The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

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.

Proceeds of Crime Act. (POCA.) Son of Sam acts.

To add insult to injury, the felon has not paid Patrick the damages due to him as ordered by a court of law.

 

[toto]

Proceeds of Crime Act. (POCA.) Son of Sam acts.

To add insult to injury, the felon has not paid Patrick the damages due to him as ordered by a court of law.

She was acquitted. The Calunnia verdict is under appeal to the ECHR.

 

[Vixen]

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.

We do know this, because I gave you the link.

Did she let CBSA know she was there in Canada to work (like Nigella was in the USA)?

You think she would do this for nothing? No way, José!

 

[Vixen]

She was acquitted. The Calunnia verdict is under appeal to the ECHR.

ECHR is not an appeal court. It has no jurisdiction over the Italian Penal system.

 

[acbytesla]

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.......

It is funny Bill.

First Vixen suggest that I employed faith to come to my position about the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. Then I refute that claiming it was the evidence that is available. Vixen replies that evidence proves that not only that Amanda was involved but she was the instigator.

This is the difference between the atheist and the theist. I see the Sun, the Earth and the Stars above and say 'they're beautiful. I wonder how they came to be, but admit I do not know?' Vixen looks at them and attributes them to God because authority with no greater knowledge then herself told her it was God. I look at the dozen Rudy footprints, his DNA found inside the likely time of death, where Amanda and Raffaele were moments earlier, the absence of electronic evidence connecting A&R to Rudy, the shortness of A&R's acquaintance and the absence of other shoeprints that connect anyone else to the murder and I say Rudy was definitely involved and probably no one else. Vixen looks at the same evidence and declares that not only was Amanda involved, but that Amanda was primarily responsible. Which one of us is employing faith?

 

[Bill Williams]

We do know this, because I gave you the link.

Did she let CBSA know she was there in Canada to work (like Nigella was in the USA)?

You think she would do this for nothing? No way, José!

What I "think" is of no relevance.

 

[toto]

ECHR is not an appeal court. It has no jurisdiction over the Italian Penal system.

It may have an effect.It certainly would in the court of public opinion

 

[acbytesla]

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

I have no clue as to what those averages would be. And frankly, neither do you.

 

[Vixen]

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.

If anyone is misrepresentative, it is you. You quote long legal paragraphs cut and pasted from elsewhere. You interpret them, often correctly. But then you go and spoil it all by adding bloomers such as 'the police need to be prosecuted' or 'it is Mignini who should be refused entry to Canada for crimes against humanity'.

Re the above: Marasca is not 'hypothesizing'. Judges do not hypothesize, they lay down the law. Scientists hypothesize and then set about testing them. Section 9 is not a setting out of Nencini's contradictions.

Section 9 is its conclusions: fact setting, coming as it does, immediately before Section 10, which is merely a reiteration of the verdict, as at the head.

If it were simply a 'discussion', then where are the 'recommendations and conclusions' that logically should follow therefrom? No, the two sides of the appeal are dealt with in detail from Section 4 - Section 8. Section 9 is the conclusion: the facts established.


Wishful thinking on your part and renaming it as a 'hypothesis' does not alter the facts.

 

[Numbers]

She was acquitted. The Calunnia verdict is under appeal to the ECHR.

I realize some persons refer to applications to the ECHR as "appeals", but they are not appeals in any sense. The ECHR is not directly part of any national court. It is an international court that is part of the Council of Europe, its primary function* is to hear cases that concern alleged violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, and the States that are members by treaty of the Council of Europe have agreed to follow its final rulings. The rulings of the ECHR are undertaken by the individual States and supervised by the Committee of (Foreign) Ministers of the Council of Europe.

*It also is allowed to function, on request, as a consultant on human rights as defined by the Convention to the Council of Europe States.

"ARTICLE 19
Establishment of the Court
To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by
the High Contracting Parties {the States} in the Convention and the Protocols
thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights,
hereinafter referred to as “the Court”. It shall function on a
permanent basis.

ARTICLE 32
Jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters
concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention
and the Protocols thereto which are referred to it as provided in
Articles 33, 34, 46 and 47.
2. In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction,
the Court shall decide.

ARTICLE 34
Individual applications
The Court may receive applications from any person, nongovernmental
organisation or group of individuals claiming to be
the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of
the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The
High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the
effective exercise of this right."

See: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer

 

[toto]

I realize some persons refer to applications to the ECHR as "appeals", but they are not appeals in any sense. The ECHR is not directly part of any national court. It is an international court that is part of the Council of Europe, its primary function* is to hear cases that concern alleged violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, and the States that are members by treaty of the Council of Europe have agreed to follow its final rulings. The rulings of the ECHR are undertaken by the individual States and supervised by the Committee of (Foreign) Ministers of the Council of Europe.

*It also is allowed to function, on request, as a consultant on human rights as defined by the Convention to the Council of Europe States.

"ARTICLE 19
Establishment of the Court
To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by
the High Contracting Parties {the States} in the Convention and the Protocols
thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights,
hereinafter referred to as “the Court”. It shall function on a
permanent basis.

ARTICLE 32
Jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters
concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention
and the Protocols thereto which are referred to it as provided in
Articles 33, 34, 46 and 47.
2. In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction,
the Court shall decide.

ARTICLE 34
Individual applications
The Court may receive applications from any person, nongovernmental
organisation or group of individuals claiming to be
the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of
the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The
High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the
effective exercise of this right."

See: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer

Yes. I get that. I was being a bit slapdash . But if she were to get anywhere with this I would have thought it would help her in the minds of reasonable people to reflect on the unfairness of the calunnia verdict.

 

[Vixen]

It is funny Bill.

First Vixen suggest that I employed faith to come to my position about the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. Then I refute that claiming it was the evidence that is available. Vixen replies that evidence proves that not only that Amanda was involved but she was the instigator.

This is the difference between the atheist and the theist. I see the Sun, the Earth and the Stars above and say 'they're beautiful. I wonder how they came to be, but admit I do not know?' Vixen looks at them and attributes them to God because authority with no greater knowledge then herself told her it was God. I look at the dozen Rudy footprints, his DNA found inside the likely time of death, where Amanda and Raffaele were moments earlier, the absence of electronic evidence connecting A&R to Rudy, the shortness of A&R's acquaintance and the absence of other shoeprints that connect anyone else to the murder and I say Rudy was definitely involved and probably no one else. Vixen looks at the same evidence and declares that not only was Amanda involved, but that Amanda was primarily responsible. Which one of us is employing faith?

I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness. I am awake. I can recognise truth, beauty and reality. I do not fudge wishful thinking with revising what I don't like.

Every now and then I meet people on a similar plane. For example, my orthdontist, who gave me a running commentary on Time, Newtonian physics, zen, paradoxes and lucid dreaming (he has a physics & genetics degree from Trinity, Dublin and is a famous kick boxer) whilst reconstructing my tooth. Most people never think about any of those things.


It's the difference between someone who is asleep (uses 10% of their consciousness) and someone who is aware. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king (HG Wells). A two-eyed person comes along and the one-eyed knows not what the two-eyed person sees. Perspective, dimension, acuity, the whole picture.

You wish for the kids to be innocent. Fervent wishing cannot make it so. However, the reality is, every aspect of the kids behaviour and the evidence, shows tragically, the life of an innocent - extremely nice - young lady was terminated by the evil actions of cruel vindictive persons.

We don't even need to be awake. We can look at science, and the Prisoners Dilemma predicts exactly how each perp will behave. And sure enough, Rudy, Amanda and Raff have lived up to mathematical expectation.

Your faith consists in 'Oh I hope to goodness they will never be found out as my entire belief system is founded on their getting away with it.'

Which is better? Purer?

 

[Vixen]

I have no clue as to what those averages would be. And frankly, neither do you.

I can tell you for free: those averages are sooner or later.

 

[Vixen]

What I "think" is of no relevance.

Yet your claim that what you think is of 'no relevance' has taken up over 11,000 posts to express its very irrelevance.

 

[Vixen]

It may have an effect.It certainly would in the court of public opinion

There we have it: the ECHR claim is little more than a publicity stunt. A PR gimmick.

 

[Vixen]

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.

You did. You said, 'Filomena also knew Mez had two phones'.

 

[toto]

There we have it: the ECHR claim is little more than a publicity stunt. A PR gimmick.

It would also be justice in and of itself.Edited to add that I disagree with your words "little more than a publicity stunt. A PR gimmick."

 

[acbytesla]

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.

How does the mere acquaintance of 3 other people prove that Amanda is the 'alpha' or involvement? One does not prove the others. Speculation based on absurdity.​

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

This doesn't prove anything. Speculation.​

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

This doesn't prove anything. Speculation.​

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

How do you know where she kept her rent money? The absence of Meredith's rent money doesn't actually prove it's existence or where it was located. Wild speculation. ​

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

You don't know that. I would imagine Raffaele knew since he had been with Amanda for almost 2 days straight. That also doesn't prove their involvement. More speculation.​

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

Did she? At what point did they accuse Amanda of the murder?​

7. The fact she covered up for Rudy.

How did she cover up for Rudy? You have no evidence that Amanda knew Rudy was involved. Speculation. I see a pattern developing.​

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.

This doesn't prove anything.​

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

You keep pointing to the absence of evidence as evidence of a crime. It isn't. That her fingerprints were not found and yet other prints were found is proof that nothing was cleaned for the purpose of removing fingerprints.​

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

You keep suggesting that minor discrepancies in one's memory is evidence of deceit. It isn't. It is simply the product of what our mind remembers.​

11. Her fore knowledge of the crime scene.

Not true.​

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

Not evidence, wild speculation.​

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).

Not evidence, wild speculation ​

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

Doesn't mean a damn thing. Amanda's DNA would be expected to be found anywhere and everywhere in her own home.​

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

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE THAT THE BURGLARY WAS SIMULATED. NONE.​

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

The first means nothing, the second isn't true.​

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

The cooking knife was not the murder weapon. It's a joke to think it was.​

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

Probably Rudy's Not Raffaele's ​

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

You don't think that it could be found looking around?Are you seriously this focused on the answer you believe that you don't entertain other possibilities?​

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

I have no idea what this means. It certainly isn't evidence.​

All I see is wild speculation designed to support a preconceived idea. It's clear you don't know what probative evidence is. A collection of facts that can have a multiple explanations does not credibly prove anything.

 

[Numbers]

Yes. I get that. I was being a bit slapdash . But if she were to get anywhere with this I would have thought it would help her in the minds of reasonable people to reflect on the unfairness of the calunnia verdict.

Italy would be obligated under its laws (a Constitutional Court decision) to review giving Amanda Knox a revision trial on the calunnia charge, if there were a final ECHR judgment in her case that found the conviction unfair.

 

[acbytesla]

I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness. I am awake. I can recognise truth, beauty and reality. I do not fudge wishful thinking with revising what I don't like.

Every now and then I meet people on a similar plane. For example, my orthdontist, who gave me a running commentary on Time, Newtonian physics, zen, paradoxes and lucid dreaming (he has a physics & genetics degree from Trinity, Dublin and is a famous kick boxer) whilst reconstructing my tooth. Most people never think about any of those things.


It's the difference between someone who is asleep (uses 10% of their consciousness) and someone who is aware. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king (HG Wells). A two-eyed person comes along and the one-eyed knows not what the two-eyed person sees. Perspective, dimension, acuity, the whole picture.

You wish for the kids to be innocent. Fervent wishing cannot make it so. However, the reality is, every aspect of the kids behaviour and the evidence, shows tragically, the life of an innocent - extremely nice - young lady was terminated by the evil actions of cruel vindictive persons.

We don't even need to be awake. We can look at science, and the Prisoners Dilemma predicts exactly how each perp will behave. And sure enough, Rudy, Amanda and Raff have lived up to mathematical expectation.

Your faith consists in 'Oh I hope to goodness they will never be found out as my entire belief system is founded on their getting away with it.'

Which is better? Purer?

Let's just say I think you see things that don't exist and draw conclusions from those delusions.