Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fine said:
Should the Knox/Mellas clan now offer a 50,000 EURO CASH REWARD for information leading to the positive identification, arrest and conviction of the person, or persons, alleged to have molested an American girl at the Perugian Police Station on the night of November 5, 2007?

///
Click to expand...

A complaint for molestation filed 4 years later would be inadmissible.
 
Diocletus said:
In English, the passive tense is disfavored, so allow me to help you with this:

Rudy who assaulted Meredith was holding a knife. And he not only suffocated and stabbed her, but he also sexually assaulted her. And, he also stripped her of her clothes by force, and he stripped them off in a peculiar way [ed: this probably happened before the sexual assault]. And he left her in the same room where he killed her.

There. That's better.
Click to expand...

There is a definitive verdict sayng the opposite.
Anyway what you say is unproven, and agaisnt the evidence.
 
Diocletus said:
I think this whole thing is YOUR fault, Machiavelli. YOU should have filed a complaint when the police roughed you up. But you didn't and nothing changed. So, the cops felt like they could smack Amanda Knox around with impunity. Now all of Italy is embarrassed. Shame!
Click to expand...

How do you dare to assert that I didn't fill a complaint?
Dozens of police officers were convicted in four separate trials.
 
Machiavelli said:
There is a definitive verdict sayng the opposite.
Anyway what you say is unproven, and agaisnt the evidence.
Click to expand...

What do you think about prosecution's expert who claimed at the first trial that he can't rule out the possibility that Meredith's was attacked and killed by only one person? Massei also mentions this simple fact.
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
Do you think the Supreme Court will uphold the not guilt verdicts?
Click to expand...

Until I read the sentencing report it's too early for me to make anticipations.

By now, the not guilty verdict seems to me as to potentially carry more than one issue, but also more than one surprise.
 
Machiavelli said:
Hit at 1:00 am, while the spontaneous statement is released four hours later after chamonille tee, no hitting, no yelling, no lies, no interrogation and before a magistrate and an interpreter. And the accusation repeated in a hand written note that was written voluntarily and given to the police. And then, no retraction nor explanation given subsequently nor in any other hearing. It seems for some reasons you always miss this bits.
Click to expand...

You seem to ignore that she was kept from any contact with the outside world and either was in solitary confinement or was being interrogated. The hand written note clearly is saying that the previous statements were visions, most likely not accurate and certainly not something she would be willing to testify to in court. She mentions the police tactics in that note which should have put a hold on all activity until higher authorities and her lawyer could review the charges. Patrick could easily have been under surveillance for the few hours it have taken to clear up the fact that she gave her statements under undo pressure. The review of the tapes could have been demanded then and there, their absence should have made the judge or whatever authority was reviewing the interrogation very suspicious.
 
This is one of the funniest things yet. According to Nazione, Lumumba's lawyer Pacelli has written a letter to Hillary Clinton asking her to make sure Knox pays up. http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/10/13/599903-amanda_paghi.shtml Hillary Clinton! LOL.

Here's her response:

Dear Mr. Pacelli:

Thank you for your letter. We have reached out to US Citizen Amanda Knox and asked her about paying you and your client. Unfortunately, it appears that she doesn't have any money and hasn't had a job for the last four years.

We did remind her that she did say something untrue about your client. But she said that you, on behalf of her former boss Lumumba, said these untrue things about her:

"She was a diabolical, Satantic, demonic she-devil, She was muddy on the outside and dirty on the inside. She has two souls, the clean one you see her before you and the other. She is borderline. She likes alcohol, drugs and she likes hot, wild sex."

I don't really understand her problem, though. After all, my boss says things like this about me all the time (well, except for the hot, wild sex part). What's the big deal?

Knox also claims that the only reason that she said the untrue thing was because she was getting a beat down by the police. This made me think about something very wise said by another great American who got a beat down by the police: "Can't we all just get along"? And this made me think of a very diplomatic solution.

Since Italy wrongfully imprisoned Knox for at least a year and maybe more, she can get lots of money from the Italian government. This money can be used to pay to help Lumumba get his mojo back, to compensate Knox, and most importantly, to pay you! All you have to do is join with Knox in making the argument that Mignini and Comodi and Massei and the cops illegally locked up Knox. Then, Knox will get lots of money and can share it with you! Perfetto!

Sincerely,

Hillary Clinton

PS: My husband doesn't think you should test the semen stain.
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
What do you think about prosecution's expert who claimed at the first trial that he can't rule out the possibility that Meredith's was attacked and killed by only one person? Massei also mentions this simple fact.
Click to expand...

I think dr.Lalli - who is not a prosecution expert but the doctor who performed the autopsy - has given his olinion based on the knowledge within the scope of his competence.
For example, he also said there was no evidence of sexual violence (but crossing with findings of other experts, we found there was evidence). He did not analyse the room, the victim's clothes, he did not question witneses.
He could rule out a possibility at the moment just based on his own autopsy. But based on the whole information from the trial files, a different conclusion can be made.
 
Grinder said:
You seem to ignore that she was kept from any contact with the outside world and either was in solitary confinement or was being interrogated. The hand written note clearly is saying that the previous statements were visions, most likely not accurate and certainly not something she would be willing to testify to in court. ...
Click to expand...

She already testified to them in the hand written note.
 
Machiavelli said:
Hit at 1:00 am, while the spontaneous statement is released four hours later after chamonille tee, no hitting, no yelling, no lies, no interrogation and before a magistrate and an interpreter. And the accusation repeated in a hand written note that was written voluntarily and given to the police. And then, no retraction nor explanation given subsequently nor in any other hearing. It seems for some reasons you always miss this bits.
Click to expand...

So, if you think the cops might (probably did?) hit Knox, then what is your opinion of the slander charges the cops have brought against Knox and her parents for saying so?
 
Machiavelli said:
I think dr.Lalli - who is not a prosecution expert but the doctor who performed the autopsy - has given his olinion based on the knowledge within the scope of his competence.
For example, he also said there was no evidence of sexual violence (but crossing with findings of other experts, we found there was evidence). He did not analyse the room, the victim's clothes, he did not question witneses.
He could rule out a possibility at the moment just based on his own autopsy. But based on the whole information from the trial files, a different conclusion can be made.
Click to expand...

I must have been confused about the issue if he was a prosecution's expert...I think Iv'e read it in one of the books about the case. Nevermind.

Evidence of sexual violence concluded that Guede's DNA was found in the victim's vagina. Correct?

In the room there were shoeprints of Guede, correct?

On the victim's clothes, there was DNA of Guede, correct? (the Adidas jacket if I can remember correctly)

On the victim's bag there was DNA of Guede, correct?

No credible witness ever testified that he saw Guede, Knox or Sollecito committing the murder, correct?

A decision was made, after reviewing the DNA traces, that Knox and Sollecito are not gulty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, correct? For me, personally, this is crystal clear.
 
Mach,

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

The police can question people about a crime freely. When they are not suspects, you refer to them as witnesses. A witness is obligated to talk to the police and tell them the truth fully. The witness has no right to have a lawyer or anyone else present. A witness can have his phone calls intercepted by the ILE (without a warrant?), be followed, live conversations recorded and more. Can their homes and cars entered without a warrant?

The witness can be a suspect during this period but they are not an official suspect until the police decide to call them that or if they admit to involvement in the crime. After they are declared a suspect they are entitled to a lawyer if they demand one and all interrogations must be recorded. However, the police can deny access to an attorney or anyone else for 48 hours when the suspect makes an appearance before a judge (Gip, Gup?) and without the benefit of talking with an adviser has an opportunity to rehabilitate their statements made while a witness that made them a suspect.

By not rehabilitating her statements at this point she was in fact guilty of calunnia, right?
 
bri1 said:
I signed up to Twitter in the run up to the verdict, in order to follow in real time and join in, however, only just spotted a reply from Nadeau after I linked to the US-Italy Extradition treaty, which I thought might be of interest.

thebrionybot Bri1
@ @BLNadeau Here's the Extradition Treaty. Did Comodi really say it didn't exist? http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/26/25/00051223.pdf
30 Sep Favorite Reply Delete in reply to ↑

@BLNadeau
Barbie Latza Nadeau @thebrionybot thanks for passing that on, means Comodi fibbed about extradition treaty.
30 Sep via TweetDeck
Favorite Retweet Reply

It highlights an issue which I believe has plagued this case from the beginning, and that is 'simplification'. Instead of explaining the 'probable cause clause' of the treaty, and how it makes extradition more unlikely and complex, Comodi just says, (and to a room full of journalists!) the treaty doesn't exist. (The reason for this lie- and it is a lie, not a fib, Barbie- is obvious- the probable cause clause wouldn't be a problem if there was any actual evidence in this case).
Police and prosecutors in this case have followed a methodology of argument which involves ripping facts away from context until they look suspicious, and simplifying 'truths' until they become lies.
So in this example, we have the complexity of the truth that it's unlikely that the US would ever extradite Knox, and then the (ultra) simplification to the point of falsity that 'there is no extradition treaty'. Simplifications designed to hide issues which are difficult for their side.

These people can have no credibility. Amanda's got more credibility in her little finger.
Click to expand...

Bri--There is another possibility. Comodi just has no idea what the hell she's talking about.
 
Machiavelli said:
She already testified to them in the hand written note.
Click to expand...
This is her note from IIP

Mach,

Can you imagine using this note in court against Patrick as evidence?

This note makes it clear she was told that the police told her Raf not only had changed his story but had said she asked him to lie - the weakness of this Italian man is the root of all their problems - that they had told her they had evidence she there during the murder (clearly a lie), that they had yelled at her and hit her, that she didn't believe what she had told them was accurate and it goes on.

If an attorney used this note in court of proof of anything but the poor behavior of the ILE they would be laughed out of court.

This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.

Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember. I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real. 2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.
Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom. The truth is, I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered. I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. 3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

[illegible section]

I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are: 1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie? 2. Why did I think of Patrik? 3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable? 4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person? 3. 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.
I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible. If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.
 
Fine said:
Should the Knox/Mellas clan now offer a 50,000 EURO CASH REWARD for information leading to the positive identification, arrest and conviction of the person, or persons, alleged to have molested an American girl at the Perugian Police Station on the night of November 5, 2007?

///
Click to expand...

Those in charge should have an immediate investigation started. Who wouldn't?

If this charge was brought up in any government office, it should be investigated immediately, it shouldn't matter.

If the system has become too exhausted, an no longer responds to it's own operation's and policy's, then thats another subject; an ill system that cannot uphold its own policies.

But you ask should the family present the charges, most definitely!

If someone did this anywhere, shouldn't it be reported and investigated?

If there is no punishment for perverted jail keepers, or lying lab specialists like Stefanoni, then the ill system will continue to get worse, as the perverted workers have free reign to do as they like.
 
Freddy said:
Still others are just trolls looking for shock-value. I put Coulter into this category. I don't think she cares whether they're guilty or innocent.

I suppose there probably are some who see "University of Washington" and the sex and the pot and think that she must be guilty because she's a depraved liberal. But I think this is by far the smallest category, at least among American guilters. I can't think of anyone who I would definitely say believes this. Perhaps Ann Coulter, but as I said I view her more as an attention-seeking troll.
Click to expand...

You might want to think again about Ann Coulter and being a troll vs. a Kool Aid drinker with regard to the B.S. she spews seemingly just for shock value. I think she's completely baught into the "anyone who disagrees with my weltanschauung is evil and out to destroy the world" mindset she exhibits in her books, interviews and... I wouldn't have believed anyone could be so delusional until I started reading them... website posts. Her crazy has been obvious for years, but the "like a fox" and "seriously" line began to blur with her "Godless" and "Demonic" books/appearances.

Anyway, it's a month ago, but here's some of her "trolling" regarding Amanda Knox.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-07.html

Crazy woman said:
By now, the only people who believe Knox and Sollecito are the usual criminal apologists and their friends in the American media.

From Tawana Brawley, Mumia and the Central Park rapists, to the Duke lacrosse players and Karl Rove, liberals are always on the wrong side of a criminal case. A few times could be a coincidence; every time is evidence of a psychological disorder.

As described in "Demonic," liberals defend the guilty and impugn the innocent not only because they side with barbarians, but because a fair and just system of law challenges their hegemony as judges of the universe.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom