Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[codyjuneau]

Hey Macciavelli--maybe you know this Roberto Settonce, you could ask him how he got the crime scene photos, and that would clear everything up.

Roberto Settonce is mentioned here: http://goodmorningumbria.wordpress.com/tag/roberto-settonce/

English version: http://translate.google.com/transla...wordpress.com/tag/roberto-settonce/&sl=&tl=en

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lumumba's testimony

Yes, although I've been looking to find confirmation from Patrick of this. However, I keep finding little gems like this:

My understanding is that Dempsey based her discussion of their meeting (page 135) on Lumumba's testimony.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I don't mean to harp, but one last thing. In Follain's recent blog piece, he writes this about the new slander trial for Knox's alleged defamation of the police:



Apparently Mignini and Comodi have never read the Italy/United States extradition treaty. Someone should tell them!

I thought this was interesting as well:



Good luck with that....

Yes, good luck with that. So much ignorance, self-deception, deliberate blindness, and stupidity. Follain of course is a hero to the pmfers. It will take the Supreme Court to finally shut them up.

I recall the days back when the independent review of the DNA was granted, and Candace Dempsey wrote a blog piece to the effect, "Great news for Knox and Sollecito". Well, the PMF set had a field day, how incredibly daft and stupid Dempsey was, could her turnip head not see that this was in fact good news for the prosecution, as an independent review would merely uphold the Massei report???Why on earth were idiots like Fisher and others proclaiming this as an advance for the defense, when the opposite was clearly true?

You'd think by now they would be slinking away in shame, but dolts never do....of course in the end they will finally, but it is taking a hell of a long time....

 

[davefoc]

Yes, good luck with that. So much ignorance, self-deception, deliberate blindness, and stupidity. Follain of course is a hero to the pmfers. It will take the Supreme Court to finally shut them up.

...

With respect whatever the supreme court decides it will not shut up the guilters. There are people that still think tunnels existed under the McMartin school,that Anastasia survived the assassination of her family, and there are a whole lot of people that think O.J. Simpson was innocent, etc.

What kind of data do you think would make Machiavelli change his mind? If you think a supreme court decision which almost certainly will not find grounds to undo the not guilty verdict (I suspect Machiavelli would agree with this*) would do it, I'm not sure you've been reading the same thread I have.

Right now, there is not a single piece of evidence used against AK/RS that has not been discredited to the point that it has no probative value in a case tried on the basis of a beyond a reasonable doubt criteria. And the passage of time has only made it more likely that RS and AK were not remotely the kind of people to be involved in a murder with Guede. And yet the guilter movement seems as convinced of their belief in RS/AK guilt as ever. I think most of these people will go to their grave thinking RS/AK were involved in at least some way in the death of Kercher. This just seems to be the nature of human thought some people on some issues will form unfalsifiable beliefs and it might be that all people on some issues will form unfalsifiable beliefs.

*Although Machiavelli might think the supreme court won't over turn the acquittal because the Supreme Court is corrupt (presumably driven by the same corrupt cabal that led Helmman to overturn the original verdict and the same corrupt cabal that tried and convicted poor Mignini) and not that there is no legal basis on which to overturn the verdict.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Yes, good luck with that. So much ignorance, self-deception, deliberate blindness, and stupidity. Follain of course is a hero to the pmfers. It will take the Supreme Court to finally shut them up.

I recall the days back when the independent review of the DNA was granted, and Candace Dempsey wrote a blog piece to the effect, "Great news for Knox and Sollecito". Well, the PMF set had a field day, how incredibly daft and stupid Dempsey was, could her turnip head not see that this was in fact good news for the prosecution, as an independent review would merely uphold the Massei report???Why on earth were idiots like Fisher and others proclaiming this as an advance for the defense, when the opposite was clearly true?

You'd think by now they would be slinking away in shame, but dolts never do....of course in the end they will finally, but it is taking a hell of a long time....

Ha! Great find! You just made my day.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Tobias Jones' hack-job contains one measly paragraph on the appeal and even resurrects the old lie about the bleach purchase (is this myth even included in Follain's book?). The TJMK review is balanced by comparison.

Seeing something described as "neutral" and then summarized with at least two and possibly three pro-guilt lies in the first two sentences really sums up the state of "journalism" concerning this case.

 

[RoseMontague]

Roberto Settonce is mentioned here: http://goodmorningumbria.wordpress.com/tag/roberto-settonce/

English version: http://translate.google.com/transla...wordpress.com/tag/roberto-settonce/&sl=&tl=en

Second generation family business is the impression I had doing a search yesterday. I see his name tied to many photos related to the case, almost all in the early stages. Some I had not seen before or recently. Here are a few pics that popped up doing a search on the case with his name included.

http://www.pixmac.at/celebrity/mere...si+torna+in+der+aula+il+20+marzo/000013734583
http://multimedia.quotidiano.net/?m...&cat_principale_page=1&canale=0&canale_page=1
http://www.pixmac.es/celebrities/omicidio+kercher/page/2

 

[Antony]

Hi Bruce,
Why do you suppose the guilt clan is still hanging on to their belief in guilt ?
I still believe that some are nothing more than debators. There are people I know that take the opposite view of others just for the sake of arguing. Either that or they have some sort of agenda. They can't possibly believe the nonsense they post.

I think the clue is in the popular reaction, generally, to news that someone is accused of a crime. To the unthinking majority, accusation is the same as guilt; many seem to see a trial as part of the process of punishment, rather than a way of establishing facts. Such people can't actually get their heads around a "not guilty" verdict, and instinctively see it as the process having failed.

I'm reminded of the reaction to the wide-ranging sweeps of "unlawful combatants" following the 9/11 atrocities 10 years ago. A common rationalisation of the lack of due process was the angry response, "they don't deserve a trial after what they've done!"

ETA: this is why it's frustrating to see Machiavelli citing the Omar Khadr case as an indication of how unjust the US authorities are. I suppose the above reactions are subject to the feelings held for, or against, the country in which the court proceedings are happening. I think if Amanda's all-night interrogation had happened in Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, then few people commenting would have given it any credibility.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Why did we not hear about the cartwheels earlier?

any rate, having determined already it was highly unlikely that she was doing a cartwheel when the police approached as Napoleoni & Ficarra (Zugarini too I believe) testified to, being as that would be a neat trick with her being on the phone with Filomena at the time, I will assume this means that no cartwheel was ever done. I thought it possible she might have done one at another time during her 40.5 hours in four days she spent at the Questura, about half the time waiting for the privilege of being interviewed or interrogated, and the police just took a little creative license. The ambiguous testimony where she answered yes to ~four questions asked in court in one sentence simultaneously now would seem to mean she was only answering 'yes' generally and not specifically to all four questions at once. So she was probably doing yoga or something is my guess, as Halides1 has maintained for over a year I do believe.

Kaosium,

Given Dr. Giobbi's interest in Amanda's behavior, I find it interesting that the earliest mention of the cartwheels is when the officers testified in early 2009. Hmm...

 

[Mary_H]

WOW

So three people say there was no cartwheel.
Edda, Amanda, and Bruce Fisher/Fischer

However, these same three people have been previously documented on numerous occasions as, uhhhhhh..... "stretching the truth".

One of the three's 'best truths they can remember' even prompted her own*lead* Defense Attorney to say he had difficulty finding truth.
This because because she already had told him 3 very differing versions.

That is what is sick and pathetic about all 3 of the individuals you cite.

Color me unimpressed.
Almost as unimpressed as if you had "spoken to an Italian lawyer" and proffer that to us as some sort of simpleton badge of credibility for an argument.

pilot, you're back! Yay! And you just happened to come back during two days when I wasn't here. We'd better be careful -- people are going to think we are the same person!

 

[Mary_H]

A suspect of complicity in murder and rape is not only entitled to a lawyer: must also be arrested.
We don't have an option like a formal suspect of murder and rape who is walking free. From the moment she is formaly entitled to have a lawyer and is no longer a witness, she has to be jailed.

Amanda was in jail for three days before she met a lawyer.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Bruce,
Why do you suppose the guilt clan is still hanging on to their belief in guilt ?
I still believe that some are nothing more than debators. There are people I know that take the opposite view of others just for the sake of arguing. Either that or they have some sort of agenda. They can't possibly believe the nonsense they post.

I wish they were debaters, Poppy. This thread would have ended long ago if people actually were not allowed to use fallacies.

 

[smkovalinksy]

With respect whatever the supreme court decides it will not shut up the guilters. There are people that still think tunnels existed under the McMartin school,that Anastasia survived the assassination of her family, and there are a whole lot of people that think O.J. Simpson was innocent, etc.

What kind of data do you think would make Machiavelli change his mind? If you think a supreme court decision which almost certainly will not find grounds to undo the not guilty verdict (I suspect Machiavelli would agree with this*) would do it, I'm not sure you've been reading the same thread I have.

Right now, there is not a single piece of evidence used against AK/RS that has not been discredited to the point that it has no probative value in a case tried on the basis of a beyond a reasonable doubt criteria. And the passage of time has only made it more likely that RS and AK were not remotely the kind of people to be involved in a murder with Guede. And yet the guilter movement seems as convinced of their belief in RS/AK guilt as ever. I think most of these people will go to their grave thinking RS/AK were involved in at least some way in the death of Kercher. This just seems to be the nature of human thought some people on some issues will form unfalsifiable beliefs and it might be that all people on some issues will form unfalsifiable beliefs.

*Although Machiavelli might think the supreme court won't over turn the acquittal because the Supreme Court is corrupt (presumably driven by the same corrupt cabal that led Helmman to overturn the original verdict and the same corrupt cabal that tried and convicted poor Mignini) and not that there is no legal basis on which to overturn the verdict.

Yes, this is all too clear, and in large part is a fulfillment of Ortega y Gasset's predictions in The Revolt of the Masses: That there would arise masses of people who would not be swayed by any facts or authority, but would form their own opinions, and refuse to be swayed from them. It used to be that concerning some court case , or a political election, or some scientific theory, that one could say, "Well, we don't know yet. The jury is still out on that one." Then, when the facts came in, people would say, "OK, well, I guess I was wrong." But now even when the facts come back, and the verdict announced, people say, " I was STILL right, no matter what the outcome is. "

 

[Chris_Halkides]

date of the lawyer's comments

WOW

So three people say there was no cartwheel.
Edda, Amanda, and Bruce Fisher/Fischer

However, these same three people have been previously documented on numerous occasions as, uhhhhhh..... "stretching the truth".

One of the three's 'best truths they can remember' even prompted her own*lead* Defense Attorney to say he had difficulty finding truth.
This because because she already had told him 3 very differing versions.

That is what is sick and pathetic about all 3 of the individuals you cite.

Color me unimpressed.
Almost as unimpressed as if you had "spoken to an Italian lawyer" and proffer that to us as some sort of simpleton badge of credibility for an argument.

Pilot Padron,

Good to see you commenting again. Amanda told the police on 7 November that she was not at her flat and could not know who murdered Meredith in her second memoriale. She sent a letter to her lawyers on the 9th saying the same thing. What was the date on which her lawyer said he had difficulty finding the truth?

 

[pilot padron]

You forgot to say thanks

That's ok Pilot. I've never been preoccupied with impressing those who have chosen to surround themselves with a group of buffoons.

It was so great to see your friends on PMF talk about how Amanda had no chance of being acquitted. They of course were wrong.

It's also been great to see the jesters over there talk about Amanda being extradited for defamation charges. Of course they're wrong about that too. With all those legal scholars and professionals over there, you'd think they'd be able to do a little simple research.

Did you know that even if Hellmann's ruling was overturned, Amanda still couldn't be extradited? Of course you don't, because you just listen to people who are always wrong.

Every time PMFers have a chance to show they actually know something, they completely fail. You've bought a load of goods and now want everyone else to feel as foolish as you I suppose. I bet you're still cradling on the "it ain't over till it's over" with the hope that the Supreme Court of Italy will do something to rectify Hellmann's ruling.

Guess what? They won't. And I'll be right again. Hey, why don't you get PMF to make a prediction on that too so they can be wrong on that as well.

And of course, the sick SOB Peter Quennell months ago talked about the Kerchers bringing a civil suit in the US. He's also wrong about that. What kind of stupid lawyers are giving him these stupid ideas?

Your friends at PMF=wrong wrong wrong every time. Always wrong!

It's over and there's nothing you can do about it.

Sincerely glad my argument provided you with the opportunity to bestow upon your readers that spittle laced, paranoid, hate filled argument ( rabid rant) about PMF, Peter Quinnell, the Kerchers and sundry other personal hang ups that had absolutely no relation to my argument.

You are very welcome anyway.
Don't forget to copy to Dougie, the favorite pill blog pal dude.
He will be so proud when the gets the usual tweet.

Hi Bruce,
Why do you suppose the guilt clan is still hanging on to their belief in guilt ?
I still believe that some are nothing more than debators. There are people I know that take the opposite view of others just for the sake of arguing. Either that or they have some sort of agenda. They can't possibly believe the nonsense they post.

Oh dear, now, I see.

'Skeptics' here are not allowed to have the slightest suspicion that Knox, Sollecito, OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, etccccc just might be guilty.
This after even Judge Hellmann pretty much said that although not proven guilty in his eyes, Knox and Sollecito may well know a lot more about the senseless murder of Meredith Kercher than they revealed to the Courts.

Oh, sorry, I forgot what is endlessly stated here.
These skeptics would then just become ignorant morons.
This since they do not hook, line, and sinker swallow the company line that the huge majority posts and childishly 'atta boys' each other endlessly about here.
Their arguments would, as the majority stated as recently as yesterday, wallow in ignorance, self-deception, deliberate blindness, and stupidity.
Got it.

Uhhhh, but then, wouldn't a skeptic also think that if C&V are to be believed, thousands of criminals convicted world wide on dna should be 'not guilty'.
Or even those convicted because they repeatedly, deliberately lied and attempted to disrupt the investigation ? ? ?

Hey.... like C&V said under cross examination......."anything is possible"

 

[Fine]

Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post

Hey Macciavelli--maybe you know this Roberto Settonce, you could ask him how he got the crime scene photos, and that would clear everything up.

Roberto Settonce is mentioned here: http://goodmorningumbria.wordpress.com/tag/roberto-settonce/

English version: http://translate.google.com/transla...wordpress.com/tag/roberto-settonce/&sl=&tl=en

________________________

Codyjuneau,

One of the photo-journalists who participated in that March, 2010, Exhibition in Perugia took photographs of the crime scene within the cottage. See: HERE.

///

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

Given Dr. Giobbi's interest in Amanda's behavior, I find it interesting that the earliest mention of the cartwheels is when the officers testified in early 2009. Hmm...

Yes, that was interesting, wasn't it? How did the legendary cartwheel manage to escape detection for so long? After all wasn't it absolute proof Amanda was a psychotic narcissist who dearly needed a stern talking-to and a bevy of cupcakes and tea so she could emit cringe-worthy lines like 'he's a BAD, BAD, BAD man....he killed her' or whatever definite statement they thought they remembered her whimpering about completely out of the blue that somehow failed to make it into the signed statements?

I wonder if John Follain asked Monica Napoleoni these questions when he was partying with her or when he was whispering sweet nothings in her ear in court?

 

[Diocletus]

One of the photo-journalists who participated in that March, 2010, Exhibition in Perugia took photographs of the crime scene within the cottage. See: HERE.
///

That's interesting. I'm confused where the linked picture would have been taken from. There appears to be some kind of structural framing at the top of the picture. Also, I've seen the wardrode smears before, but don't recall seeing the smears shown in this picture. Maybe I'm just forgetting.

 

[Antony]

Hi Bruce,
Why do you suppose the guilt clan is still hanging on to their belief in guilt ?
I still believe that some are nothing more than debators. There are people I know that take the opposite view of others just for the sake of arguing. Either that or they have some sort of agenda. They can't possibly believe the nonsense they post.

Oh dear, now, I see.

'Skeptics' here are not allowed to have the slightest suspicion that Knox, Sollecito, OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, etccccc just might be guilty.

Like Poppy, I'm baffled as to whether people like PP actually believe the nonsense they post. PP, there's no question of anyone being "not allowed" to have whatever views or suspicions they wish, unlike certain other discussion forums devoted to this case. There has never been anything to stop you, or Machiavelli, or Magister to post whatever contrary opinion you want - although sometimes I find myself wishing that the laws of defamation against people cleared of murder had some meaning here.

As for me, if there was even a single item of credible evidence implicating AK or RS, then I might have doubts about their complete innocence; but it was clear to me that there wasn't long before I ever came across JREF. The OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony cases are quite different - because the two of them were arrested as a result of evidence found, while the "evidence" presented against Amanda and Raffaele was conjured up to justify their arrests. There is no parallel here, and certainly no party line on what suspicions JREFers are "allowed" to hold.

Uhhhh, but then, wouldn't a skeptic also think that if C&V are to be believed, thousands of criminals convicted world wide on dna should be 'not guilty'.

Duh ... no. Investigations based on DNA that follow sound principles remain actual evidence. It's exactly because C&V established how all forensic principles were ignored by the Knox/Sollecito "investigators" that their so-called "DNA evidence" was shown to have no value. If you can't understand how this case departed from genuine DNA-based cases, then I'm afraid you will never understand this case.

Or even those convicted because they repeatedly, deliberately lied and attempted to disrupt the investigation ? ? ?

... except that this didn't happen with Knox and Sollecito. The story that it did is only one of the lies put about by the Perugia police and prosecution, and endlessly repeated by their dupes in the media and the guilter web blogosphere.

 

[kmortis]

Keep to the topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis