Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[LondonJohn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...guard-obsessed-Foxy-Knoxys-sex-life.html?vm=r

From the Daily Mail (yes the Mail, but still)

Amanda Knox's prison chief asked her to list men she had slept with 'after becoming obsessed with her sex life'
Prison also told Knox she had HIV before further test returned negative
Guard quizzed her about sex 'to provoke Knox and test her personality

Of course, these are claims of Knox's. But here's one interesting part from that article:

"The Sun reported that when approached, Argiro admitted asking Knox privately about how many boyfriends she had had."

If this is accurate and reliable, then Argiro (the prison officer in question) was clealy stepping way, way beyond his proper boundaries. No prison officer has the need or the right to ask an inmate about how many partners he/she has had. And this, in and of itself, would (IMO) tend to strongly support Knox's other claims.

(As, of course, do the claims of rape against the same guard from another female inmate - if those claims can be shown to have any substance.)

Who's the "saint" and who's the "sinner" now, eh, Vixen......?

 

[Numbers]

Numbers gets it wrong again. Directly from the court yesterday to Ergon: "Thank you for your message. Regarding your
request, the application in question is still pending before the Court and no
decision as to its admissibility has been made yet. With best
wishes, ECHR – Press Unit" http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11683909&postcount=3192 …

See my post #3192 in this thread Continuation 23.

It states:
...
Knox's application has been accepted; the sign that it has been accepted is that it was Communicated to the Respondent State, Italy.

The questions that remain are:

1. Is the application admissible in its entirety, or are any parts or even the whole inadmissible? This is only decided by the ECHR after its review of comments on admissibility by the Respondent State and a response on each State comment from the applicant.
2. What are the merits of the case*? Again, this is only judged by the ECHR after its review of comments on the merits by the Respondent State and a response on each State comment from the applicant.

*For judgment, the case only consists of the admissible part (if any) of the application.

ETA: Evidence of yet another "own goal" on ISF. There is a difference between ECHR "acceptance" and "admissibility". An "accepted" application may be found fully "inadmissible", but if the application has been Communicated to the Respondent State, it is of course "accepted" (accepted = met the standards for admissibility based upon an initial ECHR review, prior to comments on admissibility from the Respondent State).

SEE THE COMMUNICATION TO ITALY:

PREMIÈRE SECTION -------- Communiquée le 29 avril 2016

Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013

Source: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-163098%22]}

 

[Numbers]

Regarding what the ECHR has communicated to Italy in the initial Communication (29 April 2016) as Knox's Complaints, these are shown in English translation in my post #3172. None of these Complaints (and none of the Request for Information or Questions to the Parties) address the issue of Italy violating Knox's rights under Convention Article 8 by giving (by its agents) her private information to unauthorized persons. Possibly that is in a follow-up Communication, but there is no information published (to my knowledge) on the content of the follow-ups, as is standard ECHR practice.

I repeat the list of Complaints - the ECHR's interpretation of what the applicant claims as violations - here (translated by Google translate with my assistance):

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant raises several complaints concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings following which she was sentenced to three years in prison for false accusation.
a) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 a) of the Convention, the applicant complained of not being informed promptly and in a language that she understood of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.

b) In terms of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c), she also alleges that she was not assisted by a lawyer during the interrogation of 6 November 2007.

c) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 e), the applicant also complains that she was not assisted by a professional and independent interpreter during interrogation and that the police officer who assisted during the interrogation of 6 November 2007 performed the duties of a "mediator", thereby suggesting hypotheses about what events had taken place.

2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the slaps on the head that she suffered (scappellotti) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.

3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she denounces the violation of her right to respect for private and family life, on the grounds that, on 6 November 2007, she was forced to answer questions about Mr DL so that she was unable to exercise judgment and will (incapacità di intendere volere e) and under psychological pressure.

 

[Bill Williams]

Who's the "saint" and who's the "sinner" now, eh, Vixen......?

If one puts aside the need to simply rail against someone they've never met and simply assemble a proper core of a thing called "evidence"...........

 

[Bill Williams]

An arrest has been made in relation to online threats against Gina Miller in the UK. This is relevant to this case because of continual similar online stuff (not here) which goes unmoderated.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38744073

 

[Numbers]

See my post #3192 in this thread Continuation 23.

It states:
...
Knox's application has been accepted; the sign that it has been accepted is that it was Communicated to the Respondent State, Italy.

The questions that remain are:

1. Is the application admissible in its entirety, or are any parts or even the whole inadmissible? This is only decided by the ECHR after its review of comments on admissibility by the Respondent State and a response on each State comment from the applicant.
2. What are the merits of the case*? Again, this is only judged by the ECHR after its review of comments on the merits by the Respondent State and a response on each State comment from the applicant.

*For judgment, the case only consists of the admissible part (if any) of the application.

ETA: Evidence of yet another "own goal" on ISF. There is a difference between ECHR "acceptance" and "admissibility". An "accepted" application may be found fully "inadmissible", but if the application has been Communicated to the Respondent State, it is of course "accepted" (accepted = met the standards for admissibility based upon an initial ECHR review, prior to comments on admissibility from the Respondent State).

SEE THE COMMUNICATION TO ITALY:

PREMIÈRE SECTION -------- Communiquée le 29 avril 2016

Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013

Source: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-163098%22]}

Here is a brief summary from the ECHR of its process in reviewing a case; some parts of the process were not included by the ECHR.

The Court must first examine whether your application is admissible. This means that the case must comply with certain requirements set out in the Convention. If the conditions are not satisfied, your application will be rejected. If you have made several complaints, the Court may declare one or more of them admissible and dismiss the others.

If your application or one of your complaints is declared inadmissible, that decision is final and cannot be reversed.*

If your application or one of your complaints is declared admissible, the Court will encourage the parties (you and the State concerned) to reach a friendly settlement. If no settlement is reached, the Court will consider the application “on the merits” – that is, it will determine whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention.

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=applicants&c=#n14525887520554814236201_pointer
Link to PDF "Questions and Answers"

*The application, or that part of the application, that the ECHR does not find inadmissible in its initial review is them COMMUNICATED to the RESPONDENT STATE for its comments on admissibility and merits.

The comments from the State are then forwarded by ECHR to the applicant (including the applicant's lawyer) for a RESPONSE.

The ECHR then reviews the State comments and applicant response and may issue a new Communication to the State for additional comments, followed by forwarding those comments to the applicant for a response.

There may be several cycles of such Communications, comments and responses.

The ECHR then proceeds to a final review of 1) admissibility and 2) merits. In some (perhaps rare) cases it will determine the admissibility by simultaneously reviewing the merits, when it views these two issues as being entangled.

Thus, an application that has been has not been found inadmissible in the initial review by the ECHR is "accepted" for Communication to the State. This "acceptance for Communication" is not identical to a final decision by the ECHR that the application is admissible, because the parties are entitled to comment and respond on that issue before the ECHR makes its final decision.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wrong. The very first scenario was Patrick came over due to his sexual black man lust for Meredith, and Meredith denied his advances because she wasn't a slut like Amanda, so he raped and murdered her and Amanda helped cover it up since she set the whole thing up in the first place, being a shedevil and all.

Let's try not to rewrite history and forget Patrick's arrest and humiliation.

I'm afraid *you* are the one re-writing history - and you're doing that in a quite overt racist way, which is entirely of your own. Thos alleged contents do to belong to any "scenario" ever presented by Mignini at all.
And look at your words: "sexual black man lust" and "being a shedevil" - this is all your wording and your fantasy. Nothing of the kind ever existed in any trial document. But on the other hand, it is interesting how something of this is exactly a projection of what Amanda Knox did: she is the one who - in front of Mignini and Anna Donnino - said "I'm very afraid of Patrick" and "He is evil" - she, and she alone played the part of the little angel white girl who was scared of the "African boy" and just fingered the village black man as a murder rapist. And who was the the responsible of Patrick's humiliation, according to the definitive findings of *all* magistrate and *all* judges and Patrick himself? It's Amanda Knox alone.
Patrick did not call her a shedevil, she calls her an actress.

The scenario of Patrick killing Meredith as a consequence of her refusal to take part to a sex game was actually laid down by Amanda Knox herself. When she told that nice story about she saying in the kitchen covering her ears, saying she did not see what Patrick and Meredith were doing but she could easilly "imagine what was going on".
The scenario was just taken as it was by judge Claudia Matteini, until Mignini on Nov. 13 wrote a letter to the judge pointing out that "the evidence against Lumumba was not serious anymore".
Let's note that the basics of this scenario (which, as we said, doesn't have any "shedevil" in it) are the same of the scenario which includes Guede - the investigators realized basically she may just have replaced Guede with Lumumba: she replaced a culprit with an innocent, in order to cover up her own role.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...) These efforts were lead by a highly respected sitting US Senator, and no, she was not eager to unleash a psycho sex killer on her constituents for a dozen votes from the Knox clan.

The ECHR will eventually trash what is left of the initial police investigation, and you'll have to cast the giant conspiracy net ever wider.

The ECHR will not change a iota of Knox's guilt, since even a finding of a violation would be irrelevant as to the merits of the evidence.

The "highly respected" US senator is the sister of a psycho murderer, who was acquitted because of a lack of any proper investigation and because of the beautifully corrupt US justice system, but the most interesting legacy of this was her father's "defence" of the psycho guy which consisted in blaming the police of plotting a politically motivated cospiracy.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm afraid *you* are the one re-writing history - and you're doing that in a quite overt racist way, which is entirely of your own. Thos alleged contents do to belong to any "scenario" ever presented by Mignini at all.
And look at your words: "sexual black man lust" and "being a shedevil" - this is all your wording and your fantasy. Nothing of the kind ever existed in any trial document. But on the other hand, it is interesting how something of this is exactly a projection of what Amanda Knox did: she is the one who - in front of Mignini and Anna Donnino - said "I'm very afraid of Patrick" and "He is evil" - she, and she alone played the part of the little angel white girl who was scared of the "African boy" and just fingered the village black man as a murder rapist. And who was the the responsible of Patrick's humiliation, according to the definitive findings of *all* magistrate and *all* judges and Patrick himself? It's Amanda Knox alone. .

This is why you need to now attack the likes of Nick Pisa and Barbie Nadeau. All this is what was leaked to them by the authorities. Now it is you falling back to change history.

 

[toto]

I'm afraid *you* are the one re-writing history - and you're doing that in a quite overt racist way, which is entirely of your own. Thos alleged contents do to belong to any "scenario" ever presented by Mignini at all.
And look at your words: "sexual black man lust" and "being a shedevil" - this is all your wording and your fantasy. Nothing of the kind ever existed in any trial document. But on the other hand, it is interesting how something of this is exactly a projection of what Amanda Knox did: she is the one who - in front of Mignini and Anna Donnino - said "I'm very afraid of Patrick" and "He is evil" - she, and she alone played the part of the little angel white girl who was scared of the "African boy" and just fingered the village black man as a murder rapist. And who was the the responsible of Patrick's humiliation, according to the definitive findings of *all* magistrate and *all* judges and Patrick himself? It's Amanda Knox alone.
Patrick did not call her a shedevil, she calls her an actress.

The scenario of Patrick killing Meredith as a consequence of her refusal to take part to a sex game was actually laid down by Amanda Knox herself. When she told that nice story about she saying in the kitchen covering her ears, saying she did not see what Patrick and Meredith were doing but she could easilly "imagine what was going on".
The scenario was just taken as it was by judge Claudia Matteini, until Mignini on Nov. 13 wrote a letter to the judge pointing out that "the evidence against Lumumba was not serious anymore".
Let's note that the basics of this scenario (which, as we said, doesn't have any "shedevil" in it) are the same of the scenario which includes Guede - the investigators realized basically she may just have replaced Guede with Lumumba: she replaced a culprit with an innocent, in order to cover up her own role.

I believe it was Lumumba defamation prosecutor Carlo Pacelli who described Knox as “a diabolical, satanic, demonic she-devil”* and “a witch of deception” who “likes alcohol, drugs and hot, wild sex”. (pasted from http://crimefeed.com/2013/08/the-pursuit-of-the-she-devil/

 

[toto]

The ECHR will not change a iota of Knox's guilt, since even a finding of a violation would be irrelevant as to the merits of the evidence.
The "highly respected" US senator is the sister of a psycho murderer, who was acquitted because of a lack of any proper investigation and because of the beautifully corrupt US justice system, but the most interesting legacy of this was her father's "defence" of the psycho guy which consisted in blaming the police of plotting a politically motivated cospiracy.

It would certainly alter the perception as it would undermine the confused and troubled statements AK made.

 

[Machiavelli]

I note your veiled insult to skirt the rules. Nicely done.

But thank you for your opinions on people like Nadeau and Pisa. Yet they very much differ. That's all I am saying.

Even Francesco Maresca in his recent memoirs recouted his own role in introducing "friendly" journalists to the prosecution. He also recounted some of Mignini's bizarre theories.

I didn't write an opinion post about Nadeau and Pisa.

I talked abaout trial documents.

You avoid documents again. You try to mention this and that, now you shun the topic entirely and you decide to mention Maresca. You avoid to deal with the fact that your claim is unfounded, contradicts the evidence of court documents - including the words of Micheli - and is nonsensical. You dodge, and dodge.
You'll do anything to avoid dealing directly with something.

If you like talking about what people say of other people and build narratives from that, why don't you draw your world from Sollecito's words stating that Knox is a murderess and an insane individual?

 

[bagels]

I'm afraid *you* are the one re-writing history - and you're doing that in a quite overt racist way, which is entirely of your own. Thos alleged contents do to belong to any "scenario" ever presented by Mignini at all.
And look at your words: "sexual black man lust" and "being a shedevil" - this is all your wording and your fantasy. Nothing of the kind ever existed in any trial document. But on the other hand, it is interesting how something of this is exactly a projection of what Amanda Knox did: she is the one who - in front of Mignini and Anna Donnino - said "I'm very afraid of Patrick" and "He is evil" - she, and she alone played the part of the little angel white girl who was scared of the "African boy" and just fingered the village black man as a murder rapist. And who was the the responsible of Patrick's humiliation, according to the definitive findings of *all* magistrate and *all* judges and Patrick himself? It's Amanda Knox alone.
Patrick did not call her a shedevil, she calls her an actress.

The scenario of Patrick killing Meredith as a consequence of her refusal to take part to a sex game was actually laid down by Amanda Knox herself. When she told that nice story about she saying in the kitchen covering her ears, saying she did not see what Patrick and Meredith were doing but she could easilly "imagine what was going on".
The scenario was just taken as it was by judge Claudia Matteini, until Mignini on Nov. 13 wrote a letter to the judge pointing out that "the evidence against Lumumba was not serious anymore".
Let's note that the basics of this scenario (which, as we said, doesn't have any "shedevil" in it) are the same of the scenario which includes Guede - the investigators realized basically she may just have replaced Guede with Lumumba: she replaced a culprit with an innocent, in order to cover up her own role.

The Patrick theory WAS the theory. The only theory. The police are the ones who swapped Patrick for Rudy, not Amanda. And it didn't quite work did it. The entire sex game theory the police thought up worked because Amanda was coordinating and communicating with Patrick in advance, and thus had opportunity to plan the scenario and carry it out.

When it was shown that the police's prime suspect was actually completely innocent, they didn't just lose him, they lost their entire theory of the crime. Amanda can no longer be planning a sex party with Meredith, because she is no longer coordinating with Patrick, she is working for him, and thinks she will be working all night that very evening, so she can't have any other plans. The police were never able to satisfactorily get around this (because it is logistically improbable) and that's why Massei has Rudy vaguely showing up for no real reason spontaneously and Amanda carrying around a kitchen knife for no reason and why Rudy's appearance near the cottage alone on CCTV before any of this can be set into motion is never explained (hint: he was scouting his burglary target).

You are re-writing history, possibly to satisfy your own emotional beliefs with this case.

I don't forget.

I don't forget that it was the police, not Amanda, that were wiretapping Patrick.

I don't forget that it was the police, not Amanda, that got a false witness statement claiming Patrick's bar was closed, ignoring his half dozen alibies.

I don't forget that it was the police, not Amanda, that said they knew Patrick as a killer was the correct truth.

I don't forget that it was the police, not Amanda, that said the mobile phone records were "crucial" for solving the case and bringing in the killer Patrick.

I don't forget that it was the police, not Amanda, that Patrick accused of calling him a "dirty black killer" that "deserved the electric chair."

Your efforts to rewrite history are only interesting in so far as how far the human mind will go to rationalize a desired belief (which is my primary interest in this case).

 

[bagels]

The "highly respected" US senator is the sister of a psycho murderer, who was acquitted because of a lack of any proper investigation and because of the beautifully corrupt US justice system, but the most interesting legacy of this was her father's "defence" of the psycho guy which consisted in blaming the police of plotting a politically motivated cospiracy.

ROFL you're now researching the family background of some official thousands of miles away because they once said something positive about a girl you hate. This is incredible.

I'm glad I have no idea who Mignini's 2nd cousin is or whatever.

 

[toto]

I didn't write an opinion post about Nadeau and Pisa.

I talked abaout trial documents.

You avoid documents again. You try to mention this and that, now you shun the topic entirely and you decide to mention Maresca. You avoid to deal with the fact that your claim is unfounded, contradicts the evidence of court documents - including the words of Micheli - and is nonsensical. You dodge, and dodge.
You'll do anything to avoid dealing directly with something.

If you like talking about what people say of other people and build narratives from that, why don't you draw your world from Sollecito's words stating that Knox is a murderess and an insane individual?

Regarding your last para is it possible to have a clear primary source link?

 

[Machiavelli]

This is helpful context.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly. He writes always in "the style of the group", which is always to seek a kind of funny language. But the style of the group is not ironical. The group is abaout making fun, the style is about using a funny language, to say things in a way that sounds cool, stylish or funny. But this does not mean ironical. There are often jokes, there are some ironical comments, but those are recognizable.
Sollecito is not ironical when he calls Knox a murderess, and when she calls her insane - he says those things in a cool, "funny" way, like placing her creepy face on a Cluedo cover among a series of known murderers - but he means unequivocally exactly that: that she is a murderess, and that she's crazy.
The picture of Knox holding a notice with the writing "the negro did it" is ironic - because obviously conveys the idea that she - rather than he - was the one who did it. But Sollecito putting his "like", his joks about race and the racist language are not exactly jokes: those are part of that group's speech (this one of the reasons why it was pointed out as a "hate group" already last year by other newspapers).

 

[bagels]

I talked abaout trial documents.

"These advances however were not easy, a credible scenario in that Meredith was described as a girl not inclined towards “easy” relations with the opposite sex and who did not bring friends home except for her boyfriend, in contrast to what might occur with Amanda"

-Magistrate Ms Claudio Matteini
Perugia, 9th November 2007.

 

[Machiavelli]

Regarding your last para is it possible to have a clear primary source link?

read my post above.

 

[Machiavelli]

"These advances however were not easy, a credible scenario in that Meredith was described as a girl not inclined towards “easy” relations with the opposite sex and who did not bring friends home except for her boyfriend, in contrast to what might occur with Amanda"

-Magistrate Ms Claudio Matteini
Perugia, 9th November 2007.

Yes. And you talked about "shedevil" instead.

You also talked about Mignini putting forward scenarios - here we have instead Matteini, and she is basically only reporting from witnesses.

 

[toto]

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly. He writes always in "the style of the group", which is always to seek a kind of funny language. But the style of the group is not ironical. The group is abaout making fun, the style is about using a funny language, to say things in a way that sounds cool, stylish or funny. But this does not mean ironical. There are often jokes, there are some ironical comments, but those are recognizable.
Sollecito is not ironical when he calls Knox a murderess, and when she calls her insane - he says those things in a cool, "funny" way, like placing her creepy face on a Cluedo cover among a series of known murderers - but he means unequivocally exactly that: that she is a murderess, and that she's crazy.
The picture of Knox holding a notice with the writing "the negro did it" is ironic - because obviously conveys the idea that she - rather than he - was the one who did it. But Sollecito putting his "like", his joks about race and the racist language are not exactly jokes: those are part of that group's speech (this one of the reasons why it was pointed out as a "hate group" already last year by other newspapers).

The way in which the RS comments have been disseminated is highly unhelpful. It is hard to see what he is responsible for and what stuff is on the sites for which he has been made guilty by association. I have expressed my distaste for a couple of comments that he did make, but am very suspicious about how the rest of it has been packaged.