• 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.
A recording of the interrogation would sure be helpful on this score. I wonder why there isn't one. But even so, the police told her there was hard evidence she was at the cottage during the murder. That was a lie; they had no such evidence. It was on the basis of that lie that they half-convinced her it was her memory that was faulty, rather than what the police were telling her. That is what led to the false accusation, which is so riddled with qualifying language it isn't really even an assertion at all.
....


The police told her that there was a testimony against her by Raffaele Sollecito. And that was true!

I have never heard about this "hard evidence" claim by the police during interrogation; there isn't a trace of such a thing in the trial as far as I know.

Moreover that would make little sense, because Amanda had admitted to having been in the house after the murder, having taken a shower, changed her clothes, picked up a mop. What would it mean "there is physical evidence you were there"? She had been there according to her.
 
I suppose we could start with this quote from police about the interrogation:

Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct"
 
The police told her that there was a testimony against her by Raffaele Sollecito. And that was true!

I have never heard about this "hard evidence" claim by the police during interrogation; there isn't a trace of such a thing in the trial as far as I know.

Moreover that would make little sense, because Amanda had admitted to having been in the house after the murder, having taken a shower, changed her clothes, picked up a mop. What would it mean "there is physical evidence you were there"? She had been there according to her.

You are being intentionally obtuse. The police said they could prove she was there at the time of the murder, and they couldn't. They still can't. A court has said so, and according to you, that makes it true. (I happen to think that court found she wasn't there because it was true, rather than the other way around. But I'll use your manner of arguing against you, because it's fun.)

I realize that I am taking Amanda's word for what the police said, but given that they knew they were supposed to record it and they didn't, I don't trust them. And their manifest incompetence in every other facet of this investigation makes it unreasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, you didn't answer my other question: if the conviction is overturned, will you apologize for lying about Amanda Knox? After all, if a court saying something makes it true, then if the Supreme Court says she isn't guilty, she isn't a proven liar.
 
Last edited:
I don't need to really prove anything because there is a conviction for calunnia, thus a formal acknowledgment that she is a liar beyond reasonable doubt.

You can't have it both ways. If the calunnia conviction is a formal acknowledgment that Amanda's a liar beyond a reasonable doubt, then the complete reversal of the other charges is a formal acknowledgement that she was uninvolved in the murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why are the lovers of authority so troubled by this verdict? An authority even higher on the food chain than Massei has spoken. Surely his judgement is as sound as any other senior member of the judiciary, right?
 
Continuing from the Masonic CT recap and the half a dozen false stories smack down . . .


Amanda Knox prosecutor Giuliano Mignini convicted of ‘abuse of office’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999196.ece

Amanda Knox Leaves Italian Prison Following Acquittal
http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-innocent/t/story?id=14654317

Deal with it.

What are the falsehoods here? That Mignini was convicted? Or that he has said some nutty stuff about Satanism and conspiracies against him? Both are true and I've already proven it.

Too bad those things aren't covered in the PMF archives. I wonder why that is? Prior to him being convicted Mignini and everyone at PMF was saying how it just a normal thing in Italy for a PM to have charges like that brought against him and how it wouldn't amount to anything because Mignini was completely innocent. Then Mignini was convicted and regardless of what happens next nobody at PMF (including you) spoke of him being convicted as a possibility. You have a very poor track record of predictions; you made a huge fuss about the overwhelming guilt of two people just found innocent of murder while hyping the innocence of the lead prosecutor who was recently found guilty abuse of office. Why are you so still so confident that future court rulings will go as you predict?

It is common for PM's to get 16 month convictions for abuse of office in Italy? Or are you saying there was a conspiracy against Mignini because he was convicted of doing something that is regular behavior for a PM in Italy?

To you saying Mignini was convicted of abuse of office or pointing out the large number of false stories printed against Knox is nonsense speculation. . . But you think it is sensible when Mignini talks about the unprecedented American media conspiracy against him that is really being driven by sinister forces in Italy (masons or satanist I guess) out to get him ever since he started investigating the Narducci suicide . . .

(Has anybody pointed out to Mignini that the sinister forces out to get him are just common sense reporters and fair minded officials trying to stop him from wreaking judicial havoc due to his delirious theories? He is actually probably correct about one detail. The campaign against him may have in fact started with the Narducci investigation, because that is when it became readily apparent that he is deranged.)

Yes, abuse of office is a much bigger deal. Most people understand that young people sometimes do very stupid things but when an elder PM breaks the very laws he should be upholding it is very serious problem.


I already accurately quoted Mansey and Nadeau using those words. Why should I believe you over them? Do you honestly think I am ever going to agree with you just because you insist you are right over and over again?

Kate Mansey:

Mignini told the court: "There was a sect-like aspect with cultural connections to Halloween and All Saints Day playing a part. The killing actually happened the next day. Japanese comics found in Raffaele Sollecito's possession had pictures of murdered female vampires which were eerily similar to the scene of the crime."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20081026/ai_n30949025/

John Follain:

Italian prosecutors yesterday accused Amanda Knox of stabbing to death the Leeds Univeristy exchange student Meredith Kercher in a satanic ritual with the complicity of her former boyfriend and an Ivory Coast drifter.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4968044.ece

Barbie Nadeau:

Mignini also contends that Knox’s one-time boyfriend, Rafaelle Sollecito, instigated the orgy, and has suggested that he was inspired by the Halloween-themed Japanese Manga comics found in Sollecito’s bedroom, which have been described as a cross between Satan worship and pornography.

Nick Squires reporting what Judge Micheli said about Mignini's theories:

He dismissed as “fantasy” prosecutors’ claims that the sex game in which Miss Kercher is alleged to have died was inspired by Satanic rites, Halloween rituals or violent Japanese ‘manga’ comics about dead vampires.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...f-disappointment-at-being-sent-for-trial.html

John Kercher:

The prosecutor was criticised for mentioning this, but she was killed on the eve of the Day of the Dead, November 2. Sollecito was said to have Japanese manga comics that described the rape and killing of female vampires. Meredith had been dressed as a vampire to celebrate Hallowe’en.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...irl_meredith_was_funny_clever_and_extremely_/
^story first printed at Sunday Times

A very important point here is that the PMF clan has made up a narrative where Preston gets blamed for all these descriptions and in fact in your response to my "Masonic CT recap" post you were trying to blame Preston even though I hadn't mentioned him at all and was just quoting you and Mignini.

You are clearly giving a very incomplete version of what Mignini said, if you want to provide more complete statements by Mignini (ideally a transcript) I will be very interested to read it. I even provided you with the court date I think you would want to be looking into. I am actually trying to help you research an argument against my position but apparently any research is too much for you.

What comic are you describing? What is your source here because you are describing a different story then the vampire killing comic usually mentioned. I do acknowledge that Raffael probably had multiple comics so I am not saying you are wrong here at all, just that I would like more information if you have it.



It really depends upon how that is done. Something like Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula movie is full of occult themes around sex and violence, with a mass killing blood oath to evil, and things like nude vampire vixens feasting on a baby, and a bestiality rape scene . . . so if one wanted to they could twist ownership of the DVD into something pretty sinister involving bloody sacrifices and amoral sexual tendencies. But in reality the movie is just a R-rated big budget vampire flick with some gorgeous visuals, horrendous acting, and a lame ending. The only thing one could conclude about someone owning the DVD would be that the person probably owned a DVD player.

Think of it this way. Every Halloween college youths in Perugia dress up in costume, usually picking something scary and supernatural to be for the night. Meredith picked a vampire, an evil entity known for it's need to drink blood to sustain itself. Meredith's costume even accentuated this point with a fair amount of fake blood trickling out of her mouth and down her chin. At the Halloween party she was at there were other similar scary costumes with fake blood, you can see two pictures demonstrating that at the link below:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece

Ok, now ask yourself this simple question: Was there anything abnormal about Meredith choosing to dress up like an evil supernatural entity known for drinking blood and going to a gathering with many similar costumes? Obviously not. Anyone who would try to suggest she was involved in some sort of sinister cult because of those pictures is sick. I hope we can all agree on that.

But then if it is so obvious that Meredith's vampire Halloween costume shouldn't be used as evidence against her character why is it so hard to realize the ridiculousness of using Raffael's manga comics against him?

How so? All the initial actual physical evidence collected only pointed to Guede. Guede had a history of burglaries one of which had a rather unique modus operandi of throwing a rock threw a second story window identical to the break in at Meredith's house. Guede had recently escalated to violent behavior and had threatened an occupant of a home he broke into with a knife. Guede had a history of harassing women at clubs. Guede had zero meaningful interaction with Knox, in fact what Massei quotes as the most significant evidence of any kind relationship between Guede and Knox is actually just Guede telling one of the downstairs boys he was attracted to Knox. Which considering that Guede broke into her apartment and was hanging out there and then ambushed and sexually assaulted Knox's room mate is pretty damn creepy. No stereotyping involved in that description, just the facts.

What drug? marijuana? Have you ever even smoked it Machiavelli? People don't flip out and kill their room mates spontaneously on it. If they did west coast college students would be dropping like flies.

Consider your opening reply to me:



Notice the double standard you are engaging in. When I say Mignini was convicted of abuse of office you want to argue it's not true even though it is just because the conviction hasn't gone through every stage of the Italian legal process. But when talking about the circumstances of Meredith's murder you continue to preach a theory of the crime that was just soundly rejected by Hellman's jury.

If Preston is so wrong about Mignini then why did Mignini get convicted for abuse of office?

You are wrong to the point of ridiculousness. Here is what I said before:

"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."

First note that prosectors are lawyers, and by using the broad term "prosecution" I was including anyone involved wether they were lawyers, police, or aides, etc. . . Next notice that the problem isn't that there were leaks, it's that there were so many obviously false ones.

So? Either you weren't paying attention to what was being reported at the time in Italy or the Italian press wasn't paying attention to what was being said about Knox in English speaking papers.

It is a lie because I've seen the footage and it was not "clear" like they said it was. It actually clearly turned out to be Meredith. The police were the ones with the CCTV footage and that story was very widely reported with the police always described as the source.

As far as citing Italian press, Kestrel gave a cite ( thanks Kestrel!) but here is a problem you need to understand. If the UK press crucified Knox with false stories dishonestly sourced to the Italian police then someone within the Italian prosecution needed to respond to that. So now you give me the Italian sources that show how back in 2008 Mignini acknowledged how unfair the media had been to Knox. A honest prosecutor would have been willing to acknowledge there had been a stunning amount of falsehoods demonizing Knox and and been troubled by sources consistently being described as the Italian police. If it wasn't the police doing it Mignini should have been furious with the UK media for implicating Italian law enforcement in a such a bigoted smear campaign.

Instead, Mignini said:

"They have attacked in an undignified manner, with total lack of arguments, and striking superficiality this Country's judicial system, the only one having jurisdiction on this matter. Amanda in listening, motionless. Even when Mignini says that "Nodoby in Italy would have done so much as denigrate and attack in such a shameless manner USA prosecutors. Moreover, Mignini says " no Italian journalist, nobody working in the judicial field would even dream to libel and slander an American prosecutor investigating an Italian suspect".

As if the message isn't clear enough, Mignini adds: " I am bewildered and shocked by this behavior. It is the first time-and I don't think it will even happen again- that I face such arrogance and superficiality. A minimum of experience and prudence should prevent these sketchy judgments, expressed from 9000 km distance."
(Translated by Nicki and posted with pride at PMF in 2008)
(Distance between Seattle and Perugia 9008 km)

Note how the PMF clan Marriot PR supertanker myth propagates the same view as Mignini here. After Knox had been thoroughly thrashed by the media (far beyond the half dozen false stories I provided) the Knox family efforts to respond to lies against Knox were described by the PMF clan as an unprecedented American propaganda campaign funded by the "ruling class" Knox family.

No Machiavelli, those receipts never existed. The story was a lie. That is the whole point I am making with the proof you said I couldn't provide. The proof is staring you in the face and you still can't see it, not only were you lied to you are still trying to convince others of those same lies.

You have been preaching down to people about this case for two years and you still don't know there were no receipts?! How can someone spend so much time being so arrogant about a case and still not know the most basic of details?

If there were multiple recieipts for bleach the morning after the murder that would be incredibly damning evidence against RS and AK, it breaks there alibi and also undeniably implicates them in a clean up. The receipts alone could have convicted them, so if you still don't know the story was a lie then your entire understanding of what has being going on with the trials is deeply flawed.

As for the malice . . . You may be a victim of that malice too, think of all the time you've spent trying to convince others of the righteousness of your position due to you being lied to and not even realizing it. Rather sad really.

You are stating things as fact that you clearly do not know. The photo of what looked like a bathroom smeared with blood was a police forensics photo. Everyone besides the forensic team that sprayed the bathroom with the chemicals that turned red thought that was a genuinely gruesomely bloody for good reason, because that is exactly what it looked like. Anyone, wether police or lawyer, leaking that photo to the press was clearly intending for that photo to be used as it was.

The timing of it was incredibly damaging to Knox's credibility because everyone had already heard the story of how she showered in the bathroom before going back to Sollecito's house so it made Knox look like a total psycho. Plus there were the fake accounts of bleach being bought to clean up the super bloody bathroom so it fit in perfectly with the prosecutions narrative.

That is the statement that absolutely destroys any credibility you have left. See, in all fairness leaks and inaccurate press reports do happen everywhere and you could still argue that AK and RS were guilty despite the many apparent false leaks but you have to demonstrate at least a little empathy for the implications of all the false stories, and you just can't do it.

A reasonable person who believed in guilt would still be able to say something like, "yeah, those 6 examples do make it look like there was dishonest media campaign against AK and RS. I could understand how that created agitation around the trial." That is what a reasonable person would say, but you say, "the only real unlawful and malicious leak was made by Sollecito's family."

It's like you are not even a real person, just a propaganda script.

You are transparent. You started writing your reply to me without even reading the full list and example number five included a direct quote from Giobbi telling the media incorrect information so it completely killed your line of reasoning that the police weren't the source of false stories the UK media was reporting. Your argument was incredibly weak in general but example 5 proved it undeniably false, so you invent rhetoric to avoid dealing with it. It's obvious how you operate Machiavelli.

All of them list the police as their source of information! Either the Italian police or the UK media were lying on a massive scale, either way it is something that needed to be addressed before Mignini (or PMF) ranted about the vast American pro Knox conspiracy.

How could you know who was to blame Machiavelli? Even if you want to believe that the UK press was lying en masse about what their sources were how could you be so sure? What you are doing is a form of lying, you are stating facts with absolute certainty that which you have no way of knowing for sure are true.

If dishonest media smears are so common in Italy why was Mignini freaking out about the American media criticizing him?
It sounds like you are describing a very broken system. Maybe instead if defending it you should be trying to fix it.

Has he ever provided a source to back up ANYTHING that he has said here?
 
Last edited:
By the way, I have asked to quote a lie that people think the police told.
Nobody was able to quote a single one. I have explained what I mean by police lie. A factual lie told to the suspect during interrogation.

Dear Machiavelli,

Ok, you explained what, to you, the term "police lie" refers to. Let's consider some other questionable statements and try to consider if they are lies, or innocent blunders.

[a] What about Giuliano Mignini, during closing arguments in the Kercher murder appeal stated that Raphaele called 112 after the police came, apparently in a desperate attempt at trying to build a case on actual evidence. However, this "evidence" was thoroughly demolished in the first trial by analysis of the surveillance videos. Good thing that the defense had an opportunity to set the facts straight, otherwise the jury might actually believe a lie from Mignini's mouth. Massei even removed this "damning evidence" from his motivation document (a mistake On Massei's part?).

What is your conclusion of Mignini's statement?. Was it a lie, or simply profound ignorance about a brutal murder case. If it was the latter (actually the former as well), a person in his position of power should be removed from office.

Is that a "court lie"? An "lie of ignorance"? Or not a lie at all? Did Massei lie in his motivation report for not repeating the prosecution's 112 argument (i.e. rejecting the testimony of police officer Michele Battistelli?)
Massei's motivation basically confirmed that Battistelli perjured himself on the stand.

In your honest opinion, is it ethical for a prosecutor to lie during closing arguments in a criminal trial?

What about Patrick Lumumba, who stated, after his release from prison:

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."
[...] "I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'[...] "They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that ? still handcuffed and unfed ? he was shown the evidence against him, a statement from Amanda saying that on the night of November 1 he had persuaded her to take him back to the house she shared with Meredith and two others.

Lumuba never directly retracted this interview, but later argued essentially that he was never abused. (Which directly contradicts the statements attributed to him). Lumumba's statements certainly paints a rosy picture of the extreme professionalism practiced in the Perugia Police Dept interrogation room, and surprise surprise, match Amanda Knox's experiences pretty much identically.

Maybe "liar Amanda Knox" based her "blatant lies" about her own treatment under interrogation by reading the Daily Mail article about Lumumba's treatment. Seems logical, given the strong similarities between the two cases, ehh?

Why don't you think the Daily Mail was sued for so thoroughly defaming the police department in this article. Could there be, ohhhh, I don't know...... A double standard? Silly me, how could anyone possibly suggest that. By not suing the Daily Mail, aren't Lumumba's quoted statements somewhat validated? What about the (~20 or so) other quotes related to Amanda Knox in the same inverview? Lies? reasonably correct? Or fabricated from Lumumba's mouth by the Daily Mail.

In summary: Is Lumumba a liar, or was he telling the truth? Or did the Daily Mail fabricate these statements from Lumumba's mouth? (without being sued?). Otherwise, I guess we are to believe Lumumba's narrative that he expressed during this interview. When someone says A, and then later says B (with A and B being mutually contradictory), does that make them a liar?


=sd=
 
Last edited:
:D:D

What lie did they tell them?

I suppose we could start with this quote from police about the interrogation:

Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct"


tumbleweed.gif
 
Last edited:
Katie Crouch was contacted to confirm her story and she advised that Patrick Lumumba told her the police "HIT him". She is indeed revealing what Patrick told her directly the police had done to him during their lunch. She said he used the word HIT and not beat though.

Interesting. This lends more credibility to Amanda's account where she also claims the police hit her.
 
I don't need to really prove anything because there is a conviction for calunnia, thus a formal acknowledgment that she is a liar beyond reasonable doubt.


Fine. Let's accept your statement at face value. Therefore...

I don't need to really prove anything because there is an acquittal on the murder charges for both Amanda and Raffaele, thus a formal acknowledgment that both Amanda and Raffele are not guilty.

Fair enough, Machiavelli? :)
 
Fine. Let's accept your statement at face value. Therefore...

I don't need to really prove anything because there is an acquittal on the murder charges for both Amanda and Raffaele, thus a formal acknowledgment that both Amanda and Raffele are not guilty.

Fair enough, Machiavelli? :)

No. The Illuminati were behind the acquittals. But for some odd reason, they failed to influence the judges on the slander charge.
 
Was Patrick's interrogation recorded? Was he classified as a "witness" when they dragged him in? If so, how convenient. Though surely any sensible person will there recognize a hypocritical legal fiction that apparently allows the Italian police to routinely abuse people they, quite obviously, suspect of having committed a crime.


Indeed, I wrote a comparison between the two cases, and Wendy Murphy was a common element. In my mind though, a more important common element is that the strength of the case was inversely proportional to the amount of character assassination from law enforcement.

Wendy Murphy was also want to accuse people of being members of baby sacrificing Satanic cults during the Repressed Memories hysteria of the 80's-90's. She's quite the nut.
 
Folks, we are once again receiving an inordinate number of reports out of this thread. Please keep to the topic and remain civil and polite. If the bickering and incivility persist, this thread will be placed on moderated status, and no one (including the Mod Team) wants that. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
 
I had the same experience, when I read the link Fine posted it had been taken down. This is so brief I can only guess that they want this to be heard by an English court. Is that the murder case itself, or what would they be taking into court? This doesn't make any sense.

I personally suspect than an objective outside observer who studied both the murder case and the entirety of the actions of the families involved would come to the conclusion that the Kerchers should be required to pay significant damages to both the Knox and Sollecito families.



http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-1...ercher-family-threatens-lawsuit-26880332.html


Note that the report suggests that the case could ONLY be heard in Italy.
 
OK, that makes more sense, although considering they already lost one civil case on this issue it strikes me as strange they could file another.


It's certainly strange.

And strange timing, particularly in light of all the positive noises (towards the Kerchers) emanating from both the Knox and the Sollecito families. The Kerchers aren't doing themselves any favours here IMHO.

:(
 
There was no illegal interrogation. Cite the law violated and the judge's verdict.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Now, cite the law that says the cops can continue to interrogate a person who they believe is a suspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom