Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Citation please of where I said Knox used cocaine.
Where did that curve ball come from?
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26
- Thread starter toto
- Start date
- Status
Citation please of where I said Knox used cocaine.
Where did that curve ball come from?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
The PR spin in defense of NvdL continues, and turns to the ridiculous. Apparently saying ANYTHING to divert attention away from.....
This time it is to accuse someone else of "hiding something."
That's right, this someone else is now deemed to be "hiding something". And this needed to have been hidden so much that she PUBLISHED IT AT GROUND REPORT, the place from where NvdL plagiarized.
The PR spin has turned ridiculous. "What's she trying to hide?"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The PR work continues from a party with a direct interest in the publishing of these cut-and-paste books.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
The awkwardness of the PR spin continues.
1) If he credited her properly, why did Amazon suspend his account?
2) It didn't matter if she wanted her quote "used", if it had been the result of a proper citation, why did Amazon suspend him? In fact it is not about her at all. Once again, the PR stuff from NvdL's corner misses that it was Amazon which took action, set the remedial terms, and reversed the suspension once the terms had been acted upon by NvdL. At the level of Amazon, it had nothing to do with anyone else but NvdL.
3) If she was "departing from the truth", why did NvdL plagiarize it and include it in the first version of his book?
The PR effort is coming off the rails.2) It didn't matter if she wanted her quote "used", if it had been the result of a proper citation, why did Amazon suspend him? In fact it is not about her at all. Once again, the PR stuff from NvdL's corner misses that it was Amazon which took action, set the remedial terms, and reversed the suspension once the terms had been acted upon by NvdL. At the level of Amazon, it had nothing to do with anyone else but NvdL.
3) If she was "departing from the truth", why did NvdL plagiarize it and include it in the first version of his book?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I implied nothing at all, I simply observed a common behaviour.
If you want scurrilous, look to your own...
In one stroke you are claiming that women are all brainless twits whose brains can be induced to dribble out their ears so long as the bloke wears the right after-shave, or in my case, instead-of-shave since I sport at beard. I'm a bloke, and I am deeply offended that you would trivialise the other half of humanity in that way. As a man, I can say that I find this sort of misogyny utterly repulsive.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
She didn't tell me anything.
If someone has published something on the internet such as her article on Ground Report, then it is available to be used as long as the proper credit is given to the author. Pruett wouldn't have had a leg to stand on and neither would Amazon. But that ain't the way it went down, is it?
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
I could go looking for it and maybe I will when I've got more time. Right now, I can only quote your buddy, NvdL, for Deceit:
"Amanda is not thinking straight. She is drunk on coke and marijuana."
For an example of the most recent views of the ECHR on Convention Article 3, prohibition of demeaning treatment, one should see TIZIANA PENNINO v. ITALY 21759/15 12 Oct 2017. A violation of Article 3 is among the allegations Amanda Knox has raised against Italy in her case against them, which is currently listed as a "noteworthy pending case" by the ECHR in its Country Profile of Italy.
33. The Court reiterates, in particular, that in respect of a person who is deprived of his liberty, or, more generally, is confronted with law ‑ enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3....
35. On this latter point the Court has explained that where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries* occurring during such detention. The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the applicant. In the absence of such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government. That is justified by the fact that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them. In Bouyid the Court found that the same principle held true in the context of an identity check in a police station or a mere interview on such premises.
*This may apply as well to efforts by the authorities to break the will of a person.
See, for example, Jalloh v. Germany [GC] 54810/00 11/07/2006:
68. Treatment has been held by the Court to be “inhuman” because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering .... Treatment has been considered “degrading” when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance..., or when it was such as to drive the victim to act against his will or conscience....
33. The Court reiterates, in particular, that in respect of a person who is deprived of his liberty, or, more generally, is confronted with law ‑ enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3....
35. On this latter point the Court has explained that where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries* occurring during such detention. The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the applicant. In the absence of such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government. That is justified by the fact that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them. In Bouyid the Court found that the same principle held true in the context of an identity check in a police station or a mere interview on such premises.
*This may apply as well to efforts by the authorities to break the will of a person.
See, for example, Jalloh v. Germany [GC] 54810/00 11/07/2006:
68. Treatment has been held by the Court to be “inhuman” because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering .... Treatment has been considered “degrading” when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance..., or when it was such as to drive the victim to act against his will or conscience....
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
You have not come right out and said it but you have implied it on many occasions:
Your answer:
Cont 20, #2668
Your answer:
cont 20 #2681
Cont. 23 #1563
#3079 cont 20
You know there is no evidence of AK ever using cocaine, so you resort to this back door spin instead.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
An important aspect of this protect-Mignini-at-all-costs PR effort is to lie about the lies within it.
This PR effort is now entangled with making excuses for an "author", Nick van der Leek, who even other Mignini defenders think of as a plagiarist.
It would be troubling to listen to if the lies about lies in the PR effort weren't so laughable.
Stay tuned. There's no sign of this kind of posting letting up.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
It's like watching Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. You wonder how they can stand up there and spin, deny, divert and lie with a straight face.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Or lie about their lies.
TJMK complained about Amanda hiring a PR firm and the PR campaign waged on behalf of Amanda. TJMK and Vixen slavishly defend Mignini despite the fact Mignini is a total scumbag with a dubious history which meant TJMK was an PR tool for Mignini. Amanda was viciously attacked for using PR but TJMK felt it was perfectly acceptable to provide PR for a corrupt prosecutor. Yet another example of hypocrisy by PGP.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
The prosecution has a ready and willing PR company at their disposal that they don't even have to pay for: the media. The police/prosecutor/"sources close to the prosecution" give the media information that they want published. Naturally, only their side is given to the media. The public reads this and assumes it's all true and accurate without hearing any contradictory evidence. The defense is constantly trying to catch up with this tactic but the harm is already done. This is especially true in the early stages of an investigation. For example, the picture of the "bloody bathroom", the report of the running washing machine, Amanda's "lie" about the Harry Potter book, the "bloody footprints", Amanda smelling of sex, the bleach receipt, etc all swayed the public in the early stages of the investigation toward guilt. The defense is at an absolute disadvantage from day one and, even when the defendants hire someone to help them combat this prosecution advantage, they get attacked and accused of trying to manipulate and sway public opinion. But the police/prosecution are never seen as doing the exact same thing only they don't have to hire anyone and get it all for free.
So true! I remember that Dan Abrams of ABC gave a nightly 'analysis' of the case which wasn't analysis at all. He just regurgitated what Mignini was telling the press in Perugia.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,497
You forgot General Kelly.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
It used to be General Kelly, General Mattis, and Rex Tillerson who were keeping the US gv't from complete chaos. I never dreamed it would have been Kelly to make that, "two out of three ain't bad".
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,497
Oh, you didn't catch the speech a cople of days ago that General Kelly gave defending the Trumpster and lying.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
That's what I was referring to. Now it's Mattis and Tillerson between us and the deep blue sea.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Even with a video of what the congresswoman actually said, which completely contradicts Kelly, the WH is backing Kelly. As with the PGP, the truth doesn't matter. It's what they want to believe that is reality to them.
The ECHR and its parent organization, the Council of Europe (CoE) recently began providing a summary of the "supervisory actions" of the Committee of Ministers (which "supervises the execution" of ECHR judgments) in a Country Factsheet Profile - different from the one tracking noteworthy ECHR judgments - for each member State of the CoE.
For Italy, there is a long list of ongoing and closed Supervisions. Of relevance are enacted reforms attributed to closed Supervisions:
"Constitutional reform in 1999 confers constitutional rank to a number of requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (fair trial, adversarial process, equality of arms…).
Additional safeguards in 2001 for persons who made pre-trial statements and subsequently availed themselves of their right to remain silent; the use of such statements require the consent of all interested parties. Besides, it is no longer possible for someone to be convicted on the sole basis of
statements he/she was unable to cross-examine."
Also of interest:
For Italy:
Total number of cases transmitted for supervision since the entry into force of the Convention [26 Oct 1955] = 4120
Total number of cases closed by final resolution = 2004
For the UK (as a comparison):
Total number of cases transmitted for supervision since the entry into force of the Convention [03 Sep 1953] = 434
Total number of cases closed by final resolution = 418
Source:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/country-factsheets
See links to PDFs for the individual States
The reformed Italian Constitution includes the following; provisions relevant to the AK - RS case (because they were violated during one or more of the trial "stages") are highlighted:
Article 111
Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.
The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.
The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.
The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted. In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct.
All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.*
Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.
*Violated because the "reasoning" of the statement of reasons was arbitrary, for example, by including justifications of guilt which presumed physically impossible actions, such as a selective cleanup of DNA evidence.
Source for English text of Italian Constitution, Article 111:
https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf
For Italy, there is a long list of ongoing and closed Supervisions. Of relevance are enacted reforms attributed to closed Supervisions:
"Constitutional reform in 1999 confers constitutional rank to a number of requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (fair trial, adversarial process, equality of arms…).
Additional safeguards in 2001 for persons who made pre-trial statements and subsequently availed themselves of their right to remain silent; the use of such statements require the consent of all interested parties. Besides, it is no longer possible for someone to be convicted on the sole basis of
statements he/she was unable to cross-examine."
Also of interest:
For Italy:
Total number of cases transmitted for supervision since the entry into force of the Convention [26 Oct 1955] = 4120
Total number of cases closed by final resolution = 2004
For the UK (as a comparison):
Total number of cases transmitted for supervision since the entry into force of the Convention [03 Sep 1953] = 434
Total number of cases closed by final resolution = 418
Source:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/country-factsheets
See links to PDFs for the individual States
The reformed Italian Constitution includes the following; provisions relevant to the AK - RS case (because they were violated during one or more of the trial "stages") are highlighted:
Article 111
Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.
The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.
The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.
The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted. In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct.
All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.*
Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.
*Violated because the "reasoning" of the statement of reasons was arbitrary, for example, by including justifications of guilt which presumed physically impossible actions, such as a selective cleanup of DNA evidence.
Source for English text of Italian Constitution, Article 111:
https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf
Last edited:
- Status