Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

But it is. There is a law to provide this. It's something codified; it's not a matter of opinion.

If what you say is true, then Italy's law would be contrary to international law and to Italy's treaty obligations. Therefore, I doubt that what you say is true.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wait, what?

It appears that you think it's okay for you to opine that Maori is lying, but it's not okay for anyone to opine that Maresca, Mignini or Comodi are "trying to obfuscate," and it's not okay for Mr. Douglas to state his opinions about the case and so he should be sued.

That is almost exactly what I maintain. And the reason is very simple: I say that Maori is lying not because I have a bad opinion on him, but because it is proven that he is lying; it is something self-evident. He is just denying something self-evident. This is why it's okay to state he is lying.
He is stateing that he is feeling sure that it is a 530.1. Butthe self-evident fact is that nobody can be sure, nobody has the written dispositivo, he doesn't have the dispositivo since nobody has. Hence, he has no ground to be "sure".

To say Mignini, Comodi, Maresca are obfuscating the truth is - to me - a plain stupid dull statement. What is the rational argument beyond such an idea? How can anyone "be sure" they are trying to obfuscate, what is the elaboration and the evidence of this? There is no ground, that is something unproven, a speculation out of one's prejudice.

The way I see it, everyone is entitled to state their opinions about the matter. Why is it that you (apparently) think otherwise?

I don't think otherwise.

If Mr. Douglas deserves being sued (in your view) for stating his opinion about the matter, shouldn't you also deserve to be sued for accusing Maori of lying?

Douglas (if that's his name) deserves being sued by Rudy Guede, because he makes false statements about him, of a kind that are codified as defamation in Italy. If you state someone has the profile of a serial killer, then you will have to prove that.
I can state Maori was lying, because there is the proof. Obviously Maori can sue me; but he won't do it, because if he does, I win.

 

[Machiavelli]

If what you say is true, then Italy's law would be contrary to international law and to Italy's treaty obligations. Therefore, I doubt that what you say is true.

But that's absolutely true. Everybody knows that, who is accustomed with the system a bit. Why should I tell you something not true? It's something rather public, it's a procedure law.

 

[LashL]

The female judge on Porta a porta and the host of the show apparently argue that it is: http://www.rai.tv/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-5b19958e-38c2-4728-bd65-8bf4cf9a1dcf.html

I don't know what they're saying, but maybe Machiavelli can help us out.

I can't see it as I get a message telling me to install Silverlight, but, fortunately, I don't need to see it to know that if the suggestion is that the Hellmann court was somehow bound by the findings of fact made in Guede's trial, it's absolutely and indisputably wrong.

 

[Diocletus]

But that's absolutely true. Everybody knows that, who is accustomed with the system a bit. Why should I tell you something not true? It's something rather public, it's a procedure law.

It would be a violation of the right to a trial, the right to confront witnesses, the right to be represented by counsel and a whole host of other rights that Italy recognizes under the European Human Rights Convention.

So I'm sorry, but what you say is not true.

 

[LashL]

Why? Because you say that?

Because if it were as you claim it to be, that would make Italy worse than a third world country, and I refuse to believe that. My mother was born there, after all. (Granted, my mother's immediate family emigrated to Canada because Italy was somewhat "backwards" in their view, and her family was very much opposed to Italy's fascism and lingering fascist regimes at the time, but my family members and I have visited numerous times since then to see the family members who still live there. So, I'm not prepared to write off the whole country, personally.)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dalla Vedova and the forensic files

Wait, what?

It appears that you think it's okay for you to opine that Maori is lying, but it's not okay for anyone to opine that Maresca, Mignini or Comodi are "trying to obfuscate," and it's not okay for Mr. Douglas to state his opinions about the case and so he should be sued.

The way I see it, everyone is entitled to state their opinions about the matter. Why is it that you (apparently) think otherwise? If Mr. Douglas deserves being sued (in your view) for stating his opinion about the matter, shouldn't you also deserve to be sued for accusing Maori of lying?

LashL,

Earlier Machiavelli implied that Carlo dalla Vedova lied about the withholding of the DNA forensic files.

 

[Diocletus]

LashL,

Earlier Machiavelli implied that Carlo dalla Vedova lied about the withholding of the DNA forensic files.

Well, they definitely withheld the knife blade PCR run results. Oh, wait . . . they never did a PCR run on the knife blade sample. Well then, why did Stefanoni testify that she did? And that she got several hundred picograms of DNA as a result of the run? ANSWER: Stefanoni was lying.

 

[codyjuneau]

Amanda Knox is perhaps the only person in Italy that is NOT a liar!

If a roomfull of people screamed at me "blue is yellow", "blue is yellow", "blue is yellow", "blue is yellow", "blue is yellow", "blue is yellow", "blue is yellow" for six hours, I would finally say OK, have it your way: "blue is yellow" and sign an agreement to such. Tests have shown that you can do that to almost anyone that doesn't have a lawyer present.

But that does NOT make you a liar!

Being misunderstood or having a bad interpreter also does not make you a liar.

When someone is misquoted at .org, who is the liar: the person being misquoted or the misquoter?

The one person in Italy that is NOT a liar is Amanda.

Well said!

But don't forget you have to yell at them and hit them when they say blue is blue and yellow is yellow.

 

[Machiavelli]

LashL,

Earlier Machiavelli implied that Carlo dalla Vedova lied about the withholding of the DNA forensic files.

I did not imply that he lied. I asserted that I think he mistified. Which means he did not necessarily lie about the fact; but he cheated on the value he attributed to the the fact.
The fact is much more simple than that anyway: simply I just look at the trial documentation as the only reference to take, which in our case is defined by the reasons of appeal; that is where you can see what Dalla Vedova has actually done, there you see positions he had actually taken. Look at the development of his position, through the hearings (I showed his speech) towards his official points, reasons of appeal; that has to be your reference. Not one interview with an English newspaper, from two years later.

 

[Freddy]

No. There are so many levels all of whom do not want to see Amanda back in Italy. I don't even think the courts want her back. Without Amanda being in Italy they can have a nice quiet trial and debate these issues the way they normally do without all the international pressure.

Agreed. Extradition would have to go through people high up in both governments. Despite the existence of the treaty, the evidence is so clearly lacking that I just don't see extradition even being requested, regardless of what the high court says. At any rate, the chances of any fair proceeding resulting in reinstatement of the conviction are zero. Given the expert testimony on appeal, this case is over.

The prosecutor should be worried about his own skin. The closing arguments at the appeal were an absolute disgrace to the legal profession. I was aghast that a closing argument consisting of nothing but character assassination and innuendo would even be allowed. They didn't even try to appeal to evidence. Just emotion and that Knox is a she-devil witch.

Showing the gory pictures of Meredith's dead body was particularly classy. Talk about insulting the victim and her family. It was also completely irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and a naked attempt to be as inflammatory as possible to get the jury to ignore the complete lack of evidence. An American prosecutor who pulled that crap would have been cut off and found in contempt after about 20 seconds.

 

[Machiavelli]

Because if it were as you claim it to be, that would make Italy worse than a third world country, and I refuse to believe that. My mother was born there, after all. (Granted, my mother's immediate family emigrated to Canada because Italy was somewhat "backwards" in their view, and her family was very much opposed to Italy's fascism and lingering fascist regimes at the time, but my family members and I have visited numerous times since then to see the family members who still live there. So, I'm not prepared to write off the whole country, personally.)

That's very rational.

If you are linked to Italy, then you are in the position to check yourself about its laws, aren't you? If you don't believe me, do your little research, look up yourself.
May a verdict of the kind giudicato penale be used as circumstantial evidence in an unrelated trial?

 

[Diocletus]

May a verdict of the kind giudicato penale be used as circumstantial evidence in an unrelated trial?

ANSWER: No.

 

[LashL]

That is almost exactly what I maintain. And the reason is very simple: I say that Maori is lying not because I have a bad opinion on him, but because it is proven that he is lying; it is something self-evident. He is just denying something self-evident. This is why it's okay to state he is lying.
He is stateing that he is feeling sure that it is a 530.1. Butthe self-evident fact is that nobody can be sure, nobody has the written dispositivo, he doesn't have the dispositivo since nobody has. Hence, he has no ground to be "sure".

To say Mignini, Comodi, Maresca are obfuscating the truth is - to me - a plain stupid dull statement. What is the rational argument beyond such an idea? How can anyone "be sure" they are trying to obfuscate, what is the elaboration and the evidence of this? There is no ground, that is something unproven, a speculation out of one's prejudice.


I don't think otherwise.

Douglas (if that's his name) deserves being sued by Rudy Guede, because he makes false statements about him, of a kind that are codified as defamation in Italy. If you state someone has the profile of a serial killer, then you will have to prove that.
I can state Maori was lying, because there is the proof. Obviously Maori can sue me; but he won't do it, because if he does, I win.

This seems to me to be complete and utter nonsense.

1) You say that it's okay for you call Maori a liar because "it's proven" - but it is not proven at all. It seems that your "proof" is just your opinion. If I am wrong about this, please provide the "proof" of which you speak.

2) You say that others cannot opine that Mignini, Comodi, and Maresca are "obfuscating" because - to your mind - it isn't proven that they are obfuscating. But if it's an honest opinion of others, how is it any different than your own opinions above? (And I think that there is a whole lot more evidence of Mignini, Comodi and Maresca obfuscating than there is of Maori "lying", for the record.

3) You say that Mr. Douglas should be sued for opining that Rudy Guede is guilty - even though Guede has been convicted and is serving his sentence for murder.

Your discontinuity here just leaves me baffled. If it's not okay for Mr. Douglas to opine about Guede's guilt, even though Guede has been found guilty by Italian courts and is serving his sentence, how is it that it's okay for you to call Maori a liar when Maori hasn't been accused or charged or convicted of any such thing?

Either you agree that people should be able to voice their opinions without being subject to nonsensical threats of lawsuits or you don't.

It appears that you only approve of others voicing their opinions when they agree with you, but if they don't agree with you, it seems that you're in favour of them being charged criminally for voicing their opinions. That's just wrong, in my view.

But I'd be pleased to hear your response in case I have misread you.

 

[Freddy]

That's very rational.

If you are linked to Italy, then you are in the position to check yourself about its laws, aren't you? If you don't believe me, do your little research, look up yourself.
May a verdict of the kind giudicato penale be used as circumstantial evidence in an unrelated trial?

A law at odds with a treaty to which Italy is a party is invalid anyway. A law that violates EU human rights laws is invalid anyway. I don't know if the law you're talking about really does contradict a treaty or the human rights convention, but if it does then the law is without force. So whether the law is on the books or not is irrelevant. The only question that matters is whether the law actually does violate a treaty or the human rights convention. As I said, I don't know if that is true, but you guys should argue over that, since it is all that matters.

 

[LashL]

But it is. There is a law to provide this. It's something codified; it's not a matter of opinion.

If that is the position that you wish to maintain, please provide the complete text of the specific section of the code that you claim supports your position.

 

[LashL]

<snipped fluff>

Machiavelli, I've noticed that you have deliberately not answered any of my recent posts directed to you in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.

I would appreciate it if you would address them directly instead of dancing around in circles to avoid them. If you can't or won't address them, that is answer enough, I suppose, but I'd prefer direct responses than this tapdancing of yours.

 

[LashL]

LashL,

Earlier Machiavelli implied that Carlo dalla Vedova lied about the withholding of the DNA forensic files.

Well, apparently, Machiavelli is of the view that it's okay for him/her to state his/her opinions and accuse others of malfeasance, but if others who do not agree with his/her views of this particular case state their views, they ought to be sued in Italy.

This is baffling to me, frankly.

As I see it, everyone should be able to state their views about the case and about ILE frankly and honestly without fear of being sued by Italian police and prosecutors. Machiavelli apparently thinks it's just fine for ILE to sue everyone and anyone who disagrees with them and dares to speak out against them.



Bizarre, that.

This is a murder case that has involved some pretty obvious and straightforward hallmarks of wrongful conviction from the outset. In my view, nobody should be stifled in expressing their views about the matter, and Italian police and prosecutors should not be running around suing those who dare to criticize them.

But for all the PMF crew and those intent on 'preserving' the 'integrity' of the ILE in Perugia, let me give you this:

I believe that the Perugia police and prosecutors were absolutely negligent in this case. I believe that they misguidedly railroaded Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito despite having utterly insufficient evidence to support any case against them. I believe that Mignini's conduct was utterly negligent in this case, but I also believe that he might have some kind of mental deficiency that led him to do so. I believe that Comodi was and is an utter disgrace to her position, given the ridiculous statements that have been attributed to her in the press and given the ridiculous and unsupported claims she made in court.

So, sue me.

 

[Mary_H]

<quit>Amanda Knox is not just a convicted liar. She was a proven liar even before, she is a person who had told lies since day one.

It would be helpful for me if you could use your connections or your status as an Italian citizen to obtain the records documenting exactly what Amanda said on Day One. Please get Days Two, Three and Four while you're at it. If these records are not available, then what basis are you using for your persistent, unfounded, non-cited claims that Amanda was proven to have lied?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

This seems to me to be complete and utter nonsense.

1) You say that it's okay for you call Maori a liar because "it's proven" - but it is not proven at all. It seems that your "proof" is just your opinion. If I am wrong about this, please provide the "proof" of which you speak.

2) You say that others cannot opine that Mignini, Comodi, and Maresca are "obfuscating" because - to your mind - it isn't proven that they are obfuscating. But if it's an honest opinion of others, how is it any different than your own opinions above? (And I think that there is a whole lot more evidence of Mignini, Comodi and Maresca obfuscating than there is of Maori "lying", for the record.

3) You say that Mr. Douglas should be sued for opining that Rudy Guede is guilty - even though Guede has been convicted and is serving his sentence for murder.

Your discontinuity here just leaves me baffled. If it's not okay for Mr. Douglas to opine about Guede's guilt, even though Guede has been found guilty by Italian courts and is serving his sentence, how is it that it's okay for you to call Maori a liar when Maori hasn't been accused or charged or convicted of any such thing?

Either you agree that people should be able to voice their opinions without being subject to nonsensical threats of lawsuits or you don't.

It appears that you only approve of others voicing their opinions when they agree with you, but if they don't agree with you, it seems that you're in favour of them being charged criminally for voicing their opinions. That's just wrong, in my view.

But I'd be pleased to hear your response in case I have misread you.

Discontinuity does appear to be a recurring theme IMHO but perhaps Machiavelli will suggest different. I wonder quite what he was inferring / intimating / suggesting / hinting at (or any other alternative description you wish to ascribe, M) when stating the below in recent posts - particularly referring to the bits I have highlighted? What do you think Hellmann et al would think of Machiavelli - would they go down the Mignini / Machiavelli route and sue?

Maori is not ignorant, Maori is just lying, because he is serving the interest of his client talking in television. He feels sure that it is a 530.1 acquittal. I would also "feel sure" of that on tv if I was paid for that. (or maybe Hellman told him; maybe Maori was not the only one to be paid).

I attributed 1% the chance of acquittal based on the evidence analysis. Because they are guilty, and no one is acquitted on this evidence but in case of bribery.....

Sorry but I cannot elaborate on this. For sure, I cannot comment further before reading the sentencing report. In case of judicial corruption, one of these two forces is required to play: money or massonry......

........The point 1) is very serious. Yes I am suggesting Mignini was not given a fair trial.....