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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is comprehensively wrong.

UK highway code
105
You MUST obey signals given by police officers, traffic officers, traffic wardens (download ‘Signals by authorised persons’) and signs used by school crossing patrols.
Click to expand...

And as for road courtesy? I hope to never encounter you on the roads.
 
Bill Williams said:
Amanda Knox will be hosting a Facebook produced, Vice series on women who are demonized in the media.

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/facebook-watch-vice-shows-amanda-knox-1202638829/

What do you bet the usual nutters prove the point by going all ga-ga about this.
Click to expand...


They need to contact the producers right away and show them that the final acquitting report is schizophrenic and nonsensical and use this to somehow support their argument that the Italian justice system isn't incompetent and chaotic and incapable of discerning justice :boggled:
 
bagels said:
They need to contact the producers right away and show them that the final acquitting report is schizophrenic and nonsensical and use this to somehow support their argument that the Italian justice system isn't incompetent and chaotic and incapable of discerning justice :boggled:
Click to expand...

If the nutterz go all Lucerfina on Vice, they may just get this series a second season even before the first show airs.

Imagine the content freely available from TJMK which already establishes the concept of the series. This program may never end!
 
Bill Williams said:
If the nutterz go all Lucerfina on Vice, they may just get this series a second season even before the first show airs.

Imagine the content freely available from TJMK which already establishes the concept of the series. This program may never end!
Click to expand...

They could get all the supporting material they need right here on ISF!
 
Planigale said:
The highlighted part is important. Knox is accused of making a 'false' allegation to "to the judicial authority or to another authority which is obliged to report it". So explicitly it is recognised that Knox had reported the alleged assault to an authority that was obliged to act on the report. However, other than bringing a charge of defamation calunnia {false accusation} there seems to have been no investigation into the substance of the claim.

Essentially what has happened is if you make a claim of abuse by the police, it will not be investigated, but you will be charged with making a false claim, a claim which is assumed to be false with no investigation.

But contrary to vixen's claim that no official complaint was made, the callunia case is entirely dependant on a complaint having been made. the mere fact of bringing the case means the Italian authorities accept an effective complaint of abuse by the police against Knox has been made.
Click to expand...

It's hard to understand why guilters are offering poorly-constructed analogies to explain what has been most simply and succinctly expressed in Planigale's post above. Perhaps the guilters fabricate such absurd reasoning because they have once more become aware that their arguments have no validity.

The charge against Amanda Knox of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police for her statements made in the Massei court and in subsequent appeals is clear evidence that she made a valid complaint and exhausted those remedies. Even if there had been no charge against Knox of calunnia against the police, by ECHR case-law (Grinenko v. Ukraine), she had validly sought an appropriate domestic remedy - and had exhausted that domestic remedy by her statement in court and in each subsequent appeal.
To be picky, the reference to "charge of defamation" above should be "charge of calunnia" if the reference is to the charge against Amanda Knox. Her parents, however, were accused of defamation (I believe in a civil action) by Mignini for their repeating her allegations of police abuse to a British journalist (Follain) who had these allegations published in the UK.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Huh!?

Which law school/group is this referring to?
Click to expand...

Bill, I was referring to TJMK's delusional claim on their Front Page that I quoted yesterday:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Bill Williams said:
Amanda Knox will be hosting a Facebook produced, Vice series on women who are demonized in the media.

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/facebook-watch-vice-shows-amanda-knox-1202638829/

What do you bet the usual nutters prove the point by going all ga-ga about this.
Click to expand...

Also see:
https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/amanda-knox-is-getting-her-own-show-from-vice-and-facebook.html

"Per a press release from Vice, the show will be a five-episode series called The Scarlet Letter Reports, “exploring the gendered nature of public shaming.” In it, Knox will interview such figures as Amber Rose and teen rape survivor Daisy Coleman. It will be developed by Broadly, Vice’s women’s site, and premiere on Facebook Watch.

“While on trial for a murder I didn’t commit, my prosecutor painted me as a sex-crazed femme fatale with magical powers to control men. The tabloids loved that story. So did the public. So did the jury. I lost years of my life to prison because of two-dimensional and misogynist stereotypes,” Knox said. “In The Scarlet Letter Reports, I’m hoping to re-humanize others who have been similarly shamed and vilified, and elevate the standard for how we think and talk about public women.”

Knox, then a student at University of Washington, was studying abroad in Perugia, Italy when she was accused of killing her roommate, Meredith Kercher in 2007. She was sentenced to 26 years in prison, served nearly four of them, and was officially exonerated in 2015."
 
Numbers said:
It's hard to understand why guilters are offering poorly-constructed analogies to explain what has been most simply and succinctly expressed in Planigale's post above. Perhaps the guilters fabricate such absurd reasoning because they have once more become aware that their arguments have no validity.

The charge against Amanda Knox of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police for her statements made in the Massei court and in subsequent appeals is clear evidence that she made a valid complaint and exhausted those remedies. Even if there had been no charge against Knox of calunnia against the police, by ECHR case-law (Grinenko v. Ukraine), she had validly sought an appropriate domestic remedy - and had exhausted that domestic remedy by her statement in court and in each subsequent appeal.

To be picky, the reference to "charge of defamation" above should be "charge of calunnia" if the reference is to the charge against Amanda Knox. Her parents, however, were accused of defamation (I believe in a civil action) by Mignini for their repeating her allegations of police abuse to a British journalist (Follain) who had these allegations published in the UK.
Click to expand...

Now that Grinder is not here, someone has to be picky. May as well be you!

But to second the motion - Planigale's post above is the most succinct way of describing the judicial mess created.... first by Rudy being tried separately, and then Sollecito's/Knox's processes being so convoluted.

I have no doubt that the 1st Chambers-Chieffi panel of Cassazione would have convicted on everything, except - IIRC - Cassazione can only reverse a conviction, it cannot reverse an acquittal, but must refer back to the 2nd Grade court. In this case, the Chieffi panel had virtually ordered that the 2nd Grade court in Florence return a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence.

But Planigale puts it all more succinctly; of the mess which the 5th Chambers received in March 2015.
 
Pacal said:
The show sounds like it could be interesting. The comments display a truly amazing level of ignorance and hateful bile.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Yet it's pretty much a lock that screen shots of things like this make it to the show.....
 
One comment about the contents of Knox's book clearly shows the commenter hasn't even read it but feels entitled to make false claims about what it says. Anyone who has actually read the book recognizes the comments are not based on truth.
 
Bill Williams said:
Now that Grinder is not here, someone has to be picky. May as well be you!

But to second the motion - Planigale's post above is the most succinct way of describing the judicial mess created.... first by Rudy being tried separately, and then Sollecito's/Knox's processes being so convoluted.

I have no doubt that the 1st Chambers-Chieffi panel of Cassazione would have convicted on everything, except - IIRC - Cassazione can only reverse a conviction, it cannot reverse an acquittal, but must refer back to the 2nd Grade court. In this case, the Chieffi panel had virtually ordered that the 2nd Grade court in Florence return a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence.

But Planigale puts it all more succinctly; of the mess which the 5th Chambers received in March 2015.
Click to expand...

This is correct. That is, the CSC can quash a conviction or an acquittal, but it can deliver an acquittal without referral after quashing a conviction, if it considers that appropriate, but cannot deliver a conviction without referral after quashing an acquittal. According to ECHR case-law, a convicting court which is not merely affirming an immediately previous conviction by a lower court but is reversing an acquittal must see and hear the accused (defendants). Since the CSC only reviews documents and does not hear testimony from witnesses or the accused, any CSC conviction of an immediately previous low court acquittal would be a violation of the Convention.
 
Stacyhs said:
One comment about the contents of Knox's book clearly shows the commenter hasn't even read it but feels entitled to make false claims about what it says. Anyone who has actually read the book recognizes the comments are not based on truth.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember reading those same false claims somewhere else.....
 
Those are some really disgusting comments under the DailyFail article. I guess they prove the point.
My fave: "Only a true demon would deny that she is a demon."
 
:eye-poppi
whoanellie said:
I seem to remember reading those same false claims somewhere else.....
Click to expand...

Hmmm...now that you mention it...

And those claims were proven false with actual quotes from the book and the poster's failure to provide any quotes supporting otherwise. Amazing, innit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom