Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[snook1]

And what Guede can do now? Will he be believeable if he comes forward with invented story of how Amanda and Raffaele were involved? What are his options?

 

[Justinian2]

I met him twice and I only spoke to him on one occasion.
I didn't know anything about him some year ago ago; at first, I didn't have any bad feeling but neither any real sympathy; later on I have learnt things about him as a person, and I like him and trust him.

So you trust Mignini and not Amanda?

What about the Knox family?

What about Guede?

Do you think a famous profiler maligned Guede by suggesting he may have the profile of a serial killer? Is Guede, in the words of Mignini, "A poor black man"

 

[Diocletus]

You are offending Maresca, Mignini and Comodi asserting that they "try to obfuscate", while you have the proof that it was the judge who obfuscated this by not mentioning. Because I have proven that "non aver commeso il fatto" does not mean anything like 530.1, and we know that Hellmann declared he doesn't know if Knox and Sollecito were at the crime scene.

However, the actual point is that 530.1 would not make the prosecutors look mendaticous, it would instead make the court judges look idiots and that would mean: a verdict that commits suicide. This because they convicted Knox for calunnia (also for other reasons): 530.1 coupled with a conviction of calunnia, and with some of the evidence, would be a self-defeating kamikaze sentencing report with no chance of survival at the Casazione. Hellmann would be shooting in his foot by writing a 530.1 + calunnia.

No it wouldn't. All he has to say is that Raf and Amanda have an alibi, and that Amanda improperly caved in to pressure to falsely accuse Patrick. The issue for the Supreme Court is going to be how much "pressure" was enough "pressure" to excuse the accusation.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are offending Maresca, Mignini and Comodi asserting that they "try to obfuscate", while you have the proof that it was the judge who obfuscated this by not mentioning. Because I have proven that "non aver commeso il fatto" does not mean anything like 530.1, and we know that Hellmann declared he doesn't know if Knox and Sollecito were at the crime scene.

However, the actual point is that 530.1 would not make the prosecutors look mendaticous, it would instead make the court judges look idiots and that would mean: a verdict that commits suicide. This because they convicted Knox for calunnia (also for other reasons): 530.1 coupled with a conviction of calunnia, and with some of the evidence, would be a self-defeating kamikaze sentencing report with no chance of survival at the Casazione. Hellmann would be shooting in his foot by writing a 530.1 + calunnia.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that it's entirely possible for Knox to be totally factually innocent of the murder (let alone acquitted on account of no evidence), yet to have genuinely committed the crime of criminal slander against Lumumba?

Please note that I am not saying that this is what actually happened: I am just arguing against your position that it is an impossibility. Here's just one way in which it might have happened (a purely hypothetical example for illustrative purposes only):

Knox has nothing to do with the murder, but is getting increasingly tired and worn down by the incessant interrogation by the police. She also suspects that the police think that she was involved. She resents the police intrusion into her life, and is fed up with being in the spotlight (all the more so because she knows that she had nothing to do with the murder). She therefore decides to point the finger at Lumumba when his name comes up in questioning, in order to give herself some breathing space and to get the police to back off. She also thinks that if she points the police off down another road, it might open up their investigation to the extent that they realise that she (Knox) is not a legitimate focus for their attention.

The hypothetical example I just outlined above is, to me, a perfectly feasible way in which a totally innocent Knox might have had the means and the intent to commit a criminal slander against Lumumba. You're simply wrong to assert that the two things (Knox's innocence and her slander) are completely incompatible.

Of course, the footnote is that I don't believe that Knox willfully accused Lumumba at all - and I therefore think she is not guilty of the slander charge also. I suspect that this will get rectified through the Supreme Court / revised appeal trial route. But that's not germane to this particular argument.

ETA: I realise that you think that Maresca, Mignini and Comodi are highly respected figures whose reputations are not impugnable. I feel otherwise. As do many other reasonable observers of this case. All three of them have lied and obfuscated before, and I have little doubt that they will do so again if they feel that it best serves their interests to do so. I am sorry that you feel some sort of blind respect or loyalty towards them though. Anything we should know about why you feel that way?

 

[Machiavelli]

At this stage I do not expect Machiavelli to engage with the relevant scientific facts but for the viewers at home:

It is very important that the translator admitted to suggesting to Knox that Knox had repressed memories of witnessing Meredith's murder because this is exactly the tactic that leads to internalised false confessions and Knox's statements to the police bear several hallmarks of an internalised false confession including a vague, dream-like quality, total lack of internal logic, immediate retraction, the utter lack of any real knowledge of the circumstances of the crime, and conformity with the "facts we already knew to be true" the police had fed her.

Denying that Knox was interrogated under conditions known to lead to internalised false statements requires either mendaciousness, ignorance of the circumstances of Knox's interrogation or ignorance of the scientific knowledge we have of internalised false statements.

Denying that Knox's statement bears several hallmarks of an internalised false statement also require seither mendaciousness or ignorance of the scientific knowledge we have of internalised false statements.

Machiavelli and Mignini's continued insistence that Knox's statement is anything other than an internalised false statement brought about by incompetent interrogation is an insult to the intelligence of any informed reader.

(...)

In this case we would agree at least on one point: that the appeal verdict is an insult to intelligence.
From your point of view, this because the appeal verdict established that Knox is guilty of calunnia beyond reasonable doubt. This could not be if her confession was internalized, that is: if it was a false memory. In order to have calunnia, you must have no internalization, no false memory. It has to be fuly malicious.
The conviction for calunnia establishes that there was no false memory, that the statement was a plain lie, and that it was voluntary.
So you say that this court insulted your intelligence.
Mine too. Partly for other reasons.

 

[Diocletus]

The conviction for calunnia establishes that there was no false memory, that the statement was a plain lie, and that it was voluntary.

Does it? I ask again: must the prosecution prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, or is it the burden of the defense to prove involuntariness?

 

[Justinian2]

I met him twice and I only spoke to him on one occasion.
I didn't know anything about him some year ago ago; at first, I didn't have any bad feeling but neither any real sympathy; later on I have learnt things about him as a person, and I like him and trust him.

http://womanonawire.blogspot.com/2011/09/unarresting-arrested-famed-fbi-profiler.html

KE: Do you believe more than one person could've killed Meredith?

JD: Based on my experience, the crime scene does not indicate the presence of three individuals in the room where Meredith was murdered. What was done to the victim, the way in which the crime occurred, was not the result of three people. This can be concluded without a DNA test.


KE: And third suspect, Rudy Guede?


JD: Behavior reflects personality. And that behavior fits only Rudy Guede. Guede has the history; he was an experienced criminal, he had the motive (are you listening, Mr. Pisa?*) and all evidence points to him. It was a brutal, bloody homicide, and it’s a reflection of his personality. And that behavior was exhibited at the crime scene. That’s his “canvas”; the result is his “artwork” of the subject (victim).

You should be able to find other “canvases” of his like that – not necessarily homicide, but you should find a violent past in this person’s background. I know that he committed some robberies, but I’ll bet money there are more cases that he may have been involved with which remain unsolved. I don’t know, maybe before he came to Perugia – whatever he may have been escaping previously.
KE: What was the motive?

JD: The primary motive was burglary. But we have an opportunistic offender here. And that opportunity was presented when Meredith came home, and she became the victim of the opportunity.

Do you believe that 3 killers were needed or indicated?

 

[Mary_H]

And what Guede can do now? Will he be believeable if he comes forward with invented story of how Amanda and Raffaele were involved? What are his options?

When it becomes clear to everyone that Rudy falsely accused Amanda and Raffaele, I wonder if people will be as judgmental of Rudy for accusing an innocent man and woman as they have been of Amanda for accusing an innocent man.

 

[Kaosium]

You all have to admit, it is quite funny that I'm being hounded for coming here to point out the hounding. Calling me irrational was priceless!

You're trolling, you're getting what you want, you should be happy!

You've also displayed disturbing signs of irrationality, we might have to have you 'fixed.' Kevin_Lowe volunteered to try to help 'fix' the guilters, I'm confident this should provide entertainment and enlightenment for all. I'm not entirely sure what he meant by 'fixed,' but I'm dying to find out! I'm so glad a guilter troll volunteered. I do hope for your sake it doesn't involve a rusty hacksaw and duct tape, but all the rest of us 'bullies' will enjoy it more if it does, so you will have that to look forward to!

Incidentally, I did not call the Kercher's stupid if you were referring to me in one of your initial posts, I called others not stupid for instantly realizing the Massei Report was bilge and the conviction unlikely to be confirmed, mainly due to the fact two were lawyers and the other knew the case well enough. The Kerchers never had a chance in my view, they were counseled by Mignini in the beginning, they hired Maresca, they read the papers that wanted 'Foxy Knoxy' to burn, and according to one of John Kercher's articles they're aware of the 'online tribute' which could only be TJMK or PMF, which they might possibly read. It is quite natural and absolutely saddening and maddening that they might act irrationally with that information combination regarding the death of Meredith.

That's why I fix my steely-eyed glare of contempt at the Jackal, Maresca. He had a duty to look out for the best interests of his clients, not his hugging buddy Mignini and the cops like his father. He has exposed them to criticism through his actions and counsel, it was dreadful to watch them during the acquittal proceedings and to see they actually believed the nonsense they were peddling about 'two knives' and the Supreme Court. That brought more sympathy which had been fading as I'm afraid there's some things not even the families of victims should be able to do with impunity, especially creating more victims through trumped up charges at both families and brave journalists in Italy, in addition to the dire attempt to blacken the names of both innocents condemned prematurely and unjustly after the corrupt trial of the first instance.

What might actually help is going and getting that 'review' of the C&V experts report anyway. Take it and all materials necessary to three forensic DNA scientists in the London area and see just why those items were so roundly condemned by C&V, and how Maresca is lying to them.

Incidentally I chuckled when I read your initial post, as the exact same things occurred to me reading through the threads initially, however unlike you I was fascinated and dumbstruck that so many people could care so passionately about a court case in Italy. The off the screen stuff stunned me when I finally decided to post on this subject, thus I decided to withhold judgment until I could figure out what was going on, it appears you skipped this step. There's more to this than meets the eye at first glance, much like the case itself, thus making firm judgments on limited data is especially fraught with peril in this instance--you don't know the whole story and I'm not going to tell you! I'm going to tell you to 'read the threads' instead, and that we've 'established' that pretentious superiority is 'becoming' on this thread and that frequent 'rationality checks' are required for all posters to ensure improper emotional attachment by those making 'guilter' arguments is avoided.

We're still working on that one. Give us time! Oh, and if I failed to include a word or argument you find unbecoming or you feel insufficiently 'bullied' or 'hounded' please use the suggestion box to include more terms you don't like and things you don't want to see talked about so I can be sure to include them in my next post!

 

[Malfie Henpox]

You're trolling, you're getting what you want, you should be happy!

You've also displayed disturbing signs of irrationality, we might have to have you 'fixed.' Kevin_Lowe volunteered to try to help 'fix' the guilters, I'm confident this should provide entertainment and enlightenment for all. I'm not entirely sure what he meant by 'fixed,' but I'm dying to find out! I'm so glad a guilter troll volunteered. I do hope for your sake it doesn't involve a rusty hacksaw and duct tape, but all the rest of us 'bullies' will enjoy it more if it does, so you will have that to look forward to!

Madness. Total, utter madness.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

In fact, I'm reporting that.

 

[Onofarar]

There is theoretically a small possibility Amanda violated some law somewhere. There are a billion laws.

But to get three years for agreeing with a police suggestion is already a very harsh punishment. Especially when you are tired and wish to escape harassment by the police.

Any punishment that exceeds minimum restraint or restitution is cruel and unusual by my thinking.

The "crime" Amanda "committed" was brought on by the ILE's handling of the case. Had she been treated as a witness with information to provide rather than as a suspect who must be broken and made to confess she would not have been in the police station that night and there never would have been a coerced accusation of Patrick. The real crime here is the totally botched investigation by the police and Rudy getting only 16 years max for a ruthless and senseless murder.

 

[Kaosium]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...owthread.php?postid=7636251#post7636251"]post regarding that whilst waiting for the acquittal if you're interested, as I included some links that might be of use.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no need to worry

In fact, I'm reporting that.

Malfie Henpox,

Kaosium was joking. Right now I am being told over in Forum Community that we pro-innocence people need to get a thicker skin. Fair enough, but no one should complain when we kid around a little.

 

[Paninaro]

They have to decide before.

Thank you. So is it also on record? Then is there any way you or somebody else could find out? Call the court register or something like that, maybe?

 

[Onofarar]

The most interesting point of Kikkomani's story new story is that his black Golf was parked at the cottage. This is the first I have seen of any lead as to whose car was parked in that driveway. Another example of the total incompence of the Perugin ploice forces.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

Yes. It was hilarious. And once again is indicative of why I made a comment initially.

But let's get this straight once and for all shall we, as people seem to keep ignoring it:

I do not think Knox is guilty. I do think this thread has descended into madness.

 

[Onofarar]

I can absolutely believe this. I don't think it happened here. But it does happen. All killers kill for the first time the first time, right?

And the point about destroying other's lives, Knox did that to the barman too, right? I mean regardless of why, she still did it.There's just no need to start calling people irrational (and viciously, IMO). The level of emotion here is incredible.

No the police destroyed Patrick's life and blamed their actions on a 20 year old college student. As has been debated on here numerous times AK's statement in English on Nov 6th says she is confused and she is not sure what she knows to be true or not true (thank you ILE for imprinting a false memory in hr brain) and she doe sno think she can be a wtness against Patrick.

She only accused him because the police pressured her and implied or stated they had evidence that Patrick was the murderer. She was in jail from the 6th on - how was she to know that the police lied to her. BTW - It was the police who kept Patrick's bar closed for 4 months or more forcing him into bankruptcy. Why did the keep the bar closed you say? Under the LAUGHABLE pretext that it was a crime scene.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I do think this thread has descended into madness.

This is off topic Malfie. There was a relevant thread about this thread. You can write there or start a new one.

 

[Fine]

Yes. It was hilarious. And once again is indicative of why I made a comment initially.

But let's get this straight once and for all shall we, as people seem to keep ignoring it:

I do not think Knox is guilty. I do think this thread has descended into madness.

___________________

Were Amanda's underpants ever tested for the presence of cat blood?

///