• 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.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
I am right. I have explained the thing that you don't know on the other forum.
But if you want me to demonstrate that you are teaching things you don't know, I can easilly address you to cases of acquittal "per non avere commesso il fatto" linked to art. 530 paragraph 2. So that you can have you confirmation that I am right and you are wrong, as well as boasting knowledge of topics you don't know.
For example, this (Brescia Massacre) is a famous case of aquittal ex art 530 § 2 for insufficient proof, expressed under the formula "per non avere commesso il fatto":

Strage di Brescia assoluzioni

"Carlo Maria Maggi, Delfo Zorzi, Maurizio Tramonte, Francesco Delfino e Pino Rauti «per non aver commesso il fatto, visto l’articolo 530 secondo comma per i reati a loro iscritti, capo a e d"

If you are not content I can address you to more literature.
Click to expand...

You are not right.

Under any formula you just work out wrong.

Aways....................


You need to understand the things you see before you start telling people about them
 
Dougm said:
I hope Rudy Guede asks to have his case reopened, so they can convict him this time (with or without the DNA), and give him the sentence he truly deserves!
Click to expand...

I think Rudy definitely deserves a new trial.
And newly defined sentencing.

I think Mignini deserves one too. The way suspended sentences work is if you reoffend within a certain time frame your intial sentence must be served.
Mignini's was 18 months in jail for his first offence - abuse of the powers of the office of a prosecutor.
His crackpot case in this trial provided almost daily ammo to knock him up for more. Or of course, he provided the daily ammo in what could turn into a big public suicide...
Which is all that filth like him really deserves.
He's a slug that is bloated on the power from the Perugian court scene fare.

It's just turning into a good time to really hit him now. He's open to a lot of punishment at this stage of his, ahem, career...
 
Last edited:
Which ones?

Verklagekasper said:
There are so many people absolutely convinced she's innocent even though she has been lying all along about events of the evening and even accused an innocent man of murder (who was released because the police did their job, not because she retracted her accusasion).

You aren't too picky about the people you treat like rock stars, are you?

Well, please don't send any more students abroad. kthx
Click to expand...
(highlighting mine)
Verklagekasper,

Would that be the police who found a witness to say that the bar was closed that night, or the police who told the Swiss professor (who would later give Lumumba an alibi) to call back tomorrow? Or did you mean the police who said that they had CCTV footage of Ms. Knox outside the girls' flat that night? Oh, wait a minute, maybe you mean the police who listened to Ms. Knox tell her parents that she recovered her memory (effectively retracting her accusation) and then did not release him. This episode has made me tell my advisees who study abroad never to speak to police unless in the presence of an attorney.
 
Why on gods green earth would Rudy appeal his sentence if it means he could get a harsher sentence? Which I'm sure would be a very real possibility. Why would his lawyer let him do it?
 
Verklagekasper said:
There are so many people absolutely convinced she's innocent even though she has been lying all along about events of the evening and even accused an innocent man of murder (who was released because the police did their job, not because she retracted her accusasion).
Click to expand...

I posted the note and the statements on the last page or so, show me the accusation. One that doesn't include 'vaguely' or 'confusedly,' as that doesn't quite fit the definition of an accusation, now does it?

What events of the evening do you believe she has been 'lying all along' about? What evidence can you provide that she lied, or rational argument that suggests it was a deliberate attempt to deceive someone with false information?

Why do you believe that Patrick was released 'because police did their job' and that Amanda's note, which makes it crystal clear she's not sure of anything the cops had her sign about that night, doesn't amount to a retraction? Especially when it includes the line:

"Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance."

It would take the police two weeks after the receipt of this note to release Patrick Lumumba, despite the fact within days of the arrest numerous people had come forward to offer him an alibi:

Police questioned a Swiss professor today who, together with other witnesses, said that he could back up Lumumba's claim that he was at his bar in Perugia on the evening of the murder. The professor, who has not been named, told police that he was at Lumumba's bar between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Police questioned him for seven hours, but said that they had found his confirmation of Lumumba's alibi unconvincing. He was able to confirm that he had been at Lumumba's bar on the evening of the murder, but could not swear the bar owner had been present throughout. Giuseppe Sereni, Lumunba's lawyer, said he would produce 20 other witnesses to back up his client's alibi.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, whatever gave you the impression that girls barely out of their teens that the police suspect of being involved in a murder can order the arrest or release of other prisoners?
 
Quinn said:
Ah yes, let us not forget that she remains convicted of a crime that she never should have been put in a position to commit, and wouldn't have been if not for the incompetence and/or misconduct of the authorities.
Click to expand...

Let us not forget that - beyond being nonsense - the above statement contains false and umproven assertions, among them that she wouldn't be in that situation if not due to misconduct or incompetence.

There is no misconduct. No proof nor element of evidence about misconduct was ever addressed. Nothing emerged, except the "hit on the head twice" during the 01:45 interrogation; everything else is made up by the mind of the innocentisti.
(someone would scream that Patrick said he was not treated politely, thus only showing there is no element at all about any mistreatment nor misconduct on Amanda; someone would falsely cite a Cassazione ruling they have never read, arguments like these...).

Absurdities like "put in the position to commit", judgements "incompetence" made in a total ignorance of the procedure laws; this is what goes on here...

She committed a crime because she decided to commit it, for other cause. That is all what a verdict can say. If there were other causes, she would not be punishable for that crime.

And that crime, by its definition, is not something that stands alone logically, isolated from the rest of the charges.
 
Machiavelli said:
This is already known. Verbatim of Bongiorno's requests for further documentation. Or better, a request of nullification because of late discovery.
Her requests had been accepted by the prosecutios. Stefanoni provided them the whole paper documentation on the SAL and the CDs with the elaborated files.
Later on, there has not been any futhrer complaint about the "lack of electronic raw data"; I don't see any request of such data not even in Bongiorno's speech; there has been a complaint by the defense expert for the lack of some of data specifications in the SAL (date, time, reagent concentration on some of the templates); but no further request of any "electronic" data.
No such further request in the courtroom, no such further request in the appeal points.
Click to expand...
Machiavelli: I believe on PMF you wrote that you had spoken to Mignini on some things. Would you elaborate on what your relationship is with him? Would that relationship in any way cause a bias in your view of this case? Do you belong to Mignini's PR super tanker?

Also, The Machine, whoever he is, indicated that his sources close to the case informed him that Knox and Sollecito's verdict would be upheld, but with perhaps a reduced sentence. How did he come across that information and why was he so wrong?

Finally, do you have any contact with the journalist Giuseppe Castellini of a local Perugian newspaper who brought us Quintavalle and continues to appear on Porta a Porta spreading false claims about this case?
 
dalla Vedova on the non-release

Machiavelli said:
The defense has never asked the electronic raw data files that you address. In order to have this request formalized, you must have this request written among the appeal document. And the defense did not issue any such request. You don't seem to understand that in order to attribute any relevance to such data and/or request/denial, you must have this request as a point written in the reasons demanding appeal. Otherwise this is no reason for appeal.

Moreover, electronic raw data were totally irrelevant in Vecchiotti and Conti's reasoning. Their conclusions are based on else.
It is not even proven they were ever requested at any time, while all useful electronic data had been provided to the defence (by their own admission: they only complained they got them too late, yet before the trial).
Note, on the other hand Vecchiotti and Conti did not request a huge amount of data - two arrays of negative controls in laboratories and tests on the apartment floor - data which they later asserted did not exist. And their assertion is proven false.
Click to expand...
Machiavelli,

Carlo dalla Vedova was quoted as saying, "But they need the raw data they have asked for from the police to do so. We first asked for it in 2009 and it's still not been handed over."
 
Last edited:
Teddy2007 said:
Machiavelli: I believe on PMF you wrote that you had spoken to Mignini on some things. Would you elaborate on what your relationship is with him? Would that relationship in any way cause a bias in your view of this case? Do you belong to Mignini's PR super tanker?

Also, The Machine, whoever he is, indicated that his sources close to the case informed him that Knox and Sollecito's verdict would be upheld, but with perhaps a reduced sentence. How did he come across that information and why was he so wrong?

Finally, do you have any contact with the journalist Giuseppe Castellini of a local Perugian newspaper who brought us Quintavalle and continues to appear on Porta a Porta spreading false claims about this case?
Click to expand...

I'm curious where this "blind loyalty" comes from too.
 
RoseMontague said:
Here is the Italian version:
Click to expand...

But, I don't understand, even before entering the matter of what they are discussing in court in those hearings (anyway we already know about them), how do you think these documents could change things? There is no request of raw data files in the appeal documents, none in the reasons for appeal. These are the defence positions; these define the points in the first instance trial that the defence wants to be addressed. The poitns are not accessories put there for rethoric emphasis: they have to define the defence position on the trial, entirely and exaustively. And there is nothing in their position about raw electronic data. I don't see how can you change this.
 
halides1 said:
Machiavelli,

Carlo dalla Vedova was quoted as saying, "But they need the raw data they have asked for from the police to do so. We first asked for it in 2009 and it's still not been handed over."
Click to expand...

Yes. To the journalists. (and in English). But in the trial documents, where is this position? They didn't make it.
You don't have anything except these assertions that have no roots in the documentation.
 
Teddy2007 said:
Machiavelli: I believe on PMF you wrote that you had spoken to Mignini on some things. Would you elaborate on what your relationship is with him? Would that relationship in any way cause a bias in your view of this case? Do you belong to Mignini's PR super tanker?

Also, The Machine, whoever he is, indicated that his sources close to the case informed him that Knox and Sollecito's verdict would be upheld, but with perhaps a reduced sentence. How did he come across that information and why was he so wrong?

Finally, do you have any contact with the journalist Giuseppe Castellini of a local Perugian newspaper who brought us Quintavalle and continues to appear on Porta a Porta spreading false claims about this case?
Click to expand...

I have no relationship with Mignini.
I talked to Mignini; tens of other journalists and writers did the same. I talked to Mignini because I was in Perugia and I happened to meet him on a coffee break during a hearing session. Just like any citizen in Perugia can speak to another citizen. Why shouldn't I?
 
I hope the aftermath of the trial, lucrative book deals and so forth do prove Mignini to be insane, even though he tells us he's not.
 
theRealBob said:
You are not right.

Under any formula you just work out wrong.

Aways....................


You need to understand the things you see before you start telling people about them
Click to expand...

"Aways .." The Irrational in your posts speaks by itself and doesn't require comments.
 
Machiavelli said:
And that crime, by its definition, is not something that stands alone logically, isolated from the rest of the charges.
Click to expand...

You don't think a person innocent of a crime can accuse someone else of a crime and not be found guilty of the crime they did not commit?
 
Machiavelli said:
I have no relationship with Mignini.
I talked to Mignini; tens of other journalists and writers did the same. I talked to Mignini because I was in Perugia and I happened to meet him on a coffee break during a hearing session. Just like any citizen in Perugia can speak to another citizen. Why shouldn't I?
Click to expand...

You won't have entered into a genuine relationship with Mignini until you have been sued.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom