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

[Vixen]

Telling the truth, you mean? I get away with it quite easily. As you would too, were you ever inclined to join me.

No, how do you get away with evading protocol?

 

[Matthew Best]

No, how do you get away with evading protocol?

Telling the truth, you mean?

 

[Stacyhs]

I am sure the person I can think of can manage.

What is so laughable here is that you insult someone as a "doddering old fool" who is two years younger than your "can do no wrong" Mignini and who is younger than someone I could mention if not for ISF rules.

After Bruno's embarrassingly defective judgment, in the Kercher case, they moved him sideways out of the courts swiftly to a desk job where he can do no more damage, whilst saving face, as he got jolly litigious when he was charged with Mafia activity.

LOL! Your attempt to twist the truth is truly impressive but not surprising. It's par for the course. Unless, of course, you really think being unanimously approved as the President of the Chamber of Cassation is a "sideways" move to a "desk job". How did the article describe it? Oh, yes, a promotion "which marks an important stage in a bright and rewarding career". The article then goes on to describe what that career included. Some of the highlights:

For three years he presided over the Corte d'assise reggina, defining three processes of national importance: the "Cosa Nostra" trial for the murder of the magistrate Nino Scopelliti; two trials against Calabrian crime, for the murders of the President of the Ferrovie dello Stato Vico Ligato and the baron Antonino Cordopatri.
Winner of a competition for titles and processional merits, in 1998 Dr. Bruno has moved to Rome, at the Office of the Massimario (study office) of the Court of Cassation. Appointed director, he was assigned to the Fifth Criminal Section where he was involved, as a member of the judging panel or speaker, some of the most important trials of Italian judicial history: the G8 of Genoa, the massacre of Piazza della Loggia of Brescia, countless processes of organized crime and terrorism; the murders of Marta Russo, Marco Biagi, Merdith Kercher and Chiara Poggi.
He was the author of judgments of great importance, such as the sentence for the murder of prof.Marco Biagi by the Red Brigades; the sentence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher; several rulings on corporate and bankruptcy matters, most recently on the subject of "false valuation".

Since 2013, it is part of the United Penal Sections, the highest jurisdictional body of the Supreme Court, called to rule on the jurisprudential contrasts between the different sections and on legal issues of particular importance.
Since 1986 he has also been a member of the tax commission, now president of the section of the provincial commission of Rome.

http://www.strill.it/citta/2016/04/c...di-cassazione/

No matter how much you twist yourself into a pretzel, you cannot truthfully claim that Bruno is a "doddering old fool" who was laterally "moved to a desk job", much less due to his decision on the Knox/Sollecito case.

 

[Stacyhs]

Rudy Guede did the crime and did the time. For sure he is claiming he is innocent, but as soon as he joins Knox and Raff on the 'Wrongful conviction' bandwagon, then decent people with a sense of morals will complain in no uncertain terms.

And Knox, according to the Italian courts "did the crime and did the time" for calunnia. Yet Quennell et al. are conducting a harassment campaign against her falsely claiming, without providing a scintilla of evidence, that she is "inciting hate crimes against many in Italy", "committing hate crimes with these demonizing lie-filled speeches", and "As a direct result stalking and threats in Perugia have been on the up and up. Several crazies have lunged at Mignini, and the Carabinieri is ordered to keep a sharper eye out for guns". REALLY? Quennell is taking a ride on the Loony Tunes Express.

As for Guede "joining Knox and Sollecito on the 'wrongful conviction' bandwagon", may I remind you that he was convicted of murder whereas Knox and Sollecito were acquitted?

Did you read Bruno's gibberings? He can barely string one thought with another in any coherent form.

He claims the pair are annulled because of 'investigative flaws' and 'press influence', when these were never issues under appeal. The issue of contamination and police bias was already settled by Chieffi when he dismissed Taggliabracchi's submissions that Dr. Stefanoni was 'suspect-centric'.

Res judicata. Is Bruno to decide the issue again?

Good Lord. . So, according to you, the Superior Council of the Magistracy unanimously promotes to President of the Chamber of Cassation a "doddering old fool" who can "barely string one thought with another in any coherent form" and who is "so legally ignorant/senile" that he doesn't know what his job is as a Supreme Court judge. Do I have that straight?

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Rudy Guede did the crime and did the time. For sure he is claiming he is innocent, but as soon as he joins Knox and Raff on the 'Wrongful conviction' bandwagon, then decent people with a sense of morals will complain in no uncertain terms.

If there was such a thing, other than in your twisted imagination, as a "wrongful conviction bandwagon", Guede wouldn't be able to join since virtually nobody considers him wrongfully convicted. OTOH, Knox's involvement in the Innocence Project could help someone else down the road avoid being wrongfully convicted. And for the lunatics who think that's "fraudulent" in any way, then name one person within this realm who has criticized Knox's efforts. One exoneree, one IP lawyer, anybody who has legitimate standing, who has said Knox doesn't belong.

As for "decent people", those aren't to be found in the TJMK bizarro world judging from the reaction therein to Guede's ridiculous Leosini interview a year or so ago. The fawning over Guede there by the (very few) regulars was sickening. Any complaining about Guede should have been done a long time ago - with respect to why he curiously didn't testify against Knox and Sollecito. Oh, wait...that would have meant being cross-examined by their lawyers. Who would have destroyed him on the stand. Actually any 3rd-year law student would have done so.

As for "doing the time," I wouldn't consider Guede's sentence remotely adequate for what he, alone, did to Kercher. But certain stakeholders, who shall be nameless here, have been bewilderingly quiet regarding this.

 

[Vixen]

What is so laughable here is that you insult someone as a "doddering old fool" who is two years younger than your "can do no wrong" Mignini and who is younger than someone I could mention if not for ISF rules.



LOL! Your attempt to twist the truth is truly impressive but not surprising. It's par for the course. Unless, of course, you really think being unanimously approved as the President of the Chamber of Cassation is a "sideways" move to a "desk job". How did the article describe it? Oh, yes, a promotion "which marks an important stage in a bright and rewarding career". The article then goes on to describe what that career included. Some of the highlights:


http://www.strill.it/citta/2016/04/c...di-cassazione/

No matter how much you twist yourself into a pretzel, you cannot truthfully claim that Bruno is a "doddering old fool" who was laterally "moved to a desk job", much less due to his decision on the Knox/Sollecito case.

What ISF member is Bruno younger than?

How do you get away with it?

 

[Vixen]

And Knox, according to the Italian courts "did the crime and did the time" for calunnia. Yet Quennell et al. are conducting a harassment campaign against her falsely claiming, without providing a scintilla of evidence, that she is "inciting hate crimes against many in Italy", "committing hate crimes with these demonizing lie-filled speeches", and "As a direct result stalking and threats in Perugia have been on the up and up. Several crazies have lunged at Mignini, and the Carabinieri is ordered to keep a sharper eye out for guns". REALLY? Quennell is taking a ride on the Loony Tunes Express.

As for Guede "joining Knox and Sollecito on the 'wrongful conviction' bandwagon", may I remind you that he was convicted of murder whereas Knox and Sollecito were acquitted?

Good Lord. . So, according to you, the Superior Council of the Magistracy unanimously promotes to President of the Chamber of Cassation a "doddering old fool" who can "barely string one thought with another in any coherent form" and who is "so legally ignorant/senile" that he doesn't know what his job is as a Supreme Court judge. Do I have that straight?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Netflix film and Knox' usual patter along the lines of demonising Mignini, the police and Italy as being obsessed with her promiscuity and coercing her into a false confession?

Truth is she had a fair trial and was fairly convicted at the end of it. Yes, there were errors - there are human errors in virutually every trial - but ultimately justice prevailed and the claim that whole panels of judges were prejudiced against her is just laughable.

The aggravated murder conviction was upheld on appeal.

This, too, consisted of a panel of judges.

The anullment was by a retiring judge and one suffering from psychological symptoms, who had great trouble putting together a coherent written reasons. The two sat for just three days, with Raff's barrister, Bongiorno getting two and a half days to present her skeleton, as compared to everybody eles's 20 minutes each.

 

[Vixen]

If there was such a thing, other than in your twisted imagination, as a "wrongful conviction bandwagon", Guede wouldn't be able to join since virtually nobody considers him wrongfully convicted. OTOH, Knox's involvement in the Innocence Project could help someone else down the road avoid being wrongfully convicted. And for the lunatics who think that's "fraudulent" in any way, then name one person within this realm who has criticized Knox's efforts. One exoneree, one IP lawyer, anybody who has legitimate standing, who has said Knox doesn't belong.

As for "decent people", those aren't to be found in the TJMK bizarro world judging from the reaction therein to Guede's ridiculous Leosini interview a year or so ago. The fawning over Guede there by the (very few) regulars was sickening. Any complaining about Guede should have been done a long time ago - with respect to why he curiously didn't testify against Knox and Sollecito. Oh, wait...that would have meant being cross-examined by their lawyers. Who would have destroyed him on the stand. Actually any 3rd-year law student would have done so.

As for "doing the time," I wouldn't consider Guede's sentence remotely adequate for what he, alone, did to Kercher. But certain stakeholders, who shall be nameless here, have been bewilderingly quiet regarding this.

I don't wish to burst the bubble you are in, but even the doddering old fool Bruno spelt it out large that Amanda Knox covered up for Rudy Guede.

If your heroine covers up for murderer/rapist Rudy, then you should be venting your spleen in the right direction. What decent person covers up for a murderer/rapist? And washes off the victim's blood from her hands and fails to come to the aid of her housemate in any way whatsoever?

Not my findings, these are the findings of the final Supreme Court.

You think such a person should be paid US$5,000 to put up a ham performance with more wood than Heals of being the victim of misogny and Roman Catholic prosecutors. Complete with rehearsed yelps and sobs.

 

[bagels]

I don't wish to burst the bubble you are in, but even the doddering old fool Bruno spelt it out large that Amanda Knox covered up for Rudy Guede.

If your heroine covers up for murderer/rapist Rudy, then you should be venting your spleen in the right direction. What decent person covers up for a murderer/rapist? And washes off the victim's blood from her hands and fails to come to the aid of her housemate in any way whatsoever?

Not my findings, these are the findings of the final Supreme Court.

You think such a person should be paid US$5,000 to put up a ham performance with more wood than Heals of being the victim of misogny and Roman Catholic prosecutors. Complete with rehearsed yelps and sobs.

On a scale of 1-10 how mad are you that Amanda Knox gets paid to tour the country making fun of Italian idiots while you have to entertain the five of us still posting here for free?

Life isn't fair is it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Such selective memory. Let me remind you:
guilty as charged, and not upheld by the Hellmann Appeal Court.
Nencini Appeal Court? Thrown out by the Supreme Court with no remand to another appeal court. Done and done.

Doddering old fools? Are you still claiming Marasca was an octogenarian? Marasca was 71 when he heard the case. Bruno, born 12 March 1952, turned 63 the same month he acquitted Knox and Sollecito. Hmmmm...are you saying a 63 year old is a "doddering old fool"? If so, I can think of someone who should considering getting a walker.

What ISF member is Bruno younger than?

How do you get away with it?

I meant to reiterate what I said in my highlighted quote above: Mea culpa and big deal. What does not go unnoticed is that you cannot refute the rest of my post regarding Bruno. Once again, you provide not a shred of evidence that Bruno is considered a "doddering old fool" by anyone in the Italian judiciary while I can provide evidence he is not.

 

[Stacyhs]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Netflix film and Knox' usual patter along the lines of demonising Mignini, the police and Italy as being obsessed with her promiscuity and coercing her into a false confession?

I will correct you. No, Knox does not demonize Mignini at all. She describes what happened to her. Mignini, the police, and Italy were obsessed with her so-called "promiscuity". It was Mignini who accused her of trying to force Meredith into a "sex game gone wrong". Mignini who produced a video in court showing this deranged "sex game gone wrong" scenario. It was the police who accused her of "smelling like sex" and who leaked her diary with her sex partners, and it was the police who coerced her into signing a false confession by denying her a lawyer and not providing an unbiased interpreter. As the ECHR will confirm.

Truth is she had a fair trial and was fairly convicted at the end of it. Yes, there were errors - there are human errors in virutually every trial - but ultimately justice prevailed and the claim that whole panels of judges were prejudiced against her is just laughable.

Truth is that "fair trial" was not confirmed by the SC and sent to an appeal court....where it was overturned and the two were acquitted. Your selective memory is in play once again.

The aggravated murder conviction was upheld on appeal.

This, too, consisted of a panel of judges.

The aggravated murder conviction was TWICE overturned. These, too, consisted of a panel of judges.

The anullment was by a retiring judge and one suffering from psychological symptoms, who had great trouble putting together a coherent written reasons. The two sat for just three days, with Raff's barrister, Bongiorno getting two and a half days to present her skeleton, as compared to everybody eles's 20 minutes each.

LOL! Back to the "doddering old fools" drivel are ya? Careful about saying that in Italy. You might get charged with defamation. But now we also have a desperate accusation of "psychological symptoms" thrown in for good measure. What? No accusation of the judges being bought off or forced to acquit by the Mafia, Masons or US State Dept.? Sheesh, you dropped the usual ball there. Even the poor Director of Community Programs at Roanoke college has been accused of being a "mafia tool" by Quennell. Sick.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that the prosecution was denied by M or B whatever time it requested to present its side? If not, I suggest you stop whining about it.

 

[Stacyhs]

"doddering old fool Bruno "

Please come up with a new insult. You have such a fertile imagination. I'm sure you can come up with a new one.

 

[LondonJohn]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Netflix film and Knox' usual patter along the lines of demonising Mignini, the police and Italy as being obsessed with her promiscuity and coercing her into a false confession?

Truth is she had a fair trial and was fairly convicted at the end of it. Yes, there were errors - there are human errors in virutually every trial - but ultimately justice prevailed and the claim that whole panels of judges were prejudiced against her is just laughable.

The aggravated murder conviction was upheld on appeal.

This, too, consisted of a panel of judges.

The anullment was by a retiring judge and one suffering from psychological symptoms, who had great trouble putting together a coherent written reasons. The two sat for just three days, with Raff's barrister, Bongiorno getting two and a half days to present her skeleton, as compared to everybody eles's 20 minutes each.

You seem entirely unaware that the Supreme Court panel which acquitted Knox and Sollecito actually consisted of five senior SC judges: in addition to Marasca and Bruno, the other adjudicating judges on the panel were Guardiano, Pistorelli and Positano.

Some better research/knowledge would be advised in future, in order to help prevent woeful errors in your jaundiced "argument".


(Oh, and I don't think anyone is claiming that the convicting judicial panels were "prejudiced" against Knox (or, erm, that other one, what's-his-name-again....?). Rather, the claim is that the convicting judicial panels were wrong: incompetent, improperly craven to the prosecution case, and wrong in their application of Italian law. Exactly as the Marasca SC panel clearly stated in its acquittal/annulment verdict.)

 

[Stacyhs]

You seem entirely unaware that the Supreme Court panel which acquitted Knox and Sollecito actually consisted of five senior SC judges: in addition to Marasca and Bruno, the other adjudicating judges on the panel were Guardiano, Pistorelli and Positano.

Some better research/knowledge would be advised in future, in order to help prevent woeful errors in your jaundiced "argument".


(Oh, and I don't think anyone is claiming that the convicting judicial panels were "prejudiced" against Knox (or, erm, that other one, what's-his-name-again....?). Rather, the claim is that the convicting judicial panels were wrong: incompetent, improperly craven to the prosecution case, and wrong in their application of Italian law. Exactly as the Marasca SC panel clearly stated in its acquittal/annulment verdict.)

Don't you know they're ALL doddering old fools who can't put a coherent sentence together? It explains so much about the Italian judiciary, dunnit?

 

[Bill Williams]

Embedded in this word salad is an actual answer to what was asked. Thank you for that.

Do you further concede that the stuff being communicated by the nutters to the Roanoke people:
- is just plain nutty?
- proves what is being said about the nutters?
- changes nothing in relation to the exonerations nearly three years ago?

I have no idea what you are referring to, although I can guess. If you have a query about someone's conduct, ask the person direct.

I can only speak for myself.

That is what I am asking for. Your opinion on the nutters' behaviour of contacting the Roanoke institution to try to disrupt Knox's invitation to speak to them.

Do you not agree that that kind of contact only confirms their nuttiness to the Roanoke people? Do you think contacting their events person or their legal staff will result in what Peter Quennell thinks?

Do you think that the Carabinieri in Perugia have been advised to keep a special lookout for people with guns? PQ seems to think so.

Who do you think PQ got this info from. A scan of "Umbria Today" does not seem to reveal any knowledge of this.

I'm not asking anyone but you - for your opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

(Oh, and I don't think anyone is claiming that the convicting judicial panels were "prejudiced" against Knox (or, erm, that other one, what's-his-name-again....?). Rather, the claim is that the convicting judicial panels were wrong: incompetent, improperly craven to the prosecution case, and wrong in their application of Italian law. Exactly as the Marasca SC panel clearly stated in its acquittal/annulment verdict.)

Roanoke people are reading this thread. That's a good thing.

 

[whoanellie]

In other words, just because one often concurs with another, it does not follow you are joined at the hip. Kimo sabe?

Vixen,
Why do constantly misuse the phrase in italics? What do you think it means?

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen,
Why do constantly misuse the phrase in italics? What do you think it means?

From Wiki:

Kamp Kee-Mo Sah-Bee was in an area inhabited by the Ottawa, who speak a language which is mutually comprehensible with Ojibwe. John D. Nichols and Earl Nyholm's A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe defines the Ojibwe word giimoozaabi as "he peeks" (and, in theory, "he who peeks"), making use of the prefix giimoo(j)-, "secretly"; Rob Malouf, now an associate professor of linguistics at San Diego State University, suggested that "giimoozaabi" may indeed have also meant scout (i.e., "one who sneaks").

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen,
Why do constantly misuse the phrase in italics? What do you think it means?

Vixen has been given evidence of what this means over and over and over again. She doesn't care that she's misusing it. Most people, once they understand that they're misusing or mispronouncing a word, will start using or saying it correctly, or...at the very least...stop using/saying it incorrectly. But some people simply cannot admit that they are in error and will continue repeating the same error. Somehow, they think this will change the fact they are wrong. It's either that or they just want to childishly and intentionally irritate others.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

I don't wish to burst the bubble you are in, but even the doddering old fool Bruno spelt it out large that Amanda Knox covered up for Rudy Guede.

Well that's good because you're the one who's in a "bubble". I won't say what kind. Bruno didn't "spell out" any such thing.

If your heroine covers up for murderer/rapist Rudy, then you should be venting your spleen in the right direction. What decent person covers up for a murderer/rapist? And washes off the victim's blood from her hands and fails to come to the aid of her housemate in any way whatsoever?

Knox isn't my heroine, she's your obsession.

...these are the findings of the final Supreme Court.

No they aren't. Just more of your typical nonsense.

You think such a person should be paid US$5,000 .

Yep. If not more. For the 2nd time, name one person with legit standing in the IP community who is critical of Knox or what she has to say.