The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[toto]

You could argue Nigella Lawson is well-known. When it comes to law, a key priniciple is that of a level playing field: everybody is equal, as various celebrities have discovered, to their cost. (Bowie, Lennon, McCartney, Lochte, Hugh Grant, etc., etc.). Likeability does not, and should not, come into it.

When travelling abroad, make sure your papers are in order, even if you are Mother Teresa the second.

And yet there she goes, twice apparently!

 

[Bill Williams]

Please don't change the context. We were discussing whether or not Amanda is an established liar.

The Masi report is chronologically after the Marasca report (2017: 2015). In law, chronology is important.

The pair were acquitted despite 'lying umpteen times', the behaviour remains 'highly suspicious' and Amanda was at the murder scene.

Marasca report, 2015.

I sense another pointless circling around this merry-go-round where Marasca uses the word "alleged" or "hypothesized" in other sections when referring to this.

Yet it doesn't stop some from simply spinning the wheel.....

One.

More.

Time!

 

[acbytesla]

It very much points to Amanda as the instigator of the violence.

LMAO. Which piece of evidence does that?

 

[toto]

The fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report




CP:
All right, I'll reformulate the question. Meredith, before she was killed, did she have sex?
AK:
I don't know.
CP:
Then why, in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45, did you say that Meredith had sex before she died?
AK:
Under pressure, I imagined lots of different things, also because during the days that I was being questioned by the police, they suggested to me that she had been raped.
CP:
And the police suggested to you to say this?
AK:
Yes.
CP:
And to make you say this, did they hit you?
AK:
Yes.

 

[Vixen]

LMAO. Which piece of evidence does that?

1. The fact she is at the centre of the Venn diagram.

Amanda is the only one who knew all three of: Rudy, Raff and Mez.


2. The fact she failed to report the 'incident' at all.

3. The fact only she knew Mez had two phones.

4. Only she knew where Mez kept her rent money, or that it was due.

5. Only she knew the cottage was empty apart from her and Mez for the entire weekend.

6. The fact she tried to derail the police investigation away from herself by accusing Patrick of the crime.

7. The fact she covered up for Rudy.

8. The fact she failed to report her lamp missing when asked and had to be asked several times in court whether it was hers.

9. The fact the cottage had been wiped clean of her fingerprints (including on her own lamp).

10. The fact she deceived Filomena, the police and her readers in WTBH about the timing of her various phone calls.

11. Her fore knowledge of the crime scene.

12. Ringing Mom for the first time, since she arrived in Europe, just prior to before the body was found.

13. Her claim in her email to all that she knew Mez was behind the locked door 'hurt' which was why she was banging on it louder and louder and Raff 'tried to break it down' (stopping short of actually doing so).

14. the fact of her DNA mixed in with Mez' blood.

15. The simulated burglary to divert attention away from the house occupants.

16. Her footprints in Mez' blood in the hallway. The ladies size 37 trainer print under the body in Mez' blood.

17. Her DNA on the murder weapon with Mez' DNA on the blade.

18. Raff's footprint on the bathmat and in the hallway.

19. Only Amanda knew where the downstairs keys were hung (downstairs was disturbed) and which key locked Mez' door.

20. Amanda, Rudy and Raff play Prisoners Dilemma together, as predicted by Game Theory.

 

[Vixen]

I sense another pointless circling around this merry-go-round where Marasca uses the word "alleged" or "hypothesized" in other sections when referring to this.

Yet it doesn't stop some from simply spinning the wheel.....

One.

More.

Time!

Your pantomime yelling of, 'Oh no, it's not', doesn't alter the facts in any way.

 

[Bill Williams]

LMAO. Which piece of evidence does that?

Welcome to the guilter PR project which has been going for almost a decade. (Look back in past continuations of this thread, when guilters swarmed this place with the following process....)

Repeat the assertion endlessly, never provide evidence. When asked for a cite, simply repeat the assertion and then try to bait the other person into another pointless side-assertion.

Repeat.

Eventually the assertion is repeated enough.......

Remember mixed-blood? Regardless that there was no mixed blood, the PR effort for almost a decade was to swamp news comments sections with the assertion....

And around we go.......

 

[acbytesla]

It is all part of the rules and routines: random spot checks.

It works on the poisson distribution often used by banks and retail outlets to estimate queuing times and thus how many cashiers should be supplied at any given time during the day.

The data analysts will have calculated that there are X number of attempted illegal entries per Y number of passengers, and it will have calculated the seasonal trends (time series) as to when this activity reaches a peak.

It will then carry out tailored spot checks to (a) optimise apprehension of illegals and (b) maximise its public appearance, which has the effect of telling the public, "Don't try it on, because you could be stopped at any random point".

So, no, not chaotic and unpredictable, but carefully organised.

See, we are doing our jobs.

 

[Vixen]

Welcome to the guilter PR project which has been going for almost a decade. (Look back in past continuations of this thread, when guilters swarmed this place with the following process....)

Repeat the assertion endlessly, never provide evidence. When asked for a cite, simply repeat the assertion and then try to bait the other person into another pointless side-assertion.

Repeat.

Eventually the assertion is repeated enough.......

Remember mixed-blood? Regardless that there was no mixed blood, the PR effort for almost a decade was to swamp news comments sections with the assertion....

And around we go.......

And the circus continues with Amanda demanding $5K to 'talk' about her 'miscarriage of justice', 'coerced confession' how the BAD (SICK!) cops planted a 'false memory' and her loss of memory caused by the BAD (SICK!) cops, making a complete mockery of America's genuinely wrongfully convicted claimants.

 

[Bill Williams]

1. The fact she is at the centre of the Venn diagram.

Amanda is the only one who knew all three of: Rudy, Raff and Mez.


2. The fact she failed to report the 'incident' at all.

3. The fact only she knew Mez had two phones.

4. Only she knew where Mez kept her rent money, or that it was due.

5. Only she knew the cottage was empty apart from her and Mez for the entire weekend.

6. The fact she tried to derail the police investigation away from herself by accusing Patrick of the crime.

7. The fact she covered up for Rudy.

8. The fact she failed to report her lamp missing when asked and had to be asked several times in court whether it was hers.

9. The fact the cottage had been wiped clean of her fingerprints (including on her own lamp).

10. The fact she deceived Filomena, the police and her readers in WTBH about the timing of her various phone calls.

11. Her fore knowledge of the crime scene.

12. Ringing Mom for the first time, since she arrived in Europe, just prior to before the body was found.

13. Her claim in her email to all that she knew Mez was behind the locked door 'hurt' which was why she was banging on it louder and louder and Raff 'tried to break it down' (stopping short of actually doing so).

14. the fact of her DNA mixed in with Mez' blood.

15. The simulated burglary to divert attention away from the house occupants.

16. Her footprints in Mez' blood in the hallway. The ladies size 37 trainer print under the body in Mez' blood.

17. Her DNA on the murder weapon with Mez' DNA on the blade.

18. Raff's footprint on the bathmat and in the hallway.

19. Only Amanda knew where the downstairs keys were hung (downstairs was disturbed) and which key locked Mez' door.

20. Amanda, Rudy and Raff play Prisoners Dilemma together, as predicted by Game Theory.

And around we go.

For the umpteenth time, there was no size 37 ladies shoe print, Filomena knew Meredith had two phones.....

So around we go.

One.

More.

Time!

Simply wait a couple of days and reassert!

 

[Vixen]

See, we are doing our jobs.

So by the law of averages, your nephew is due to be pulled up.

 

[Bill Williams]

And the circus continues with Amanda demanding $5K to 'talk' about her 'miscarriage of justice', 'coerced confession' how the BAD (SICK!) cops planted a 'false memory' and her loss of memory caused by the BAD (SICK!) cops, making a complete mockery of America's genuinely wrongfully convicted claimants.

Huh!? You know none of this. You think Knox tucked a fiver into a CBSA agent to sneek into Canada.

But your use of airquotes made your assertions all the more convincing.

 

[Vixen]

And around we go.

For the umpteenth time, there was no size 37 ladies shoe print, Filomena knew Meredith had two phones.....

So around we go.

One.

More.

Time!

Simply wait a couple of days and reassert!

Filomena was eliminated as a suspect at an early stage. Next you'll be claiming - like Marasca - that Laura should have been treated as an equivalent suspect as Raff, despite her provably being in Rome on business that weekend, and Raff having a provably false alibi, as established by Martuscelli-Masi in Florence 22 Jan 2017.

 

[Bill Williams]

So by the law of averages, your nephew is due to be pulled up.

No, the law of averages" does not make anything "due".

(I see what you mean! "Airquotes" DO give an air of authority to an assertion!)

 

[Vixen]

Huh!? You know none of this. You think Knox tucked a fiver into a CBSA agent to sneek into Canada.

But your use of airquotes made your assertions all the more convincing.

She is cashing in on her heinous crime by charging US$5K appearance money.

 

[Bill Williams]

Filomena was eliminated as a suspect at an early stage. Next you'll be claiming - like Marasca - that Laura should have been treated as an equivalent suspect as Raff, despite her provably being in Rome on business that weekend, and Raff having a provably false alibi, as established by Martuscelli-Masi in Florence 22 Jan 2017.

Guilter tactic #2. Strawman. No one was talking about whether or not Filomena had been elininated as a suspect.

You must think readers here cannot track back through the convo.

 

[Numbers]

Intentionally leaving out parts of a law in a quotation in order to support one's position is an easily detectable falsehood, a violation of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

Here again is the Canadian law defining Public Mischief, which I had previously published in full, with relevant wording highlighted.

Public mischief

140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by

(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;

(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;

(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or

(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits public mischief

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 140; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 19.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-140.html
____

It's relevant, as I pointed out in an earlier post, that an element of the crime of public mischief is that the person who commits this crime has an "intent to mislead". Leaving this element out of the quotation of the law is grossly misleading.

Further, the concept "intent to mislead" must be coupled to the issue of whether a statement is "voluntary" as defined by Canadian common law. It a statement is not voluntary, it cannot be admissible in Canada.

The relevance to the case of Amanda Knox is that, according to the Hellmann court motivation report, her conviction for calunnia was NOT because of an intent to mislead, but because of a need to escape from the pressure of the interrogation. The Chieffi CSC panel, by making the Hellmann court conviction of Knox for calunnia definitive, made this the "judicial truth" of her conviction, even though the Chieffi CSC panel went on to question the reasoning and remanded the case to the Nencini court for examination of "aggravating" factors, which may include intent to mislead.

The Nencini court provisional conviction of Knox for aggravated calunnia was based on the Nencini court provisional conviction of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher. The Marasca CSC panel definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape of Kercher and definitively acquitted Knox of the aggravated calunnia charge. Thus, the Nencini court convictions are null and void, demolished, and quashed. They only exist now for examination by the ECHR, if that court wishes to review them.

Thus, Knox, having been convicted of "simple" calunnia in Italy, cannot be said to have committed a crime equivalent to "public mischief" in Canada, because 1) there was no intent to mislead, a necessary element of the Canadian crime; and 2) the statement was not voluntary as it was to escape the pressure of interrogation, according to the Hellmann court, and given in violation of Italian procedural law and Knox's defense rights, as acknowledged by the Gemelli CSC panel, the Hellmann court, and the Bonisegna court.

This is commonly referred to as 'lying by omission'. You omitted to mention that Marasca-Bruno upheld that Amanda committed her serious crime of Calunnia 'to cover up for Rudy Guede'.


I wonder if she remembered to mention this fact at Uni Windsor Law or at the Saul Cassin APSL14 2017 talk.

In the hope of preventing any confusion brought about by the quoted statement, the Marasca CSC panel did not rule that Amanda Knox committed calunnia to "cover up for Rudy Guede".

If they had ruled that, which was the verdict of the Nencini court, they would have had to uphold that part of the Nencini verdict. But the Marasca CSC panel quashed - annulled and demolished - all of the Nencini court verdict. The Marasca CSC panel reaffirmed the Hellmann court verdict, which had been made definitive by the Chieffi CSC panel. Here is the operative part of the Marasca CSC panel verdict:

"FOR THESE REASONS

Pursuant to Article 620 letter A) Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; annuls the ruling under appeal with respect to the crime under charge B) of the rubric because the crime is extinct due to statute of limitations;

pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n. 2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.

Recalculates the sentence imposed upon appellant Amanda Maria Knox for the crime of calumny in three years of confinement."

The highlighted sections of the Marasca CSC panel operative verdict above shows that they have reaffirmed the Hellmann court verdict, finalized by the Chieffi CSC panel, convicting Knox of "simple" calunnia against Lumumba and sentencing her to three years of imprisonment that she had already served under remand when the Hellmann court verdict was pronounced.

Vixen is apparently referring to the Section 9.4.1 of the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, where they review, and in their Italian judicial style, knock down, certain hypotheses, including those used by the Nencini court. The text in question is at the bottom of page 49 and top of page 50 of the translation linked to at www.amandaknoxcase.com. To follow the significance of that discussion by the Marasca CSC panel, one must first read beginning at Section 9, which starts: "9. The ascertained errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] and the logical inconsistencies pointed out invalidate the appealed verdict from the funditus [foundations], hence it deserves to be annulled. ...." and continues with: "9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones."

Vixen's post reflects either a misinterpretation of the text of the Marasca CSC panel motivation report or an intentional misrepresentation of that text. An intentional misrepresentation is more commonly called a lie of commission.

 

[Bill Williams]

She is cashing in on her heinous crime by charging US$5K appearance money.

You do not know any of this. I'd ask you to produce the receipt, but your side is satisfied with simply making the assertion.

And this is before even considering why she should not be reimbursed? But that question will simply enrage you.

 

[toto]

And the circus continues with Amanda demanding $5K to 'talk' about her 'miscarriage of justice', 'coerced confession' how the BAD (SICK!) cops planted a 'false memory' and her loss of memory caused by the BAD (SICK!) cops, making a complete mockery of America's genuinely wrongfully convicted claimants.

She may have asked for $5K;I do not know. You certainly do not know whether she demanded it. It may be that the Knox family have incurred great legal fees over the last seven years and presumably still accruing. It may be that whoever invites her to speak are not under any obligation to ask her or to agree to any payment. It may be that that students who ask questions about PK do not flunk their courses and it may be that "false memory" is a scientifically proven condition. It may be that AK did not slander the cops when she accused them of mistreatment.

 

[Matthew Best]

I would imagine Amanda is far too vain to admit to any felony.

OK, so we're just dealing with your imagination here?

Let us know when you have anything more, like, oh I don't know, actual evidence.