• 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.
Machiavelli said:
Neither do I. And this is the whole point. Are you able to believe that I don't believe in she-devils nor witches (and that nobody does in Perugia neither) and that I see simply evidence of involvement in murder?
My whole point is having people understand this simple fact. My idea of justice in this case is to make clear that the issue about Amanda Knox is only about justice. Meredith, and the truth. There is no other value in play in my mind except this, and the right thing to do is show these are the values in play. The claims about whitch hunting, face saving, corruptions, everything of the innocentisti repertioire, are lies. Rationalization for covering a banal suspect of a murder. There is only a simple matter of justice.
Click to expand...

I don't really think you believe in witches. Just that you have a woefully inadequate notion of due process and an irrational attachment to the proposition that Amanda Knox is a murderer. And poor critical thinking skills. The witch comment was just to make fun of you.
 
Machiavelli said:
You can be outraged but there is no law to arrest him. There isn't a crime like being in a school at night with a knife in the backpack.
Click to expand...

However, if he had STAGED the break in, then he would have been arrested and taken away. LOL. What a bunch of malarkey.
 
Machiavelli said:
Of course she is allowed. And I am allowed to call her a convict (proven) liar by now.
Click to expand...

You are allowed to say what ever you want Mach, and in the same vain, I can say Mignini is a proven liar also. He pleaded not guilty to abuse of office and was convicted and that means he lied when he pleaded not guilty,

Dave
 
Machiavelli said:
The claims about whitch hunting, face saving, corruptions, everything of the innocentisti repertioire, are lies.
Click to expand...

Uh, sorry but you brought on the witch hunting yourself.

Face saving? There is definitely some of this going on.

Corruption? Not sure.
 
Machiavelli said:
Moreover, I am legitimized in calling her proven liar, as much as some other may be legitimate in calling her innocent for murder.
In order to call her (legitimately) proven innocent (proven by a court) you would need a 530.1 motivation report proving her innocence.
By now, the only proven part (as far as we know), which means deemed certain beyond reasonable doubt, is the conviction part. Where she is found guilty of calunnia, which is a malicious crime, it must be voluntary not coerced.
Click to expand...

This is the most comically absurd argument I've seen since the verdict. Either Hellmann's decision as a whole is legitimate or it's not. If she's already a proven liar then she's also proven innocent because these points are bound to the same verdict. If instead we must wait and see on the question of innocence then we must also wait and see on the question of calunnia.
 
Ammonitida said:
Nothing in the Article VI speaks of "giudicato". Nothing about "only acquittals that are valid". Just an acquittal.

She went through a trial by jury in Italy and was found not guilty. That satisfies the United States standard of "acquittal". Any extradition attempt now would be highly contested and argued as a violation of the United States Double Jeopardy which prohibits someone from being tried for the same crime twice. That's why Mignini appealed to Hellman about the "private jet" waiting for Amanda.

Don't for a second think it's easy to extradite American citizens to Italy. US has already denied several requests despite the treaty.
Click to expand...

The discussion on the point is rather void. She has not been found not guilty by the Italian law: this cannot be used as a reason to refuse extradition, because, extradition is based on a treaty that acknowledges the law of another country. The term "giudicato" means literaly "decided", "proceeding completed". Until the process is not completed, it's not completed, by an international treaty.
The US (as well as Italy) can find other legal reasons to refuse extradition which do not have to do with double jeopardy. But this is not my buisness, not my responsibility: if the US decide to protect a murderer on silly reasons, they will take their responsibility and their consequences on international relations. My guess is Italy, but also other countries, may just respond by reducing their cooperation with the US on crime issues. If such a thing like unjustified refusal of an extradition happens, then the treaty vanishes and as consequence I would be pleased if Italy hosts, let's say, some members of Al Qaida, as a retaliation, so that you feel the same kind of approach, and that would be "justice served" to me.
 
Diocletus said:
However, if he had STAGED the break in, then he would have been arrested and taken away. LOL. What a bunch of malarkey.
Click to expand...

Diocletus,

since (according to Mach) there was no "real" break-in at the school, it must have been staged so they should have arrested him anyway,

Dave
 
Machiavelli said:
The discussion on the point is rather void. She has not been found not guilty by the Italian law: this cannot be used as a reason to refuse extradition, because, extradition is based on a treaty that acknowledges the law of another country. The term "giudicato" means literaly "decided", "proceeding completed". Until the process is not completed, it's not completed, by an international treaty.
The US (as well as Italy) can find other legal reasons to refuse extradition which do not have to do with double jeopardy. But this is not my buisness, not my responsibility: if the US decide to protect a murderer on silly reasons, they will take their responsibility and their consequences on international relations. My guess is Italy, but also other countries, may just respond by reducing their cooperation with the US on crime issues. If such a thing like unjustified refusal of an extradition happens, then the treaty vanishes and as consequence I would be pleased if Italy hosts, let's say, some members of Al Qaida, as a retaliation, so that you feel the same kind of approach, and that would be "justice served" to me.
Click to expand...

There is a little-known codicil to this treaty that allows a country to refuse extradition if the people requesting extradition are batscheiss crazy. I'm pretty sure this is the reason Knox will never be extradited.
 
Diocletus said:
Uh, sorry but you brought on the witch hunting yourself.

Face saving? There is definitely some of this going on.

Corruption? Not sure.
Click to expand...

I consider the innocentisti as a bunch of irrational witch-hunters, and a dangerous wave of ignorants who protect and cover murderers and criminals, and claim a license to kill in my home, see it like that. I am rather annoyed by the creation of "agencies" that protect people who murder in my territory and spread lies and mafia campaigns to protect them.
 
Wow Mach I'm beginning to worry about your mental stability. You are now calling AK to be the equivalent of terrorists.
 
Machiavelli said:
But these are not arguments for innocence. Whether the prosecution violated a procedure or not, is not a definitive determinant factor. Whether the defense would have benefited more by an earlier release of data, is not a relevat facto either. The procedure has its options which are provided, for the defense to access the forensic tests data. They were invited to assist to the process. Do you know that, when they received the call to asisst to the tests, they had an option to object, they could have asked to not test the knife nder that legal option, and the preliminary judge would have appointed a different kind of test, under his control instead of the prosecutions'.
They have to use the options that are provided, not those principles that you see in the OJ Simpsons' trial.
If they wanted to benefit from knowing the quantification in advance, they should have taken part to the laboratory tests. If they did not benefit because they didn't know about the quantification in the preliminary hearing, they can discuss it in the trial. Here, they have complete documentation to discuss it.
This is the topic. You are talking about procedures.
But these are not arguments for claiming there is no DNA.
Click to expand...

So why was there DNA? Because Stefanoni said so? But she lied. So she cannot be believed about the DNA.
 
Machiavelli said:
I consider the innocentisti as a bunch of irrational witch-hunters, and a dangerous wave of ignorants who protect and cover murderers and criminals, and claim a license to kill in my home, see it like that. I am rather annoyed by the creation of "agencies" that protect people who murder in my territory and spread lies and mafia campaigns to protect them.
Click to expand...

Oh. So it is all about face-saving.
 
Machiavelli said:
The discussion on the point is rather void. She has not been found not guilty by the Italian law: this cannot be used as a reason to refuse extradition, because, extradition is based on a treaty that acknowledges the law of another country. The term "giudicato" means literaly "decided", "proceeding completed". Until the process is not completed, it's not completed, by an international treaty.
The US (as well as Italy) can find other legal reasons to refuse extradition which do not have to do with double jeopardy. But this is not my buisness, not my responsibility: if the US decide to protect a murderer on silly reasons, they will take their responsibility and their consequences on international relations. My guess is Italy, but also other countries, may just respond by reducing their cooperation with the US on crime issues. If such a thing like unjustified refusal of an extradition happens, then the treaty vanishes and as consequence I would be pleased if Italy hosts, let's say, some members of Al Qaida, as a retaliation, so that you feel the same kind of approach, and that would be "justice served" to me.
Click to expand...

Lack of probable cause would be the reason for refusal, and the treaty allows for it. It isn't a silly reason; it's a matter of due process. You see, in the United States we require actual evidence before you can even have a criminal trial, much less lock someone up for 26 years. I know you think that robust due process protections, as well as standards of investigation and evidence, are "silly reasons" not to imprison people. We in the United States politely disagree. And despite our higher standards for evidence and investigation (in this country, Stefanoni would not have a job today, nor would Mignini), we still have innocent people in prison.

And no, there would be no international pushback to defend the "honor" of Italy's criminal justice system. But thanks for the laugh.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Yes there are laws, but in the school there was no breaking.
Click to expand...


"B & E" or "B, E & T" does not require a literal 'breaking' - entering without permission even into an unlocked premise is sufficient to make out the charge if the entry is unlawful in the circumstances, as Guede's certainly was.

Machiavelli said:
He was denounced (charged) for having stolen property and for being inside the school. There is no arrest provided for these crimes.
Click to expand...


It is very unfortunate, indeed, that Italian law enforcement did not arrest him for that crime. Had they done so, Ms. Kercher would be alive today. :(
 
Machiavelli said:
I consider the innocentisti as a bunch of irrational witch-hunters, and a dangerous wave of ignorants who protect and cover murderers and criminals, and claim a license to kill in my home, see it like that. I am rather annoyed by the creation of "agencies" that protect people who murder in my territory and spread lies and mafia campaigns to protect them.
Click to expand...

Mignini's a convicted (proven) liar and criminal too. I think you should rant about that too. Not to mention Rudy who is also a convicted criminal, or maybe you could invite them all to your house for a pasta fiesta instead!!!

Rudy's gonna need a place to stay when he gets out of jail. Come on let him stay in that spare room you got. Maybe him and Curatolo could share a room,

Dave
 
Machiavelli said:
I consider the innocentisti as a bunch of irrational witch-hunters, and a dangerous wave of ignorants who protect and cover murderers and criminals, and claim a license to kill in my home, see it like that. I am rather annoyed by the creation of "agencies" that protect people who murder in my territory and spread lies and mafia campaigns to protect them.
Click to expand...

Just once I am going to break my vow to myself that I had written my last post about this case. I fully expect it will be fruitless, but I consider my intent analogous to reaching out to a drowning man, albeit one with inclinations towards malevolence who would just as soon pull me into the water with him.

Speaking simply and directly, Machiavelli, your posting and your stance are like those of a person who has completely taken leave of reason, and given into obsession. Posters here with vastly greater intellects than yours have gone after your posts like so many sledgehammers decimating flies, and yet you dogmatically persist.

You are 180 degrees opposite to the truth of this matter in *every single* word that you post. Your mission has long ago passed the frontier of being merely Quixotic, and seems more closely akin to suicidal. For your own mental health, I urge you to seriously consider taking an extended break from discussing this case. Seriously.

It is over. You are like Doctor Frankenstein performing a post-mortem on your grotesque and disastrous creation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom