• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Vixen, not only did Knox not receive a harsher sentence than Sollecito, Guede was given the harshest original sentence of 30 years by Micheli.

FOR THESE REASONS The Judge for the Preliminary Hearing, having regard to Articles. 442, 533 and 535 cpp DECLARE GUEDE RUDI HERMANN guilty of the crimes ascribed to him the heads A) and C), considering this violation absorbed in the crime of aggravated murder, and - with the expected reduction for the choice of the rite - the CONDEMNATION punishable by 30 years' imprisonment, and to pay court costs and to pay the costs of continued detention in custody suffered;
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Here's one such paper here, which is quite recent, from a quick glance in Google:

Because of the fact that it is considered inappropriate for females to commit violent acts such as armed robbery, when they do so, it was found that they were dealt with more punitively. The thesis that has been used here is that of the “evil woman,” which suggests that the female has compromised her role expectations by committing an offense which is not seen as appropriate to offending women. Thus, they are treated more negatively. In the cases of Sarah Thornton, who is a female, and R. V. Palmer, who is a male, the facts were mostly the same, but the outcomes in court were different. Sarah was convicted and received a life sentence for the offense of murdering her evil husband. She argued that it was an accident; she sharpened a kitchen knife, pointed it at her violent husband, expecting him to knock it away, and accidentally stabbed and killed him. This was interpreted as indicative of her intention to kill him. She told one of her friends that “I am going to kill him” a few months before the incident, which was not treated as an expression of exasperation, but as an indication of intent. She stated that, “I didn’t walk in there with the intention of stabbing him. I just wanted to show him how far he had driven me.” In contrast, in the case of R. V. Palmer, the appellant stabbed his wife and killed her. He argued that he brought a knife from the kitchen only to frighten her, but accidentally killed her. Unlike Thornton, he was charged with manslaughter, not murder. Then, the Appeals Court reduced his sentence from seven years to five. Thornton, meanwhile, continues to serve her life sentence.
Law Teacher

I believe there is little point discussing academic subjects here because people's idea of debate seems to knee-jerk arguing, which is not the same thing as debating. (I wonder whether anyone is genuinely interested in this or whether it is just arguing for the sake of it.)

The point of the study I referred to is where there is a male and female perp, the male is generally seen as the 'ring leader' and gets the greater sentence (in general, as of the time the study was done, obviously not always), so given Knox' sentence was equivalent to Sollecito's and that it was considered it was Knox who wielded the fatal stab/s, we see here that Knox was not seen as the lesser party. Is that because of staid conservative Italian attitudes or is it because of the perception it is extra heinous when done by a female? <shrug> Who knows? Plus there was the extra three years on top for criminal calumny and Knox was the one charged with theft of Meredith's possessions, charges, which were dropped.
Click to expand...
It's quite easy to find conflicting reports. My search found the opposite conclusion:

Across all analyses, females received sentences that were shorter, on average, than males.

  • When examining all sentences imposed, females received sentences 29.2 percent shorter than males. Females of all races were 39.6 percent more likely to receive a probation sentence than males. When examining only sentences of incarceration, females received lengths of incarceration 11.3 percent shorter than males.
Click to expand...
(US Sentencing Commission, 2023)

Sentencing disparities are certainly probable depending on the country and its cultural beliefs.
 
Vixen said:
Here's one such paper here, which is quite recent, from a quick glance in Google:

Because of the fact that it is considered inappropriate for females to commit violent acts such as armed robbery, when they do so, it was found that they were dealt with more punitively. The thesis that has been used here is that of the “evil woman,” which suggests that the female has compromised her role expectations by committing an offense which is not seen as appropriate to offending women. Thus, they are treated more negatively. In the cases of Sarah Thornton, who is a female, and R. V. Palmer, who is a male, the facts were mostly the same, but the outcomes in court were different. Sarah was convicted and received a life sentence for the offense of murdering her evil husband. She argued that it was an accident; she sharpened a kitchen knife, pointed it at her violent husband, expecting him to knock it away, and accidentally stabbed and killed him. This was interpreted as indicative of her intention to kill him. She told one of her friends that “I am going to kill him” a few months before the incident, which was not treated as an expression of exasperation, but as an indication of intent. She stated that, “I didn’t walk in there with the intention of stabbing him. I just wanted to show him how far he had driven me.” In contrast, in the case of R. V. Palmer, the appellant stabbed his wife and killed her. He argued that he brought a knife from the kitchen only to frighten her, but accidentally killed her. Unlike Thornton, he was charged with manslaughter, not murder. Then, the Appeals Court reduced his sentence from seven years to five. Thornton, meanwhile, continues to serve her life sentence.
Law Teacher

I believe there is little point discussing academic subjects here because people's idea of debate seems to knee-jerk arguing, which is not the same thing as debating. (I wonder whether anyone is genuinely interested in this or whether it is just arguing for the sake of it.)

The point of the study I referred to is where there is a male and female perp, the male is generally seen as the 'ring leader' and gets the greater sentence (in general, as of the time the study was done, obviously not always), so given Knox' sentence was equivalent to Sollecito's and that it was considered it was Knox who wielded the fatal stab/s, we see here that Knox was not seen as the lesser party. Is that because of staid conservative Italian attitudes or is it because of the perception it is extra heinous when done by a female? <shrug> Who knows? Plus there was the extra three years on top for criminal calumny and Knox was the one charged with theft of Meredith's possessions, charges, which were dropped.
Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting (yet again) that Knox and Sollecito were definitively acquitted of every single murder-related charge. And that it's inevitable that Knox will eventually be acquitted on the criminal slander charge - which will add up to a full house of acquittals.

They didn't do it. There's not one iota of credible, reliable evidence pointing to (or even suggesting) Knox's and/or Sollecito's culpability. Knox and Sollecito are now living their lives in dignity and restraint. Unlike Guede - the one person who, alone, actually did confront, sexually assault and murder Kercher - who seems pathologically incapable of treating women properly and non-criminally.

Guede alone committed this horrible set of crimes. Neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with it.

(This is just a timely reminder, since you apparently keep forgetting the reality of the situation here.)
 
Vixen said:
Here's one such paper here, which is quite recent, from a quick glance in Google:

Because of the fact that it is considered inappropriate for females to commit violent acts such as armed robbery, when they do so, it was found that they were dealt with more punitively. The thesis that has been used here is that of the “evil woman,” which suggests that the female has compromised her role expectations by committing an offense which is not seen as appropriate to offending women. Thus, they are treated more negatively. In the cases of Sarah Thornton, who is a female, and R. V. Palmer, who is a male, the facts were mostly the same, but the outcomes in court were different. Sarah was convicted and received a life sentence for the offense of murdering her evil husband. She argued that it was an accident; she sharpened a kitchen knife, pointed it at her violent husband, expecting him to knock it away, and accidentally stabbed and killed him. This was interpreted as indicative of her intention to kill him. She told one of her friends that “I am going to kill him” a few months before the incident, which was not treated as an expression of exasperation, but as an indication of intent. She stated that, “I didn’t walk in there with the intention of stabbing him. I just wanted to show him how far he had driven me.” In contrast, in the case of R. V. Palmer, the appellant stabbed his wife and killed her. He argued that he brought a knife from the kitchen only to frighten her, but accidentally killed her. Unlike Thornton, he was charged with manslaughter, not murder. Then, the Appeals Court reduced his sentence from seven years to five. Thornton, meanwhile, continues to serve her life sentence.
Law Teacher

I believe there is little point discussing academic subjects here because people's idea of debate seems to knee-jerk arguing, which is not the same thing as debating. (I wonder whether anyone is genuinely interested in this or whether it is just arguing for the sake of it.)

The point of the study I referred to is where there is a male and female perp, the male is generally seen as the 'ring leader' and gets the greater sentence (in general, as of the time the study was done, obviously not always), so given Knox' sentence was equivalent to Sollecito's and that it was considered it was Knox who wielded the fatal stab/s, we see here that Knox was not seen as the lesser party. Is that because of staid conservative Italian attitudes or is it because of the perception it is extra heinous when done by a female? <shrug> Who knows? Plus there was the extra three years on top for criminal calumny and Knox was the one charged with theft of Meredith's possessions, charges, which were dropped.
Click to expand...
No, no... this isn't a paper, it's a summary without any data to back it up. I'm looking for the actual studies that support your claim.

There's little point in discussion when you throw out a claim without a shred of evidence and then you get offended because we ask for the evidence. Instead of accusing people of ad hominem attacks and knee-jerk arguing just because we asked for evidence, which is clearly false, why not just provide the evidence so we can have a good discussion.

As it turns out, I can find information on the Sara Thornton (no "h" in Sara) case, but not the R. V. Palmer case you reference. Perhaps a link to case info for that case would be helpful, otherwise, how are we supposed to know the facts were "mostly" the same??

Oh, and BTW, if you're going to use examples, you might want to fully understand what those examples are. For example, it appears you were not aware that Sara Thornton successfully appealed her case. In 1996 she was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years, and was subsequently released on time served.

Oh, and BTW2, Jennifer Nadel wrote a book in 1993 titled "Sara Thornton: The Story of a Woman Who Killed". The book highlighted the ways in which the legal system discriminates against victims of domestic violence. So it would appear there are aspects to the case specifically tied to domestic violence, which makes me wonder if the two cases are really so much alike.

Finally, with the Kercher case, Amanda and Raffaele were charged identical crimes.. there was no distinction between them, and their sentences were the same. I'd say that's evidence women are not sentenced differently, but maybe you think differently.

Yes, I know Amanda received three extra years for calunnia... remember, I pointed that out to you. Still no admission from you that you were wrong about that. And you are also wrong, Amanda and Raffaele were JOINTLY charged with theft, and both were acquitted of that charge, as well as the charge of simulating a burglary. Do you honestly not know this, or did you just throw that out there in hopes no one would pick up on it?

One last point. In order to come to a conclusion such as women are treated more harshly than men for comparable crimes, you need to have as many examples for comparison as possible. Referencing two cases, and not even offering specifics of those two cases, can NEVER establish a pattern. I would be looking for studies that involve hundreds, if not thousands of cases. You give us a summary by a law teacher referencing two cases, and the data isn't even current. Sorry, but I am completely underwhelmed with your argument so far and it's NOT because I just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I am genuinely curious about your claim, but I'm finding nothing to support it and you aren't helping.
 
Vixen said:
It's worth noting that it was at least thirty-eight different judges and lay judges who did the judging of the merits, the appeals and the convictions. It's just as well it wasn't Mignini or the other two prosecutors (equally senior as Mignini) who were responsible!
Click to expand...
Guilters being bootlickers and mouthpieces for the prosecution will attack people for lying whilst lying to defend corrupt police/prosecutors. One lie is minimising Mignini’s role in prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele. The purpose of this lie is that if Mignini only played a minor role in prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele and other people were responsible for prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele, this can prove Amanda and Raffaele were not prosecuted solely due to the actions of a Rogue prosecutor.

The facts show that Mignini only played a minor role in prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele to be false. Mignini decided straight away after Meredith’s body was discovered that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty and ordered Amanda and Raffaele to be placed in custody just three days after Meredith’s murder without any evidence to support this which means Mignini initiated the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele. In the UK the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are completely separate. If the police arrest and charge someone, they send the case file to the CPS and the CPS decide whether to prosecute someone. Such separation doesn’t exist in Italy. Prosecutors oversee the police investigation, decide how an investigation is carried out, whether to prosecute and will act as prosecutors in court. This system would have given Mignini enormous power to direct an investigation how he wanted and a problem with this system is that gives corrupt prosecutors such as Mignini a lot of power. Comodi was a fellow prosecutor but Mignini was the lead prosecutor and Mignini acted in the Massei and Hellman trials.

Mignini apologists such as Vixen argue that the Mignini was not responsible for courts finding Amanda and Raffaele guilty. However, Mignini carried out all kinds of dirty tricks to ensure courts would find Amanda and Raffaele guilty. As can be seen from the links below, the prosecution used lies which would have worked against Amanda and Raffaele and would prejudice their trial. The prosecution destroyed a computer which contained photos of Amanda and Meredith and Amanda was denied access to evidence which could have helped her by showing a good relationship between Amanda and Meredith. Stefanoni lied in court about the negative TMB results. Mignini made claims in court that Amanda hated Meredith where the evidence didn’t support this. The dirty tricked of lying to Amanda she had HIV was used.

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

Mignini ordered the above measures to be carried out. If the case against Amand and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is it necessary to make false claims such as Mignini only had a minor role in prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele?
 
TruthCalls said:
No, no... this isn't a paper, it's a summary without any data to back it up. I'm looking for the actual studies that support your claim.

There's little point in discussion when you throw out a claim without a shred of evidence and then you get offended because we ask for the evidence. Instead of accusing people of ad hominem attacks and knee-jerk arguing just because we asked for evidence, which is clearly false, why not just provide the evidence so we can have a good discussion.

As it turns out, I can find information on the Sara Thornton (no "h" in Sara) case, but not the R. V. Palmer case you reference. Perhaps a link to case info for that case would be helpful, otherwise, how are we supposed to know the facts were "mostly" the same??

Oh, and BTW, if you're going to use examples, you might want to fully understand what those examples are. For example, it appears you were not aware that Sara Thornton successfully appealed her case. In 1996 she was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years, and was subsequently released on time served.

Oh, and BTW2, Jennifer Nadel wrote a book in 1993 titled "Sara Thornton: The Story of a Woman Who Killed". The book highlighted the ways in which the legal system discriminates against victims of domestic violence. So it would appear there are aspects to the case specifically tied to domestic violence, which makes me wonder if the two cases are really so much alike.

Finally, with the Kercher case, Amanda and Raffaele were charged identical crimes.. there was no distinction between them, and their sentences were the same. I'd say that's evidence women are not sentenced differently, but maybe you think differently.

Yes, I know Amanda received three extra years for calunnia... remember, I pointed that out to you. Still no admission from you that you were wrong about that. And you are also wrong, Amanda and Raffaele were JOINTLY charged with theft, and both were acquitted of that charge, as well as the charge of simulating a burglary. Do you honestly not know this, or did you just throw that out there in hopes no one would pick up on it?

One last point. In order to come to a conclusion such as women are treated more harshly than men for comparable crimes, you need to have as many examples for comparison as possible. Referencing two cases, and not even offering specifics of those two cases, can NEVER establish a pattern. I would be looking for studies that involve hundreds, if not thousands of cases. You give us a summary by a law teacher referencing two cases, and the data isn't even current. Sorry, but I am completely underwhelmed with your argument so far and it's NOT because I just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I am genuinely curious about your claim, but I'm finding nothing to support it and you aren't helping.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a summary because it was something I mentioned in passing. It is an academic topic and unless people are genuinely interested in it, I am not going to discuss it further because I actually studied it and you did not, but thank you for drawing my attention to how complex the study of crime is. As I said, this was a random quote from Google because I no longer have my Criminology course notes - from the perspective of Psychology - and I am only willing to do a search of the research papers in question if there is genuine interest rather than knee-jerk quibbling just for the sake of it. So if this is a topic of interest, please do start a thread about it because I find 'gotcha' type to-and-fro-ing incredibly boring.
 
LondonJohn said:
You seem to be forgetting (yet again) that Knox and Sollecito were definitively acquitted of every single murder-related charge. And that it's inevitable that Knox will eventually be acquitted on the criminal slander charge - which will add up to a full house of acquittals.

They didn't do it. There's not one iota of credible, reliable evidence pointing to (or even suggesting) Knox's and/or Sollecito's culpability. Knox and Sollecito are now living their lives in dignity and restraint. Unlike Guede - the one person who, alone, actually did confront, sexually assault and murder Kercher - who seems pathologically incapable of treating women properly and non-criminally.

Guede alone committed this horrible set of crimes. Neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with it.

(This is just a timely reminder, since you apparently keep forgetting the reality of the situation here.)
Click to expand...
Simply dreaming up an 'alternative scenario' doesn't cancel out the reality. The pair were convicted because the courts were sufficiently convinced they did it, based on clear evidence and a lengthy fair trial. The fact people such as yourself cannot believe young adults, especially a female, can commit such a vicious and cruel crime - but thank God for the Black guy! - is an indication of your inability to see the big picture because sentimentality, chauvinism and romantic notions about 'Miscarriage of Justice' get in in your way. As if Knox is ever going to share her proceeds of crime with you. Honestly, Guede can commit a hundred crimes but it still wouldn't cancel out the proven joint enterprise by himself and forensically proven others. Keep pretending it was all the result of one baddie named Mignini. It's hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Welshman said:
Guilters being bootlickers and mouthpieces for the prosecution will attack people for lying whilst lying to defend corrupt police/prosecutors. One lie is minimising Mignini’s role in prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele. The purpose of this lie is that if Mignini only played a minor role in prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele and other people were responsible for prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele, this can prove Amanda and Raffaele were not prosecuted solely due to the actions of a Rogue prosecutor.

The facts show that Mignini only played a minor role in prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele to be false. Mignini decided straight away after Meredith’s body was discovered that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty and ordered Amanda and Raffaele to be placed in custody just three days after Meredith’s murder without any evidence to support this which means Mignini initiated the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele. In the UK the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are completely separate. If the police arrest and charge someone, they send the case file to the CPS and the CPS decide whether to prosecute someone. Such separation doesn’t exist in Italy. Prosecutors oversee the police investigation, decide how an investigation is carried out, whether to prosecute and will act as prosecutors in court. This system would have given Mignini enormous power to direct an investigation how he wanted and a problem with this system is that gives corrupt prosecutors such as Mignini a lot of power. Comodi was a fellow prosecutor but Mignini was the lead prosecutor and Mignini acted in the Massei and Hellman trials.

Mignini apologists such as Vixen argue that the Mignini was not responsible for courts finding Amanda and Raffaele guilty. However, Mignini carried out all kinds of dirty tricks to ensure courts would find Amanda and Raffaele guilty. As can be seen from the links below, the prosecution used lies which would have worked against Amanda and Raffaele and would prejudice their trial. The prosecution destroyed a computer which contained photos of Amanda and Meredith and Amanda was denied access to evidence which could have helped her by showing a good relationship between Amanda and Meredith. Stefanoni lied in court about the negative TMB results. Mignini made claims in court that Amanda hated Meredith where the evidence didn’t support this. The dirty tricked of lying to Amanda she had HIV was used.

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

Mignini ordered the above measures to be carried out. If the case against Amand and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is it necessary to make false claims such as Mignini only had a minor role in prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele?
Click to expand...
That is not quite correct. In order to detain a person in custody in Italy, it still has to go before a magistrate. The police and prosecutors had to provide Judge Matteini with evidence that their arrest was warranted, i.e, there were concrete grounds for it. The pair were not charged for another eight months so there was no rush to prosecute, as claimed. In addition, Bongiorno persuaded the court that as she was pregnant, the court couldn't convene for more than two days a week. She used absolutely every trick in the book to stall the course of justice. It's laughable that Knox/Sollecito fans believe the tripe about 'the baddie prosecutor' and the 'TMB' nonsense. Let's face it, they were very lucky to get away with it and should just get on with their lives instead of trying to cash in on it. The case was reviewed by ten different judges before it even went to trial before Massei.
 
Vixen said:
Simply dreaming up an 'alternative scenario' doesn't cancel out the reality. The pair were convicted because the courts were sufficiently convinced they did it, based on clear evidence and a lengthy fair trial. The fact people such as yourself cannot believe young adults, especially a female, can commit such a vicious and cruel crime - but thank God for the Black guy! - is an indication of your inability to see the big picture because sentimentality, chauvinism and romantic notions about 'Miscarriage of Justice' get in in your way. As if Knox is ever going to share her proceeds of crime with you. Honestly, Guede can commit a hundred crimes but it still wouldn't cancel out the proven joint enterprise by himself and forensically proven others. Keep pretending it was all the result of one baddie named Mignini. It's hilarious.
Click to expand...

LOL what on earth are you on about now?! And by the way, your unilateral invocation of racist tropes reflects very poorly on your judgement - I suggest you drop that line of "argument".
 
Vixen said:
That is not quite correct. In order to detain a person in custody in Italy, it still has to go before a magistrate. The police and prosecutors had to provide Judge Matteini with evidence that their arrest was warranted, i.e, there were concrete grounds for it. The pair were not charged for another eight months so there was no rush to prosecute, as claimed. In addition, Bongiorno persuaded the court that as she was pregnant, the court couldn't convene for more than two days a week. She used absolutely every trick in the book to stall the course of justice. It's laughable that Knox/Sollecito fans believe the tripe about 'the baddie prosecutor' and the 'TMB' nonsense. Let's face it, they were very lucky to get away with it and should just get on with their lives instead of trying to cash in on it. The case was reviewed by ten different judges before it even went to trial before Massei.
Click to expand...

Explain quite why it was in the defendants' interest to "stall the course of justice".

Oh and Knox/Sollecito weren't "lucky to get away with it", because they didn't do it in the first place :)
 
Vixen said:
Yes, it is a summary because it was something I mentioned in passing. It is an academic topic and unless people are genuinely interested in it, I am not going to discuss it further because I actually studied it and you did not, but thank you for drawing my attention to how complex the study of crime is. As I said, this was a random quote from Google because I no longer have my Criminology course notes - from the perspective of Psychology - and I am only willing to do a search of the research papers in question if there is genuine interest rather than knee-jerk quibbling just for the sake of it. So if this is a topic of interest, please do start a thread about it because I find 'gotcha' type to-and-fro-ing incredibly boring.
Click to expand...
It's not quibbling to ask someone to back up their claims.
 
Disbelief said:
Then why are they still not imprisoned? Not sure why you can't come to grips that they were exonerated.
Click to expand...

Try and think of it as a philosophical question. For example, you have a fine bone china plate, which you drop and it breaks into pieces. Now, no amount of your denying it, sticking it back together again, sweeping it under the carpet or blaming the neighbour changes the reality that you broke the plate.

Now, imagine a criminal trial. Person X is accused of being at place Y, at such o'clock, and this is established in court as a matter of scientific fact - CCTV, mobile phone mast triage, GPS, together with two independent random members of the public eye witnesses.

The man is acquitted and is let out of jail. Yes, his supporters are over the moon that he has been freed from prison (not sure why because he has no intention of sharing the profits from his story with any of them). But the fact remains as fact, reality and truth that he Mr. X was at place Y at such-o'clock.

So, to the average person in the street, simply being released from jail is the big win; but to the philosopher, the salient hard truth is, Mr. X was there at place Y. A minor victory but the biggy remains. Forever.

So, re the plate you broke, I could patronise you and disrespect you by saying, 'There, there, you didn't do it', when we both know that you did do it. Far more moral and manly would be for you to put up your hand and say, yeah I broke it, pay for a new one and have done with it.

So whilst the pair have been freed thanks to the huge PR campaign, nothing changes. It doesn't automatically mean that 'therefore Guede must have done it alone,' because that is not the established fact. The fact remains - re the final Supreme Court, Knox was present when Meredith was brutally killed, washed off Mez' blood, from her hands, did stage a burglary scene and did criminally and intentionally tell police it was Lumumba who did it, in order to cover up for Guede. These are facts that can't be changed. They are not just 'judicial facts', because if they were, Marasca-Bruno could have easily sent it back to the Nencini merits/appeal court to reconsider the issues as it directs them to.

So, of course, the supporters of Knox and Sollecito have launched a great PR campaign to try to rewrite history by confecting a fairy story that Knox was some kind of 'quirky' Amélie figure who was victimised by a sad Catholic prosecutor who believed in Satan, rather than the cold hard-faced person, as emerged from the trial. Oh, and Meredith remains dead and murdered, and it was established in court who did it. The police are not looking for anyone else.

So yeah, let's patronise each other and pretend they are literally 'innocent', just like we can pretend you never broke the aforesaid plate, as if what did happen in the past can be changed, and the new game-playing changes or hides the grim reality of what physically and actually did happen and cannot be changed.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Try and think of it as a philosophical question. For example, you have a fine bone china plate, which you drop and it breaks into pieces. Now, no amount of your denying it, sticking it back together again, sweeping it under the carpet or blaming the neighbour changes the reality that you broke the plate.

Now, imagine a criminal trial. Person X is accused of being at place Y, at such o'clock, and this is established in court as a matter of scientific fact - CCTV, mobile phone mast triage, GPS, together with two independent random members of the public eye witnesses.

The man is acquitted and is let out of jail. Yes, his supporters are over the moon that he has been freed from prison (not sure why because he has no intention of sharing the profits from his story with any of them). But the fact remains as fact, reality and truth that he Mr. X was at place Y at such-o'clock.

So, to the average person in the street, simply being released from jail is the big win; but to the philosopher, the salient hard truth is, Mr. X was there at place Y. A minor victory but the biggy remains. Forever.

So, re the plate you broke, I could patronise you and disrespect you by saying, 'There, there, you didn't do it', when we both know that you did do it. Far more moral and manly would be for you to put up your hand and say, yeah I broke it, pay for a new one and have done with it.

So whilst the pair have been freed thanks to the huge PR campaign, nothing changes. It doesn't automatically mean that 'therefore Guede must have done it alone,' because that is not the established fact. The fact remains - re the final Supreme Court, Knox was present when Meredith was brutally killed, washed off Mez' blood, from her hands, did stage a burglary scene and did criminally and intentionally tell police it was Lumumba who did it, in order to cover up for Guede. These are facts that can't be changed. They are not just 'judicial facts', because if they were, Marasca-Bruno could have easily sent it back to the Nencini merits/appeal court to reconsider the issues as it directs them to.

So, of course, the supporters of Knox and Sollecito have launched a great PR campaign to try to rewrite history by confecting a fairy story that Knox was some kind of 'quirky' Amélie figure who was victimised by a sad Catholic prosecutor who believed in Satan, rather than the cold hard-faced person, as emerged from the trial. Oh, and Meredith remains dead and murdered, and it was established in court who did it. The police are not looking for anyone else.

So yeah, let's patronise each other and pretend they are literally 'innocent', just like we can pretend you never broke the aforesaid plate, as if what did happen in the past can be changed, and the new game-playing changes or hides the grim reality of what physically and actually did happen and cannot be changed.
Click to expand...


Liars make interesting psychological studies.

Thank you to all the guilters for volunteering their time and lies to help make this study a great success.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Try and think of it as a philosophical question. For example, you have a fine bone china plate, which you drop and it breaks into pieces. Now, no amount of your denying it, sticking it back together again, sweeping it under the carpet or blaming the neighbour changes the reality that you broke the plate.

Now, imagine a criminal trial. Person X is accused of being at place Y, at such o'clock, and this is established in court as a matter of scientific fact - CCTV, mobile phone mast triage, GPS, together with two independent random members of the public eye witnesses.

The man is acquitted and is let out of jail. Yes, his supporters are over the moon that he has been freed from prison (not sure why because he has no intention of sharing the profits from his story with any of them). But the fact remains as fact, reality and truth that he Mr. X was at place Y at such-o'clock.

So, to the average person in the street, simply being released from jail is the big win; but to the philosopher, the salient hard truth is, Mr. X was there at place Y. A minor victory but the biggy remains. Forever.

So, re the plate you broke, I could patronise you and disrespect you by saying, 'There, there, you didn't do it', when we both know that you did do it. Far more moral and manly would be for you to put up your hand and say, yeah I broke it, pay for a new one and have done with it.

So whilst the pair have been freed thanks to the huge PR campaign, nothing changes. It doesn't automatically mean that 'therefore Guede must have done it alone,' because that is not the established fact. The fact remains - re the final Supreme Court, Knox was present when Meredith was brutally killed, washed off Mez' blood, from her hands, did stage a burglary scene and did criminally and intentionally tell police it was Lumumba who did it, in order to cover up for Guede. These are facts that can't be changed. They are not just 'judicial facts', because if they were, Marasca-Bruno could have easily sent it back to the Nencini merits/appeal court to reconsider the issues as it directs them to.

So, of course, the supporters of Knox and Sollecito have launched a great PR campaign to try to rewrite history by confecting a fairy story that Knox was some kind of 'quirky' Amélie figure who was victimised by a sad Catholic prosecutor who believed in Satan, rather than the cold hard-faced person, as emerged from the trial. Oh, and Meredith remains dead and murdered, and it was established in court who did it. The police are not looking for anyone else.

So yeah, let's patronise each other and pretend they are literally 'innocent', just like we can pretend you never broke the aforesaid plate, as if what did happen in the past can be changed, and the new game-playing changes or hides the grim reality of what physically and actually did happen and cannot be changed.
Click to expand...
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. They were freed and the evidence showed they could not have been at the scene of the murder. You sticking your fingers in your ears and having a tantrum, does not make it true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom