two battling opponents for the fun of it.

And you still haven't admitted that you twisted my words, which you clearly did.
Click to expand...

What? 'Lovebirds' is a common expression for a lovey-dovey couple. Sure, it's derived from the way certain birds bond for life. However, I doubt anyone literally believed I was calling Amanda and Raff birds of the feathered variety.

Perhaps you do not understand similes.

If Raff is so enamoured of his 'fairy-tale love story' (his words to Nencini) why does he try to stab her in the back at every opportunity? Ever since he retracted his alibi for her, as early as 6th Nov 2007, just four days after the murder, saying she had asked him to lie for her by saying she was with him all evening, he has never withdrawn it.

In fact, during the appeal stages, he called a press conference making it clear he could vouch not for her for sure. Either way, that is a pretty weasally way of pushing her under the bus to save his own skin.

If Amanda has such great 'warmth' towards Raff, why did she refuse to marry him to help him get a 'green card' to evade going to prison?

That was the least she could do after all he had done for her.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
What? 'Lovebirds' is a common expression for a lovey-dovey couple. Sure, it's derived from the way certain birds bond for life. However, I doubt anyone literally believed I was calling Amanda and Raff birds of the feathered variety.

Perhaps you do not understand similes.

If Raff is so enamoured of his 'fairy-tale love story' (his words to Nencini) why does he try to stab her in the back at every opportunity? Ever since he retracted his alibi for her, as early as 6th Nov 2007, just four days after the murder, saying she had asked him to lie for her by saying she was with him all evening, he has never withdrawn it.

In fact, during the appeal stages, he called a press conference making it clear he could vouch not for her for sure. Either way, that is a pretty weasally way of pushing her under the bus to save his own skin.

If Amanda has such great 'warmth' towards Raff, why did she refuse to marry him to help him get a 'green card' to evade going to prison?

That was the least she could do after all he had done for her.
Click to expand...


Ridiculously over-emotive. And the suggestion that Knox somehow cannot have had warmth towards Sollecito because she didn't marry him for US Immigration purposes is both absurd and disgusting.

And it's a metaphor, not a simile.

Oh dear.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ridiculously over-emotive. And the suggestion that Knox somehow cannot have had warmth towards Sollecito because she didn't marry him for US Immigration purposes is both absurd and disgusting.

And it's a metaphor, not a simile.

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

No, ducky. To say someone is like a lovebird, is a simile.

Whoops, LondonJohn shoots self in foot again.
 
Vixen said:
Is that Mike's alibi?
Click to expand...

The "pagan Samhain murder ritual"? No, that would be the deranged prosecution's theory of the crime. That a bunch of people (well, a few people, these days... maybe just one.) with no analytical reasoning skills happen to believe as well. You know, because that is what was in the tabloids and true crime novels written in two days to make a quick buck off a murder.

Let's say Mike's alibi was that he was at his girlfriend's house the night the roommate was killed. And a detailed forensic examination shows that someone interacted with the computer in Mike's girlfriend's room at the exact time the burglar broke in and killed his roommate.

What then, Vixen? Freemasons, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom