Hi, Machiavelli. I composed a fairly lengthy response to this post of yours the other night but while previewing it for typos and such, the power went out due to a nearby lightning strike and I lost the entire thing as a result. So, I'll respond again now.
It’s very simple. This how it works: I see evidence they are guilty. From the evidence that I can see, myself, I conclude, beyond doubt, that the defendants are implicated in the murder.
This is reality to me. I cannot believe someone over the reality that I happen to see, to discover and experience myself.
This was in response to me expressing the view that there was no compelling evidence in support of a finding that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were guilty of murdering Ms. Kercher. Your response seems to be nothing more than the expression of a fervent belief without pointing out or pointing to any compelling evidence in support of that belief. In addition, it is not particularly helpful or useful to say that you believe that they are "implicated" in the murder without setting out what you believe their roles to have been. I would be interested in knowing what you believe Ms. Knox's role and Mr. Sollecito's role to have been, and what evidence it is upon which you rely in support of that belief.
The same conclusion of guilt is reached by many other people, not only the previous judges and not only the folks of which those on PMF are examples, but in Italy thousands, or maybe millions have a convincement similar to mine. Among my friends (and relatives), people whom I know, I found not one of them thinking the defendants are innocent. And there was a thousand people shouting “vergogna” outside the court house in Perugia.
I'm afraid I'm not clear on what this appeal to the logical fallacy known as "
argumentum ad populum" aka "
appeal to popularity" is intended to convey. Can you please elaborate?
...indeed there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Please set out - in point form would be fine - what you view as "evidence beyond reasonable doubt".
This is the basis, the fundament in my position. Based on this logical assumption, that this a basis in what I think, you can assess the rest of my reasonings and insights.
I'm sorry, but I do not see anything so far in your post that is a "logical assumption". What is this "logical assumption" to which you refer?
I am facing people who believe the prosecution leaks pictures of bathroom painted in pink to English tabloids in order to influence the judges: no sane Italian would ever produce such an idea.
When the evidence is such that someone with access to the photographs did, in fact, leak pictures of the bathroom streaked with pink so that it could dishonestly be portrayed as blood in the "house of horrors", it is not at all illogical to suspect that it may have been done at the behest of the police or prosecution, since they were the source and the guardians of the photographs. This is particularly so when it is apparent that from the outset of this case, the police and prosecution set in motion a campaign of character assassination in the media, apparently in an attempt to bolster their incredibly weak case against Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito.
Or that police give out false HIV test results in order to diffuse news about Amanda’s sexual to the press. This is a form of delusion that has no dot of contact with a reality of sort.
Your personal incredulity is not a compelling argument. Your apparent lack of knowledge about wrongful convictions does not mean that those with such knowledge shouldn't point out that this particular case has very nearly all of the classic hallmarks of wrongful convictions. Police forces all over the world have been known to give out all sorts of false information in an effort to get suspects to say things that they want to hear. This would hardly be the first time, and Italy is certainly not immune to "noble cause corruption" - in fact, this very case is a pretty good demonstration that it does, indeed, exist in Perugia, just like it does in myriad other jurisdictions and countries, my own included. That is not to say definitively that, in this particular case, it was the police who set up and disseminated the false HIV+ bit (it could have been at the behest of the prosecutors or others, after all), but I think that if you are honest with yourself, you have to admit that it would fit with the character assassination that the police and prosecution set into motion very early on in this case, so it's certainly a reasonable question to ask and a reasonable position to consider in the absence of any rebuttal or denial or evidence to the contrary. I don't recall anyone among the Perugia police or prosecutors or prison authorities denying or rebutting that this occurred as stated by Ms. Knox, but it is entirely possible that I missed such a denial or rebuttal. If you're aware of same, please advise.
Or they perceive a person convicted for calunnia who doesn’t pay the court expenses she owes as an innocent. I feel this as a repugnant, foolish and dangerous perversion in perception of reality.
I'm not following you here. Haven't you previously said that no conviction or acquittal is considered 'final' in Italy until it is decided by the Supremes? If that is so, how is it that Ms. Knox ought to have paid damages to Mr. Lumumba prior to a final finding on the matter by the Supremes? It seems as though you are saying that one should treat the 2nd trial by the Pratillo Hellmann court as "final" as it relates to Ms. Knox's conviction for calunnia while simultaneously saying that one should
not treat the 2nd trial by the Pratillo Hellmann court as "final" as it relates to the acquittals of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito on the far more serious charges of murder, sexual assault, etc. This strikes me as contradictory on your part. Can you please try to reconcile this apparent discrepancy for my benefit?
I consider the spreading of this vision of things as a direct danger to my safety in the territory I live in. I think that if another of your fellows commits a rape and murder of a girl here you will just defend him or her, and this would tend to establish that any person will be allowed to kill and walk free, if there is the same evidence against him as that against AK and RS, and this claim of a license to kill is just not remotely acceptable to me.
What do you mean by "your fellows" in the quote above? I'm afraid that makes no sense to me. Please explain.
And what do you mean when you say that you consider "the spreading of this vision of things as a direct danger to [your] safety"? You appear to be referring to the verdict of the Pratillo Hellman court, but why should anyone not "spread" that? It is the verdict of an appellate level Italian court and a matter of public record and will soon be further elaborated upon in the reasons for judgment that will be published and translated. Why should people be constrained from discussing or disseminating the appellate court's verdict? I seem to recall that you had no such reservations when the Massei court came to the opposite conclusion at first instance, so why would you take such a restrictive view now?
Also, you are aware, of course, that at present, both Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito have been acquitted of the murder and sexual assault charges, as well as all the other charges (save Ms. Knox's calunnia charge) so it's really not appropriate for you to continue to call them murderers and rapists, is it?
The rest of this quoted bit of yours does not ring true at all. You seem to be saying that you are afraid for your personal safety because an appellate level Italian court held that the Massei court's decision was incorrect. Really? Also, have you forgotten that Mr. Sollecito is Italian?
And, that in one country there are prople who think to build a sanctuary for murderers where they “believe” other people are evil and corrupt, where idiots come here to insult officers in court, where people believe a foreigner should be considered a serial killer and a burglar without proof, this is not acceptable neither.
I cannot quite parse out what you're talking about here, really. Can you please try this part again? To the extent that it appears that you are referring to people being critical of Perugian police and prosecutors, well, I think there are plenty of good reasons to hold that view, but I also think it's rather hypocritical of you to take issue with it. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that others should not criticize Mignini, Stefanoni, Comodi, et al, but you have repeatedly accused the Pratillo Hellman court of being "corrupt" etc. How is it okay for you to accuse judges of being improper behaviour without any supporting evidence but not okay for others to accuse Perugian police and prosecution of improper behaviour
with supporting evidence?
Also, you seem to be referring obliquely to Rudy Guede in that last bit, in what looks to be a defensive stance on his behalf, but I can't quite parse out what your point is meant to be. Can you please elaborate?
Your assertions above about witches and devils are utterly unfounded, to the point that would be too easy to ask you to quote a post where I speak about “witches” and “she-devils”, in order to assert that “based solely on my posts” you infer that I believe in witches and she-devils. This is unfounded. What you say is obviously false and absurd. I am not even a Christian, I cannot believe in devils. I challenge you to quote something written by me on this line.
On the other hand, I do not believe to “honor students” neither.
I don't think I have ever seen you say that the references by Pacelli and Mignini to witches and she-devils and Luciferinas and satanic rituals and all of that nonsense were inappropriate in a court of law. Do you agree with me that Pacelli's submissions in this regard to the Pratillo Hellmann court were inappropriate? And while I'm on that, do you also agree with me that Mignini's submissions to the Pratillo Hellmann court were inappropriate?
What you say is like when you stated that Amanda was “prematurely” arrested.
By the way this was egregiously contradicting an assertion by the majority of innocentisti who, apparently, claim that she was instead declared a formal suspect too late. Look just at the contradictions in your arguments, which I suspect you don’t focus even remotely.
I'm afraid you're wrong about this. Perhaps you just weren't "focusing even remotely". If you do a search, you will find that what I said is that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were
jailed prematurely, not that they were
arrested prematurely. In fact, I have also said that I think it is outrageous that they were held in custody for a year without being charged and arrested upon the charges that were eventually brought against them. I do agree, as well, that they were "officially" "declared suspects" too late, as I have said before. Rather than assume that you are just making stuff up here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just aren't reading closely or paying attention. I think that it is obvious to anyone who looks at the matter objectively that they were suspects long before the interrogations of November 5/6, 2007, as evidenced by the fact that they were being followed and wiretapped, etc. That was just another way in which the rights of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were violated. Yes, yes, I know that the Italian system expressly makes this kind of violation one that is often repeated whenever the police want to lean on suspects without actually calling them "formal suspects" but this built-in mechanism for dishonesty and abuse of rights does not make it acceptable to those who believe that a justice system ought to be fair, or to those who believe that suspects should be afforded the courtesy of basic human rights.
Also, while I and others consistently talk about the wrongful convictions at first instance of both Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, you seem to keep forgetting about Mr. Sollecito and directing all of your anger towards Ms. Knox. Why is that?
Now on your statement: “…. it seems quite clear that you do believe in she-devils and witches as does a certain segment of the population in Perugia. Otherwise, why would Perugian lawyers raise such nonsense as the entire basis of their submissions at the second trial…”, I point out two errors:
1. First as I said there are no posts where I convey a belief in witches, so this is false
2. Second, it is astounding the logic by which you assume the “Perugia lawyers” are a basis in order to make inference on my beliefs.
Okay, so you were not persuaded by Pacelli and Mignini's repeated references to witches and she-devils and satanic ritual elements, etc. I can certainly accept that and applaud that, in fact. But, I'm curious, have you ever spoken out against the ridiculous focus that Mignini and Pacelli, in particular, and the Italian media, secondarily, put on that nonsense? Have you ever criticized that behaviour as inappropriately trying to sway public opinion against the accused by appealing to such nonsense in that fashion? Also, I'd be very interested in your take on why Mignini and Pacelli did these things.
The content of your mind seems: Perugia is a medieval place where people believe in witches; the Italians spend their time saving face. Starting from this presumption – or better from this presumptuous ignorance – in fact you can deduce anything. You can interpret anything along this line if your ignorance allows you to make this assumptions.
I think that some Perugians believe in witches (and she-devils and Luciferinas etc.) yes; otherwise, Mignini, Pacelli and Co. would not have concentrated nearly the entirety of their submissions on attempting to assassinate the characters of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito (although it was mostly directed toward Ms. Knox) rather than concentrate on the (lack of) evidence of guilt. I think that they are not inexperienced counsel, and that they probably know what tends to 'work' in their own jurisdiction to secure convictions. I think that they concentrated on character assassination instead of evidence because they thought it would 'work' to sway public opinion of Perugians to thinking of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito as 'degenerates' therefore 'guilty' despite the lack of evidence, and that it would 'work' to secure convictions.
I think that this had something to do with the mass of Perugians out in the street outside the courtroom on the night that the verdict of the Pratillo Hellmann court was delivered, don't you? There was no similar crowd when the verdict of the Massei court was delivered in 2009 so far as I can recall.
But,
viz the appellate court case, you were there and I wasn't, so I would certainly be interested to hear what you think the reason was for Pacelli, Mignini, Comodi, and Maresca concentrating on attempted character assassination instead of evidence.
Cannot be a person who, when in Perugia, does not understand indications for the toilet.
I'm sorry; I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you please explain?
<snipped a bunch of stuff that didn't seem to have any logical connection to my post>
The meaning of my writing on this forum can only be to give my testimony, the evidence, that a “guilter” convincement, a belief about Justice, is well alive and vital, self-confident and totally determined. I think, I have a position on what is Justice for Meredith and what is about the truth in this case, and because of the nature of my convincement, and also because it is shared by many and by the Kerchers, I feel my duty towards Meredith, justice and truth is to declare it, in the face of your point of view.
The way I see it, as someone who works in the (Canadian) justice system in real life, and has for some 20 years now in one capacity or another, "justice" is not about locking up people who are not guilty and it isn't a popularity contest either (see above about the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, which you've just resorted to again). As to the nature of your 'convincement', I would very much like to know what it is that comprises your 'convincement', with specifics rather than generalities, if you're willing to share.
