• 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.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I believe innocence fraud to be a real phenomenon.

The proper place to determine innocence or guilt should be within due legal process.

Touring the country claiming to be innocent, when a court at no point said you were (Amanda Knox) is pure fraud.

She and Raff had every opportunity at trial to defend themselves. Raff chose not to. They relied on a myriad of proven lies. They have treated the police, the family of the victim, and the courts with disrespect.

Rudy is correctly pursuing his issues through the right channels.
Click to expand...

In previous posts, it has been explained to you that alleging that specific persons are committing fraud, such as the specific US lawyers you name, without any evidence on your part and contrary to fact may be considered malicious defamation. Fraud is a crime; you are seemingly accusing some specific US lawyers and other persons of committing crimes.

Yet the actions you claim to be fraud - that is, you are claiming to be criminal in nature - are all legal in the US. You claim that certain named lawyers are committing fraud to gain compensation. Lawyers are allowed to service their clients and collect fees for that service. Lawyers are allowed - even obligated - under US law to defend their clients according to the interests of those clients.

You claim that Amanda Knox is committing a fraud by attending certain meetings sponsored by groups opposed to wrongful convictions. In Italy, Knox has been definitively acquitted of a murder/rape charge by the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, after being provisionally wrongfully convicted twice on that charge by lower courts. Thus, your statements are clearly false and you should be fully aware that they are false. This making of a false defamatory statement that one knows to be false is the definition, under my understanding of US law, of malicious intent to defame.

I am confident that an objective person would understand that your statements lack credibility because of the contrast between your claims and the actual facts and the law, which in the US allows the defense of those charged with crime, including by legal counsel, and recognizes that a person definitively acquitted of a crime must be presumed innocent, under criminal law, of that crime.
 
Stacyhs said:
Grahame Rhodes, a die hard ( and, imo, mentally unstable, Canadian PGP), has made numerous roundabout threats about Amanda. This is one of his latest:

"Oh good.
Like Nasear I’m still in the shadows of course. Still with any luck i will be able visit Seattle soon. of course it would not surprise me if I’m on the no-fly list. That might have it’s basis in paranoia on my part, but considering the American attempts to cover for their little murderer (in spite of evidence to the contrary) it would not surprise me. The prevailing view in Seattle is that “She’s an American citizen therefore innocent.” this kind of **** is prevalent with these small minded Trump supporters.. Of course this is the tenth anniversary and any hope by the forces of evil that we will simply go away will never happen. I am personally quite comfortable with people knowing that if I had any chance of doing Knox harm then I would gladly provide it. Keep up the good work people and thank you. Never stop Never stop"
Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 03/19/17 at 05:16 PM | #

The FBI is fully aware of Rhodes and his sick posts, thankfully.
This idiot also does not seem to realize that Seattle is a liberal city and did not support Trump. But we are talking about someone who, imo, has demonstrated a detachment from the facts.
Click to expand...

Link, please.
 
Numbers said:
In previous posts, it has been explained to you that alleging that specific persons are committing fraud, such as the specific US lawyers you name, without any evidence on your part and contrary to fact may be considered malicious defamation. Fraud is a crime; you are seemingly accusing some specific US lawyers and other persons of committing crimes.

Yet the actions you claim to be fraud - that is, you are claiming to be criminal in nature - are all legal in the US. You claim that certain named lawyers are committing fraud to gain compensation. Lawyers are allowed to service their clients and collect fees for that service. Lawyers are allowed - even obligated - under US law to defend their clients according to the interests of those clients.

You claim that Amanda Knox is committing a fraud by attending certain meetings sponsored by groups opposed to wrongful convictions. In Italy, Knox has been definitively acquitted of a murder/rape charge by the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, after being provisionally wrongfully convicted twice on that charge by lower courts. Thus, your statements are clearly false and you should be fully aware that they are false. This making of a false defamatory statement that one knows to be false is the definition, under my understanding of US law, of malicious intent to defame.

I am confident that an objective person would understand that your statements lack credibility because of the contrast between your claims and the actual facts and the law, which in the US allows the defense of those charged with crime, including by legal counsel, and recognizes that a person definitively acquitted of a crime must be presumed innocent, under criminal law, of that crime.
Click to expand...

What, no apology for falsely claiming I quoted the ABA falsely? Clearly you are not a member or you would have been duty bound to be aware of the ABA handbook without my having to tell you.

As for the above, it is a pathetic piece of grandstanding. It is not appropriate to make threats on a public forum.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do indeed see some of Zellner's activities as parasitic. So sue me.
 
Vixen said:
What, no apology for falsely claiming I quoted the ABA falsely? Clearly you are not a member or you would have been duty bound to be aware of the ABA handbook without my having to tell you.

As for the above, it is a pathetic piece of grandstanding. It is not appropriate to make threats on a public forum.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do indeed see some of Zellner's activities as parasitic. So sue me.
Click to expand...

There is no threat in my post, merely a recitation of facts and my opinions.

You misinterpreted and inserted your own material into your quote which may have originated with an ABA statement. Your presentation of ABA material misrepresents it; the ABA presents models of rules and standards. It is not a state or federal agency and has no legislative, judicial, or executive authority. It is, however, a respected private association of American lawyers, as I pointed out with my quotation from Wikipedia.

You display double standards in your stating that Guede has the right to seek a revision trial, but then falsely and maliciously stating that other convicted persons and their lawyers, specifically named, in the US are committing "innocence fraud" and fraudulently seeking compensation, in seeking post-conviction relief. Objective persons understand that this double standard is an indication of bias on your part.
 
Vixen said:
...says the person with 12,000 posts on the matter.
Click to expand...
See, acbytesla does actually participate in other threads, and has done so for years. This penny recently dropped onto your personal top shelf, such that you lamely tried other threads for fear of being seen as a one trick pony. It didn't work.

The very same applies to Staceyhs, Bill Williams, London John, Numbers, Welshman, Bagels, NotEvenWrong and probably a crapton of unnamed others.

Unlike you, they did not accumulate such post counts by posting exclusively in this thread.
 
abaddon said:
See, acbytesla does actually participate in other threads, and has done so for years. This penny recently dropped onto your personal top shelf, such that you lamely tried other threads for fear of being seen as a one trick pony. It didn't work.

The very same applies to Staceyhs, Bill Williams, London John, Numbers, Welshman, Bagels, NotEvenWrong and probably a crapton of unnamed others.

Unlike you, they did not accumulate such post counts by posting exclusively in this thread.
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly correct for me. I've contributed to other threads but have not done so for some time now.

Still, I feel completely inadequate compared to someone who's averaged 11 posts per day - per day! - since joining in April 2015.
 
Numbers said:
There is no threat in my post, merely a recitation of facts and my opinions.

You misinterpreted and inserted your own material into your quote which may have originated with an ABA statement. Your presentation of ABA material misrepresents it; the ABA presents models of rules and standards. It is not a state or federal agency and has no legislative, judicial, or executive authority. It is, however, a respected private association of American lawyers, as I pointed out with my quotation from Wikipedia.

You display double standards in your stating that Guede has the right to seek a revision trial, but then falsely and maliciously stating that other convicted persons and their lawyers, specifically named, in the US are committing "innocence fraud" and fraudulently seeking compensation, in seeking post-conviction relief. Objective persons understand that this double standard is an indication of bias on your part.
Click to expand...


You did. You tried to claim I have broken the law. As if.

Rudy is taking his claim through the courts. That is the correct route to right alleged legal injustice.

Going to Innocence Projects and giving talks when you have not been certified innocent - on the contrary - is a hoax.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
See, acbytesla does actually participate in other threads, and has done so for years. This penny recently dropped onto your personal top shelf, such that you lamely tried other threads for fear of being seen as a one trick pony. It didn't work.

The very same applies to Staceyhs, Bill Williams, London John, Numbers, Welshman, Bagels, NotEvenWrong and probably a crapton of unnamed others.

Unlike you, they did not accumulate such post counts by posting exclusively in this thread.
Click to expand...

It's a free country. Your jibe about a one trick pony is pathetic and quite erroneous.
 
Numbers said:
In previous posts, it has been explained to you that alleging that specific persons are committing fraud, such as the specific US lawyers you name, without any evidence on your part and contrary to fact may be considered malicious defamation. Fraud is a crime; you are seemingly accusing some specific US lawyers and other persons of committing crimes.
Click to expand...

The guilter nutcases have had to invent a term - innocence fraud - because they have nothing else.

Note - they do not call it, "being mistaken about someone else's innocence," or "not providing the proof of someone else's innocence," they call it out and out fraud.

The intent was not to call-out the experts who vouch for the innocence of people, the intent is to invent another opportunity to bad-mouth victims of wrongful conviction - the ones they also utter threats against.

But they get challenged: "What about Douglas? What about Kassim? what about Moore? What about Conti and Vecchiotti? What about Dr. Gill?" To remain consistent they are eventually backed into a corner of accusing all those people of being fraudulent.

Not being mistaken - but being fraudulent. The nutter guilters even invent reasons for this - "hired gun", "armchair detective" (applied to John Douglas, the inventor of criminal profiling!!!!), "overly patriotic."

They won't let it alone. The offer proof of their basic conspiratorial thinking, first accusing the wrongfully convicted of fraud, and then by necessity having to extend that to the rest of the world.
 
Vixen said:
There is so much to refute!
Click to expand...

Well, then you should start refuting! That would be a pleasant change. Instead you simply make up stuff and post links that don't deal with the topic in question!

An actual refutation would be sorely welcomed here. Instead, you post pics, like the pic of the window with the bars on it (for Rudy to stand on), and then proclaim, "Look, there's no bars on that window!"
 
Bill Williams said:
The guilter nutcases have had to invent a term - innocence fraud - because they have nothing else.

Note - they do not call it, "being mistaken about someone else's innocence," or "not providing the proof of someone else's innocence," they call it out and out fraud.

The intent was not to call-out the experts who vouch for the innocence of people, the intent is to invent another opportunity to bad-mouth victims of wrongful conviction - the ones they also utter threats against.

But they get challenged: "What about Douglas? What about Kassim? what about Moore? What about Conti and Vecchiotti? What about Dr. Gill?" To remain consistent they are eventually backed into a corner of accusing all those people of being fraudulent.

Not being mistaken - but being fraudulent. The nutter guilters even invent reasons for this - "hired gun", "armchair detective" (applied to John Douglas, the inventor of criminal profiling!!!!), "overly patriotic."

They won't let it alone. The offer proof of their basic conspiratorial thinking, first accusing the wrongfully convicted of fraud, and then by necessity having to extend that to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

None of the highlighted testified in court, and nor were they asked to. So, in effect, they are armchair detectives - none of them saw any of the evidence first hand. They pontificated from the viewpoint of Friends of Amanda Knox (=advocates).

Vecchiotti was found guilty of gross negligence and professional misconduct and ordered to pay €150K to the husband of a murder victim. Vecchiotti refused to test the DNA of the murderer, thus enabling him to evade justice for nineteen years.

In the Netflix film she and Conti knowingly make fraudulent statements. For example, that Stefanoni's labs had been found to be contaminated. Completely untrue and they themselves testified under oath it was not contaminated. None of the defence forensic expert witnesses reported contamination in Stefanoni's labs.

So yes, it is fair comment to call Vecchiotti and Conti a couple of old frauds.
 
Vixen said:
You did. You tried to claim I have broken the law. As if.

Rudy is taking his claim through the courts. That is the correct route to right alleged legal injustice.

Going to Innocence Projects and giving talks when you have not been certified innocent - on the contrary - is a hoax.
Click to expand...

1. Apparently you believe that there is a law you may have broken, presumably with regard to your posts. What law is that?

2. "Tried to claim" is a strange wording. Based on that wording, you acknowledge that I did not make a claim that you had broken any law. If that is not your position, please make clear what you believe I "claimed" and what "law" is involved, and in what jurisdiction is that law valid, if any.

3. It is a falsehood or misrepresentation to claim that anyone "going to Innocence Projects and giving when you have not been certified innocent - on the contrary - is a hoax." This statement is a falsehood or misrepresentation because persons who have been officially released from criminal responsibility after being wrongfully convicted may not have been "certified innocent". They may have been released from criminal responsibility on any one of several methods, including, for example, dismissal of charges. The National Registry of Exonerations defines exoneration as follows:

"Exoneration—A person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and later was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action. The official action may be: (i) a complete pardon by a governor or other competent authority, whether or not the pardon is designated as based on innocence; (ii) an acquittal of all charges factually related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted; or (iii) a dismissal of all charges related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted, by a court or by a prosecutor with the authority to enter that dismissal. The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant, the defense attorney and the court at the time the plea was entered. The evidence of innocence need not be an explicit basis for the official action that exonerated the person."

Source: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx

In the specific case of Amanda Knox, she was finally and definitively acquitted of charges relating to the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher by the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, after having been wrongfully convicted twice by lower courts. You and a few other biased individuals may consider her being exonerated and attending or speaking at a meeting a "hoax" or even "innocence fraud" but obviously the groups inviting her - and there have apparently been quite a few - must believe otherwise. And since those groups include lawyers and law professors, I suggest that their professional opinion far outweighs the biased opinions of some anonymous internet posters.
 
Numbers said:
1. Apparently you believe that there is a law you may have broken, presumably with regard to your posts. What law is that?

2. "Tried to claim" is a strange wording. Based on that wording, you acknowledge that I did not make a claim that you had broken any law. If that is not your position, please make clear what you believe I "claimed" and what "law" is involved, and in what jurisdiction is that law valid, if any.

3. It is a falsehood or misrepresentation to claim that anyone "going to Innocence Projects and giving when you have not been certified innocent - on the contrary - is a hoax." This statement is a falsehood or misrepresentation because persons who have been officially released from criminal responsibility after being wrongfully convicted may not have been "certified innocent". They may have been released from criminal responsibility on any one of several methods, including, for example, dismissal of charges. The National Registry of Exonerations defines exoneration as follows:

"Exoneration—A person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and later was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action. The official action may be: (i) a complete pardon by a governor or other competent authority, whether or not the pardon is designated as based on innocence; (ii) an acquittal of all charges factually related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted; or (iii) a dismissal of all charges related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted, by a court or by a prosecutor with the authority to enter that dismissal. The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant, the defense attorney and the court at the time the plea was entered. The evidence of innocence need not be an explicit basis for the official action that exonerated the person."
Source: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx

In the specific case of Amanda Knox, she was finally and definitively acquitted of charges relating to the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher by the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, after having been wrongfully convicted twice by lower courts. You and a few other biased individuals may consider her being exonerated and attending or speaking at a meeting a "hoax" or even "innocence fraud" but obviously the groups inviting her - and there have apparently been quite a few - must believe otherwise. And since those groups include lawyers and law professors, I suggest that their professional opinion far outweighs the biased opinions of some anonymous internet posters.
Click to expand...


This does not apply to Amanda.


Thank you for retracting your insinuation I breached any law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom