The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[acbytesla]

Link, please.

Rhodes has said much much worse. But I find it interesting that you request proof from all of us and never ever ever provide any for the crap you spread around. Your hypocrisy knows no limits.

 

[Numbers]

1. This does not apply to Amanda.


2. Thank you for retracting your insinuation I breached any law.

1. This falsehood is, of course, you opinion, which has no validity.

ETA: In contrast to your opinion, the Supreme Court of Cassation has finally and definitively acquitted Knox, after she had twice been wrongfully convicted by lower courts. Those are the facts which negate your opinion in the view of objective and reasonable persons. The opinions of the legal experts in the groups that invite Knox outweigh yours and those of other biased nonspecialist commentators, just as the opinions of surgeons on the methods to be used in surgery outweigh the opinions of anonymous internet posters on those surgical methods.

2. There is a misunderstanding on your part; I have never made an insinuation that you "breached any law". Since I have not made an insinuation or claim or any such statement that you have violated a law, I am totally puzzled by your statement, which I can only speculate is a kind of debating trick that persons, such as yourself, who have no valid arguments use to confuse, intimidate, divert, and distract a discussion.

If you believe that there was an insinuation or claim by me that you had broken a law, you would have provided the details, as I requested in my previous post. Those details would include: the exact wording, the exact law, and the jurisdiction where the law is valid. You have not provided such details, and that confirms that your claim that I have "insinuated" or otherwise stated that you broke a law is false, and your statement to that effect and that I have "retracted" a statement I have not made is simply part of your debating tactics to confuse, intimidate, divert, or distract this discussion.

 

[Vixen]

Rhodes has said much much worse. But I find it interesting that you request proof from all of us and never ever ever provide any for the crap you spread around. Your hypocrisy knows no limits.

Where is the link? Show us the link, if what Stachs says is true.

Otherwise it is fake news.

 

[Bill Williams]

Where is the link? Show us the link, if what Stachs says is true.

Otherwise it is fake news.

Can we assume, then, that:

1) each time you post an assertion with no proof or link, that it, too, is fake news?

2) that at least in principle you abhor what Mr. Rhodes has (continually) said publically, but are reserving judgement while waiting for the link?​

 

[Bill Williams]

Rhodes has said much much worse. But I find it interesting that you request proof from all of us and never ever ever provide any for the crap you spread around. Your hypocrisy knows no limits.

This is classic projection on Vixen's part.

Whenever anyone looks at this case afresh, or stumbles on to it and sees for themselves that AK and RS are innocent and obviously innocent, then Vixen says they are, "merely parroting the FOA line."

With regards to Rhodes threat of physical harm, though, Vixen merely parrots the nutter line, that:

1) he's being misquoted
2) he's not serious
3) his threat is a typo
4) the threat has no force in law
5) the threat is a typical smear towards a guilter-nutter, who simply wants the best for Meredith Kercher
6) the threat is a hypothetical, and judges don't deal in hypotheticals
7) there were no bars on the lower window (while the person in question posts a pic which shows that there were/are.​

My bet is that once the link is posted, Vixen will call it a hoax. The one thing that Vixen won't do, is distance herself from such threats, even if only in theory.

 

[Vixen]

Exoneration

Numbers provides us with the US definition of exoneration:

"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/exo.../glossary.aspx"


Amanda and Raff do not fit this criteria. They were not found innocent, not even in part.

Even Florence Court - Martuscelli-Masi-Favi had this to say, when they rejected Raff's claim for compensation in their MR issued 10 Feb 2017:

Such contradictions and inconsistencies render some of his earlier statements obviously
incredible, because he himself has declared that they contain lies, besides which, after
having purposely retracted his statements of 5 November 2007, which completely
overturned his earlier statements, he didn't return to his original story but came up with
something different in which he reaffirmed the fact that he had first introduced on 5
November 2007 that Knox hadn't spent the whole evening with him, without however
being certain about this, but confusing it in a tale of vague recollections emphasising this
vagueness in the course of questioning aimed at clarifying his inconsistent statements.
Additionally his claims [5 ->] to be unable to remember those hours was criticised by
various judges regarding the cautionary measures, who highlighted the strangeness of a
“wavering” memory, which showed that he recalled very well various details of the
evening but claimed to have completely forgotten other details of equal or greater
importance. For example, the GIP in the interrogation of 8 November 2007 receiving the
vague replies of Sollecito, when asked about his earlier declarations said “Sometimes you
seem to remember very clearly, but at other times, when you are challenged, you say you
don't remember. I exhort you to be accurate, because you must understand that with all of
these contradictions...your situation is not good.”

 

[Vixen]

Can we assume, then, that:

1) each time you post an assertion with no proof or link, that it, too, is fake news?

2) that at least in principle you abhor what Mr. Rhodes has (continually) said publically, but are reserving judgement while waiting for the link?​

Don't try to hide the fact Stacyhs produced a supposed quote to which she refused to provide the link to.

So perhaps we can assume she's made it up.

 

[Vixen]

This is classic projection on Vixen's part.

Whenever anyone looks at this case afresh, or stumbles on to it and sees for themselves that AK and RS are innocent and obviously innocent, then Vixen says they are, "merely parroting the FOA line."

With regards to Rhodes threat of physical harm, though, Vixen merely parrots the nutter line, that:

1) he's being misquoted
2) he's not serious
3) his threat is a typo
4) the threat has no force in law
5) the threat is a typical smear towards a guilter-nutter, who simply wants the best for Meredith Kercher
6) the threat is a hypothetical, and judges don't deal in hypotheticals
7) there were no bars on the lower window (while the person in question posts a pic which shows that there were/are.​

My bet is that once the link is posted, Vixen will call it a hoax. The one thing that Vixen won't do, is distance herself from such threats, even if only in theory.

Now you really are talking rubbish. Chewed grass, I think acbytesla called it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't try to hide the fact Stacyhs produced a supposed quote to which she refused to provide the link to.

So perhaps we can assume she's made it up.

I know for a fact she has not. But I assume by this that you disapprove of the sentiment expressed. Kudos to you. You actually do believe that (in theory) it is inappropriate to utter threats against people on the internet.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda and Raff do not fit this criteria. They were not found innocent, not even in part.

So? The Boninsegna court said that they'd been exonerated.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers provides us with the US definition of exoneration:

"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/exo.../glossary.aspx"


Amanda and Raff do not fit this criteria. They were not found innocent, not even in part.

Even Florence Court - Martuscelli-Masi-Favi had this to say, when they rejected Raff's claim for compensation in their MR issued 10 Feb 2017:

More twisting of words by Vixen, who has no valid argument to bring to the debate.

"Evidence of innocence" is not the same as "found innocent".

In the US, persons found "not guilty" or "acquitted" are to be presumed innocent of the criminal charges. This also applies in the Council of Europe states, including Italy. Vixen apparently is unaware of the law, or chooses to play word games in a vain attempt to pretend to have a debating point.

Again, the lawyers and professors of law who sponsor or are members of groups seeking to reverse and prevent wrongful convictions will know more about this topic than an anonymous, and clearly biased, internet poster, who has claimed that specific US lawyers who accept fees to defend clients in criminal cases, in accordance with US law, are committing "innocence fraud".

 

[toto]

Don't try to hide the fact Stacyhs produced a supposed quote to which she refused to provide the link to.

So perhaps we can assume she's made it up.

I think you are correct (not that you can assume she has made it up but that the case has not been proven). When it comes down to it if an assertion is made; if properly disputed, then it really should be backed up.
I have no problem with the quotation because when I used to look at the site in question I have seen the poster say similar things. I try and avoid the site in question because there is only so much nuttiness I can handle!
The moral of the story is always provide clear references that can be followed up, and reference should ideally be relatively short; links to whole threads are not helpful.
I am mildly surprised that as a pro guilt proponent you do not read the two sites of which most of us are aware.

 

[acbytesla]

This is classic projection on Vixen's part.

Whenever anyone looks at this case afresh, or stumbles on to it and sees for themselves that AK and RS are innocent and obviously innocent, then Vixen says they are, "merely parroting the FOA line."

With regards to Rhodes threat of physical harm, though, Vixen merely parrots the nutter line, that:

1) he's being misquoted
2) he's not serious
3) his threat is a typo
4) the threat has no force in law
5) the threat is a typical smear towards a guilter-nutter, who simply wants the best for Meredith Kercher
6) the threat is a hypothetical, and judges don't deal in hypotheticals
7) there were no bars on the lower window (while the person in question posts a pic which shows that there were/are.​

My bet is that once the link is posted, Vixen will call it a hoax. The one thing that Vixen won't do, is distance herself from such threats, even if only in theory.

Rhodes is a creep. I have read many of his posts in the past where he has described in graphic detail the killing of Knox. My bet is that he is on a watch list. I know he has been warned by the authorities. As for Vixen's easy dismissal of this turd, well it's Vixen. What would you expect? The truth is secondary to smearing Amanda for Vixen. But I'll say this for Vixen, she is a step above Rhodes. I don't recall her posting fantasies of killing Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

Rhodes is a creep. I have read many of his posts in the past where he has described in graphic detail the killing of Knox. My bet is that he is on a watch list. I know he has been warned by the authorities. As for Vixen's easy dismissal of this turd, well it's Vixen. What would you expect? The truth is secondary to smearing Amanda for Vixen. But I'll say this for Vixen, she is a step above Rhodes. I don't recall her posting fantasies of killing Amanda.

I have a strong suspicion that Stacyhs has posted something that Pete Quennell took down from his site (under 'comments') as soon as he became aware of it.

Thus it is shocking that Stacyhs seeks to tar all PGP with the same brush when she must be 100% aware the indelicately worded post no longer exists.

How telling that she has kept a copy of it so that she can use it in an underhand way on a public forum to inflame public sentiment.

How revealing that her chums have leapt in to cover up for her disgraceful false news.

 

[Methos]

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.

Link, please.

Rhodes has said much much worse. But I find it interesting that you request proof from all of us and never ever ever provide any for the crap you spread around. Your hypocrisy knows no limits.

Where is the link? Show us the link, if what Stachs says is true.

Otherwise it is fake news.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/running_on_a_mudslide_the_seeingly_freaked_sollecito_team/#c26610

 

[Methos]

I have a strong suspicion that Stacyhs has posted something that Pete Quennell took down from his site (under 'comments') as soon as he became aware of it.

Thus it is shocking that Stacyhs seeks to tar all PGP with the same brush when she must be 100% aware the indelicately worded post no longer exists.

How telling that she has kept a copy of it so that she can use it in an underhand way on a public forum to inflame public sentiment.

How revealing that her chums have leapt in to cover up for her disgraceful false news.

Nope, the comment is still there, see link above.

 

[Vixen]

More twisting of words by Vixen, who has no valid argument to bring to the debate.

"Evidence of innocence" is not the same as "found innocent".

In the US, persons found "not guilty" or "acquitted" are to be presumed innocent of the criminal charges. This also applies in the Council of Europe states, including Italy. Vixen apparently is unaware of the law, or chooses to play word games in a vain attempt to pretend to have a debating point.

Again, the lawyers and professors of law who sponsor or are members of groups seeking to reverse and prevent wrongful convictions will know more about this topic than an anonymous, and clearly biased, internet poster, who has claimed that specific US lawyers who accept fees to defend clients in criminal cases, in accordance with US law, are committing "innocence fraud".

Please do not put words into my mouth. I said no such thing.

 

[Vixen]

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/running_on_a_mudslide_the_seeingly_freaked_sollecito_team/#c26610

Thanks for the link. However, I can see no threat made there. Perhaps you or Stacey would like to point it out, given anybody is free to visit Seattle whensoever they wish.

Bear in mind, Amanda herself published her Mom Edda's address, so she obvious does not feel she is in any danger.

 

[Numbers]

I have a strong suspicion that Stacyhs has posted something that Pete Quennell took down from his site (under 'comments') as soon as he became aware of it.

Thus it is shocking that Stacyhs seeks to tar all PGP with the same brush when she must be 100% aware the indelicately worded post no longer exists.

How telling that she has kept a copy of it so that she can use it in an underhand way on a public forum to inflame public sentiment.

How revealing that her chums have leapt in to cover up for her disgraceful false news.

Vixen, you are being so dainty to use this wording!

Can you please explain how her post is "disgraceful false news"?

Is this somehow related to your claims that specific US lawyers who accept fees to defend clients in criminal cases, in accordance with US law, are conducting "innocence fraud"? Or your statements that specific DNA experts, such as Dr. Peter Gill, who have published professional opinions on the DNA evidence in the Knox - Sollecito case are giving the opinions as a money-seeking activity? Are those comments true or false, based upon evidence you have or have seen? Please supply citations with actual evidence in support of your statements, if you claim they are true.

Otherwise, we will know that your comments are truly "disgraceful false news" that you have posted because you have no valid arguments or evidence to support your position in this debate.

 

[toto]

I have a strong suspicion that Stacyhs has posted something that Pete Quennell took down from his site (under 'comments') as soon as he became aware of it.

Thus it is shocking that Stacyhs seeks to tar all PGP with the same brush when she must be 100% aware the indelicately worded post no longer exists.

How telling that she has kept a copy of it so that she can use it in an underhand way on a public forum to inflame public sentiment.

How revealing that her chums have leapt in to cover up for her disgraceful false news.

I assumed it had been taken down too. Rather shocking that it is still there. If you had suspicions that he had written something similar in the past perhaps you should have rephrased your comments about the likelihood of this particular quotation being true"

ETA He says he wants to do AK harm. This is not acceptable.