Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Come, come, Bill. You know perfectly well the netflix film is carefully edited.

You don't know what lies on the cutting room floor.

Given how overwhelming the evidence is against the pair, it's no wonder the PIP prefer a PR commercial than an objective trial in a court of law.

Are you not yet aware that in fact there is zero credible, reliable evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's involvement in the Kercher murder?

You really ought to know this by now. Well, at least you do now that I've specifically reminded you

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and Knox & Sollecito did have "an objective trial in a court of law". You must have missed it. It culminated in their full and unequivocal acquittals and annulments.

You really ought to get better informed of the facts. It's very surprising and disappointing that you don't know this stuff.

 

[LondonJohn]

The issue is - when did Mignini consider them suspects?

Read the transcript of his CNN interview with Drew Griffin in 2010 . Contrast with what he told Netflix in 2016.

They are differing accounts of when he, the PM spoken from his own mouth, regarded them as suspects.

Both of his statements cannot be true. Was he lying in 2010 or in 2016?

Vixen is also laughably ignorant of the way proper, professional, lawful investigations should be conducted.

Police (and other law enforcement personnel) should a) maintain a totally open mind on who might or might not be involved in a particular crime, while b) directing investigative resources (in addition, of course, to a competent, thorough, professional and timely investigation of the crime scene and the victim) towards those perhaps viewed more likely to be involved - while of course ruling nobody in and nobody out at that point.

And here's the critical thing: investigators should only be led to the identification of suspects by actual hard evidence. Such evidence does not include "hunches", "intuition" or "feelings". Those things can be of value, but only in respect of directing investigative resources towards looking at particular people.

Aside from the fact that phone tapping and surveillance are disgracefully abused in extraordinarily high numbers in Italy - so much so that there are really nasty undertones of a Police State - I don't have any problem with the police placing Knox and Sollecito under surveillance as early as 3rd November. The problem was that the police had already jumped the gun and decided that Knox was definitely involved to some degree, and that this poor decision led in turn to some atrocious confirmation bias and tunnel vision. The police and PM were actively looking to "confirm" Knox's guilt from her phone taps and visual surveillance.

And exactly the same malpractice dictated the choreography and execution of the notorious 5/6 Nov interrogations. The police/PM already "knew" that Knox was deeply involved, and that Sollecito was lying to protect her. Remember that there was not one shred of real evidence (reliable/credible or not) of the participation of Knox or Sollecito in the murder at this point. All they had were hunches, pseudoscientific faux-Holmes "deductions" and poor reasoning.

 

[LondonJohn]

Some interesting user reviews (and professional critic reviews - all of which are very positive about the film and its conclusions) on Rotten Tomatoes:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amanda_knox/reviews/?type=user


There's one extremely long negative user review, which must have taken its author a great deal of time and effort to compose and write. Predictably, its attempts to "correct" the story (while, in the meantime, condescendingly explaining to everyone just how they've been duped by the film makers ) are crammed full of lies, exaggerations and misdirections. Good to see the True Believers obeying God's Ergon's and Quennell's exhortations to flood any and all relevant websites with this sort of nonsense though

 

[Vixen]

Some interesting user reviews (and professional critic reviews - all of which are very positive about the film and its conclusions) on Rotten Tomatoes:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amanda_knox/reviews/?type=user


There's one extremely long negative user review, which must have taken its author a great deal of time and effort to compose and write. Predictably, its attempts to "correct" the story (while, in the meantime, condescendingly explaining to everyone just how they've been duped by the film makers ) are crammed full of lies, exaggerations and misdirections. Good to see the True Believers obeying God's Ergon's and Quennell's exhortations to flood any and all relevant websites with this sort of nonsense though

I doubt that's true.

 

[Vixen]

Scottish Law: Leading Lawyer says 'Not Proven' More Logical

Interesting update on the bbc.news ,13 Sept 2016, on the plans to simplify verdicts and replace the 'Not Proven' category of verdict.

A Scots law expert has said the not proven verdict is the "logical" one to keep in criminal cases and there is an argument for dropping not guilty.

Scotland's three part verdict fits in closely with Italy's Guilty, Not Guilty full stop (Art 230 para 1, with four subsections), and Not Guilty due to 'Insufficent Evidence' (Art 230 para II), which Amanda and Raff were acquitted under. (=cf. 'Not Proven')

Mr Thomson said if the Crown failed to prove a case the logical verdict was not proven, rather than not guilty.
Earlier this year, Holyrood's justice committee concluded Scotland's not proven verdict was on "borrowed time" and may not serve any useful purpose.
Mr Thomson acknowledged that there "was not unanimity about the value of the three verdict system".
He told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme that within the profession, there is a "fairly solid body of support" that what a jury is being asked to do is decide whether the public prosecutor has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

How Scotland's legal verdicts are similar to Italy's:

What is the not proven verdict?
Scotland, unlike most of the world's legal systems, has three possible verdicts in criminal cases - guilty, not guilty and not proven
The legal implications of a not proven verdict are the same as with a not guilty verdict: the accused is acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law
Not proven is seen by some as offering additional protection to the accused
But critics argue that it is confusing for juries and the public, can stigmatise an accused person and fail to provide closure for victims

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37315936

 

[LondonJohn]

Interesting update on the bbc.news ,13 Sept 2016, on the plans to simplify verdicts and replace the 'Not Proven' category of verdict.



Scotland's three part verdict fits in closely with Italy's Guilty, Not Guilty full stop (Art 230 para 1, with four subsections), and Not Guilty due to 'Insufficent Evidence' (Art 230 para II), which Amanda and Raff were acquitted under. (=cf. 'Not Proven')



How Scotland's legal verdicts are similar to Italy's:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37315936

I'm afraid you're wrong on the way in which Knox and Sollecito were acquitted. But feel free to carry on believing whatever you like in spite of evidence and logical deduction - that's the pro-guilt way, after all

 

[Bill Williams]

Come, come, Bill. You know perfectly well the netflix film is carefully edited.

You don't know what lies on the cutting room floor.

Given how overwhelming the evidence is against the pair, it's no wonder the PIP prefer a PR commercial than an objective trial in a court of law.

The objective record of the trials is that the "evidence" does not convict them. That's what the Italian Supreme Court ruled, in acquitting them.

If your conspiracy theory is true, where is it that Mignini and Nick Pisa complaining?

Mignini, in his own voice, lays out a clear set of events which convinced him that the kids were suspects prior to the Nov 5/6 interrogations.

But in 2010, in his own voice, he told CNN that they only became suspects when "Amanda named Lumumba" at the end of the first interrogation. He even quotes for CNN the applicable law which covers people suspected of crimes.

Both are in his own voice. Both cannot be true. One is a self-serving lie.

 

[Vixen]

The objective record of the trials is that the "evidence" does not convict them. That's what the Italian Supreme Court ruled, in acquitting them.

If your conspiracy theory is true, where is it that Mignini and Nick Pisa complaining?

Mignini, in his own voice, lays out a clear set of events which convinced him that the kids were suspects prior to the Nov 5/6 interrogations.

But in 2010, in his own voice, he told CNN that they only became suspects when "Amanda named Lumumba" at the end of the first interrogation. He even quotes for CNN the applicable law which covers people suspected of crimes.

Both are in his own voice. Both cannot be true. One is a self-serving lie.

Don't believe what the subtitles tell you. You are being led up the garden path.

The film is pure fiction and disgraceful and dishonest one at that.

 

[Stacyhs]

The subtitles were a mistranslation. Mignini did not say 'a man would not cover up his victim'. He said 'an unknown man would not cover up the victim'.

Hello? You are a random burglar: you have just horrifically raped, mutilated, and butchered your victim and you hang around to cover her with a duvet?

Or you are her housemate whom you last exchanged pleasantries with and now you are in deep ******

As already stated, he had met Meredith before. I wonder how he felt after realizing that he'd just sexually assaulted and murdered his friend's girlfriend? You know, they guy he played basketball with and into whose home he'd been invited?

 

[Vixen]

I'm afraid you're wrong on the way in which Knox and Sollecito were acquitted. But feel free to carry on believing whatever you like in spite of evidence and logical deduction - that's the pro-guilt way, after all

As long as we are all clear Amanda and Raff were NOT exonerated. They were acquitted under Art. 230 para II, insufficient evidence, and the Marasca court remained heavily critical and scathing of the pair.

It is technically incorrect for Amanda to parade around calling herself an 'exoneree'. What an insult to genuinely wrongly convicted persons and how disrespectful to them to pretend to be one of them.

 

[Vixen]

As already stated, he had met Meredith before. I wonder how he felt after realizing that he'd just sexually assaulted and murdered his friend's girlfriend? You know, they guy he played basketball with and into whose home he'd been invited?

That's not the finding of the courts.

Conjecture is a complete waste of time.

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't believe what the subtitles tell you. You are being led up the garden path.

The film is pure fiction and disgraceful and dishonest one at that.

Bwwaaahaahaa! So now the subtitles are false? Right. Because no one speaks Italian and can't understand the words coming out of Mignini's mouth.

You haven't seen the docu, have you? Come on, fess up. It's obvious. No one who has would say Nick Pisa and Mignini aren't saying what they are sitting there and saying.
Pathetic.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't believe what the subtitles tell you. You are being led up the garden path.

The film is pure fiction and disgraceful and dishonest one at that.

Oh please. Is that the best you can do? You're not worth talking to. Unless the plain meaning of what you're writing is something different

 

[Stacyhs]

That's not the finding of the courts.

Conjecture is a complete waste of time.

Oh, you mean Guede didn't sexually assault Meredith? I guess his DNA got in her vagina because she was letting him do some really heavy petting?

The court found that neither Amanda nor Raffaele killed Meredith. That leaves Guede. Or do you think Guede is innocent?

 

[LondonJohn]

In passing, it's rather transparently obvious why most of the pro-guilt community likes to propagate the lie that Knox and Sollecito were acquitted on the grounds of "insufficient evidence": it allows them to resolve cognitive dissonance (as well as try to persuade others, of course), by interpreting that to mean "there was lots of evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt, but just (by a tiny margin) not enough to convict them on a BARD basis, but in any case that evidence shows that they in fact were involved".

And this demonstrates not only a (deliberate or born of ignorance) failure to understand the philosophical and ethical meanings of "not guilty", but also a (deliberate or born of ignorance) inability to understand the relevant sections of the Italian CPP. Yes, there's one section (Para 1) which accounts for "factual innocence" (e.g. the accused can actually prove they couldn't have committed the crime, or the court finds that no crime was ever committed). But the other section (Para 2) - the one under which Knox and Sollecito were acquitted - accounts for pretty much everything else. And that ranges from "zero evidence of guilt" right up to "plenty of evidence of guilt, but just insufficient to find for guilt BARD".

And if one were reading across from the Italian system to the current Scottish system, then Para 1 would fit into the "not guilty" category. But most of Para 2 would also fit into the "not guilty" category. Only the portion of Para 2 which covers serious evidence of guilt which just fails to meet the BARD requirement would equate to the Scottish "not proven".

In any case, both the Scottish and Italian systems are currently an affront to modern concepts of justice in a liberalised democracy. The strangest part of all this, interestingly, is that the revised Italian constitution only allows for verdicts of "guilty" and "not guilt" - as so it should. It's only because the Italian legislature and judiciary are so FUBAR and unfit for purpose that these codes have been allowed to stay illogically in the CPP.

In a modern, liberalised democracy, there should only ever be two possible verdicts: "guilty" and "not guilty". And unless/until a court can be convinced BARD that the accused committed the crime(s), the verdict must always be "not guilty". There are extremely sound and strong ethical and philosophical reasons why this must be so. One day, both Scotland and Italy will modernise their criminal justice systems. Well, I will revise that: one day, Scotland will do so. Italy is such a failing nation, riven with corruption, patronage and non-accountability, that nothing will probably ever get done, in spite of the repeated institutional failings of the system.

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't believe what the subtitles tell you. You are being led up the garden path.

The film is pure fiction and disgraceful and dishonest one at that.

Yeah, it's all a vast conspiracy! We're all being duped! I hear the Mafia may be in on this one too! Is that true, Vixen?!

 

[Vixen]

Bwwaaahaahaa! So now the subtitles are false? Right. Because no one speaks Italian and can't understand the words coming out of Mignini's mouth.

You haven't seen the docu, have you? Come on, fess up. It's obvious. No one who has would say Nick Pisa and Mignini aren't saying what they are sitting there and saying.
Pathetic.

Do read what Mignini really said, here:

I was stunned by one statement by the end of the article, that says – in which I am reported to have said – that “if they were innocent, they should forget”. That is a statement which I said on request of one of the two interviewers, who asked “what would you say to those young persons in the event that they were actually innocent?”. So what could I say, what should I answer to a question framed and spun in such a way? I might say: “it’s an experience that unfortunately happened to you, something that may happen, try to forget, seek all legal ways” – but I was saying that in the abstract, purely in the abstract – “that you think you can follow if you deem that you suffered an injustice” – albeit the Cassazione ruling is in the dubitative formula (Art. 530 § 2. cpp).

But then the Vanityfair journalist does not report my *second* statement, that is, the other one I said just following: “And what about if they are guilty? If they were guilty I’d suggest them to remind that our human life ends as trial that has an irreversible sentence, that will last forever”. My answer was made of two statements, not of one. Both were rhetorical and hypothetical. The last statement was the one I thought would have unleashed criticism, but curiously it’s the one missing in the article, there is no comment about it.

Another thing: it is true that people in Perugia happened to come to shake my hand and compliment me, but that happened much later, around 2013 and later, and those people basically complimented me about the Narducci case. It was somehow satisfying because it came after many years of difficulties and attacks. The Perugian people expressed their support to me because of the Narducci case, and secondarily they also expressed their support because of my independency in facing the international media campaign that was mounted against me after the Kercher case.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php..._how_three_crackpots_craven_to_knox_banked_1/


As for shooting the messenger, Nick Pisa, isn't that what the Ancient Greeks used to do, mistaking the bearer of bad-tidings as the cause of them?

 

[LondonJohn]

As long as we are all clear Amanda and Raff were NOT exonerated. They were acquitted under Art. 230 para II, insufficient evidence, and the Marasca court remained heavily critical and scathing of the pair.

It is technically incorrect for Amanda to parade around calling herself an 'exoneree'. What an insult to genuinely wrongly convicted persons and how disrespectful to them to pretend to be one of them.

You're not aware that Para 2 covers every eventuality from "zero evidence of guilt" right up to "lots of evidence, but just insufficient to prove guilt BARD", are you?

Well, now you know that at least. Happy to help!

 

[LondonJohn]

Do read what Mignini really said, here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php..._how_three_crackpots_craven_to_knox_banked_1/


As for shooting the messenger, Nick Pisa, isn't that what the Ancient Greeks used to do, mistaking the bearer of bad-tidings as the cause of them?

Ummm, linking to Mignini's self-serving attempt to defend himself in no way constitutes evidence of "what he really said" in that interview. Are you really so gullible as to think that Mignini wouldn't try to warp the truth, misdirect and even lie in order to try to rationalise what he actually said in those filmed interviews to minimise the damage to himself and his reputation....?

Rather, let's see and hear the exact words he actually spoke, together with their (reliable) English translation.

Oh dear.

(And with respect to your edit, I'm not interested in what Mignini claims he really said in those interviews, well after the fact, and in a blatant attempt to defend himself against the disgust and ridicule being (rightfully) heaped up him from all those who have seen the film. The man has plenty of form in this area. The only thing that matters here is what Mignini actually said in those interviews.)