• 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.
The most interesting aspect of the Netflix documentary Amanda Knox is the possibility that the ECHR might use the statements of Pisa and Mignini as evidence against Italy in Knox's case against Italy for violating her rights in convicting her of calunnia.

The statements of Mignini are evidence that Knox was a de facto suspect before the interrogation. This strengthens the arguments used by Judge Hellmann (he states in his court's MR that Knox was suspected of serious crimes before she was interrogated, without citing a rationale) and Judge Boninsegna (he states in his court's MR that Knox was a suspect from the moment her phone was seized - taken from her - during the interrogation) and confirms the sense of the testimony of VQA Giobbi on this matter.

Pisa's statements confirm that Knox was a suspect early on and that there was a violation of Article 8 (right to privacy) by Italy.
 
Vixen said:
Once again we hear mendacious and malicious lies about a private individual.
Click to expand...

Good of you to point out that the lies were mendacious. Had they been of the non-mendacious variety, I might have been deceived into thinking he was on to something.

No, wait, let me guess -- this glaringly idiotic redundancy was a typo.
 
Vixen said:
I am using the terms you, the PIP's use. Speaking your language.
Click to expand...

You've been reading here for ages. When have you ever seen another poster refer to Meredith Kercher by using the weird, creepy diminutive "Mez"?

I've never seen it used by anyone but you.
 
Vixen said:
You misunderstand. Chiefi's point is that had Vecchiotti & Conti decided in their professional opinion that a sample did not need to be tested, as directed by a court; they should have made an application to the court to decline.

ETA LCN testing had come a long way since 2007. In addition, Vecchiotti was found guilty of professional misconduct by negligence and fined heavily. She swapped a DNA sample around in the Ogliata case. That's not an honest person. She is someone who will bend the rules.
Click to expand...

Can you reference this?
 
Vixen said:
Citation please, together with the full context. It is the court that decides whether a witness testimony is reliable, or not. The court found Curatalo and Quinatvalle reliable. It found the defense witnesses, mafioso Aviello and child killer Alessi, completely unreliable.
Click to expand...

Vixen constantly attacks Amanda for lying but defends two witnesses who blatantly lied. I raised this issue earlier about the testimony of Curalto which Vixen refuses to address. If the testimony of Curalto is to believed he has Amanda and Raffaele away from the cottage at the time of the murder and his testimony damages the prosecution's case. If the prosecution had a mountain of evidence and a strong case, why were the prosecution so desperate they were prepared to use the testimony of someone who provided Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi for the time of the murders and was harmful to the prosecution's case?
 
Sonia said:
You've been reading here for ages. When have you ever seen another poster refer to Meredith Kercher by using the weird, creepy diminutive "Mez"?

I've never seen it used by anyone but you.
Click to expand...


Again, the use of "Mez" by certain pro-guilt commentators appears to be bound in with this bizarre and, yep, rather creepy need to hyper-personalise the victim in this case. It's part of the psychology that's seemingly required to underpin the whole "warriors for justice on behalf of a victim who can no longer fight for herself" persona. Genuinely fascinating.
 
Vixen said:
Let me know when men stop coming on to women.
Click to expand...


Can't quite believe I'm reading this, in 2016. From a woman.

Let me give you a small comparator to aid your understanding. A homeless indigent person holding his hand out to a passing pedestrian and asking for money is not a crime. A homeless indigent person pushing a pedestrian up against a wall and demanding money is a crime.

Holy crap.


ETA: And before you create yet another straw man, this is a separate strand of the discussion from any discussion over whether what Quennell specifically did was or was not criminal in nature. Personally, I don't believe what he did constitutes a crime (under current legislation), but that's entirely separate from whether what he did was or wasn't sleazy, creepy and very unpleasant. Which it was.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Can't quite believe I'm reading this, in 2016. From a woman.

Let me give you a small comparator to aid your understanding. A homeless indigent person holding his hand out to a passing pedestrian and asking for money is not a crime. A homeless indigent person pushing a pedestrian up against a wall and demanding money is a crime.

Holy crap.


ETA: And before you create yet another straw man, this is a separate strand of the discussion from any discussion over whether what Quennell specifically did was or was not criminal in nature. Personally, I don't believe what he did constitutes a crime (under current legislation), but that's entirely separate from whether what he did was or wasn't sleazy, creepy and very unpleasant. Which it was.
Click to expand...

Only in your mind, because you have an agenda of hatred towards anyone who has a different POV from you. You hate Pete and Ergon for that reason, not because Pete may or may not have been attractive to some blonde.
 
Vixen said:
Only in your mind, because you have an agenda of hatred towards anyone who has a different POV from you. You hate Pete and Ergon for that reason, not because Pete may or may not have been attractive to some blonde.
Click to expand...


You cannot begin to understand the irony of this post :D

(And where do I say or imply that I "hate" Pete Quennell and/or God Ergon? I find some of the things they've said and done to be extremely distasteful, unpleasant and cruel, and entirely worthy of criticism. I also think that these things go a very long way towards disqualifying them as credible participants in the Kercher debate. But you really must learn to stop creating straw men such as your invention that I "hate" these individuals. Please try harder.)
 
Vixen said:
Only in your mind, because you have an agenda of hatred towards anyone who has a different POV from you. You hate Pete and Ergon for that reason, not because Pete may or may not have been attractive to some blonde.
Click to expand...


And I assume you meant to write "attracted", not "attractive". Because the emails make it crystal clear that this "some blonde" was unequivocally not attracted to Quennell.

(Not to mention the fact that, once again, you seek to minimise what actually happened here - this was far, far more than a man being "attracted" to a young woman. But obviously it suits your agenda to minimise it in this way. Very telling.)
 
Vixen said:
Here you go, here's the court document.
Click to expand...


Brilliant. A wholly illegible facsimile of a document.

Brava!


ETA: Did you know that Mignini was recently struck off from practising law in Italy and sentenced to eight years in prison for lying to courts and violently assaulting a court clerk*? Here's the proof:



:D :thumbsup:


* For the total avoidance of confusion on the part of any pro-Mignini knuckleheads, I am obviously not making genuine, serious accusations here - I am employing a rhetorical literary device in order to illustrate a point. Mmmmmmkay?
 
Last edited:
Sonia said:
You've been reading here for ages. When have you ever seen another poster refer to Meredith Kercher by using the weird, creepy diminutive "Mez"?

I've never seen it used by anyone but you.
Click to expand...

"Pete" constantly uses the creepy "Mez" name.
 
In reading up on types of Truther movements, I can across this on Wikipedia.

It comes from the theories on such by political scientist Michael Barkun, who "holds that this term is used for a belief that explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end."

First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing.

Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents.

Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions.​
Remind you of anyone?
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, so one's a "joke" and the other's not a joke, according to the selective interpretive wisdom of Vixen......

(And BTW I'd say that asking "how are the kiddies" at the end of a communication that also talks about "training his scope" on her apartment are a damn site more worrying/damaging than a (possibly misplaced) article in which Burleigh said she'd happily fellate Clinton for his continued legalisation of abortion - an article which explicitly juxtaposed the sexual-harassment hunt against Clinton with his pro-women policies and activism, and within which the fellation suggestion is clearly intended as a rhetorical device)
Click to expand...

Well said LJ. It's clear that PQ is making a veiled threat towards Nina and her family and Nina is not really offering sex for Clinton standing up for Women's reproductive rights.

The fact is she's not offering the blow job to Bill. That in itself makes it rhetorical. Peter on the other hand is threatening Nina just by his suggestion.

If Vixen can't tell the difference, I feel very sorry for her. She is so far down the rabbit hole she'll never get out.
 
acbytesla said:
Well said LJ. It's clear that PQ is making a veiled threat towards Nina and her family and Nina is not really offering sex for Clinton standing up for Women's reproductive rights.

The fact is she's not offering the blow job to Bill. That in itself makes it rhetorical. Peter on the other hand is threatening Nina just by his suggestion.

If Vixen can't tell the difference, I feel very sorry for her. She is so far down the rabbit hole she'll never get out.
Click to expand...
She is so far down the rabbit hole she'll never get out.
Well said Tesla
 
analemma said:
She is so far down the rabbit hole she'll never get out.
Well said Tesla
Click to expand...

I know. Amanda Knox shouldn't really be a part of her thinking on Peter Quennell's or Nina's remarks but she CAN'T separate the two. What Peter did was objectively bad. It's not really something that should be subjected to interpretation. This demonstrates an unwillingness to apply critical thought.

I have no doubt that Vixen would be upset by personal emails from someone watching her and her family "through a scope". It suggests a creepy voyeur with obsessive problems, possibly obsessive homicidal problems.
It's an invasion and said to deliberately disturb the person.

As for Nina's remark. It's irreverent, it's witty and it's funny. It's the kind of remark that Sarah Silverman or Amy Schumer would say.

But it is not threatening or an invasion. Not being able see the huge difference is sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom