Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

If I'm following at all correctly some of the twitter stuff and what it links to.......

........it is heartening to see the avalanche of people who seem to be quickly figuring this out:

Raffaele and Amanda are innocent.

Nick Pisa and Giuliano Mignini are morons

The fake-wiki is, indeed, fake; based on a "truther" approach to elevating factoids over reason.

The guilt nutters who run guilt websites are, pardon the repitition, nutters. I found three or four mentions of Peter Quennell and his obsessive minutiae about this as "creepy" and other equivalents. One even tried to dig into this claim Quennell has made of 100s of lawyers. That one said all they could find was untraceable pseudonyms plus a genuine conveyance lawyer.

No one as yet has migrated to ISF, way over here in a part of that universe in the doldrums.

But it is gratifying to see the avalanche of people figuring this out so quickly. Marriott couldn't have paid them all!!!!

Au contraire, mon ami Canadien! Marriott has almost bottomless pockets, in part thanks to the $187 million he's received from Curt Knox

That article, meanwhile, was bang on the money of course. I think it's pretty clear that any rational, sane person visiting TJMK (particularly) or .org is very quickly creeped out and disquieted by the twin phenomena of a) the blatant bias shown against Knox (especially) and Sollecito, characterised by ludicrously partisan and blinkered interpretations of evidence and continual cod-psychiatry character assassinations; and b) the disturbing levels of veneration of Kercher, accompanied by extreme light-and-shade comparisons between Kercher and Knox, from people who never even knew Kercher in life.

As you say, "nutters" is a somewhat colloquial but completely apposite term.

 

[analemma]

30 million people liked Saddam.

And millions of people were fooled by Pisa and Magnini: Until now
I AM JUST LOVING THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[analemma]

Google Searches

The sequence in which the articles resulting from a Google Search appear are apparently influenced by the number of readers that click on that article.
I have a suspicion that while Vixen keeps us busy with the normal diet of lies, the PGP Truthers MUST be busy as bees clicking on the Amanda Knox news stories that they want to see and, in that way, suppress all the news and opinions that are swirling around the Netflix documentary.
I Know that this is true because the first page search on "Amanda Knox" produces a reference to the 4/29/2014 Conviction Motivation Article, which I am sure no one has looked at in YEARS.
I know that I have talked about this in the past and suggested that the PIP do the same Article Clicking exercise, but this suggestion was always puh-puhed or ridiculed.
But Really.
There being more of us than them, since THEY are probably only Vixen and those at TJMK, it would seem that if each of us that care were to click for about 10 minutes a day we could keep the Netflix Doc from disappearing from the Google Searches and being replaced by TJMK and Knox Convicted and Questions Remain bullsh*t articles that the PGP have moved upward to dominate the searches.

 

[acbytesla]

Great interview with Amanda here... audio.

http://kuow.org/post/amanda-knox-people-love-idea-monster

Actually, I didn't like it. In fact, it's what I haven't liked about most of her interviews. Whereas she seemed over the ordeal in the ABC interview and in charge, in this interview she didn't seemed like she's quite over it yet.

I know it's unfair of me to expect Amanda to put a fear behind her that hung over her head for 8 years. Yet that is what I want for her. If she can do that, I think she is capable of anything, if she can't she will always be the victim.

 

[toto]

You may need to run this through Google Translate - but this is the Italian Huffington Post view of the Netflix documentary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.it/andrea-camaiora/netflix-caso-knox-_b_12306844.html

It is not flattering to Giuliano Mignini. They seem to be making sport of the guy over there.

As per analemma - I AM LOVING THIS!

I have just read this and am pleased the common sense interpretation of the verdict is given:

L'assoluzione dei due ragazzi viene ripetuta per ben due volte con formula piena, "per non aver commesso il fatto".

The acquittal of the two boys [sic] is repeated twice with full formula, "for not having committed the crime."

I have also just seen the Netflix documentary and thought it was very well done. It could easily benefit from a ten part series of course, but maybe there wouldn't be the audience that we think there would be.
The film was almost good enough for me to stop reading about this, but I think there is still the unfinished business of some stuff regarding Sollecito and a book trial? TJMK used to be quite informative about these type of developments, but maybe they have lost interest. Also of course The ECHR, which I suppose will take years.

Pisa is a gift to the documentary, and Mignini too is shown in a very poor light, because of, rather than despite the fact that he is quoted fairly.

 

[Bill Williams]

The sequence in which the articles resulting from a Google Search appear are apparently influenced by the number of readers that click on that article.
I have a suspicion that while Vixen keeps us busy with the normal diet of lies, the PGP Truthers MUST be busy as bees clicking on the Amanda Knox news stories that they want to see and, in that way, suppress all the news and opinions that are swirling around the Netflix documentary.
I Know that this is true because the first page search on "Amanda Knox" produces a reference to the 4/29/2014 Conviction Motivation Article, which I am sure no one has looked at in YEARS.
I know that I have talked about this in the past and suggested that the PIP do the same Article Clicking exercise, but this suggestion was always puh-puhed or ridiculed.
But Really.
There being more of us than them, since THEY are probably only Vixen and those at TJMK, it would seem that if each of us that care were to click for about 10 minutes a day we could keep the Netflix Doc from disappearing from the Google Searches and being replaced by TJMK and Knox Convicted and Questions Remain bullsh*t articles that the PGP have moved upward to dominate the searches.

The first clue in working out what has gone so wrong on-line in all these years, is to look at the criticisms PGP aim at the PIP.

Almost universally, they are criticisms which ignore/justify the PGP for doing what they accuse.

This is nowhere truer than the old meme that somehow the PIP have engaged in a massive PR effort to influence public opinion. This meme of theirs conveniently justifies the PGP from engaging in what can only be called a "PR campaign to influence public opinion."

When Raffaele Sollecito appeared on the Katie Couric afternoon-show in (2012?) the-then group of PGP were not even subtle about how they planed to leaflet audience members. Given the tenor of Couric's questions (mainly ignoring him, and obsessing about Amanda Knox) my belief is that they were successful in lobbying Couric herself.

For instance, Raffaele looked genuinely surprised that he was being asked to "explain Knox". "What about all her odd behaviour?" Sollecito tried to steer the conversation back to himself, the injustice he'd suffered - the factoid evidence against him which had led to his own 2011 release from prison.....

..... and there were all these questions about Knox - a hallmark of the PGP PR campaign. The epitome of this was when Couric asked him, "Do you ever regret meeting Amanda Knox?" He handled that question brilliantly, what had happened to him was not about Knox, it was about a rogue prosecution and a tabloid world which went ga-ga over claims of sex and murder.

And as you say above, analemma - it's gratifying to hear a new term being coined by the massive wave of innocentisti who've arrived only since seeing the documentary - PGP Truthers. That one is worth the documentary.

In it, the documentary has Nick Pisa in his own voice describe what the problem always was - the only difference between him and us is that Pisa thinks it is "just business" to send non-fact-checked articles, so that he can get the feeling of "having sex" in seeing so many front page headlines with his byline.

If an innocentisti had accused Pisa of saying that, people like Vixen would accuse it of being a faulty translation. Yet there is Pisa defending it. Then he has the unmitigated GALL to, at the end, say it is not his fault that the police fed him lies. It's not his job to fact-check (he must have been sick the day they taught journalism in journalism school!)

What's left are the PGP Truthers. Hoots! I wish I'd thought of that!!!

 

[Sonia]

The sequence in which the articles resulting from a Google Search appear are apparently influenced by the number of readers that click on that article.
I have a suspicion that while Vixen keeps us busy with the normal diet of lies, the PGP Truthers MUST be busy as bees clicking on the Amanda Knox news stories that they want to see and, in that way, suppress all the news and opinions that are swirling around the Netflix documentary.
I Know that this is true because the first page search on "Amanda Knox" produces a reference to the 4/29/2014 Conviction Motivation Article, which I am sure no one has looked at in YEARS.
I know that I have talked about this in the past and suggested that the PIP do the same Article Clicking exercise, but this suggestion was always puh-puhed or ridiculed.
But Really.
There being more of us than them, since THEY are probably only Vixen and those at TJMK, it would seem that if each of us that care were to click for about 10 minutes a day we could keep the Netflix Doc from disappearing from the Google Searches and being replaced by TJMK and Knox Convicted and Questions Remain bullsh*t articles that the PGP have moved upward to dominate the searches.

If they are really doing this, clicking on articles to increase views, that's truly pathetic. It's desperate to play games like that with search engines. I pity them for having to resort to games like directed clicking and commenting. Truth always wins in the end.

 

[analemma]

If they are really doing this, clicking on articles to increase views, that's truly pathetic. It's desperate to play games like that with search engines. I pity them for having to resort to games like directed clicking and commenting. Truth always wins in the end.

Sonia,
I have little doubt that the PGP are doing this: how does an obscure two year old article appear on page ONE of the search?
And
The Truth does NOT win if no one sees the Truth because the PGP have pushed it down 20 screens.

 

[Vixen]

The thing is whatever Mignini said, the fact is he is a lawyer. His opinion on the behaviour of murderers is of no more worth than mine. On a quick look at the literature it does not seem to be supported by published studies. I note the suggestion that an expert profiler / forensic psychologist from the US says this is more characteristic of first time murderers. At least that person is an 'expert' entitled to give an opinion. There seems in this case to have been a great deal of 'amateur' psychological interpretation by the police and prosecutor but no attempt to get a qualified expert.

The whole case is riddled with this sort of thing, from fingerprint experts opining on footprints, to Steffanoni's inept crime scene investigation when her expertise is in the laboratory, to the non evidence based assertions on staging, and location of telephone calls. As the ISC said the quality of the investigation was irredeemably bad, precluding a further review of evidence at appeal court level.

What i have never understood is why none of those who believe Knox was guilty can say the investigation was of poor quality (and if it had been better irrefutable evidence of her guilt would have been found). The steep lawrence case in the Uk hinged on fibre transfer, no attempt to look for fibre transfer was made in this case.

John Douglas, the rabid pro-Knoxer? How does this theory rule out Amanda and Raff?

 

[Vixen]

The comments relevant to the highlighted parts are what is so good about the Italian Supreme Court motivations report which annulled Nencini's convictions - such that the kids were exonerated.

The Supreme Court author(s) of the report pick up on a theme begun with the 2013 Supreme Court panel which, back then, annulled Judge Hellmann's acquittals. Part of the reason for doing that was that, back then, The Supreme Court said that a fact-finding, lower court was not allowed to totally farm out evidence-decision-making. This was in relation to the, then, untested Exhibit 36I - potential DNA material on the knife blade.

In 2015, the new Supreme Court panel gives a summary of the issue, and cites one bit of what I assume is case law.

It turns out that (implicitly) Judge Massei's 2009 court was wrong to disallow independent DNA evaluation of Patrizia Stefanoni's work. Implicitly, Massei was wrong in law.

Massei simply substituted his own untrained opinions about DNA evidence - as did Nencini in rejecting the independent DNA analysis which the 2011 Hellmann court heard. So, legally speaking, acc. to the Supreme Court of Italy:

1) Massei was wrong not to seek the opinion of an independent DNA analyst.
2) Hellmann was wrong to allow Conti & Vecchiotti to make the de facto legal decision about whether or not testing Sample 36I should be done.
3) Nencini was wrong to discount Conti & Vecchiotti on the basis of the judge's own opinions and guesses.​

You may have to read it a couple of times, but here is how the final Supreme Court frames the debate:

​

"(T)the lively theoretical debate on the relationship between scientific evidence and criminal trials"...... That debate exposes the traditional role of Italian judges as being anachronistic:

​

Then to the meat of why Nencini faled in this regard:

​

The 2015 Supreme Court then, further, criticises the Nencini court for accepting "judicial truth" too easily. Even a Judge cannot simply accept a scientific postulation, just because a previous court has said so:

​

So Planigale is correct - not just for the prosecutor (Mignini or Crini), but for what The Supreme Court of Italy regards as the proper way of bringing modern-day evidence into an Italian court.

What is clear is that Nencini convicted, by ignoring all of this. So says The Italian Supreme Court. So the highest court in the land exonerated the pair.

Actually you are wrong. The judge, being a totally neutral disinterested party SHOULD NOT appoint witnesses, nor present evidence except in exceptional circumstances, for example, when there is an apparently insoluable dispute.

The onus to present the case and to defend it falls solely on the prosecutor and defence. The judge should not get involved at all. He is only there to oversee that the correct due process takes place.

 

[Vixen]

He does Vixen. But he's completely blind.

I honestly believe this. If all of a sudden tomorrow, Rudy came clean and admitted he committed the murder alone, you in would no way believe him.

If my grandmother wore trousers she could be my grandfather.

 

[Vixen]

You may need to run this through Google Translate - but this is the Italian Huffington Post view of the Netflix documentary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.it/andrea-camaiora/netflix-caso-knox-_b_12306844.html

It is not flattering to Giuliano Mignini. They seem to be making sport of the guy over there.

As per analemma - I AM LOVING THIS!

Millions of Germans said the same about Goebbel's propaganda.

 

[Vixen]

Instructive reading on how the anti-Knox cultists appear to those whose interest has been piqued by the Netflix documentary.

http://moviepilot.com/p/amanda-knox-truthers-guilty-innocent/4111460

It's a pity it's full of malicious lies.

 

[Vixen]

If I'm following at all correctly some of the twitter stuff and what it links to.......

........it is heartening to see the avalanche of people who seem to be quickly figuring this out:

Raffaele and Amanda are innocent.

Nick Pisa and Giuliano Mignini are morons

The fake-wiki is, indeed, fake; based on a "truther" approach to elevating factoids over reason.

The guilt nutters who run guilt websites are, pardon the repitition, nutters. I found three or four mentions of Peter Quennell and his obsessive minutiae about this as "creepy" and other equivalents. One even tried to dig into this claim Quennell has made of 100s of lawyers. That one said all they could find was untraceable pseudonyms plus a genuine conveyance lawyer.

No one as yet has migrated to ISF, way over here in a part of that universe in the doldrums.

But it is gratifying to see the avalanche of people figuring this out so quickly. Marriott couldn't have paid them all!!!!

You do enjoy reading drivel. "Truthers', "guilt nutters": you'll be asking us whether we are 'beliebers' or 'haters' next.

 

[analemma]

It's a pity it's full of malicious lies.

The anti-Knox cultist sites ARE full of malicious lies.

 

[Bill Williams]

John Douglas, the rabid pro-Knoxer? How does this theory rule out Amanda and Raff?

"The rabid pro-knoxer" is a phrase that pretty much disqualifies you as a poster to be taken seriously.

However, you also need to follow this thread properly. It was Mignini's claim in the documentary that what first made him suspect a woman had done the crime, was the duvet covering the victim.

He said this indicated that the perp must have been a woman, because a man would never do that.

Mignini is now disputing that he'd said that to the documentarians, despite it being his words spoken without coercion.

He claims he'd said an "unknown" man, someone unknown to the victim would not have done that.

Well, Rudy Guede was not unknown to Meredith, and more importantly - visa versa. For pete's sake, his story is that he'd had a date with her!!!!

Enter John Douglas, rabid or not. John Douglas just happens to have invented criminal profiling. Your strawman is: How does this theory rule out Amanda and Raff?

This is the umpteenth time you've done that, and played it from the bottom of the deck. NO ONE has claimed that rules out anyone. Yours is a pivot worthy of a Trump surrogate.

Indeed the ONLY one who proceeded as if it ruled out anyone was Mignini!!!!! (Thank you for highlighting that) Mignini's completely incompetent investigative intuition was that it ruled out men.

So please try, at least, to follow this.

John Douglas's input, rabid or not rabid, is that his experience says this was probably a first time killer. Guess what? Rudy's slaughter of a true innocent was his first time!

Please STOP with these strawmen arguments of yours. Apparently alot of NetFlix viewer are now following this thread as lurkers..... so maybe I should actually encourage you to continue!

 

[analemma]

You do enjoy reading drivel. "Truthers', "guilt nutters": you'll be asking us whether we are 'beliebers' or 'haters' next.

You are a "guilt nutter"
I AM JUST LOVING THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bill Williams]

Millions of Germans said the same about Goebbel's propaganda.

Right. A Netflix documentary is the equivalent of Nazi propaganda. Right.

 

[Vixen]

Actually, I didn't like it. In fact, it's what I haven't liked about most of her interviews. Whereas she seemed over the ordeal in the ABC interview and in charge, in this interview she didn't seemed like she's quite over it yet.

I know it's unfair of me to expect Amanda to put a fear behind her that hung over her head for 8 years. Yet that is what I want for her. If she can do that, I think she is capable of anything, if she can't she will always be the victim.

Yeah, must be so traumatic butchering your roommate and then have nasty prosecutors wanting to prosecute one. Bloody disgusting!

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually you are wrong. The judge, being a totally neutral disinterested party SHOULD NOT appoint witnesses, nor present evidence except in exceptional circumstances, for example, when there is an apparently insoluable dispute.

The onus to present the case and to defend it falls solely on the prosecutor and defence. The judge should not get involved at all. He is only there to oversee that the correct due process takes place.

So when at the 2013 Nencini trial in Florence, Nencini appointed the RIS Carabinieri to analyze Sample 36I, you believe that the Florence Court acted illegally!?

Please keep on with this stuff.... lurkers are reading!