Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

Yet, you are the only one here who thinks it's ok. It was a familiar name for people who knew her, not internet randos. Good thing we are not discussing any convicted criminals here, except Guede.

Knox is a convicted criminal of what is classed as a 'Serious Crime' (i.e., one which attracts > 2 years imprisonment).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am neither guilter nor innocenter; believe it or not I am impartial, neutral and entirely objective (obvs within the confines of my limitations).

Those 'limitations' seem to be an obsession with the idea that she somehow committed a murder she had nothing to do with, and for which she was finally exonerated a decade ago. Other than viewing everything through the distorting lens of that fixation, you're entirely objective.

 

[Myriad]

But they did document it. The witness statement was typed up and an English translation provided; it was signed by Knox as being true to the best of her knowledge. This was after just 90 minutes in the Questura. The etymology of the word 'villain' originally referred to peasants with no legal status other than being in the service of the lords of the manor, derived from Old French brought over by French-speaking William the Conqueror. Hence these guys lived by their wits and wiles and were seen as n'e'er-do-wells by their rulers. Now the Police are public servants albeit insular to themselves in most western countries. They really do not wake up in the morning thinking who shall we falsely accuse today? They have oversight, regulations and standards. Italy is pretty much a police state, so yeah, there was a lot of undercover intelligence going on. Donnino wasn't just a 'civil servant' she was actively listening in on wiretaps which is something that would need a warrant in the UK or someone working for the intelligence agencies, without. They knew Knox and Sollecito were involved because of the undercover stuff. Building a case to present in court was the hard part, given Sollecito's <ahem> family connections ('honour bound' and omerta and all that <nudge nudge wink wink>). and ability to buy their way out of it via mafia-friendly Bongiorno and hiring a US PR Agency for Knox ('The best investment I ever made' ~ Curt Knox).

I don't believe any of this. (Except the part about the origin of the word villain, but only because I know it's true from other sources.)

 

[Vixen]

Those 'limitations' seem to be an obsession with the idea that she somehow committed a murder she had nothing to do with, and for which she was finally exonerated a decade ago. Other than viewing everything through the distorting lens of that fixation, you're entirely objective.

She was not exonerated.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

She was not exonerated.

Only within the confines of your obsession was she not exonerated.

 

[Disbelief]

She was not exonerated.

Continuing to lie about this doe not help your position.

 

[Vixen]

Only within the confines of your obsession was she not exonerated.

No. It's the legal position. Factual objective.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No. It's the legal position. Factual objective.

It's one of the straws you cling to. She didn't do it. The world knows she didn't do it. The courts finally said so. They said she had nothing to do with it. I can't bring myself to care about your "well, acshully" about what precisely "exonerated" technically means, but you cling tight to that straw.

Then tell us again about how she's a criminal because the cops browbeat her into accusing someone else then charged her with lying when she told them what they wanted to hear. That's a great one.

 

[Vixen]

It's one of the straws you cling to. She didn't do it. The world knows she didn't do it. The courts finally said so. They said she had nothing to do with it. I can't bring myself to care about your "well, acshully" about what precisely "exonerated" technically means, but you cling tight to that straw.

Then tell us again about how she's a criminal because the cops browbeat her into accusing someone else then charged her with lying when she told them what they wanted to hear. That's a great one.

It is a legal finding of fact, which stands, that Knox was there at the crime scene when 'the young Meredith Kercher was killed' (quote). Instead of celebrating a convicted criminal who 'got away with it' you should be asking hard questions as to why, importantly, Knox let her 'friend' die in agony. That is not a hero. Sorry.

 

[AmyStrange]

It's one of the straws you cling to. She didn't do it. The world knows she didn't do it. The courts finally said so. They said she had nothing to do with it. I can't bring myself to care about your "well, acshully" about what precisely "exonerated" technically means, but you cling tight to that straw.

Then tell us again about how she's a criminal because the cops browbeat her into accusing someone else then charged her with lying when she told them what they wanted to hear. That's a great one.

I've noticed everywhere that when stupid people run out of ideas, "facts," or lies to prove their point, semantics is their last line of defense.


-

 

[Myriad]

She was not exonerated.

I don't believe you're telling the truth about this.

No. It's the legal position. Factual objective.

I don't believe you're telling the truth about this.

It is a legal finding of fact, which stands, that Knox was there at the crime scene when 'the young Meredith Kercher was killed' (quote). Instead of celebrating a convicted criminal who 'got away with it' you should be asking hard questions as to why, importantly, Knox let her 'friend' die in agony. That is not a hero. Sorry.

I don't believe you're telling the truth about this.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is a legal finding of fact, which stands, that Knox was there at the crime scene when 'the young Meredith Kercher was killed' (quote). Instead of celebrating a convicted criminal who 'got away with it' you should be asking hard questions as to why, importantly, Knox let her 'friend' die in agony. That is not a hero. Sorry.

She didn't have anything to do with it. Cling tight to your straw.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is a legal finding of fact, which stands, that Knox was there at the crime scene when 'the young Meredith Kercher was killed' (quote).

Oh, it's a quirk of how the Italian legal system covers its ass, you say? Fascinating. Still, she had nothing to do with it. You know - she wasn't actually present when Guede did the murder on his own.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, it's a quirk of how the Italian legal system covers its ass, you say? Fascinating. Still, she had nothing to do with it. You know - she wasn't actually present when Guede did the murder on his own.

AmyStrange believes judges to be 'stupid people'. I do not. Whilst the average person is easily swayed by propaganda and PR, let the reasonable, dispassionate, fair-minded person look coldly and objectively at what the highest Italian Courts rule, and which remains true today.

Excerpt from: Thus the court has decided the 27th of March, 2015 Reporting Judge The president Paolo Antonio Bruno Gennaro Marasca Registered the 7th of September 2015 COURT OFFICIAL Carmela Lanzuise:

It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her. And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file. Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house. Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action. The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes. An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2. But as it was previously noted, such witness statements appeared to have strong margins of ambiguity and approximation, so that could not reasonably constitute the foundation of any certainty, besides the problematic judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge. An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.

Excerpt from: Orders this Order be sent to all interested parties. Florence 22 January 2017 Presiding Judge Dr. Silvia Martuscelli Reporting Judge Dr. Paola MASI Filed with Registry [the clerk of court] 10 February 2017 Antonio Bossa Clerk

On the other hand, given the certainty of the presence of Knox in that house, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.” (Page 49 of the decision) If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning. It is logical to assume that she, returning to her boyfriend immediately after having helped someone she knew (Guede) and others murder her flatmate, would have been greatly distraught, a circumstance which would have allowed Sollecito to remember well what happened that night even if he had never set foot in the house where the serious crime had happened. [7 ->] We have established, therefore, that Sollecito gave, before and after he was taken 6 “Judicial truth” or “verità processuale” is a concept of law addressing the fact that court trials cannot divine absolute or objective truth. The Court can only evaluate conflicting narratives to get to a “limited truth”, the best truth that is humanly possible to extract from a proceeding, reflected in the final judgment. 7 into prison, completely untrue statements concerning his and Knox's movements on the evening of 1 November 2007 until the morning of 2 November 2007, and for the duration of the entire proceeding, and so for the whole period of detention he remained fixed on an untrue version of what happened during this period of time.

Some will get very angry about this and will prefer fictionalised revised 'documentary series' which paint Knox as the victim here, rather than the true victim, her prey, Meredith Kercher, of whom Knox celebrates having got away with it. Enjoy the fiction. Myself, I prefer reality.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, it's a quirk of how the Italian legal system covers its ass, you say? Fascinating. Still, she had nothing to do with it. You know - she wasn't actually present when Guede did the murder on his own.

BTW the courts final ruling is that Guede did not inflict the fatal wound.

 

[Vixen]

I don't believe you're telling the truth about this.



I don't believe you're telling the truth about this.



I don't believe you're telling the truth about this.

Perhaps look up the legal definition of exonerated. Being found 'not guilty' is 'acquitted' not 'exonerated'. Only a head of state can pass an exoneration and grant a pardon. Even in the USA it is called 'vacated' and no compensation is due. So if anyone tells you Knox and Sollecito were exonerated, they are lying to you or trying to manipulate your world view.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That's an awful lot of words to say "I cannot accept the truth she had nothing to do with it".

 

[Vixen]

That's an awful lot of words to say "I cannot accept the truth she had nothing to do with it".

This is where I am ahead of you.

 

[AmyStrange]

"AmyStrange believes judges to be 'stupid people'. I do not. Whilst the average person is easily swayed by propaganda and PR, let the reasonable, dispassionate, fair-minded person look coldly and objectively at what the highest Italian Courts rule, and which remains true today."


Bwahahahahaha... thanks for another laugh, and for also helping to prove me correct.


-

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Perhaps look up the legal definition of exonerated. Being found 'not guilty' is 'acquitted' not 'exonerated'. Only a head of state can pass an exoneration and grant a pardon.

So, if we use not the plain English meaning but rather the legal definition of exonerated, she was more than merely exonerated. i.e. She wasn't pardoned for committing the act, she was found not to have committed the act at all. I shall try to remember not to use the lesser term "exonerated" and use "acquitted" instead, if you find it annoyingly imprecise.