Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Machiavelli]

Please understand. My interest now is the rhetorical war which still rages in some minds. This case is settled. They are innocent.

Nowhere, the trial papers say they are found "innocent".
The B/M verdict - which did not make any finding in the merits of evidence, as I said - just says ecatly what I reported.

 

[Welshman]

Actually, they did.
Some English witness even presented herself to the British police to add further testimony, unrequested.



I don't know why you think I should deny that their habits and frequentations would be a matter for detectives to ask questions about. The murder occurred in a sexual context and it's a "murder in a cottage". Though I don't believe the police would ask many "specific questions about sex lives", I would expect them to investigate their private lives overall and to ask Meredith's acquaintances and friends what information and impressions they have about this.
I don't understand what's wrong with this and I don't see why this appears to you as calling someone "shedevil".



An alleged coercive interrogation of which Amanda Knox defence made no claim in the trial.
What she did instead was to tell a load of crap before and after the interrogation and after the spontaneous statement and repeating further false testimonies and false accusations for weeks, in what the SC called a "protracted behaviour".

With regards to the Machiavelli's argument the defence did not make a complaint about ill treatment in the interrogation, I recall there was a poster here RandyN who was outspoken about how ineffective he felt the defence was and he described the issues he felt they failed to address. I felt a large part of what he said was true. If the defence was timid and ineffective, this may explain why they did not complain about ill treatment at the interrogation. If the defence were unwilling to tackle issues, we can see from Machiavelli's post this has given ammunition to the PGP because they can argue along the lines of "if the the prosecution did something wrong, why did the defence not make an issue of it" which is what Machiavelli is doing with regards to the interrogation.

 

[bagels]

I don't know why you think I should deny that their habits and frequentations would be a matter for detectives to ask questions about. The murder occurred in a sexual context and it's a "murder in a cottage". Though I don't believe the police would ask many "specific questions about sex lives", I would expect them to investigate their private lives overall and to ask Meredith's acquaintances and friends what information and impressions they have about this.
I don't understand what's wrong with this and I don't see why this appears to you as calling someone "shedevil".

Because you tried to pass off the judge's psychological analysis of Raffaele as a neutral observation, when in fact it was made in the context of Amanda Knox being known to the police as a sexually aggressive woman who used her sexuality to entice men, so naturally Raffaele was found to be her slave.

I didn't even object to the analysis because it was offensive, or incorrect, or unfair. I just thought it was funny in its transparency. I think you would fail to see the humor in this case because you take it oh so seriously

 

[Diocletus]

An alleged coercive interrogation of which Amanda Knox defence made no claim in the trial.

Well, except for the claim that resulted in the finding that the interrogation was:

[of] obsessive length. . . , carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who . . . did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories . . .

 

[Welshman]

One interesting thing of this post is that you seemingly admit that Knox "used lies". As a matter of fact, I only need to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that Quintavalle lied.
I remember the arguments the pro-Knox crowd used to bring to this point, are just proven false (they used to make false claims about the contents of the testimonies of Chiriboga and of inspector Volturno).

I did not admit that Amanda lied but I put supposed before the word lies. There is a simple reason why Quintavelle is a liar. He was questioned by the police shortly after the murders and he said nothing about Amanda being in his shop the day after the murder. A year later he changes his story and says Amanda was in the shop the day after the murder. He gave two completely different version of events and only one version can be true.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nowhere, the trial papers say they are found "innocent".
The B/M verdict - which did not make any finding in the merits of evidence, as I said - just says ecatly what I reported.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the Italian Constitution - as well as basic values of jurisprudence in modern liberalised nations (of which Italy pretends to be one, at least....).

If the case against a defendant is a crock of crap, then that defendant is acquitted, and that defendant maintains the presumption of innocence (both in law and in ethics). The presumption of innocence means that the person is considered innocent, conditional upon anything ever emerging which might prove guilt (an exactly equal presumption of innocence applies to every other person who cannot prove they didn't commit the crime either, incidentally....).

Knox and Sollecito stand innocent of anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. That's exactly what the Marasca SC verdict means. I realise you might not like that, but that's the way it is.

 

[bagels]

Come on be serious. You're not serious if you consider senator Cantwell as politically unrelated to her father, a prominent politician, who retired from politics as a consequence of his son's trial and after accusing the police of conspiracy. His daughter started her political career after such family breakdown following her father's steps.
Her actions - just like her family's actions few decades before - were indeed politically motivated and also psychologically and emotionally knit to the history of her family and their public stance.

I'm not going to judge her by the actions of her father when she was a child, no. There's 2500 other killers she hasn't lifted a finger for. I have no reason to believe her objections to the conviction weren't based on genuine rational critique which is exactly what they appear to be.

 

[Diocletus]

Come on be serious. You're not serious if you consider senator Cantwell as politically unrelated to her father, a prominent politician, who retired from politics as a consequence of his son's trial and after accusing the police of conspiracy. His daughter started her political career after such family breakdown following her father's steps.
Her actions - just like her family's actions few decades before - were indeed politically motivated and also psychologically and emotionally knit to the history of her family and their public stance.

Yeah, she knew the drill. Turns out she was right, too.

 

[toto]

Well we have to acknowledge there is a point of contention.

Obviously if the police took thumbscrews to Amanda Knox, and screwed them in until she agreed Patrick was the killer, the ECHR's ruling would eliminate her entire statement and there would be no basis on which to support a criminal slander conviction after the revision trial, if Italy even bothered to hold one. Nobody would argue with this.

And on the other end, obviously if Amanda Knox just blurted out voluntarily with no prompting and no coercion whatsoever from the police - who just wanted to ask some basic questions - that Patrick did it - then an ECHR finding that there were certain minor procedural violations during the interrogation would not undo her criminal slander. Nobody would argue with this.

So we can obviously understand there is a spectrum and after tea and crumpets, but before thumbscrews, Knox's statements become coerced and no criminal slander occurred. The PGP's default position is Knox's case is not on this spectrum. It's obviously a contested position. So saying the ECHR can do nothing to help her is an opinion based on their contested position, not a rudimentary explanation of ECHR procedures.

We wont know what the ECHR will decide until they decide it.

I enjoyed this phrase.

 

[js202]

Yeah, she knew the drill. Turns out she was right, too.

At this stage of the game, I am considerably less interested in wacko biographical theories about Ms. Knox and players surrounding her than I am perplexed about the biographies of the wackos who would continue for 10 years on a mission to see her burn.

 

[Machiavelli]

Regarding the first paragraph: that is why I am unhappy to just take a view of RS's fb activity just via commentators that have the absolute worst take on him.
Regarding the second, yes I know you have issues with some UK journalists. I was using the link to make my point about not necessarily taking secondary sources or sources at further stages of removal at face value. I won't parse the words Mignini has said or alleged to have said, or his previous history, or what MK's lawyer said in court here as that wasn't my main purpose. There were many different motives put forward over the years and it was all a bit of a dog's breakfast.

Well, I may restrict the focus on only two things I mentioned Sollecito posted on this group.
Take this one as a reference page for a descritpion of some of his postings:
http://m.dagospia.com/ma-che-simpatico-raffaele-sollecito-si-e-subito-riciclato-in-rete-a-fare-il-cazzone-139676

The journlist reports that Sollecito posted the first picture above, the photoshopped Cluedo cover:



The Cover features, from the left: Rosa Bazzi, Amanda Knox, Annamaria Franzoni; at the center you have Alberto Stasi (I think he looks as somehow "replaces" Sollecito himself, but this is just my subjective impression), Olindo Bazzi, Massimo Bossetti, and Michele Misseri. With the exception of Michele Misseri, who was only convicted for calunnia ans sentenced to 8 years, all those are murderers.

I don't know exactly why he portrays Knox within a group of murderers on a Cluedo cover, I can only guess he may only imply, suggest, as if it were common knowledge, that Knox is a muderess, just like the others on the cover.
And it might also be a kind of implicit attempt to suggest that he - Solellcito himself - is not one of that crowd; that he is not like Knox, Franzoni. He is the one who comments and makes the joke, they are the murderers on the cover. It's an implicit way of putting distence between him and them.
It's obvious from his answers that he's one of the group leaders: he suggests one of the young men who commented may feel excited and masturbate because he - Sollecito - answered to his comment.

Another answer by Sollecito is the one (the picture not on the Dagospia page) where one user posts a question for Sollecito, says "I'd like to ask you a question", and he answers with a series of lines, among which "if it's a question about Amanda Knox, go ask the 118" - in Italian, "go ask the 118" is a colloquialism to say that the person is crazy. (118 is the phone number of emergency health cases, but it is also mental cases and as a colloqualism it is used to mean that the person is insane).

 

[LondonJohn]

Question 1: how and why would Sollecito have chosen a photo of the box from UK version of a board game to do his photoshopping?

 

[toto]

Nowhere, the trial papers say they are found "innocent".
The B/M verdict - which did not make any finding in the merits of evidence, as I said - just says ecatly what I reported.

AK and RS may not have been given a certificate to prove their innocence of the act of murder. But they have a cast-iron guarantee that they are innocent, not only in the sense that everybody is innocent until proved guilty of a crime but in the more particular sense that they can never be charged with this murder again.

 

[LondonJohn]

Question 2: what is the evidence that Sollecito posted this image?

Question 3: what is the evidence that Sollecito created this image?

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm not going to judge her by the actions of her father when she was a child, no. There's 2500 other killers she hasn't lifted a finger for. I have no reason to believe her objections to the conviction weren't based on genuine rational critique which is exactly what they appear to be.

You may know, I am an Italian. A 17-year old person is not a child -in Italian, "child" means person below 14 - and she was certainly not a child over the subsequent years when her family waged a campaign claiming a politically motivated conspiracy, and when her father left politics following the case.
People are members of some family, and she took her father's place in politics. She did not put any distance between herself and her family actions, and the accused murderer happens to be her brother.
It's not a matter of judging her, it's a point of knowing where she comes from. How could I ignore the analogy and methods between her family case and political campaign calling a politically motivated conspiracy theory about police, and the case she stuck her case into with its political campaign callign a conspiracy theory? Why should I trust her or consder "respectable" in this regard?

On the other hand, let's say that another element to consider is that her observation was not a rational critique but rather a rabid delusional rant, a nonsensical accusation of political motives against decent persons.
The reason why she waged her vicious accusation might have something to do with the fact that she is a democratic senator from Seattle, that is from the same city and same political environment of the FoAs, the crowd that includes Ann Bremner & Judge Heavey and the Seattle Prep lobby group, the same people who gather with "brothers" at Vashon Island and a local family that includes Gogerty Marriott and his campaign, to which even Douglas Preston came to give its contribution and managed to drag the ICJ into.
Cantwell jumps into the case not because she has any rational critique to make - on things she has no clue about - but because the FoA managed to put up a political force of influencers around the case and Cantwell was just pushed by the political sentiment they created in her local environment.
Cantwell could not "refuse", after all. Since, you know, the case of her brother was still there...

 

[bagels]

Is Raffaele PGP now? Maybe he should come post here so I can argue with him about how wrong he is

 

[Machiavelli]

Question 1: how and why would Sollecito have chosen a photo of the box from UK version of a board game to do his photoshopping?

Because he found it on the internet?

 

[toto]

Well, I may restrict the focus on only two things I mentioned Sollecito posted on this group.
Take this one as a reference page for a descritpion of some of his postings:
http://m.dagospia.com/ma-che-simpatico-raffaele-sollecito-si-e-subito-riciclato-in-rete-a-fare-il-cazzone-139676

The journlist reports that Sollecito posted the first picture above, the photoshopped Cluedo cover:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347458891d2d4edd4.jpg[/qimg]

The Cover features, from the left: Rosa Bazzi, Amanda Knox, Annamaria Franzoni; at the center you have Alberto Stasi (I think he looks as somehow "replaces" Sollecito himself, but this is just my subjective impression), Olindo Bazzi, Massimo Bossetti, and Michele Misseri. With the exception of Michele Misseri, who was only convicted for calunnia ans sentenced to 8 years, all those are murderers.

I don't know exatly why he portrays Knox within a group of murderers on a Cluedo cover, I can only guess he may only imply, suggests, as if it were common knowledge, that Knox is a muderess, just like the others on the cover.
And it might also a kind of implicit attempt to suggest that he - Solellcito himself - is not one of that crowd; that he is not like Knox, Franzoni. He is the one who comments and makes the joke, they are the murderers on the cover. It's an implicit way of putting distence between him and then.
It's obvious from his answers that he's one of the group leaders: he suggests one of the young men who commented may feel excited and masturbate because he - Sollecito - answered to his comment.

Another answer by Sollecito is the one (the picture not on the Dagospia page) where one user posts a question for Sollecito, says "I'd like to ask you a question", and he answers with a series of lines, among which "if it's a question about Amanda Knox, go ask the 118" - in Italian, "go ask the 118" is a colloquialism to say that the person is crazy. (118 is the phone number of emergency health cases, but it is also mental cases and as a colloqualism it is used to mean that the person is insane).

You don't actually translate the whole thing we see. Something about playing Pokémon, or about answering them and taking their insults?

 

[LondonJohn]

Because he found it on the internet?

He found the already-photoshopped image on the internet, or he found the original image of the box lid on the internet then photoshopped it himself? If the latter, what's the evidence?

(All assuming, of course, that Sollecito was actually the one who posted the image, which was addressed - and not yet answered - in Question 2......)

 

[Methos]

There is no doubt this guy is a perv. He was disciplined and sacked IIRC So what stopped Amanda lodging a complaint at the time.

I tend to suspect she made up the story to get public sympathy.

All prisoners get HIV tested. She was not being singled out for special treatment as she claims. In her Prison Diary written at the time she makes no complaint about the doctor at all.

I did not know this. Thank you.

That officer in question wasn't "disciplined and sacked", he just retired, according to this article.

Secondo la ricostruzione dell’accusa, l’uomo, ormai in pensione

And according to this one he seems to be quite p... that time is ticking away and the statute of limitations will kick in before he is able to clear his name...

L’imputato: sono innocente Sono piuttosto lunghi i termini di prescrizione per un reato come la violenza sessuale ma Argirò, 61enne di Stignano (Reggio Calabria) sembra intenzionato a dimostrare in aula la propria innocenza, desideroso che il processo venga celebrato in tempi ragionevoli. «L’attesa lo rende sofferente – spiegano i suoi avvocati Daniela Paccoi e Silvia Egidi -. Aspettava una risposta diversa dalla Giustizia ma, è evidente, non è così».

Just for the record...