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

[Disbelief]

I said at the time this was during my second year degree course and that I no longer have the notes.

Then don't make a claim that you cannot support. It really is that simple.

 

[AmyStrange]

Then don't make a claim that you cannot support. It really is that simple.

Yup, if he wasn't lying then there'd be stats and proof all over the place that were easy to find.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

LOL Let me guess: you're the philosopher in this scenario?

Oh and what is "mobile phone mast triage"? I'm intrigued!

 

[SpitfireIX]

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 . . .

And, as usual, you ignore the courts that ruled that they didn't do it.

. . . based on clear evidence . . .

We have discussed the numerous fatal flaws in the evidence (and the Italian judicial system) at length, as you ought to know well by now. But you choose to ignore or handwave those flaws because they don't suit your guilter narrative.

and a lengthy fair trial.

As we have also discussed, the trial was not fair. Among other reasons, the prosecution withheld important evidence, the lay judges were exposed to months of highly prejudicial media coverage, and, as the ECHR ruled, Amanda's "confession" was improperly allowed in for the calunnia charge, even though the Italian Supreme Court had ruled it inadmissible for the murder charge.

The fact people such as yourself cannot believe young adults, especially a female, can commit such a vicious and cruel crime . . .

Why do you keep lying about this? Several people have given you examples of attractive young women whom we believe or are certain are guilty of murder, including Jodi Arias^WP and Casey Anthony^WP.

- but thank God for the Black guy! -

So it's okay for you to falsely accuse everyone of racism because you are unable or unwilling to admit that there are fatal flaws in the case against Amanda and Raffaele, is that it? Explain to us again how you value honesty, integrity, and authenticity so much. Further, every time anyone tries to discuss those flaws, you either falsely claim the flaws aren't flaws, or falsely claim they aren't material (when you don't just ignore them altogether).

. . . 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.

Bull. We've shown you the evidence, but you keep either ignoring it or pretending that it doesn't mean what it clearly does (the bloody bathmat print, for example).

As if Knox is ever going to share her proceeds of crime with you.

First, she didn't commit any crime, and you have utterly failed to meet your burden of proof that her and Raffaele's convictions were wrongfully overturned. Second, even granting, arguendo, that Amanda has somehow come out ahead financially after all her legal fees and lost wages from her wrongful incarceration, why the do you think any of us would want or expect her to share any of the proceeds with us??

Honestly, Guede can commit a hundred crimes but it still wouldn't cancel out the proven joint enterprise by himself and forensically proven others.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Keep pretending it was all the result of one baddie named Mignini.

straw man

noun​

1. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

It's hilarious.

Although your guilter fantasies are occasionally amusing, more often they're annoying, and even outrageous.

Edit: Tpyos.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I said at the time this was during my second year degree course and that I no longer have the notes.

But if this is a known fact, as you claim, you ought to be able to find plenty of other evidence to support it.

 

[gabeygoat]

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.

no one else seems to care about his race other than you, so, might wanna drop that line of argument.

 

[Stacyhs]

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 pair was acquitted because the court with the final say, the Court of Cassation, was sufficiently convinced they did not do 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 -

Yet again, you misrepresent what has been said. No one had made any such claim. What has been said is that it's very unusual for a female to commit such a crime. But I think you know that.

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.

Please don't play the race card. You're falling right into Guede's hands.

As if Knox is ever going to share her proceeds of crime with you.

Wait a minute.... I thought we were in the pay of the massive PR machine along with all the defense experts, etc.

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.

Keep pretending there's a forensically proven 'mountain of evidence'. It's hilarious.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, I am sure in the age of the internet you can find all kinds of things.

Yes, it makes it much easier to disprove false and unsupported claims such as a report by the US Sentencing Commission which looked at actual sentencing cases by gender (among other things like race) vs. your "Law Teacher" pay to play site.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Next, you'll be claiming Bongiorno deliberately got pregnant in order to stall the trial.

"The 'TMB' nonsense? If it's such 'nonsense' then please explain why Stefanoni used TMB to test every 'suspected blood' sample listed in her RTIGF. What was the point?

 

[Stacyhs]

I said at the time this was during my second year degree course and that I no longer have the notes.

I am sure in the age of the internet you can find all kinds of things.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

 

[Myriad]

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.

I see the problem here. You see, I didn't drop and break a bone china plate. Not a single one, ever. You can make up a story about how I did, and what the implications of my having done so are, and how the fact that I did so could never be changed, and how you think I should have been punished for doing it, and how you think I contrived to illegitimately avoid that punishment, but that story you made up is not true from the start, so none of those embellishments matter. Your words do not magic the broken pieces of a fine bone china plate into existence ex nihilo. We are not fictional characters in a novel you're writing. You are not the author of the world the rest of us live in.

Likewise, Knox was not present when Kercher was brutally killed, did not wash off Kercher's blood from her hands, did not stage a burglary scene, and did not criminally and intentionally tell the police anything to cover up for Guede. You making up a story, or repeating one someone else made up, doesn't make any of it true, nor obligate anyone else to consider the "if they were..." implications of it being true, when it's clearly not. Knox and Sollecito are not fictional characters in a novel you're writing. (Nor is the victim you keep claiming the right to rename as if she were). You are not the author of any of their lives.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

As I've mentioned, you haven't come anywhere close to establishing that Amanda and Raffaele's convictions were wrongly overturned, so you don't get to just assume that they're guilty.

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).

Why do you keep making this BS statement? Do you suppose The Innocence Project only takes up the causes of people whom they expect to make large donations after they're exonerated??

But the fact remains as fact, reality and truth that he Mr. X was at place Y at such-o'clock.

And you've failed to state how this proves that Mr. X is guilty of a crime.

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.

Wait a minute. You said they were freed due to bribes from Trump and the Mafia, and improper pressure from the US State Department. Can't you keep your story straight?

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.

No. As has been explained to you ad nauseam, and you continually ignore or handwave, we are interested in the actual truth, and what the Italian courts ruled is a peripheral issue.

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.

This makes zero sense. You're saying that because a court found they were facts, they're "actual facts" rather than just "judicial facts." Fail.

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.

Yes, because the person (singular) who did it served 13 years in prison and has been released.

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.

So now you're back to insinuating that we know or suspect that Amanda and Raffaele are actually guilty, but we're unwilling to admit it. Shame on you.

 

[acbytesla]

LOL Let me guess: you're the philosopher in this scenario?

Oh and what is "mobile phone mast triage"? I'm intrigued!

Just dropping in and saw this. My career for more than a decade was selling data communications equipment mostly to cell phone companies. About I think a decade ago, I did a thorough examination of the cell phone evidence and posted it. I pin pointed every cell antenna drew maps, showed lines of sight, and calculated distances to each one. The evidence if anything, pointed to their innocence. So Vixen pretending she understands cellular communications is a joke.

Arguing that cell phone evidence is a confirmation of guilt demonstrates a lack of understanding how cellular communications work. How line of sight, cell traffic, frequency and antenna hopping affects everything.

 

[Stacyhs]

Just dropping in and saw this. My career for more than a decade was selling data communications equipment mostly to cell phone companies. About I think a decade ago, I did a thorough examination of the cell phone evidence and posted it. I pin pointed every cell antenna drew maps, showed lines of sight, and calculated distances to each one. The evidence if anything, pointed to their innocence. So Vixen pretending she understands cellular communications is a joke.

Arguing that cell phone evidence is a confirmation of guilt demonstrates a lack of understanding how cellular communications work. How line of sight, cell traffic, frequency and antenna hopping affects everything.

Vixen previously claimed that cell masts "rotate" and it took quite a bit of evidence for her to admit they didn't.

 

[junkshop]

Is there a phrase for a person jumping from one hobbyhorse to another, whenever their position is shown to be utter arse?

ETA: sorry, please disregard that. It was a thing I was considering googling, and was not meant to be posted here.

 

[Vixen]

I see the problem here. You see, I didn't drop and break a bone china plate. Not a single one, ever. You can make up a story about how I did, and what the implications of my having done so are, and how the fact that I did so could never be changed, and how you think I should have been punished for doing it, and how you think I contrived to illegitimately avoid that punishment, but that story you made up is not true from the start, so none of those embellishments matter. Your words do not magic the broken pieces of a fine bone china plate into existence ex nihilo. We are not fictional characters in a novel you're writing. You are not the author of the world the rest of us live in.

Likewise, Knox was not present when Kercher was brutally killed, did not wash off Kercher's blood from her hands, did not stage a burglary scene, and did not criminally and intentionally tell the police anything to cover up for Guede. You making up a story, or repeating one someone else made up, doesn't make any of it true, nor obligate anyone else to consider the "if they were..." implications of it being true, when it's clearly not. Knox and Sollecito are not fictional characters in a novel you're writing. (Nor is the victim you keep claiming the right to rename as if she were). You are not the author of any of their lives.

I am afraid that is what the final court says. Truth is not what you choose it to be.

 

[Vixen]

As I've mentioned, you haven't come anywhere close to establishing that Amanda and Raffaele's convictions were wrongly overturned, so you don't get to just assume that they're guilty.


Why do you keep making this BS statement? Do you suppose The Innocence Project only takes up the causes of people whom they expect to make large donations after they're exonerated??


And you've failed to state how this proves that Mr. X is guilty of a crime.


Wait a minute. You said they were freed due to bribes from Trump and the Mafia, and improper pressure from the US State Department. Can't you keep your story straight?


No. As has been explained to you ad nauseam, and you continually ignore or handwave, we are interested in the actual truth, and what the Italian courts ruled is a peripheral issue.


This makes zero sense. You're saying that because a court found they were facts, they're "actual facts" rather than just "judicial facts." Fail.





Yes, because the person (singular) who did it served 13 years in prison and has been released.


So now you're back to insinuating that we know or suspect that Amanda and Raffaele are actually guilty, but we're unwilling to admit it. Shame on you.

Obviously, the 'Mr. X' in the example might not be guilty of any crime in reality but he was there at place Y and should be able to give us an explanation for it. We need an explanation as to why Knox was there at the cottage when 'the young Miss Kercher was killed', as found as a fact by the courts and we haven't had any at all. Likewise why Sollecito did lie about being on his computer all evening and denying he's switched his phone off. (Cue a load of nonsense about how the cops wouldn't give hm a calendar so he mistook Wednesday for a Tuesday: why do people insist in believing this stuff..?)

 

[Vixen]

Vixen previously claimed that cell masts "rotate" and it took quite a bit of evidence for her to admit they didn't.

No, as you recall, I was referring to antennae.

 

[Myriad]

I am afraid that is what the final court says. Truth is not what you choose it to be.

"That is what the final court says" is just another story you've made up. Like your story of me breaking a plate or your story of Knox and Sollecito staging a burglary. Layer after layer of lie after lie, like the Queen's Guard in Alice in Wonderland who are really just a pack of cards, except Alice is dreaming and the cards are really leaves that have fallen on her face, except the whole book is fiction and the dream never happened either.