Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

Interview with Raffaele's aunt

I can't find your post on IIP, so many threads going on over there. This is really a beautiful thing. I agree completely. Raffaele is an amazing person. His thoughts and tenderness toward Amanda was touching. His father wrote that he still like likes her. He could indeed have thrown her under the bus and gotten out of there. A simple agreement with the prosecutors to say he thinks she did leave would have done it. It wouldn't matter if he changed his story. Rudy Guede did afterall. His is admirable, honorable and tougher than he probably knew. He's a real catch for some lucky gal. When he gave his statement and talked about his 'Free Amanda and Raffaele' bracelet I was thinking - You really think this romantic killed Meredith Kercher?

I would love to read more. Do you have any links to this?

Here is a translation of the interview with Raffaele's aunt, from Porta a Porta:

Q: What do you mean when you say "Raffaele has given me a lesson in life"?

A: It's because Raffaele has always had faith in his moral compass and values. For a 24-year-old young man, it would have been very simple to point the finger just to get himself out. It would have been very easy to ask his lawyers to separate his defense from Amanda's. This did not happen -- even though some of us tried to suggest it to him...

Q: That would have been betraying Amanda?

A: Not betraying Amanda, betraying himself! Raffaele has never had any element that could have made him doubt Amanda's innocence; so that he was extremely proper and upstanding, giving us a life lesson. Raffaele specifically wrote to me "I would not be able to look myself in the mirror for the rest of my life, if I even thought I had said the slightest thing that could have caused the investigators to do harm to Amanda, which probably could help me. This I cannot allow. I am the one who has to look myself in the mirror. I must be freed, Amanda must be freed; we are both innocent. I would rather have an unjust life sentence than freedom at the price of convicting a girl who is also innocent." This is Raffaele.

Q: Tonight you all are going to write a short message on Facebook which will be a sort of goodbye from Raffaele Sollecito to the most popular social network in the world.

A: Yes, Raffaele specifically asked me to post a message in his name, a "hello everyone, Raffaele Sollecito will never again be on Facebook". Raffaele will have a personal account, an address which will be in the non-public domain, for the nearest and dearest people.

Q: So, we can expect Raffaele to retreat from the world? [literal translation: So, an "anti-character" [anti-personaggio] is what we should be expecting from Raffaele?]

A: Raffaele has always said: "I want to be free again, and being free again means having my anonymity back."

 

[Machiavelli]

A little masonic sect CT recap:

Must be a very big conspiracy too since it also supposedly influenced Mignini's own trial where he was found guilty of abuse of office:


Some older JREF thread quotes from Machiavelli

:

The fact that you attempt to ping accusations on Mignini in order to serve criminals interests, is the self-evident proof that there is a dirty campaign against him.

Your attempts consist in clinging to flimsy suggestions and bad translations.
If you were balanced you would consider, for example, that Doug Preston's account of facts on Mignini is simply impossible, as well as inconsistent; he is lying, and he is not willing to prove his assertions in any venue, while Mignini has five or more witnesses in his favour.

Note at the time Mignini's prosecution had already leaked at least a half dozen false stories to the press yet when he is criticized for that he sees it as evidence of a conspiracy against him.

This is another lie. You feel just as if you don't need to prove any of those nonsense assertions. Prove what you say. If you had the slightest knowledge of the system you would have some understanding of what a "leak" is and how it happens in the Italian system; you would have a perception about what are the actual interests of a prosecutor's office, how it works, and you would not state this nonsense that there are "leaks" serving the interest of a prosecutor. If you understood Italian you would also understand what the "stories" actualy say; you would not have journalists asserting that Mignini proposed a satanic or sect-like scenario, or that he accused Amanda of having a vibrator and condoms.

 

[Justinian2]

Aside from the neverending series of lies that she told, do you think I should trust a person who has just been convicted for calunnia?
<snip>

http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2011/10/in_the_know_amanda_knox

With headlines such as “Foxy Knoxy” and false stories printed about Knox having HIV/AIDs, it is clear that the focus was on her character when it should have only been on her alleged involvement in the event. Knox was depicted as a psychopathic seductress, virginal on the outside but a murderer in reality, sex-craved and dangerous. Various media outlets capitalized on prosecutor presentations of Knox as a “luciferina,” or she-devil, making her a media sensation. This supposed perception of Knox, whether true or false, has forever tarnished her reputation.

I think the press was the biggest liar in this case.
The police and the prosecution were the second biggest liars, and also the most dangerous to Amanda's and Raffaele's freedom (and health).
PMF and TJMK were the most frequent liars.

Amanda wasn't a liar; she was a person forced to make a statement when confused and frightened.

If you could even call her false confession a lie,it was one that should have been benign (the police should not have acted on the lie and the press should not have published it). So even with this one lie, this infamous calunnia, the police, prosecution and press were the most criminally responsible. They were the very architects of the calunnia. They set Amanda up.

 

[Mary_H]

Aside from the neverending series of lies that she told, do you think I should trust a person who has just been convicted for calunnia?<snip>

You don't seem to have any problem trusting someone who has been convicted of abuse of office.

 

[Machiavelli]

One of the wicked step-sisters of Perugia is digging in to promote Amanda's guilt. Andrea Vogt insinuates she MAY still have been in volved. I wish I could conduct my own media Witch Hunt. I would torch this one.

...

the word is not "insinuate", but "report". This is what Hellmann says:


"...
In shockingly frank interviews broadcast on TG1 yesterday evening, and in the Italian press this morning, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman said Rudy Guede, the Ivory Coast immigrant found guilty in a separate trial of taking part in Meredith's murder, "knows the truth and it's possible the defendants [Knox and Sollecito] do as well".

The 69-year-old judge went on: "They may be responsible. But there's no proof."

The Corriere della Sera quoted Hellmann as saying that the verdict handed down on Monday was "the result of the truth that was created in the proceedings. But the real truth can be different". .....


Note Hellmann does not say "there is no evidence", says "there is no proof"

 

[Machiavelli]

You don't seem to have any problem trusting someone who has been convicted of abuse of office.

I've read his sentencing report anyway.
(I also know in detail what abuse of office means, comparatively with calunnia)

And even in the hypotetical case in which I did not trust him, this cannot imply in any way that I should trust an infame proven liar like Knox.
Knox is the one that sees blood on Sollecito's hands, and "the best truth that I can think", and explains (lying) she is very clean while insinuating that instead Meredith - her roomate who had just been murdered - left menstrual blood in the bathroom and didn't clean,... and so on .... and on

 

[Machiavelli]

http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2011/10/in_the_know_amanda_knox



I think the press was the biggest liar in this case.
The police and the prosecution were the second biggest liars, and also the most dangerous to Amanda's and Raffaele's freedom (and health).
PMF and TJMK were the most frequent liars.

Amanda wasn't a liar; she was a person forced to make a statement when confused and frightened.

If you could even call her false confession a lie,it was one that should have been benign ....

Oh yes, your roommate lies in morgue and you build a false story, you realize she might be in danger and you leave the house thinking about a mop and breakfase, you accuse an innocent man of murder an rape, you place blood on the hands of another one, you write down another false testimony bringing further false evidence against innocent people, you refuse to tell the truth for weeks, you make up a story about a false memory to justify yourself.... oh yes, benign....
please

 

[LondonJohn]

:

The fact that you attempt to ping accusations on Mignini in order to serve criminals interests, is the self-evident proof that there is a dirty campaign against him.

Your attempts consist in clinging to flimsy suggestions and bad translations.
If you were balanced you would consider, for example, that Doug Preston's account of facts on Mignini is simply impossible, as well as inconsistent; he is lying, and he is not willing to prove his assertions in any venue, while Mignini has five or more witnesses in his favour.



This is another lie. You feel just as if you don't need to prove any of those nonsense assertions. Prove what you say. If you had the slightest knowledge of the system you would have some understanding of what a "leak" is and how it happens in the Italian system; you would have a perception about what are the actual interests of a prosecutor's office, how it works, and you would not state this nonsense that there are "leaks" serving the interest of a prosecutor. If you understood Italian you would also understand what the "stories" actualy say; you would not have journalists asserting that Mignini proposed a satanic or sect-like scenario, or that he accused Amanda of having a vibrator and condoms.

So, Machiavelli, we're waiting for you to quote verbatim the section of the Italian criminal code (or any legislation, for that matter) which specifically states that a verdict (or any finding of fact, for that matter) in a completed trial can be used as probative evidence in its own right in a totally different trial of different defendants.

That's if you're not too busy constructing ever more elaborate conspiracy theories or calling people liars left, right and centre.........

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh yes, your roommate lies in morgue and you build a false story, you realize she might be in danger and you leave the house thinking about a mop and breakfase, you accuse an innocent man of murder an rape, you place blood on the hands of another one, you write down another false testimony bringing further false evidence against innocent people, you refuse to tell the truth for weeks, you make up a story about a false memory to justify yourself.... oh yes, benign....
please

I think you are way, way too emotionally invested in the case for guilt at this point. Your arguments are becoming increasingly incoherent and illogical. For example, the "argument" you are posing here is entirely contingent upon an underlying belief in Knox's participation in the murder. In my opinion, you have long since stopped basing your arguments on an objective position of neutrality or a search for the truth. Instead, your arguments sound like little more than a partisan presentation of the case from the position of a vested interest (e.g. the prosecution). I sincerely hope that you are not a journalist (or affiliated to the media in any way), if this is the way in which you analyse cases of this type.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

Here is something that you don't need Silverlight to see, Candlelight works. When the SC ruled on Guede's final appeal and well before the written ruling was issued the prosecution, Maresca, and Vogt were already proclaiming how it would doom Raffaele in the appeal. The High Court was aware of the prosecution's intent in this regard. When the ruling came out they made it very clear that the appeal court was not bound by the rulings regarding Guede and multiple attackers:

In the meantime it is now necessary to escape the attempt, pursued by the overall setting of the defence, but out of place in the context of this decision, to involve the Court in supporting the thesis of the responsibility of others, namely Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, for the murder aggravated by the sexual assault of Meredith Kercher. The decision to which this court is called concerns uniquely the responsibility of Guede regarding the deed with which he is charged, and the possible participation of others in the crime should be taken into account only to the extent to which such a circumstance would have an impact on the exclusive commitment of the Court to either modifying or confirming the verdict of guilt of the defendant, which was entirely shared by the courts of first and second instance.

Hello!!!!, appeal court, see here, please note, pay no attention to the judges behind the curtain on the possibility or thesis of multiple attackers. I just don't see how the High Court could have made this any clearer.

However, I do believe Hellmann is free to use this ruling when it comes specifically to considering the testimony of Guede in Hellmann's court. The changing stories and false statements are clearly pointed out by the High Court. It would not surprise me to see Hellmann's Motivation refer to this aspect of the ruling in determining the reliability of Guede's statements.

Attaching the translation of the ruling, if you missed it last time.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've read his sentencing report anyway.
(I also know in detail what abuse of office means, comparatively with calunnia)
And even in the hypotetical case in which I did not trust him, this cannot imply in any way that I should trust an infame proven liar like Knox.
Knox is the one that sees blood on Sollecito's hands, and "the best truth that I can think", and explains (lying) she is very clean while insinuating that instead Meredith - her roomate who had just been murdered - left menstrual blood in the bathroom and didn't clean,... and so on .... and on

Yes, it means that Mignini criminally abused his office in direct violation of the powers and responsibilities vested in him as a PM. It means that Mignini was in a position of considerable power and influence (a position that he chose to hold, and one which meant he should be held to a far higher standard of propriety and probity that an ordinary citizen), but that he misused and perverted that power, and in the process he completely broke the bond of trust that he was expected to uphold. It means that if/when Mignini is finally convicted of this criminal offence, he will receive a 16-month prison sentence (suspended), he will be sacked from his job with dishonour, and he will never again be allowed to hold public office.

That's what it means.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, it means that Mignini criminally abused his office in direct violation of the powers and responsibilities vested in him as a PM. It means that Mignini was in a position of considerable power and influence (a position that he chose to hold, and one which meant he should be held to a far higher standard of propriety and probity that an ordinary citizen), but that he misused and perverted that power, and in the process he completely broke the bond of trust that he was expected to uphold. It means that if/when Mignini is finally convicted of this criminal offence, he will receive a 16-month prison sentence (suspended), he will be sacked from his job with dishonour, and he will never again be allowed to hold public office.

That's what it means.

I can't wait. I believe his appeal is next month. I need to refill my champagne cabinet.

 

[RoseMontague]

Machieavelli,

In the millions spent to collect evidence, how much more would it have cost for the forensic team to pick up off of the floor the clothes torn off of Meredith Kercher by her killer? Is it really that difficult to stoop over and pick up clothes and put them in the right type of collection bag? How much do you think that action would have cost? Was it too expensive to stoop and pick up the clothes in November? Is that perhaps why they waited for December?

If millions were spent it was NOT on the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher, but were instead on wiretapping the families and friends of Amanda and Raffaele.


Evidence Uncollected by Forensic Police
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/09/video_shows_amanda_knox_invest.php

http://www.groundreport.com/World/Amanda-Knox-Evidence-Uncollected-by-Forensic-Polic/2941556

http://www.examiner.com/internation...out-evidence-not-collected-by-forensic-police


Why don't you be honest about this Machieavelli, they were not just incompetent. They were negligent. They failed to perform their simplest basic duties. They treated Meredith Kercher and her family with horrendous disregard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYJiZq3TQh0

Well said. I hope the Kerchers come to an understanding of this at some point.

 

[Mary_H]

I've read his sentencing report anyway.
(I also know in detail what abuse of office means, comparatively with calunnia)

And even in the hypotetical case in which I did not trust him, this cannot imply in any way that I should trust an infame proven liar like Knox.
Knox is the one that sees blood on Sollecito's hands, and "the best truth that I can think", and explains (lying) she is very clean while insinuating that instead Meredith - her roomate who had just been murdered - left menstrual blood in the bathroom and didn't clean,... and so on .... and on

Wow, you really despise Amanda, don't you?

How do you know Amanda was lying when she said she was clean? Is it because other girls that you don't despise said she wasn't clean?

 

[Kaosium]

the word is not "insinuate", but "report". This is what Hellmann says:


"...
In shockingly frank interviews broadcast on TG1 yesterday evening, and in the Italian press this morning, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman said Rudy Guede, the Ivory Coast immigrant found guilty in a separate trial of taking part in Meredith's murder, "knows the truth and it's possible the defendants [Knox and Sollecito] do as well".

The 69-year-old judge went on: "They may be responsible. But there's no proof."

The Corriere della Sera quoted Hellmann as saying that the verdict handed down on Monday was "the result of the truth that was created in the proceedings. But the real truth can be different". .....


Note Hellmann does not say "there is no evidence", says "there is no proof"

Machiavelli, this is an absolutely true statement:

It is possible you were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. By the same standards employed by the prosecution in the trial there exists evidence that you were involved, however this is not an accusation.

 

[RoseMontague]

Kaosium.

Please note that Hellmann does not call Massei an idiot. This is quite possibly indeed exceedingly probably very likely to turn out to be ominous for the defense.

 

[Kaosium]

And even in the hypotetical case in which I did not trust him, this cannot imply in any way that I should trust an infame proven liar like Knox.

What proof is there that Amanda lied?

Knox is the one that sees blood on Sollecito's hands,

When was it established that Raffaele did not have blood on his hands that night from the fish?

and "the best truth that I can think",

I've seen others, notably Pilot and Djfred, imply this is some sort of damning admission too and never understood what they meant. How are you interpreting that to the detriment of Amanda?

and explains (lying) she is very clean

What makes you think she's lying about being very clean? Has it ever been established that Amanda is not generally a clean person?

while insinuating that instead Meredith - her roomate who had just been murdered - left menstrual blood in the bathroom and didn't clean,... and so on .... and on

Was that an insinuation or was it just Amanda wondering about where that blood came from if she knew it wasn't her? Would leaving a little blood in the bathroom when there's suggestions that someone might have left quickly suggest that person was normally not very clean, and if Amanda said it that way wouldn't it imply to you that she wasn't saying there was anything unclean about leaving blood in the bathroom but that with blood in the bathroom and the door open that meant someone might have gotten hurt and left the cottage quickly?

 

[Verklagekasper]

Normal people don't kill for no reason.

True. Normal people also don't falsely accuse their former employers of killing somebody. Oops, seems Knox isn't all that normal...

 

[CDHost]

I think the press was the biggest liar in this case.
The police and the prosecution were the second biggest liars, and also the most dangerous to Amanda's and Raffaele's freedom (and health).
PMF and TJMK were the most frequent liars.

Amanda wasn't a liar; she was a person forced to make a statement when confused and frightened.

If you could even call her false confession a lie,it was one that should have been benign (the police should not have acted on the lie and the press should not have published it). So even with this one lie, this infamous calunnia, the police, prosecution and press were the most criminally responsible. They were the very architects of the calunnia. They set Amanda up.

Very well put!

 

[CDHost]

: The fact that you attempt to ping accusations on Mignini in order to serve criminals interests, is the self-evident proof that there is a dirty campaign against him.

Well lets assume you are right there is a dirty campaign against Mignini.

• He filed criminal defamation charges agains a newspaper, the West Seattle Herald for reporting that Mignini is seen by many locals as inadequate and mentally unstable
• He convicted (in absentia) Joe Cottonwood a California carpenter for calling Mignini a bully, its hard to do more then point out the irony of a DA filing criminal charges against someone for calling them a bully
• Slander charges against Amanda Knox's parents for quoting her sworn testimony (this BTW was the charge that got me off the fence regarding Amanda Knox)

How can those actions be explained in a positive light? Those are the provable things.

And that's without getting into all the areas like broken computers where I think he's engaging in evidence tampering or the witnesses statements where I think he engaged in witness tampering.