snoop_doxie
Graduate Poster
When I read these absolute fabrications about someone that the poster never ever knew in her life, it is mind boggling.
Can't talk about the forensic science?
Make up salacious details about the people involved.
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27
- Thread starter Stacyhs
- Start date
- Status
When I read these absolute fabrications about someone that the poster never ever knew in her life, it is mind boggling.
Can't talk about the forensic science?
Make up salacious details about the people involved.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,400
It is mind boggling.
Virtually everything you hear from the PGP is salacious stories about the defendants even though they are either basically normal stuff you could expect out of most college age kids. Or the stories are just wild fabrications.
They rarely talk about the forensics other than to dismiss the expertise of world class scientists.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Where is Madison Paxton now? Take a look at her FB page Planigale provided a link to and where she is still supporting Amanda and where Amanda and Raffaele post. So much for your innuendo.
So now you speak for all young Brits? It doesn't matter why the British girls didn't care for Amanda. Has it ever entered your mind that maybe Amanda didn't care to hang around with them? She was friends with Meredith. As I said, Amanda wasn't interested in chumming around with a bunch of English speakers. She was making her own Italian speaking friends.
"Amanda was on a three-month bumming around Europe tour for sex and drugs and rock and roll"
Your ignorance is apparent once more. Her plan was to improve her Italian by studying in Perugia for nine months, then to attend a WSU sponsored literary program in Rome in June.
How easily you condemn Amanda for "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" when Meredith was having sex, smoking pot, drinking, and partying as well. Such blatant hypocrisy.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
"We see this in John Douglas' own account"? Another "fact" pulled straight from your ...well, we all know where. Provide evidence...if you can.
You really can't see just how ludicrous your "gun for hire" nonsense is, can you? You really think that Douglas and Gill, two very highly respected men in their fields who spent a lifetime earning that respect, would become "guns for hire" for someone they did not know and had no connection to? You are so deep into your fantasy world that you actually believe that nonsense rather than accept that they came to the conclusions they did based on their professional experience and knowledge.
"No evidence, just John Douglas' say-so."
Um, no. John Douglas' conclusions are based on years as an FBI profiler. Remember that it was the carabinieri themselves who came to him regarding the Monster of Florence profile.
"When we further note his best chum is the bitter Doug Preston"
No, "we" don't note any such thing. Once again you claim that Preston and Douglas are "chums" with no evidence whatsoever.
"...it all beomes clear his support for Knox is merely based on a PR campaign against Mignini, because a two-bit pulp fiction writer - Preston - got booted out of Italy for trying to obstruct justice in the MOF case"
LOL! Preston has several best sellers on the LA Times and NY Times Lists and a second book being made into a movie. There's a "two bit" fiction writer around, but it sure isn't Preston! Jealousy is not a becoming trait.
Exactly what did Preston do that was "obstructing justice"? Or do you honestly believe that Spezi was the MofF and that he and Preston planted a gun to mislead the police? Remember, every single one of the numerous charges ever levelled against Spezi by Mignini was throw out. There was a vendetta, all right...but it wasn't by Douglas, Spezi, or Preston.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Please preserve us from people who just make things up continually. Back to the old "Amanda claimed to have invented sex" nonsense again I see. No matter how many times you are asked to provide evidence of this, you never, ever do. It doesn't take a Mensa member to figure out why that is.
So sex stops after marriage, does it? Happily, that hasn't been my experience after 35 years of marriage. But maybe for some, it does stop.
Edited by Agatha:
Edited for rule 12
By the way, being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with love of family. No doubt. Or do you think only believers love their families?
Last edited by a moderator:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
And who she retweets and who posts there: Amanda and Raffaele.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Doesn't look like she's done anything much on Twitter for a year, so I don't think looking at her Twitter page is very informative.
I have done a Google search on "Amanda Knox assolta da calunnie a polizia" to look for any other interesting Italian media articles.
Here's one that reports on the ECHR Communication of Knox v. Italy to Italy:
"Meredith Kercher, accolto il ricorso di Amanda Knox alla Corte di Strasburgo: “Processo iniquo e maltrattamenti”
La studentessa americana era finita a giudizio, tra l'altro, anche per la calunnia nei confronti degli agenti che l'avevano interrogata, ma era stata assolta. Il giudice ha scritto tra l'altro che l'inchiesta era stata caratterizzata da "numerose irritualità procedurali" e dalla durata "ossessiva" degli interrogatori
La Corte europea dei diritti umani ha accolto in via preliminare il ricorso contro l'Italia presentato da Amanda Knox , la ragazza prosciolta in Cassazione dall'accusa di aver partecipato all'uccisione di Meredith Kercher . La giovane sostiene di aver subito un processo iniquo e di essere stata maltrattata durante l'interrogatorio. La Corte di Strasburgo ha ritenuto valido il dossier presentato dai legali della Knox ed ha comunicato il ricorso al governo italiano affinché possa difendersi."
Source: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/20...rgo-processo-iniquo-e-maltrattamenti/2739101/
Google translation with my help:
Meredith Kercher: the Strasbourg Court welcomed Amanda Knox's application on: "Injury and ill-treatment"
The trial of the American student, for among other things, the alleged false accusations against the agents who had questioned her, has ended because she has been {finally} acquitted.
The judge wrote, among other things, that the investigation was characterized by "numerous procedural irregularities" and the "obsessive" duration of the interrogations. The European Court of Human Rights has initially received the application against Italy submitted by Amanda Knox, the girl who was acquitted in the Supreme Court on charges of participating in the killing of Meredith Kercher. The young woman claims to have been subjected to an unfair trial and to have been mistreated during the interrogation. The Court of Strasbourg considered the dossier submitted by Knox's lawyers to be valid and informed the Italian Government that it could {choose to} defend itself.
Here's one that reports on the ECHR Communication of Knox v. Italy to Italy:
"Meredith Kercher, accolto il ricorso di Amanda Knox alla Corte di Strasburgo: “Processo iniquo e maltrattamenti”
La studentessa americana era finita a giudizio, tra l'altro, anche per la calunnia nei confronti degli agenti che l'avevano interrogata, ma era stata assolta. Il giudice ha scritto tra l'altro che l'inchiesta era stata caratterizzata da "numerose irritualità procedurali" e dalla durata "ossessiva" degli interrogatori
La Corte europea dei diritti umani ha accolto in via preliminare il ricorso contro l'Italia presentato da Amanda Knox , la ragazza prosciolta in Cassazione dall'accusa di aver partecipato all'uccisione di Meredith Kercher . La giovane sostiene di aver subito un processo iniquo e di essere stata maltrattata durante l'interrogatorio. La Corte di Strasburgo ha ritenuto valido il dossier presentato dai legali della Knox ed ha comunicato il ricorso al governo italiano affinché possa difendersi."
Source: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/20...rgo-processo-iniquo-e-maltrattamenti/2739101/
Google translation with my help:
Meredith Kercher: the Strasbourg Court welcomed Amanda Knox's application on: "Injury and ill-treatment"
The trial of the American student, for among other things, the alleged false accusations against the agents who had questioned her, has ended because she has been {finally} acquitted.
The judge wrote, among other things, that the investigation was characterized by "numerous procedural irregularities" and the "obsessive" duration of the interrogations. The European Court of Human Rights has initially received the application against Italy submitted by Amanda Knox, the girl who was acquitted in the Supreme Court on charges of participating in the killing of Meredith Kercher. The young woman claims to have been subjected to an unfair trial and to have been mistreated during the interrogation. The Court of Strasbourg considered the dossier submitted by Knox's lawyers to be valid and informed the Italian Government that it could {choose to} defend itself.
Last edited:
Will all participants please make a much greater effort to discuss the arguments rather than those people making them.
Will you all kindly remain on topic too; if there are other issues that you wish to discuss, please do so in the appropriate existing threads or open a new one.
Will you all kindly remain on topic too; if there are other issues that you wish to discuss, please do so in the appropriate existing threads or open a new one.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Agatha
bagels
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,273
The Italians are lucky to have such an easy job defending themselves all they have to do is roll the tape of Amanda lying her ass off and...oh
Here's a little puzzle suggested by the questions of a poster on another forum.
Did the Nencini appeal court violate Italian procedural laws, CPP Articles 648 and 649, by provisionally convicting Knox and Sollecito on the original Charge D, that is, of the theft of 300 euros, 2 credit cards, and 2 cell phones from Kercher?
Examination of available court records make it clear that the Nencini court did violate those procedural laws.
Charge D alleged the theft, by Knox and Sollecito, of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones from Kercher.
Massei indeed acquitted Knox and Sollecito of part of Charge D (the theft of 300 euros and two credit cards) on the specification "because the fact [act of the crime] had not occurred" ("perche il fatto non sussiste"), under CPP Article 530 (the paragraph not being referenced, for those interested in that alleged controversy.)
However, Massei convicted them of the "residual" part of Charge D, the theft of two cell phones.
An appeal of the Massei verdict and sentence by the prosecution is available on www.amandaknoxcase.com. This appeal, by Mignini and Comodi, dated 13 April 2010, is available in Italian and English translation. There is no mention of the Charge D verdict at all in that appeal. The entire appeal is devoted to arguing that there should have been no extenuating circumstances granted to Knox and Sollecito by the Massei court in their sentence, and thus the sentence should have been increased. This suggests that the revision of Charge D to theft of the telephones only was finalized by the time the Hellmann court heard the appeal.
Only the residual part of Charge D appears at the beginning of the Hellmann motivation report, that is, the theft of two cell phones. The theft of the 300 euros and the two credit cards are intentionally omitted (the word "OMISSIS" [= omission, deletion] is substituted for those items). Hellmann acquitted on this revised Charge D with the specification "because the accused had not committed the act". Hellmann did not discuss the theft of the money or credit cards in the motivation report. These are certain indications that there was no prosecution appeal relating to Massei's acquittal for these two elements of Charge D.
Now the Chieffi verdict quashed all the Hellmann acquittals, including the acquittal for Charge D, only maintaining the conviction of Knox on Charge F, "simple" [rather than aggravated] calunnia against Lumumba. As far as I can tell from a brief review of each page of the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report, nowhere in the report are the charges written out. I am unsure whether the Chieffi verdict reinstated Charge D only for the theft of the two cell phones or whether it reinstated it for the full Charge D as it appeared in Massei. The CSC would not have the authority to reinstate the final and definitive acquittals on the two elements of Charge D, because it had become final and definitive due to the failure of the prosecution to timely appeal.
For the Nencini verdict, the motivation report repeats all the charges, including Charge D, as they first appeared in the Massei report, so that Charge D includes the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. This inclusion was a violation of Italian procedural law CPP Article 648.
The Nencini verdict goes on to convict Knox and Sollecito of all the original elements of Charge D. This was therefore a violation of Italian procedural law CPP Article 649.
At any rate, the final, definitive verdict of the Marasca CSC panel acquits Knox and Sollecito on all charges including Charge D, except Charge B, carrying a knife, which is dismissed as past the statute of limitations, and thus in effect an acquittal, while reaffirming the conviction of Knox on Charge F, but only for simple calunnia with the Hellmann court's sentence (Nencini had convicted her of aggravated calunnia with an increased sentence). The Marasca motivation report lists Charge D as including the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. I am relatively confident that even if there had been a violation of Italian procedural law in listing the full original Charge D in Nencini, Marasca would likewise list it that way to achieve legal certainty. This would be consistent, in part, with the application of CPP Article 649, paragraph 2, which provides that a judge recognizing a case of double jeopardy must immediately dismiss or acquit that case. Marasca, however, does not fulfill the other obligation of CPP Article 649.2, which is to specify the incident of double jeopardy in the motivation report.
Did the Nencini appeal court violate Italian procedural laws, CPP Articles 648 and 649, by provisionally convicting Knox and Sollecito on the original Charge D, that is, of the theft of 300 euros, 2 credit cards, and 2 cell phones from Kercher?
Examination of available court records make it clear that the Nencini court did violate those procedural laws.
Charge D alleged the theft, by Knox and Sollecito, of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones from Kercher.
Massei indeed acquitted Knox and Sollecito of part of Charge D (the theft of 300 euros and two credit cards) on the specification "because the fact [act of the crime] had not occurred" ("perche il fatto non sussiste"), under CPP Article 530 (the paragraph not being referenced, for those interested in that alleged controversy.)
However, Massei convicted them of the "residual" part of Charge D, the theft of two cell phones.
An appeal of the Massei verdict and sentence by the prosecution is available on www.amandaknoxcase.com. This appeal, by Mignini and Comodi, dated 13 April 2010, is available in Italian and English translation. There is no mention of the Charge D verdict at all in that appeal. The entire appeal is devoted to arguing that there should have been no extenuating circumstances granted to Knox and Sollecito by the Massei court in their sentence, and thus the sentence should have been increased. This suggests that the revision of Charge D to theft of the telephones only was finalized by the time the Hellmann court heard the appeal.
Only the residual part of Charge D appears at the beginning of the Hellmann motivation report, that is, the theft of two cell phones. The theft of the 300 euros and the two credit cards are intentionally omitted (the word "OMISSIS" [= omission, deletion] is substituted for those items). Hellmann acquitted on this revised Charge D with the specification "because the accused had not committed the act". Hellmann did not discuss the theft of the money or credit cards in the motivation report. These are certain indications that there was no prosecution appeal relating to Massei's acquittal for these two elements of Charge D.
Now the Chieffi verdict quashed all the Hellmann acquittals, including the acquittal for Charge D, only maintaining the conviction of Knox on Charge F, "simple" [rather than aggravated] calunnia against Lumumba. As far as I can tell from a brief review of each page of the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report, nowhere in the report are the charges written out. I am unsure whether the Chieffi verdict reinstated Charge D only for the theft of the two cell phones or whether it reinstated it for the full Charge D as it appeared in Massei. The CSC would not have the authority to reinstate the final and definitive acquittals on the two elements of Charge D, because it had become final and definitive due to the failure of the prosecution to timely appeal.
For the Nencini verdict, the motivation report repeats all the charges, including Charge D, as they first appeared in the Massei report, so that Charge D includes the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. This inclusion was a violation of Italian procedural law CPP Article 648.
The Nencini verdict goes on to convict Knox and Sollecito of all the original elements of Charge D. This was therefore a violation of Italian procedural law CPP Article 649.
At any rate, the final, definitive verdict of the Marasca CSC panel acquits Knox and Sollecito on all charges including Charge D, except Charge B, carrying a knife, which is dismissed as past the statute of limitations, and thus in effect an acquittal, while reaffirming the conviction of Knox on Charge F, but only for simple calunnia with the Hellmann court's sentence (Nencini had convicted her of aggravated calunnia with an increased sentence). The Marasca motivation report lists Charge D as including the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. I am relatively confident that even if there had been a violation of Italian procedural law in listing the full original Charge D in Nencini, Marasca would likewise list it that way to achieve legal certainty. This would be consistent, in part, with the application of CPP Article 649, paragraph 2, which provides that a judge recognizing a case of double jeopardy must immediately dismiss or acquit that case. Marasca, however, does not fulfill the other obligation of CPP Article 649.2, which is to specify the incident of double jeopardy in the motivation report.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
On Nov. 11, for the 10th anniversary of MK's murder, Mignini appeared as a guest speaker at a public discussion for a book titled "Reperto 36" by Luca and Alvaro Fiorucci. This book, published in 2015, is about the MK case from a judicial perspective. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Mignini to reveal the "apology" TJMK alleges RS and Gumbel have to make to him regarding "Honor 'Bound". But it didn't. Hmmmm......
Last edited:
The Marasca CSC panel motivation report does have these comments about the Nencini appeal court's use of the theft of the money and credit cards, showing that Marasca is aware that the alleged theft of these items never occurred, in terms of Italian final judicial truth; Marasca criticizes as well some other alleged items of evidence:
"Furthermore, it is glaringly illogical - and also scarcely respectful of trial facts - to reconstruct the motive of the murder {by the fact-finding judge, Nencini} on the basis of alleged disagreements between Kercher and Knox, intensified also by the grievance the English girl had towards the flatmate for having the latter let Guede into the house, who had improperly used the bathroom (page 312). The “truth” offered by the Ivorian in one of the statements made at his trial (and usable, as previously said, exclusively for what does not concern the responsibilities of others) is, instead, another. The young man was in the bathroom when, according to him, he heard Kercher arguing with another person, whose voice he perceived as being female, and so the reason of the quarrel could not certainly be the use he had made of the bathroom.
Also illogical and contradictory is the argument that, in an attempt to give substance to those disagreements (moreover belied by other testimonies), he {the fact-finding judge, Nencini} does not hesitate to retrieve the hypothesis of the theft of money and credit cards that Kercher would allegedly have blamed on Knox, in spite of the fact that Knox, as well as Sollecito, had been acquitted for the charge of theft, limited to the aforementioned goods, because “the fact does not exist” (page 316)."
Source: Marasca CSC panel motivation report, English translation, page 44.
Also, from page 55 of the Marasca motivation report, Marasca notes that Charge D only covers the alleged theft of the two cell phones:
"9.4.3. It can easily be observed that the conclusion that there was a lack of an evidentiary framework consistent and sufficient to support the prosecution’s hypothesis regarding the more serious case of murder certainly reverberates on the residual, secondary accusations, listed here, d) theft of mobile phones and e) simulation of a crime."
Last edited:
I remember this as a rumor, but what was the source? I doubt it was a media statement by Hellmann himself.
Here's a statement from Hellmann after the Marasca CSC panel final acquittal; it has no mention of his regretting the calunnia conviction.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/hellmann-interview-march-30-2015/
I believe this is the original article for the above translation:
http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/20...o_anche_dai_magistrati_-110835508/?refresh_ce
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
IIRC, Mignini's first involvement with the MoF case was when he began looking into Narducci's death in 2001. If Douglas provided a profile of the killer in 1989 how could it possibly have been a deliberate contradiction of Mignini?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
All that argues for is the severe vindictiveness displayed by Douglas. It was so profound, he launched his campaign against Mignini 12 years before even hearing about the guy!!
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
I knew Douglas was good but this is just a whole new level of impressive!
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Don't screw with the international Masonic/US Media supertanker. If they can pay off Douglas, Moore, Hendry, Kassin, Dr. Gill, and all the leading luminaries in their respective fields - as well as cow every other expert who has refused to come forward to support not-a-doctor Stefanoni....
.... indeed, even get to the two experts who did say something nice about Stefanoni at trial, while at the same time slipping into their testimony such acknowledgments that Stefanoni had not followed international protocols (did I say that that had been the admission of those who had said nice things about Stefanoni?).....
It just shows the level of the conspiracy that led to Claudio Hellmann driving around expensive sportscars.
Buying off one of the Italian Supreme Court Chambers does not come cheap. Neither does buying off John Douglas, who had spoken out against Giuliano Mignini, 12 years before even hearing about him! As you say, TruthCalls, Douglas is that good, and it is only the Masons and US Media who have that kind of money to pervert the top.
No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,400
Douglas must be a mean SOB to hold a grudge against someone for a decade before he even knew the person existed.
Remind me not to cross Detective Douglas.
- Status