The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[bagels]

I don't buy into the media. I have a well-honed ******** detector.


But you clearly have lapped up the PR so in a way the $2m Knox' family invested in PR has worked in respect of the gullible.

Hopefully the alleged cop killers can hire the same PR firm. But does it come with free mafia court rigging?

 

[Numbers]

Facts, not falsehoods:

KNOX v. Italy
Leading | Case | 76577/13 | Italy | English | Judgment Date: 24/01/2019 | Date Final Judgment: 24/06/2019 | Payment Information: Awaiting information on payment | Pending | New Case | Awaiting AP/R | Violations: DAV, MTNQ, PEINT | Theme Domain: Access to and efficient functioning of justice: Unfair judicial proceedings (criminal charges), Right to life and protection against torture

Lack of an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police during the questioning of a young woman in a state of shock.

Lack of legal assistance and of appropriate interpretation during the questioning.

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22],%22EXECState%22:[%22ITA%22]}

ETA: "AP/R" means "Action Plan or Report" - the proposed actions or other information from the respondent state (Italy) on how it proposes to fulfill its obligations to correct its violations of international law

 

[Stacyhs]

So now Guede had a history of raping and beating up his wife. He also had a gun.

The lengths you'll go to.

I've asked before if you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself. I think that question has been definitively answered.

As for you having "a well-honed ******** detector", don't you get tired of it constantly going off every time you post something?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't buy into the media. I have a well-honed ******** detector.


But you clearly have lapped up the PR so in a way the $2m Knox' family invested in PR has worked in respect of the gullible.

Dammit! I just bought a shiny new Irony-o-meter on Amazon Prime, and you've broken it on Day 1 with your first sentence

By the way, though, that "$2m PR Supertanker" stuff is a total batcrap myth, as you well ought to know by now. I suggest you perhaps do a search on the subject within these threads, or at the very least try to get an objective, factual education on this case in general.....


Oh and it's Knox's, not Knox'

 

[Stacyhs]

So the actual point of Stacy's post went right over your head, huh?

It didn't go over her head, LJ. This is a very common tactic. When someone cannot, or does not want to, acknowledge something that undermines their claims, they try to direct the conversation elsewhere or reply with silly irrelevancies. The trouble is, these tactics only work on those that are not aware of them. And we are.

 

[Stacyhs]

D


Oh and it's Knox's, not Knox'

Quite right. According to The Plain English Campaign:

With names or singular nouns that end in 's', 'x' or 'z', we usually add an apostrophe followed by 's'.
For example:

The bus's journey came to an end.
The fox's den was well hidden.

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/using-apostrophes.html

Note that this is a BRITISH grammar site so no claims of American vs. British English can be made. Faced with incontrovertible evidence that Knox' is wrong, reasonable, intelligent, and logical people would stop using it. But some people, sadly, are so incapable of admitting error that they would rather continue looking foolish than accept they're wrong.

 

[Welshman]

I don't buy into the media. I have a well-honed ******** detector.


But you clearly have lapped up the PR so in a way the $2m Knox' family invested in PR has worked in respect of the gullible.

If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and the evidence so solid as Vixen constantly claims, why is that 12 years after Meredith's murder Vixen has to resort to lies such as saying the Knox family spent two million on PR.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't buy into the media. I have a well-honed ******** detector.

But you clearly have lapped up the PR so in a way the $2m Knox' family invested in PR has worked in respect of the gullible.

No you don't.

 

[Stacyhs]

I've seen the $2 million PR campaign claim by the PGP all over the internet but I've yet to see a single credible source for it. I suspect it originated on PMF or TJMK. Perhaps Vixen would care to provide evidence of said monetary expenditure? You know, actually back up this claim?

I don't really care if it cost $2 million or not. The point is whether this is yet another PGP factoid or not.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've seen the $2 million PR campaign claim by the PGP all over the internet but I've yet to see a single credible source for it. I suspect it originated on PMF or TJMK. Perhaps Vixen would care to provide evidence of said monetary expenditure? You know, actually back up this claim?

I don't really care if it cost $2 million or not. The point is whether this is yet another PGP factoid or not.

IIRC the $2M PR campaign meme originated with Mignini. There is very little that the haters have EVER banged on about, that originated anywhere else.

The guilter nutters have been Mignini's PR machine, and they've done it for free.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've seen the $2 million PR campaign claim by the PGP all over the internet but I've yet to see a single credible source for it. I suspect it originated on PMF or TJMK. Perhaps Vixen would care to provide evidence of said monetary expenditure? You know, actually back up this claim?

I don't really care if it cost $2 million or not. The point is whether this is yet another PGP factoid or not.

I seem to remember that this might have come about on account of Knox's family once saying they'd probably spent something in the region of $2 million in relation to the case.

And then (if my above recollection is correct...) one or more of the nasty, vindictive dunderheads among the pro-guilt group somehow decided to interpret this - using the cool, objective logic and reason for which they've become renowned - as the Knox family having spent $2 million on PR (aka "The PR Supertanker"). And once that myth had been seeded, the rest of the groupthink low-intellect pro-guilt herd decided not to question or challenge that (mis)interpretation, but rather to write it into their own biassed, hate-filled lexicon of the case.

To say that this is beyond stupid (as well, of course, as typically vindictive and unpleasant) is something of an understatement. Not to mention the fact that it flies in the face of what's actually known in respect of this case. And what's known is as follows:

1) David Marriott is on record as having stated that he offered his services more-or-less free to the Knox family, initially in order to provide a screen and a filter from the barrage of media requests and intrusions, but then later to provide a small amount of general advice on what kind of message to convey to the media. His work was undertaken (IIRC) on a purely personal level, and not through his PR company Gogerty Marriott.

2) Knox required vast amounts of legal representation over several years, involving a team of at least two lawyers, led by an expensive chief counsel (dalla Vedova). This representation had to cover the period from mid-November 2007, probably right through up to and including the several-month-long Massei trial in 2009; then preparation and trial in Hellmann's court (again, over several months); then preparation for the Chieffi SC panel adjudication; then preparation and trial in Nencini's court (two months); then preparation for the Marasca SC panel. The pro-guilt idiots should perhaps try to calculate what that might have added up to in total legal fees.

3) In addition, Knox's defence team hired various experts to examine the evidence and to testify in the Massei and Hellmann trials. Experts of this sort most certainly do not come cheap. Maybe the pro-guilt idiots should have a crack at estimating the total cost of these experts.

4) And on top of that, the Knox family made many trips to Italy over the years between 2007-2015. This entailed long-haul flights from Seattle to Italy, and accommodation and subsistence costs (though IIRC they were offered subsidised accommodation at some point). For some of those trips, just one family member travelled; but for many of them, as many as several family members travelled. Perhaps the pro-guilt idiots should have a go at adding up a decent estimate of total return long-haul Seattle-Italy flights taken by the Knox family over the years, together with total accommodation and subsistence costs.


So if (IIRC) the Knox family did indeed say they'd spent around $2 million, I'd say it's really not very difficult to arrive at that figure by adding together total legal fees plus total experts' fees, plus total family travel/accommodation/subsistence fees. Unless you inhabit the Bizarro-World of pro-guilt idiots, that is......

 

[Stacyhs]

LondonJohn, that certainly makes sense. The PMF/TJMK crowd always had a penchant for producing assfacts: from 'mixed blood' to the 'private chartered airplane' to the 'bloody footprints' to the 'left-handed Sollecito' to the 'mafia and Masons interference' to the 'cocaine using Knox' to the 'bent experts and judges' and to all the other factoids they've promoted.

 

[acbytesla]

I seem to remember that this might have come about on account of Knox's family once saying they'd probably spent something in the region of $2 million in relation to the case.

And then (if my above recollection is correct...) one or more of the nasty, vindictive dunderheads among the pro-guilt group somehow decided to interpret this - using the cool, objective logic and reason for which they've become renowned - as the Knox family having spent $2 million on PR (aka "The PR Supertanker"). And once that myth had been seeded, the rest of the groupthink low-intellect pro-guilt herd decided not to question or challenge that (mis)interpretation, but rather to write it into their own biassed, hate-filled lexicon of the case.

To say that this is beyond stupid (as well, of course, as typically vindictive and unpleasant) is something of an understatement. Not to mention the fact that it flies in the face of what's actually known in respect of this case. And what's known is as follows:

1) David Marriott is on record as having stated that he offered his services more-or-less free to the Knox family, initially in order to provide a screen and a filter from the barrage of media requests and intrusions, but then later to provide a small amount of general advice on what kind of message to convey to the media. His work was undertaken (IIRC) on a purely personal level, and not through his PR company Gogerty Marriott.

2) Knox required vast amounts of legal representation over several years, involving a team of at least two lawyers, led by an expensive chief counsel (dalla Vedova). This representation had to cover the period from mid-November 2007, probably right through up to and including the several-month-long Massei trial in 2009; then preparation and trial in Hellmann's court (again, over several months); then preparation for the Chieffi SC panel adjudication; then preparation and trial in Nencini's court (two months); then preparation for the Marasca SC panel. The pro-guilt idiots should perhaps try to calculate what that might have added up to in total legal fees.

3) In addition, Knox's defence team hired various experts to examine the evidence and to testify in the Massei and Hellmann trials. Experts of this sort most certainly do not come cheap. Maybe the pro-guilt idiots should have a crack at estimating the total cost of these experts.

4) And on top of that, the Knox family made many trips to Italy over the years between 2007-2015. This entailed long-haul flights from Seattle to Italy, and accommodation and subsistence costs (though IIRC they were offered subsidised accommodation at some point). For some of those trips, just one family member travelled; but for many of them, as many as several family members travelled. Perhaps the pro-guilt idiots should have a go at adding up a decent estimate of total return long-haul Seattle-Italy flights taken by the Knox family over the years, together with total accommodation and subsistence costs.


So if (IIRC) the Knox family did indeed say they'd spent around $2 million, I'd say it's really not very difficult to arrive at that figure by adding together total legal fees plus total experts' fees, plus total family travel/accommodation/subsistence fees. Unless you inhabit the Bizarro-World of pro-guilt idiots, that is......

I can certainly imagine the Knox family spent 2 million dollars on her defense and other expenses. But not for PR. They rented an apartment in Perugia so Amanda always had visitors. There was a rotating number of people who flew back and forth to Italy.

I don't usually visit this thread very often any more because mostly, it is one person Vixen posting nonsense that was disproven a long time ago. Some people just can't let go. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Time to move on.

 

[Numbers]

I seem to remember that this might have come about on account of Knox's family once saying they'd probably spent something in the region of $2 million in relation to the case.
And then (if my above recollection is correct...) one or more of the nasty, vindictive dunderheads among the pro-guilt group somehow decided to interpret this - using the cool, objective logic and reason for which they've become renowned - as the Knox family having spent $2 million on PR (aka "The PR Supertanker"). And once that myth had been seeded, the rest of the groupthink low-intellect pro-guilt herd decided not to question or challenge that (mis)interpretation, but rather to write it into their own biassed, hate-filled lexicon of the case.

To say that this is beyond stupid (as well, of course, as typically vindictive and unpleasant) is something of an understatement. Not to mention the fact that it flies in the face of what's actually known in respect of this case. And what's known is as follows:

1) David Marriott is on record as having stated that he offered his services more-or-less free to the Knox family, initially in order to provide a screen and a filter from the barrage of media requests and intrusions, but then later to provide a small amount of general advice on what kind of message to convey to the media. His work was undertaken (IIRC) on a purely personal level, and not through his PR company Gogerty Marriott.

2) Knox required vast amounts of legal representation over several years, involving a team of at least two lawyers, led by an expensive chief counsel (dalla Vedova). This representation had to cover the period from mid-November 2007, probably right through up to and including the several-month-long Massei trial in 2009; then preparation and trial in Hellmann's court (again, over several months); then preparation for the Chieffi SC panel adjudication; then preparation and trial in Nencini's court (two months); then preparation for the Marasca SC panel. The pro-guilt idiots should perhaps try to calculate what that might have added up to in total legal fees.

3) In addition, Knox's defence team hired various experts to examine the evidence and to testify in the Massei and Hellmann trials. Experts of this sort most certainly do not come cheap. Maybe the pro-guilt idiots should have a crack at estimating the total cost of these experts.

4) And on top of that, the Knox family made many trips to Italy over the years between 2007-2015. This entailed long-haul flights from Seattle to Italy, and accommodation and subsistence costs (though IIRC they were offered subsidised accommodation at some point). For some of those trips, just one family member travelled; but for many of them, as many as several family members travelled. Perhaps the pro-guilt idiots should have a go at adding up a decent estimate of total return long-haul Seattle-Italy flights taken by the Knox family over the years, together with total accommodation and subsistence costs.


So if (IIRC) the Knox family did indeed say they'd spent around $2 million, I'd say it's really not very difficult to arrive at that figure by adding together total legal fees plus total experts' fees, plus total family travel/accommodation/subsistence fees. Unless you inhabit the Bizarro-World of pro-guilt idiots, that is......

Amanda Knox's request to the ECHR for compensation suggests LondonJohn's reasoning is correct.

From the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy:

193. La requérante demande également 30 000 EUR pour les frais et dépens qu’elle dit avoir engagés devant la Cour ainsi que 2 186 643 EUR correspondant aux frais et dépens exposés par ses parents pour la procédure interne.

Google translation:

"193. The applicant also claims EUR 30,000 for the costs and expenses which she claims to have incurred before the Court and EUR 2,186,643 corresponding to the costs and expenses incurred by her parents for the domestic proceedings."

Using the current conversion factor (about $1.11 = EUR 1.00), the claim for costs and expenses of Knox's parents for the legal case in Italy is about $2,427,685.

Following its usual practice, the ECHR did not award any amount to cover the costs and expenses incurred for the legal case in Italy. The ECHR would view any such award, including the specific amount, as an obligation of the Italian judicial system. Furthermore, the claimed amount apparently covers all of the legal proceedings, while the ECHR in its judgment attempted to limit its considerations and award to an "equitable" amount for the specific violations, as is its practice.

If a future Italian final decision in the case did not provide Knox with an award apparently commensurate with restoring her condition to that before the legal proceedings for the calunnia and the murder/rape charges began, she would have the option of bringing a case relating to that alleged violation before the ECHR.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't usually visit this thread very often any more because mostly, it is one person Vixen posting nonsense that was disproven a long time ago. Some people just can't let go. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Time to move on.

Pretty much the same for me. It's interesting to check in and see what's new but not so much seeing the same old PGP lies over and over again. I am curious what Italy will do with the ECHR ruling so I will continue to lurk and occasionally post.

 

[Numbers]

I can certainly imagine the Knox family spent 2 million dollars on her defense and other expenses. But not for PR. They rented an apartment in Perugia so Amanda always had visitors. There was a rotating number of people who flew back and forth to Italy.

I don't usually visit this thread very often any more because mostly, it is one person Vixen posting nonsense that was disproven a long time ago. Some people just can't let go. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Time to move on.

Pretty much the same for me. It's interesting to check in and see what's new but not so much seeing the same old PGP lies over and over again. I am curious what Italy will do with the ECHR ruling so I will continue to lurk and occasionally post.

I agree that continually revisiting the details of the case is pointless. Knox and Sollecito were rightfully finally and definitively acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher because there was no credible evidence that they had committed the crime.

One remaining activity - and it may proceed very slowly - is the execution phase of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy regarding the violations of her rights and any further legal actions that Amanda Knox or the Italian authorities may pursue in Italy to seek revision of her conviction for calunnia and redress for her unjust detention and legal expenses.

There may also be an ECHR application pending against Italy from Raffaele Sollecito relating to the allegedly unfair denial of compensation by the Italian courts for his unjust detention and legal expenses.

For the case Knox v. Italy, the following is a summary from the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Department of Execution of Judgments of the ECHR:

"KNOX v. Italy
Leading | Case | 76577/13 | Pending | New Case | Judgment date: 24/01/2019 | Final judgment date: 24/06/2019

Case Description:

The case concerns the lack of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police in 2007, during the questioning of the applicant, a young woman of foreign nationality and language, subsequently convicted for malicious accusation in the context of criminal proceedings concerning the murder and rape of her flat mate (violation of Article 3 in its procedural limb).

The case also concerns the restriction on the applicant’s access to legal assistance during her questioning by the police, which the European Court found to have had irretrievably impaired the overall fairness of the proceedings (violation of Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 c)) and the inadequate assistance provided to the applicant by an interpreter during the police questioning (violation of Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 e)).

Status of Execution:

An action plan or report is awaited."

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22],%22EXECState%22:[%22ITA%22],%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22004-52517%22]}

 

[TomG]

Gioia Brocci glass on top of clothing?

I've been catching up Ron Hendry's book "When innocence doesn't matter" (a very good book so far). He says that Gioia Brocci was one of the witnesses who testified to glass being on top of clothing in Filomena's bedroom. I've been trying to source this information from various testimonies with no luck as yet. Any offers?

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

I've been catching up Ron Hendry's book "When innocence doesn't matter" (a very good book so far). He says that Gioia Brocci was one of the witnesses who testified to glass being on top of clothing in Filomena's bedroom. I've been trying to source this information from various testimonies with no luck as yet. Any offers?

Hoots

Are you sure it was Brocci Hendry mentioned? According to Hellmann, the people who testified that they saw glass both on top and below items were Filomena R, and Luca Altieri. Insp. Battistelli ("The glass was on the ground, and the curious thing that caught my eye was that this glass was also on top of the clothing…”) and Marco Zaroli said the glass was on top of clothes but did not say that it was only on top.

I can find nothing about Brocci testifying about the glass in FR's room.

 

[Methos]

I've been catching up Ron Hendry's book "When innocence doesn't matter" (a very good book so far). He says that Gioia Brocci was one of the witnesses who testified to glass being on top of clothing in Filomena's bedroom. I've been trying to source this information from various testimonies with no luck as yet. Any offers?

Hoots

Are you sure it was Brocci Hendry mentioned? According to Hellmann, the people who testified that they saw glass both on top and below items were Filomena R, and Luca Altieri. Insp. Battistelli ("The glass was on the ground, and the curious thing that caught my eye was that this glass was also on top of the clothing…”) and Marco Zaroli said the glass was on top of clothes but did not say that it was only on top.

I can find nothing about Brocci testifying about the glass in FR's room.

It was Brocci (When Innocence Doesn't Matter, kindle position 1102):

At about 3:00 PM, police begin setting out placards denoting important evidence locations in the upper flat. Among those placing the placards is Perugia Police Officer Gioia Brocchi from the documentations section. ((Officer Brocchi is worth noting at this time for the several differing threads of evidence and observations she will be able to testify to at the murder trial later on. Officer Brocchi will testify at trial that she saw glass on top of clothing in Filomena’s room. However, she will not place an evidence placard at any such location, nor will any police photos capture this observation.* The prosecution will also have Officer Brocchi provide her observation at trial that she found no indication of an intruder’s presence outside and under Filomena’s broken window. Officer Brocchi’s testimony is important to the prosecution, as there will be a decided failure to document these important observations with photos and video.))

Hendry, Ron. When Innocence Doesn't Matter: Ordeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito . Ron Hendry. Kindle-Version.

I haven't found that quote in her testimony so far... Maybe Hendry is mistaking Gioia Brocci for Paolo Brocchi (one of the lawyers whose office was broken into). He made some statements about clothes on top of glass in his testimony.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...-Testimony-MC-Brocchi-Palazzoli-Chiriboga.pdf

 

[Stacyhs]

It was Brocci (When Innocence Doesn't Matter, kindle position 1102):


I haven't found that quote in her testimony so far... Maybe Hendry is mistaking Gioia Brocci for Paolo Brocchi (one of the lawyers whose office was broken into). He made some statements about clothes on top of glass in his testimony.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...-Testimony-MC-Brocchi-Palazzoli-Chiriboga.pdf

I think you're right. From Paolo Brocchi's testimony:

The glass clearly was spread everywhere, because it was a rather thick glass. After which, on top of these pieces of glass we found our clothes. For the most part the glass was scattered on the floor and on top of the glass were our jackets, mine and my colleague’s Palazzoli, that had been hanging on the clothes hanger in the corridor right in front of the window.