Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Which set of rules do you want to use? The rule you assert, or the rule espoused by Kaosium just above by which, if applied to Mignini, means he is innocent until there is a final ruling from the court of cassation affirming the conviction?

It is an interesting question. For Mignini it is not as serious a charge as murder and I agree with no detention pending the outcome of his appeals. I think that being in a position of power however, he should be held to a higher standard and be suspended with pay pending the outcome of his appeals at the very least to avoid an appearance of impropriety. For Amanda, I agree with her detention even though I believe she is innocent. From the standpoint of the Italian justice system she represents a huge flight risk, if I were her and free I think I would run away, very far away, even if I knew I had done nothing wrong. For Raffaele, a different situation and less of a flight risk so I would have him with no detention pending his appeals. The politics of having Raffaele free and not Amanda should not be a factor in the decision, in my opinion.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm not inventing anything, although I freely admit I got him mixed up with another ILE's genius. Which only strengthens my point. The more the merrier isn't it?
Rinaldi on the other hand is the one that mistook obvious Rudy's shoeprint for that notorious "woman's shoeprint of Amanda's size". That innocent mistake of his came conveniently at the moment when prosecution was desperately in need of any evidence of Amanda at the murder site. Other Rinaldi's mistakes include the botched "perspective correction" and funky measurements of the bathmat print which incidentally, along with other evidence he saw only on pictures because, you know, he's a pictures man, unlike some defense experts that actually took effort to examine the actual evidence.

That getting confused strengthens your point and the more the merrier, is obviously ********. You decide that you don't want to make distinction, because only this serves your mental bias. The "woman's shoeprint" (the result of Inspector's Boemia search) is not in response to any desperate need by the prosecution, in fact it is not needed and even considered by judges. The prosecution doesn't need anything like that.
Actually the prosecution left out much bigger good evidence than the irrelevant wrong evidence they put in.
The "perspective correction" is a mistake for you who decide to believe Vinci, while you were unable to provide any argument to state it is wrong (your thought was a thick "how does a reduction of the tile size makes a longer foot?").
But you stated series of plain round lies, accusations all false, invented and disproven, like the HIV "trick", an abitrary judgement of "incompetence", the pathetic claim of spread of "lies in the media".
These are the arguments that make your belief in Amanda's innocence.

Surely accusing 20 innocent people is nothing wrong. Accusing them of satanic cult conspiracy and ritual murders?

The Monster of Florence is a story of satanic cults and ritual murders.

That only shows what a cordial, down-to-earth, guided by common sense man Mignini is. No way is he a nutjob who needs to be removed from position. After all those satanic cults lurk everywhere, just looking to ritually kill someone.

I guess you don't know anything about Mignini's story as a prosecutor.
And the story of satanic cults and ritual murders is instead of ganuinely Florentine origin, was already renown since many years before Mignini was appointed in the Narducci case.
A group devoted to satanic cults and ritual murders actualy existed. The question is, whether Narducci was part of it or not. Whether people were involved in a policical covering of investigations, or not.

Yes I know it has nothing to do with his conviction. He was convicted for targeting his "personal enemies" with investigations and illegal wiretaps. Abuse of office and power. Nothing immoral in that, isn't it?

No, nothing immoral. In fact, he is still a prosecutor and in the same position, and recevied even no disciplinary note. And he has advanced to chief role. He had positive explicit support by Superior Council of Magistrates (the organ with constitutional power over him) and notes of suport by the Associazione Nazionae Magistrati (the equivalent of a bar association). The orders for wiretappings and "illegal" investigtions also had all been signed by Perugian judges. The Florentine prosecutor he targeted, instead, was forced to leave his job.

Yeah, the rest you'd rather not talk about at all, because you cannot nitpick on it or twist it into something innocent by any sophistry or semantical squirming. ILE's trashing of the crime scene, destroying of evidence, laughable evidence collection technique were all paramounts of proper and professional conduct. And the illegal, unrecorded interrogation was just an all night tea and biscuits party. Telling the arrested girl she has HIV was just an innocent prank.
And if her parents talk about any of this they are hypocrites feeding a media cult, right?

Your addressing Rinalfi is plain wrong. You adressing of prespective orrection as an arror is wrong. Your mention of HIV test tricks is false. All things you say are false.
I can indeed cite ecah of these and refute them, and I did it. Those who feed this media cult are criminals by Italian laws, not hyporcites.

 

[billyryan]

It is an interesting question. For Mignini it is not as serious a charge as murder and I agree with no detention pending the outcome of his appeals. I think that being in a position of power however, he should be held to a higher standard and be suspended with pay pending the outcome of his appeals at the very least to avoid an appearance of impropriety. For Amanda, I agree with her detention even though I believe she is innocent. From the standpoint of the Italian justice system she represents a huge flight risk, if I were her and free I think I would run away, very far away, even if I knew I had done nothing wrong. For Raffaele, a different situation and less of a flight risk so I would have him with no detention pending his appeals. The politics of having Raffaele free and not Amanda should not be a factor in the decision, in my opinion.

Chris Mellas now lives full time in a location near Perugia.Amanda has lived with Edda all her life,and with Chris Mellas since she was about ten,releasing Amanda into the custody of Chris Mellas is something that should and I think could happen,
I do not think Amanda would run if released,but wheather or not a responsible US governament would decide to rescue her is another matter.I have little doubt that the people who fried computers,the experts who went against science to claim that a 11.45pm time of death was possible,the doctor who allowed himself to be convinced to tell Amanda she had aids,Stefanoni thought Amanda and Raffaele were guilty when she cut corners,she probally never thought her work would come under such scrutiny,Nara and Curatolo are probally cursing the day they thought it was a good idea to get involved in convicting these two expecting to be seen as hero's not liars and perjurers,all of these people know by now the deep hole they and Mignini has dug for them,an on release pending Amanda running would help dig them out, I doubt it if she will oblidge

 

[Antony]

Jeannette Popp became an anti-death-penalty activist after she realized Ochoa and Danziger were innocent in the death of her daughter. Mark Byers, stepfather of one of the victims in the West Memphis Three case, was aggressive and very public in denouncing the WM3, but he now realizes they are innocent and he is among their supporters.

Thanks for these, which are cases that I'll have to read up about. The case of Mark Byers is an interesting one which still illustrates my point, but all credit to him for changing his mind.

 

[shuttlt]

With the mention of the US government, it just occurred to me how disappointing it is that there doesn't seem to be any mention of Knox so far in this WikiLeaks business. There must surely have been diplomatic cables that would give an interesting new perspective on the case if published.

 

[Antony]

I wonder if the Kerchers will extend their apologies and condolences to the Knoxes, Mellases and Sollecitos if Amanda and Raffaele are fully acquitted.

That remains to be seen. It would be enormously to their credit if they were to start looking at the truths of the investigation, and show some understanding of what it means to have a member of family locked up and defamed for something they didn't do.

But that seems to be a horribly difficult thing for a murder victim's family, in their own unbearable distress, to do.

 

[pilot padron]

Puh----Leeeze

.....you'd be very interested to see the written reason for my *ahem* invitation to leave given by the co-"moderator": it consisted of one word, and that word was a fairly unpleasant swear word relating to below-the-waist female anatomy....

By the way, have you managed yet to find any decent vitriol or misplaced emotion from among the recent posts on this JREF thread?:

Errrr......Puh---Leeeeze

Has your oft self heralded scientific evidence based methodology per chance included the slightest perusal of the AAH section 'recently'....uhhhh... like today or yesterday ??

Has your oft self heralded scientific evidence based methodology per chance noted the 'recent' absence of the most prolific 'recent' vitriol dispenser from here ??

Could your oft self heralded superior reasoning prowess per chance equate that absence to suspension..... for innumerable examples and exactly the reasons you now incredibly and insanely (albeit typically) challenge us.... 'to find' ??

Additionally...

Spare us the blatantly off topic agony of the unseemly rule violation for which you were understandably asked to leave PMF.
This also self induced dilemma in no way excuses your constant thinly veiled, resentment motivated, off topic slurs against same in your arguments here.

Explain to me why an internet forum solely dedicated to discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher should be off-limits for discussion on another internet forum. I'm all ears..

In light of your lengthy cut-paste-copy- from- PMF- to- here of Michael's *complete post* you might also want to utilize your beloved internet research methodology (and your ears) to peruse Rule 4 from this Forum

4. ...............and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites.E2


In conclusion, with utmost alacrity, may I agree with your most recent argument, particularly your usual customary signature style slur at others.
This one is worth repeating because (with few notable exceptions) it conveys almost universal applicability to primarily yourself and to many of your most verbose acolytes.

Your word alone long ago stopped being worth anything.

 

[Machiavelli]

Many people have taken offense at the behavior of the defendants' families. That doesn't mean their behavior has been offensive. As Kaosium put it, the families can't make a case for their children's innocence without defying the prosecutor and the police. Amanda and Raffaele would sit in prison for the next quarter century if no one were allowed to say anything that might be interpreted as offensive by those who would impede others' freedom to speak.

So the same, people here may take offense from what John Kercher says, because he says Amanda is guilty, and states he believes she is guilty.
But you have stated that John Kercher was in offensive mode and the Knox were not, wording the phrase as meaning that objectively Kercher was attacking and the Knox did not attack. You did not just say that you took offense from his words. While we could perfectly agree in the same logic saying "Amanda is guilty" may be not an offensive comment, it is meant to say that's what she is, and Kercher stating he thinks Amanda is unequivocally culpable of the killing of his child is stating a fact: this is what he believes.
Though, you stated that in youropinion is an "offensive move" (meaning objectively offensive) , and instead the Knox moves are (objectively) all respectful, it is just other people - like the Kerechers - who take offense of inoffensive statement.

I'm not sure the Knox, Mellas and Sollecito families can be said to be at fault as long as they have never said anything attacking, criticizing or even questioning John Kercher's child.

I am sure John Kercher can't be said to be having a offensive strategy in contrast to the Knox strategy on the media, in the same logic.

When you note "the families can't make a case for their children's innocence without defying the prosecutor and the police", you could just
1) try be more detailed on the verb "to defy" (which is not the same as to accuse)
2) focus on the difference between making a point in court and making a case in media.

You are not able to spot these differences, instead you will support a line that goes on trying to make a case in media because self-defeating in court, and while performing this dirty trick, projects this very blame on others: police, prosecutor, judges, experts, Kercher party, witnesses, etc.

In italy we call this game ciccio mi tocca.
"I am here on tv because I want to use the media, rather the court, to accuse these people of being corrupt and dirty. Their blame, which proves they are corrupt and dirty, is they (maybe, could, allegedly, in this irrelevant points) have used the media, rather than the court, to accuse..."

 

[platonov]

This post is semantically ambiguous, Platonov, and given that you sometimes struggle with your English expression you may be unaware that your words could potentially be read as a threat. I am sure this is in no way what you meant.

However given the history of stalking and harassment associated with the more deeply unsavoury of the internet's pro-guilt personalities and forums, it might be better to err on the side of caution with such statements Platonov, lest onlookers unfairly lump you in with those vile bottom-feeders.

On the contrary there is nothing semantically ambiguous about my post.

Nor are you in a position to give me lessons on meaning, expression or semantics - have you already forgotten your recent embarrassing misreading of the rather simple defence appeal docs here.
You claimed not to understand what I was referring to last time - Just click on the link, couldn't be easier.
We shall be charitable and pass over your earlier Massei incomprehension.

In any case its for halides1 to decide to respond or not - you claim to have me on ignore thus 'excusing' your failure to respond to (for example) my several corrections of your repeated confusion over the 'computer log' timings - yet rush to respond on behalf of others ??

Your paranoia about something or other is not my concern, but let me make it quite clear - As long as there is no danger of my position being confused or lumped in with yours I am perfectly content.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Machiavelli may well not want to talk about the issue at all and just move quietly on, however if he does choose to comment he may well want to argue that this destruction of evidence was purely due to repeated, rank incompetence rather than malice. However doing so would make no difference to the point that the police destroyed relevant evidence, accidentally or otherwise.

No, the point is that I do not have the subject "the police" as a persona responsible of acts.
Then, I do not have an indcation about the Asus computer being "evidence".
The destruction of electronic items is - my educated guess - the consequence of lack of means due to the catastrophic budget cuts which had drawn the most egergious protests by the Police who have been even demonstrating in the streets in Perugia for years. This is one of the latest demonstrations: http://www.uglpoliziadistatoumbria.it
And the, the main point to me is the total irrelevance of these objections, the search of implications that cannot be, when these points are just confrontd with the essence of the case: there is simply evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The evidence is there, does not depend on whether the police found experts unable to handle hard drives. The evidence found but overlooked by the prosecution and left out from the trial. the sheer lost incriminating evidence - in my opinion, is much bigger than this, and it is all against the defendants.

 

[LondonJohn]

Errrr......Puh---Leeeeze

Has your oft self heralded scientific evidence based methodology per chance included the slightest perusal of the AAH section 'recently'....uhhhh... like today or yesterday ??

Has your oft self heralded scientific evidence based methodology per chance noted the 'recent' absence of the most prolific 'recent' vitriol dispenser from here ??

Could your oft self heralded superior reasoning prowess per chance equate that absence to suspension..... for innumerable examples and exactly the reasons you now incredibly and insanely (albeit typically) challenge us.... 'to find' ??

Additionally...

Spare us the blatantly off topic agony of the unseemly rule violation for which you were understandably asked to leave PMF.
This also self induced dilemma in no way excuses your constant thinly veiled, resentment motivated, off topic slurs against same in your arguments here.



In light of your lengthy cut-paste-copy- from- PMF- to- here of Michael's *complete post* you might also want to utilize your beloved internet research methodology (and your ears) to peruse Rule 4 from this Forum

4. ...............and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites.E2


In conclusion, with utmost alacrity, may I agree with your most recent argument, particularly your usual customary signature style slur at others.
This one is worth repeating because (with few notable exceptions) it conveys almost universal applicability to primarily yourself and to many of your most verbose acolytes.

Thank you for your illuminating post. I appreciate your concern, and am sorry to learn of your issues. Rest assured that all of your carefully-measured points are duly noted.

Perhaps in your next post you'll be kind enough to construct some form of argument or discussion related to the events surrounding the death of Meredith Kercher, and the consequent criminal trials? I look forward in anticipation to your next contribution to the debate.

Best regards,
LondonJohn

 

[Kestrel]

The Monster of Florence is a story of satanic cults and ritual murders.

I guess you don't know anything about Mignini's story as a prosecutor.
And the story of satanic cults and ritual murders is instead of ganuinely Florentine origin, was already renown since many years before Mignini was appointed in the Narducci case.
A group devoted to satanic cults and ritual murders actualy existed. The question is, whether Narducci was part of it or not. Whether people were involved in a policical covering of investigations, or not.

Perhaps it's in the Italian character to believe a story of a satanic cult collecting body parts for rituals and operating out of a masonic lodge under the protection of high ranking members of the Italian security forces. For the skeptics here on JREF to accept such a theory would require some rather extraordinary evidence. Mignini supported his satanic cult theory with little more than his own imagination.

Recognizing the Monster of Florence murders as the work of a serial killer is a far simpler explanation for the observed phenomena.

 

[platonov]

Now playing:
"All along the Watchtower" Hendrix/Dylan

"There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
Theres too much confusion
I cant get no relief"


Alright, now I am completely and utterly lost. I thought you were making a claim that the appeal docs did not support the argument John and Kevin were making about the time of death. I went through them, and it seems to me they do indeed..now I don't know what to say! You've fried my brain!

I thought you were hinting that there was something there we were missing. I got the impression subtle innuendos were part of your style.

I plead utter and complete befuddlement now, and I suspect the three you have listed in the latter category were not obfuscating, but just confounded.

You win! I abase myself in surrender! What point did I misinterpret?


"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!"

(good luck figuring that one out--you'd have to have seen the episode)


What I meant there was I was writing that post as you asked me about it, thus when I posted it and refreshed there was your requesting me to go back and answer it, which I hadn't before for the reason I posted. So you can read my mind, but I can't seem to comprehend your posts.

'The fault is doubtless mine'

You may well now be completely and utterly lost.

But lets simplify matters - Post a LINK to the 'ToD ranges' section from the appeal docs [that you seem to think coincide with something or other].
Note - Not the earlier 'whining over bodyweight' section.

I have asked Rose Montague twice but he hasn't responded (with a link) while yet implying they have been posted here.

If you cant Post this Link then there is nothing further to say.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

With the mention of the US government, it just occurred to me how disappointing it is that there doesn't seem to be any mention of Knox so far in this WikiLeaks business. There must surely have been diplomatic cables that would give an interesting new perspective on the case if published.

I think the whole US Govt thing is a big red herring. The US Govt's only responsibility is to ensure that one of its citizens is being treated in accordance with international human rights codes, and that she has adequate legal representation. US Embassy/Consulate officials are therefore required to visit any US citizen held on criminal charges, and to make sufficient enquiries (including monitoring the trial) to ensure that these basic safeguards are met.

I would suggest that in any EU member state, these are no more than ticks in boxes for the relevant US Embassy or Consulate, and all that's required is a couple of routine cables back to the State Dept in Washington to confirm that the necessary checks were done, that procedures are being followed, and that there's a paper trail.

On the wider issue of whether the US Govt should (or even can) intervene in this instance, again I think this is a misplaced argument. The US Government executive branch (and, for that matter, the US judiciary branch of government) is completely unempowered to influence the judicial proceedings of another sovereign state. Whilst the US might....erm...."overlook" this in the case of nations which it has either invaded or is openly hostile, there's no way whatsoever that it would ever attempt to influence the justice system of an EU partner nation.

Interestingly, the US breaches a fundamental tenet of democracy within its own borders, when it allows the executive branch to interfere in the judicial process in areas such as presidential pardons or stays of execution by state governors. But just as the US executive would never intervene in the case of one of its own citizens who it felt was wrongly convicted by US courts, so it would never intervene in a country like Italy either. Indeed, the Italian executive branch has no right to intervene in the case either - perhaps there are some in the Italian executive who believe Sollecito was wrongly convicted. It's entirely up to the judiciary in a sovereign state to apply justice, and to apply corrections if necessary.

With all this in mind, I'd have been astonished if there were any paper trail expressing any kind of opinion about the safety of Knox's conviction. Not only is it expressly outside the remit of the State Dept and its foreign outposts to be discussing such issues officially, they would be well aware that such a written communication would cause a serious diplomatic rift if it were ever made public. Phone calls may have taken place in a private, off-the-record capacity, but I'd expect nothing more, regardless of how US officials in Italy actually feel about the case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, the point is that I do not have the subject "the police" as a persona responsible of acts.
Then, I do not have an indcation about the Asus computer being "evidence".
The destruction of electronic items is - my educated guess - the consequence of lack of means due to the catastrophic budget cuts which had drawn the most egergious protests by the Police who have been even demonstrating in the streets in Perugia for years. This is one of the latest demonstrations: http://www.uglpoliziadistatoumbria.it
And the, the main point to me is the total irrelevance of these objections, the search of implications that cannot be, when these points are just confrontd with the essence of the case: there is simply evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The evidence is there, does not depend on whether the police found experts unable to handle hard drives. The evidence found but overlooked by the prosecution and left out from the trial. the sheer lost incriminating evidence - in my opinion, is much bigger than this, and it is all against the defendants.

What does that have to do with police destroying evidence - that claim at issue, which you claimed was a lie, and I just showed was true citing the Massei report?

You get caught making statements which are blatantly false, and instead of acknowledging any error you just keep rolling along with a new barrage of entirely unsupported claims.

 

[Mary_H]

So the same, people here may take offense from what John Kercher says, because he says Amanda is guilty, and states he believes she is guilty.
But you have stated that John Kercher was in offensive mode and the Knox were not, wording the phrase as meaning that objectively Kercher was attacking and the Knox did not attack. You did not just say that you took offense from his words. While we could perfectly agree in the same logic saying "Amanda is guilty" may be not an offensive comment, it is meant to say that's what she is, and Kercher stating he thinks Amanda is unequivocally culpable of the killing of his child is stating a fact: this is what he believes.
Though, you stated that in youropinion is an "offensive move" (meaning objectively offensive) , and instead the Knox moves are (objectively) all respectful, it is just other people - like the Kerechers - who take offense of inoffensive statement.

But what have the other families said about the Kercher family that is like what John Kercher said about the other families (or at least about Amanda)?

I am sure John Kercher can't be said to be having a offensive strategy in contrast to the Knox strategy on the media, in the same logic.<snip>

In italy we call this game ciccio mi tocca.
"I am here on tv because I want to use the media, rather the court, to accuse these people of being corrupt and dirty. Their blame, which proves they are corrupt and dirty, is they (maybe, could, allegedly, in this irrelevant points) have used the media, rather than the court, to accuse..."

I am going to have to read this part of your post a couple more times to understand exactly what you're driving at, but that's okay, because at least I know I'm talking to the real Machiavelli.

 

[Matthew Best]

If you cant Post this Link then there is nothing further to say.

One can only hope.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
I am sure John Kercher can't be said to be having a offensive strategy in contrast to the Knox strategy on the media, in the same logic.

When you note "the families can't make a case for their children's innocence without defying the prosecutor and the police", you could just
1) try be more detailed on the verb "to defy" (which is not the same as to accuse)
2) focus on the difference between making a point in court and making a case in media.

You are not able to spot these differences, instead you will support a line that goes on trying to make a case in media because self-defeating in court, and while performing this dirty trick, projects this very blame on others: police, prosecutor, judges, experts, Kercher party, witnesses, etc.

In italy we call this game ciccio mi tocca.
"I am here on tv because I want to use the media, rather the court, to accuse these people of being corrupt and dirty. Their blame, which proves they are corrupt and dirty, is they (maybe, could, allegedly, in this irrelevant points) have used the media, rather than the court, to accuse..."

Are you saying you believe it is wrong for the defendants' families to use the media while they condemn the prosecution and the police for using the media?

 

[platonov]

One can only hope.

I'll wager a 'nine bob note' your hopes will be dashed.

Actually make that a 'nine bob note' and a 'seven bob note'

 

[LondonJohn]

You may well now be completely and utterly lost.

But lets simplify matters - Post a LINK to the 'ToD ranges' section from the appeal docs [that you seem to think coincide with something or other].
Note - Not the earlier 'whining over bodyweight' section.

I have asked Rose Montague twice but he hasn't responded while yet implying they have been posted here.

If you cant Post this Link then there is nothing further to say.

.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Raffaele_Sollecito_Appeal.pdf

Page 162.

Sollecito's appeal document argues that the ToD was "21.30-22.00", based on a proper correlation of the stomach/intestinal contents with the known time of Meredith's last pizza meal. I think that they've deliberately erred on the side of caution in going for 10pm as the upper timeframe, but I don't see why they haven't gone back as early as 9.15 or so. Either way, they argue that Meredith was dead by 10pm at the latest.

By the way, Sollecito's appeal also explicitly argues that the "intestinal slippage" hypothesis is rubbish, since the autopsy video clearly shows Lalli correctly tying off the duodenum.

Seems like Sollecito's defence team, at least, appears to subscribe to the same hypothesis put forward by me and Kevin (among others). I'm not surprised by this, since it's a medically-accurate hypothesis, so far as I'm able to tell. We shall see whether the appeal court accepts the hypothesis.