Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
pilot padron said:
Your thinking is exactly the detailed explanation about "time served" that was given long ago by Some Alibi 'elsewhere'.
You know the poster who previously argued here so incredibly effectively, but because he believed in guilt is now often derided here in absentia as a "solicitor or para legal":cool:

The above 'explanations' before your post do little other than confuse a pretty straightforward outcome if acquitted of murder by Judge Hellmann
Click to expand...


You should ask stint7 to ask SA whether he feels insulted about being called a solicitor :)

And at the same time, you can get him to explain to you that only barristers (or solicitor-advocates) are allowed to stand up and address the court in criminal trials in England and Wales. And in fact, in any serious criminal trial, virtually the entirety of the defence strategy and formulation of the argument is also done by the barrister or solicitor-advocate. So the defence solicitor actually has very little to do with the pre-trial or mid-trial planning, and (s)he definitely has nothing to do with presenting the case in court, questioning witnesses in court or making arguments in court.
 
pilot padron said:
Dave
L J said: she was found guilty
She was not even tried on the charge yet and will not be until a month and a half from now
Therefore....She was *not* found guilty.

It may not be in L J's nature to admit this error for you, but trust me...he is wrong
Grinder says as much in different words.
As does Kaosium when he explains the misunderstandings very well (again)
Click to expand...
-

Huh?

Did you even read what you quoted? He never said she was found guilty. He questioned how she was found guilty if her charges hadn't even been addressed yet. ONE LAST TIME:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn
"When was she found guilty of the criminal slander charges relating to the police 'cuffing'. acusations? She wasn't either charged or found guilty on this issue in Massei's court... "
 
Grinder said:
The only person to mention this character since I joined has been you. You seem quite smitten! ;) I know you have a dossier on these things and you will pull out a mention deep in a post, but really he's not subject of interest.

The time served concept is really pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

1) If so obvious why was it not seen as such in the past page here before I mentioned it and previously PMed you about time served?

2) Why was it so mangled and and erroneously omitted as the "pretty obvious" answer to at least a half dozen questions above about it?

3) As per Moderator clarification, comments about posters who have posted here, and left in disgust are indeed allowed here.
If only the negative references to these posters that so abound here interest you, that appears to be more of a personal preference that I have no control of, nor desire to delve deeper into.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
Yes, yes I was wrong about which calumnia charge was heard and which is being heard.

But you can get a full lunch at Morton's for $29.95 :D
Click to expand...


I still recommend the full red-meat pig-out though! It'd be like going to the Tour d'Argent in Paris and not having the "Canard a la presse" :D

And please understand that I was in no way attempting to get into some sort of battle for oneupmanship with you. We had a short exchange that ended with a clarification of certain facts - I've been wrong on things like this before, and have been as comfortable being corrected as I'm sure you are. It's only certain individuals with a particular agenda who have an interest in making this into some sort of adversarial dogfight - and even then this individual managed to get his argument diametrically wrong!
 
-

Like I've said many times before, at least here your post can be challenged,

Dave

ETA: We all still love you pilot
 
Last edited:
The charges

Folks, I'm not sure why there's all this confusion about what the charges against Knox and Sollecito are; it's all spelled out at the beginning of the Massei-Cristiani report (surely "our friends elsewhere" translated this part?):

A) killing Meredith;

B) taking Sollecito's knife out of his house for no good reason;

C) forcing Meredith to "suffer sexual acts";

D) stealing 300 euros and two cell phones from Meredith;

E) staging a burglary in Filomena's room;

F) falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba (AK only).

These were the charges tried in Massei's court; convictions were obtained on all except for the 300 euros portion of D). Sentencing was figured as follows (Massei-Cristiani p. 423): Knox and Sollecito were given the maximum sentence for crime A), which is 24 years, with crime C) effectively being incorporated as an aggravating circumstance; B), D) (with respect to the telephones), and E) added on another year; and F) another year still for Amanda.

All these convictions and sentences are now being appealed in Hellmann's court.

Additionally, in a totally separate proceeding, Knox is being charged with slandering the police during her testimony in the Massei trial. (This sounds absolutely ridiculous to US/UK observers, but perhaps to be charitable to the Italian system, we might say that this is approximately analogous to being charged with perjury.) The first-level trial in that case has not even started.

Now, with regard to civil suits: as I explained above, Italy allows these to be attached to criminal prosecutions. So, in addition to the criminal penalties explained above, the Massei convictions on charges A) through F) resulted in Knox and Sollecito being sentenced to pay monetary damages to members of the Kercher family and the owner of the cottage on Via Della Pergola, and in Knox being sentenced to pay monetary damages to Patrick Lumumba.

I also believe that the police officers involved in the interrogation are likewise joining the calunnia case against Amanda Knox (for which, again, the first trial hasn't started yet) as a civil party, being represented by -- guess who -- Francesco Maresca.
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
1) If so obvious why was it not seen as such in the past page here before I mentioned it and previously PMed you about time served?

2) Why was it so mangled and and erroneously omitted as the "pretty obvious" answer to at least a half dozen questions above about it?

3) As per Moderator clarification, comments about posters who have posted here, and left in disgust are indeed allowed here.
If only the negative references to these posters that so abound here interest you, that appears to be more of a personal preference that I have no control of, nor desire to delve deeper into.
Click to expand...

The discussion about how to handle the not guilty verdict has been going on for quite some time. Many have speculated that the Italians might want to hold onto some charges in order to avoid paying out millions for a false conviction.

As for what is allowed, I'm not really concerned. You bring up SA as the great PG poster and that's about the only time he is referred to here, in my experience.
 
LondonJohn said:
I still recommend the full red-meat pig-out though! It'd be like going to the Tour d'Argent in Paris and not having the "Canard a la presse" :D

And please understand that I was in no way attempting to get into some sort of battle for oneupmanship with you. We had a short exchange that ended with a clarification of certain facts - I've been wrong on things like this before, and have been as comfortable being corrected as I'm sure you are. It's only certain individuals with a particular agenda who have an interest in making this into some sort of adversarial dogfight - and even then this individual managed to get his argument diametrically wrong!
Click to expand...

Done, well done. :)
 
komponisto said:
Folks, I'm not sure why there's all this confusion about what the charges against Knox and Sollecito are; it's all spelled out at the beginning of the Massei-Cristiani report (surely "our friends elsewhere" translated this part?):
Click to expand...
-

Excellent. Thank you Komponisto.
.
.

ETA: Just out of curiosity, but what exactly would be a yes good reason for removing the knife from Raffaele's apartment?
 
Last edited:
Let's harass the lone guilter today

LondonJohn said:
And since you're around, are you going to address any of the other questions that I and others put your way over the past couple of hours, or should I assume that you were wrong in those arguments as well? Thanks in advance, etc.
Click to expand...

1) Grinder sufficiently informed you that the 'T' shirt issue was pretty common knowledge to informed followers of the case.

2) The other questions IMHO fall into the category of "lets harass the lone guilter today".
Lets make him search endlessly for information that we all well know anyway

Those requests seem to be best accompanied by asking the guilter to wash your car and polish your shoes.
Those harassment requests for this type of 'answers' get about as much reaction from me as anyone asking me to wash cars or polish shoes.

Therefore please do assume whatever you choose.

Thanks in advance from me too

ETA:
Since you previously argued to me how horribly incorrect it was to ever use something another said without reference.
May I ask you to please properly reference "The Machine" (another incredibly effective guilter arguer).
This since everyone knows "Thanks in Advance" has been his signature closing looooong before you attempt to use it again here.
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
1) Grinder sufficiently informed you that the 'T' shirt issue was pretty common knowledge to informed followers of the case.

2) The other questions IMHO fall into the category of "lets harass the lone guilter today".
Lets make him search endlessly for information that we all well know anyway
Click to expand...

Guess I missed it as well, pilot. Or maybe I have forgotten it, there is a lot to keep track of.
 
-

I personally believe Amanda was harassed more than anyone here is or has ever been.

Let's harass and pick on Amanda until she cracks...
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
1) Grinder sufficiently informed you that the 'T' shirt issue was pretty common knowledge to informed followers of the case.

2) The other questions IMHO fall into the category of "lets harass the lone guilter today".
Lets make him search endlessly for information that we all well know anyway

Those requests seem to be best accompanied by asking the guilter to wash your car and polish your shoes.
Those harassment requests for this type of 'answers' get about as much reaction from me as anyone asking me to wash cars or polish shoes.

Therefore please do assume whatever you choose.

Thanks in advance from me too
Click to expand...


So asking you to back up your assertion that Marriott is capable of exerting editorial and programming influence over CBS network news and current affairs output falls into your definition of "let's harass the lone guilter (your word, not mine)", does it?

And asking you for any evidence of Chris Mellas wearing the t-shirt that you so confidently assert that he was wearing falls into your definition of "let's harass the lone guilter (your word, not mine)", does it?

And pointing out to you that your "argument" accusing me of misunderstanding the status of Knox's slander proceedings was totally erroneous (and probably motivated by something other than an honest search for the truth) falls into your definition of "let's harass the lone guilter (your word, not mine)", does it?

Well, if you want to employ the "woe is me" victimisation argument, that's your prerogative. But I have to tell you that your assessment is totally wrong. Your arguments are attacked or questioned because they are either wrong or unsupportable, not because you happen to have a certain belief in the guilt status of the defendants in the trial. Furthermore, if you make a specific claim, the general rule is that it's incumbent upon you to supply evidence in support of that claim. If you refuse to supply any such supporting evidence - regardless of your stated "reasons" for refusal - then the only conclusion that reasonable people can draw is that you cannot support your own arguments with -you know - evidence. And that somewhat tends to subtract a rather large degree of credibility and reliability from your arguments.
 
Dougm said:
Is this your website? http://thelonequilter.blogspot.com/

Oops, that is the "Lone Quilter, sorry.

I do like the monicker, "incredibly effective guilter arguer". That would make a good t-shirt, or signiture!

Sorry to all, I must mistakenly think I am funny today!

:D
Click to expand...


I think I shall get a t-shirt made up with this slogan on the front, coupled with the dictionary definition of "oxymoron" on the back :D

Seriously, I cannot now figure out a single rational argument to be made that Knox and Sollecito should be found guilty of the murder. I can see that one might possibly be able to make a half-way reasonable argument along the lines that Knox/Sollecito were involved in the murder in some way - but that there's not sufficient proof of their involvement to justify a guilty verdict. However, I'll quickly add that such an argument would also be easy to refute.

In my opinion, there is a cast-iron argument for acquittal; and also there is far more reason and logic behind an argument for total non-involvement than there is behind any argument for involvement/culpability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom