Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Numbers]

Guilters repeatedly claim that police are always 100% honest and never fabricate evidence or falsely testify. Therefore, the guilters go on to claim, there could be no fabrication or false testimony by the police in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Yet there are absolutely certain examples from the US of police fabricating evidence and testifying falsely.

One such case was recently in the news. Here is the bottom line:

"The Michigan Innocence Clinic filed a motion asking St. Joseph County Prosecutor John McDonough to vacate McCann’s perjury conviction on the grounds that his no contest plea was induced by the police detective’s false testimony. On Thursday, McDonough agreed.

“It is ironic that after serving time in the county jail and being threatened with a potential life sentence, Ray McCann pleaded no contest to a charge of perjury when, in fact, he had told the truth and the charge itself was based on police fabrications,” Michigan Innocence Clinic Director David Moran told Wood TV. “I am grateful that Mr. McDonough chose to do the right thing and exonerate him.”"

Source: https://www.innocenceproject.org/michigan-man-cleared-of-perjury-in-2007-child-murder/

 

[Bill Williams]

It's no good Knox telling everybody about her terrible torture if her own attorney and intermediary at the US Embassy didn't think it material enough to complain formally.

Some people claim to know why you continue with this strawman. I wish I knew why.

But one thing is for sure. This behaviour is not meant to explore guilt or innocence, or to drill down on the conduct of prosecutors who have been sanctioned or cut-and-paste authors who've been banned from websites and have had their sales suspended for plagiarism on Amazon.

It appears to be an obsession about one person.

 

[TruthCalls]

You are confabulating a criminal complaint with an internal complaint.

For example, you get a ticket for speeding. You appeal. You win, or you lose.

At the same time, the cop who pulled you up used offensive terminology and was rude to you. You make a complaint via the police complaints process.

Is it clear yet?

What you cannot do is take that cop to court seven years later complaining of his behaviour if you never even bothered to register a complaint through the correct procedure at the time.

The court won't be impressed. You never gave the police an opportunity to offer you redress.

It's no good Knox telling everybody about her terrible torture if her own attorney and intermediary at the US Embassy didn't think it material enough to complain formally.

Yet another horrible analogy.

If you filed a complaint against the police for the offensive terminology and being rude, that would have no bearing on the police giving you the speeding ticket. You'd still go to court and argue your case regarding the speeding ticket but in no way could you argue the offensive terminology or being rude caused you to speed.

Here's a much better analogy;

There is a major traffic snarl and there's a police officer who is directing traffic. There is a school bus stopped and it's red lights are flashing but the officer waves you through. As you drive through another officer directs you to pull over and writes you a ticket for passing a stopped school bus. Now, I'm NOT going to file a complaint against the police for waving me past the school bus. What I am going to do is go to court and argue I am not guilty due to the fact that the police officer waved me through.

So, using this analogy... passing the stopped school bus is the calunnia charge, the police officer waving you through is the slap to the head (and the other inhuman and demeaning actions by the police).

Is it clear yet?

 

[Stacyhs]

It's no good Knox telling everybody about her terrible torture if her own attorney and intermediary at the US Embassy didn't think it material enough to complain formally.

I'm asking once again, although with little expectation, for you to provide a quote from Knox telling everyone anyone about her "terrible torture" or that she was "beaten up" (as you previously claimed).

it has not been lost on anyone who reads this forum regularly that you fail time and time again to cite your claims even when asked to do so. Common sense and logic dictates that anyone who wants to prove their point provides that supporting evidence. Common sense and logic also dictate that, when a person repeatedly and habitually fails to do so, that they simply cannot.

But I see you subscribe to Joseph Goebbels propaganda tactic of "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" (at least in PGP minds). As a person with a degree in psychology, you should be familiar with the "illusion of truth" effect. You should also be guarding against that instead of employing it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yet another horrible analogy.

If you filed a complaint against the police for the offensive terminology and being rude, that would have no bearing on the police giving you the speeding ticket. You'd still go to court and argue your case regarding the speeding ticket but in no way could you argue the offensive terminology or being rude caused you to speed.

Here's a much better analogy;

There is a major traffic snarl and there's a police officer who is directing traffic. There is a school bus stopped and it's red lights are flashing but the officer waves you through. As you drive through another officer directs you to pull over and writes you a ticket for passing a stopped school bus. Now, I'm NOT going to file a complaint against the police for waving me past the school bus. What I am going to do is go to court and argue I am not guilty due to the fact that the police officer waved me through.

So, using this analogy... passing the stopped school bus is the calunnia charge, the police officer waving you through is the slap to the head (and the other inhuman and demeaning actions by the police).
Is it clear yet?[/QUOTE]

Hope springs eternal.

 

[Numbers]

Yet another horrible analogy.

If you filed a complaint against the police for the offensive terminology and being rude, that would have no bearing on the police giving you the speeding ticket. You'd still go to court and argue your case regarding the speeding ticket but in no way could you argue the offensive terminology or being rude caused you to speed.

Here's a much better analogy;

There is a major traffic snarl and there's a police officer who is directing traffic. There is a school bus stopped and it's red lights are flashing but the officer waves you through. As you drive through another officer directs you to pull over and writes you a ticket for passing a stopped school bus. Now, I'm NOT going to file a complaint against the police for waving me past the school bus. What I am going to do is go to court and argue I am not guilty due to the fact that the police officer waved me through.

So, using this analogy... passing the stopped school bus is the calunnia charge, the police officer waving you through is the slap to the head (and the other inhuman and demeaning actions by the police).

Is it clear yet?

The guilters seem to be unaware that Mignini accused Knox of aggravated continued calunnia against the police and himself - and that means that she made officially recorded, formal complaints against the police and Mignini.

These complaints were, according to the charges against Knox, delivered by her during the Massei trial and Knox's subsequent appeals.

No matter the exact wording Knox used to express her complaints, Mignini officially and formally recognized them to consist of allegations of 4 stand-alone, major crimes, with potential sentences as long as 6 years or more, and 3 aggravating factors, which would increase the potential sentences.

Here's the tally of crimes that Amanda Knox OFFICIALLY COMPLAINED OF, ACCORDING TO THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING PROSECUTOR MIGNINI, in her statements and subsequent appeals to the court, relating to her interrogation, including the slaps, AS DOCUMENTED IN THE CALUNNIA CASE BROUGHT AGAINST KNOX BEFORE the FLORENCE COURT: 4 stand-alone crimes (CP Articles 368, 378, 479, and 611) and 3 aggravating factors to those crimes (CP Articles 61.9, 81.1, and 110).
In the motivation report of the final and definitive verdict of the Florence court in which Judge Boninsegna acquitted Amanda Knox of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini, the judge states: There is not, hence, sufficient evidence that the events did not occur as Knox reported, as regards the police.

 

[TruthCalls]

The guilters seem to be unaware that Mignini accused Knox of aggravated continued calunnia against the police and himself - and that means that she made officially recorded, formal complaints against the police and Mignini.

These complaints were, according to the charges against Knox, delivered by her during the Massei trial and Knox's subsequent appeals.

No matter the exact wording Knox used to express her complaints, Mignini officially and formally recognized them to consist of allegations of 4 stand-alone, major crimes, with potential sentences as long as 6 years or more, and 3 aggravating factors, which would increase the potential sentences.

Here's the tally of crimes that Amanda Knox OFFICIALLY COMPLAINED OF, ACCORDING TO THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING PROSECUTOR MIGNINI, in her statements and subsequent appeals to the court, relating to her interrogation, including the slaps, AS DOCUMENTED IN THE CALUNNIA CASE BROUGHT AGAINST KNOX BEFORE the FLORENCE COURT: 4 stand-alone crimes (CP Articles 368, 378, 479, and 611) and 3 aggravating factors to those crimes (CP Articles 61.9, 81.1, and 110).
In the motivation report of the final and definitive verdict of the Florence court in which Judge Boninsegna acquitted Amanda Knox of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini, the judge states: There is not, hence, sufficient evidence that the events did not occur as Knox reported, as regards the police.

Yes, but did she ever file form ITL9980-A4? ...because if not then, according to Vixen, there is no legal record of Amanda ever having said she was tortured by the police and that will render any ECHR appeal moot. Then again, Amanda never said she was tortured so maybe Vixen is on to something!

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, but did she ever file form ITL9980-A4? ...because if not then, according to Vixen, there is no legal record of Amanda ever having said she was tortured by the police and that will render any ECHR appeal moot. Then again, Amanda never said she was tortured so maybe Vixen is on to something!

Come on now! Vixen has told us that Knox was telling everybody about her terrible torture. We've all seen the quotes. Oh, wait....

 

[Stacyhs]

And now, ladies and gentlemen, from the alternate reality that is TJMK comes this:

Breaking News: Seems success in our push-back against the incessant fanning of bigotry against Italy by Amanda Knox. We're told that law groups and law schools complicit in enabling her fanning of bigotry, rather than getting to grips with the hard facts, are now asked to keep her role out of the news.

"We're told"? By whom? And who is doing the asking? A few diehard PGP? And are the law groups and law schools listening? I can smell the desperation wafting off this Front Page big fat nothing burger! TJMK should be renamed Comedy Central.

 

[bagels]

Lol they have no idea that people are just politely ignoring the schizophrenic SC report because it's obvious internal Italian political/procedural wackiness that has nothing to do with the case. It's not because they're ignorant that Amanda really was ruled a murderer in a secret shadow report but let go for no reason. It's more like, Ok Italy, this is the best you could do *pats you on the head* good job it's close enough to a real act of law for government work.

 

[bagels]

What law professors observe: Knox was found innocent but Italy had already finalized her conviction for another crime paradoxically incompatible with innocence so they just wrote a schizophrenic report impossibly rectifying these two opposing outcomes.

What PGP think they should have observed: Knox was secretly found guilty, but by coincidence her boyfriend of five days happened to be a deep level mafia son and called in favors on the nation's highest court to swing the verdict and blatantly document this corruption in a sub section of their report for no reason.

I can't believe nobody is taking the PGP position it's so much more reasonable

 

[Numbers]

Yes, but did she ever file form ITL9980-A4? ...because if not then, according to Vixen, there is no legal record of Amanda ever having said she was tortured by the police and that will render any ECHR appeal moot. Then again, Amanda never said she was tortured so maybe Vixen is on to something!

I actually believed that there must be some specific form to make a complaint in Italy until I read the procedures in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures.

 

[Vixen]

What law professors observe: Knox was found innocent guilty at trial but and Italy had already finalized her conviction for another crime paradoxically incompatible with innocence so they just wrote a schizophrenic report impossibly rectifying these two opposing outcomes and the only way to overturn this was by corruption.

What PGP PIP think they should have observed: Knox was secretly found guilty, but by coincidence her boyfriend of five days happened to be a deep level mafia son and called in favors on the nation's highest court to swing the verdict and blatantly document this corruption in a sub section of their report for no reason.

I can't believe nobody is taking the PGP PIP position it's so much more reasonable

FIFY

 

[bagels]

FIFY

Don't shoot the messenger

 

[Stacyhs]

How are those quotes from Knox complaining about her being "tortured" and "beaten up" coming, Vixen? Just curious!

P.S.: the fact you haven't managed to find and produce a single one should tell you something...

 

[TruthCalls]

What PGP PIP think they should have observed: Knox was secretly found guilty, but by coincidence her boyfriend of five days happened to be a deep level mafia son and called in favors on the nation's highest court to swing the verdict and blatantly document this corruption in a sub section of their report for no reason.

Since you considered this "fixed" I assume you consider this an accurate statement. I find this incredibly enlightening.

 

[Bill Williams]

How are those quotes from Knox complaining about her being "tortured" and "beaten up" coming, Vixen? Just curious!

P.S.: the fact you haven't managed to find and produce a single one should tell you something...

Those quotes are in the same file as the predicted apology from Sollecito and Gumbel to Mignini, for Mignini having to withdraw his defamation lawsuit against them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Since you considered this "fixed" I assume you consider this an accurate statement. I find this incredibly enlightening.

I find it incredibly disturbing.

 

[Vixen]

Yet another horrible analogy.

If you filed a complaint against the police for the offensive terminology and being rude, that would have no bearing on the police giving you the speeding ticket. You'd still go to court and argue your case regarding the speeding ticket but in no way could you argue the offensive terminology or being rude caused you to speed.

Here's a much better analogy;

There is a major traffic snarl and there's a police officer who is directing traffic. There is a school bus stopped and it's red lights are flashing but the officer waves you through. As you drive through another officer directs you to pull over and writes you a ticket for passing a stopped school bus. Now, I'm NOT going to file a complaint against the police for waving me past the school bus. What I am going to do is go to court and argue I am not guilty due to the fact that the police officer waved me through.

So, using this analogy... passing the stopped school bus is the calunnia charge, the police officer waving you through is the slap to the head (and the other inhuman and demeaning actions by the police).

Is it clear yet?

Extremely poor analogy. If the policeman 'waved you through', that becomes part of your defence in mitigation. However, you won't get far as even if 'a policeman waves you through', you are still expected to use your own eyes and judgement when driving.

In the UK part of driving theory (or at least it was when I took my driving test) is that you should never 'wave people across the road', especially young children, as you may be putting them in danger.

It's all very well motorists waving their hands and blinking and flashing at each other, but you ultimately are responsible to ensure you drive safely.

 

[TruthCalls]

FIFY

Extremely poor analogy. If the policeman 'waved you through', that becomes part of your defence in mitigation. However, you won't get far as even if 'a policeman waves you through', you are still expected to use your own eyes and judgement when driving.

In the UK part of driving theory (or at least it was when I took my driving test) is that you should never 'wave people across the road', especially young children, as you may be putting them in danger.

It's all very well motorists waving their hands and blinking and flashing at each other, but you ultimately are responsible to ensure you drive safely.

Perhaps you missed the whole point of the analogy. Let me dummy it down to crayon level... you are claiming you should not be found guilty of something that you admit you did because it was done as a result of actions by others.

I wasn't asking you to analyze the specifics of the analogy, but since you did... you are wrong. If a cop waves you through, that trumps traffic laws.

I also see, in true Vixen fashion, you're now distorting analogies. I didn't say *I* was waving someone across the road, nor did I say a *motorist* was waving hands, blinking or flashing others -- I said a POLICE OFFICER waves you through.

I am quite certain that if the court finds that the police officer waved me through and that is why I passed the school bus, then the ticket for passing the school bus will be thrown out. Similarly, I fully expect the ECHR, if it finds that Amanda's human rights were violated during the interrogation and that is what led to her naming Lumumba, they will find against the calunnia conviction.