Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[platonov]

Sweet dreams

If I remember correctly, when you posted here before, you did not use the terms groupies or Foakers. These are PMF terms, so it's easy to see you have been influenced by PMF.

Did you drop by simply to bait halides1? Essentially all of your recent posts are about the race argument, which was the focus of a smear campaign on PMF against halides1. It's oddly anachronistic to dredge this campaign up from its grave. Why does it even occur to you to do so?

You don't.

ps Any particular reason why you are so bothered by my addressing certain arguments – we have some history there IIRC

 

[Mary_H]

You don't.

ps Any particular reason why you are so bothered by my addressing certain arguments – we have some history there IIRC

I told you not to make me get up again.

The only history I remember is that I was always after your Lucky Charms -- green clovers, pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, pretty ponies, fuzzy kittens, sunshine, lollipops, rainbows....

I already told you why I am bothered by you addressing certain posters arguments.

 

[Grinder]

Anything said about Rudi must be considered under the light of racism because he's black. What is said shouldn't be considered under the light of him being a convicted murderer.

Rudi admits to being there during the murder. He is guilty of murder (by Italian law whether he did the deed himself or not) beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Freedom of speech has it's bounds and accusations veiled though they may be, may well exceed that right.

It is instructive that the PGP need to attack people for their racial stands rather than discuss the case.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anything said about Rudi must be considered under the light of racism because he's black. What is said shouldn't be considered under the light of him being a convicted murderer.

Rudi admits to being there during the murder. He is guilty of murder (by Italian law whether he did the deed himself or not) beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Freedom of speech has it's bounds and accusations veiled though they may be, may well exceed that right.

It is instructive that the PGP need to attack people for their racial stands rather than discuss the case.

I thought Platonov was just seeking attention by being childishly provocative. I certainly can't call to mind anything Halides has posted that offers the slightest basis for an accusation of racism.

 

[platonov]

A phlange or a Foak

Yesterday you were attempting to change or subvert the Italian penal code
(Somebody else was trying that a while back – cant remember now exactly who ? )

I really don't understand why the PGP people seem to be so racially focused.

It would make no difference to me if he were white, Asian, Indian (eastern or western), black or brown. He is and was black when he left his evidence in blood and all in the murder room with DNA in and on her body.

No matter what color he should have been tried at the same time and he should be forced to take cross examination on the letter and statements he made against A & R. If they had made statements against him as testimony they to should be subject to cross.

Once again, I just don't get the PGP's preoccupation with Rudi's race. It reminds me of the anti-gay Republicans that get caught in the men's room. Are they closet racists?

Today it’s the JREF MA

Anything said about Rudi must be considered under the light of racism because he's black. What is said shouldn't be considered under the light of him being a convicted murderer.

Rudi admits to being there during the murder. He is guilty of murder (by Italian law whether he did the deed himself or not) beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Freedom of speech has it's bounds and accusations veiled though they may be, may well exceed that right. It is instructive that the PGP need to attack people for their racial stands rather than discuss the case.

A humbler task to be sure but possibly beyond your reach – BillWilliams is already engaged on a similar mission, perhaps you should work together.

Either way could you advise anglolawyer that personal attacks are currently in breach of said MA – Im not minded to report it as I find such breaches instructive but other may be less indulgent.

I thought Platonov was just seeking attention by being childishly provocative. I certainly can't call to mind anything Halides has posted that offers the slightest basis for an accusation of racism.

anglolawyer the MA is not very complex - certainly simpler than the Italian penal code. Get a lawyer to explain it to you if necessary

 

[anglolawyer]

Yesterday you were attempting to change or subvert the Italian penal code
(Somebody else was trying that a while back – cant remember now exactly who ? )






Today it’s the JREF MA






A humbler task to be sure but possibly beyond your reach – BillWilliams is already engaged on a similar mission, perhaps you should work together.

Either way could you advise anglolawyer that personal attacks are currently in breach of said MA – Im not minded to report it as I find such breaches instructive but other may be less indulgent.




anglolawyer the MA is not very complex - certainly simpler than the Italian penal code. Get a lawyer to explain it to you if necessary

Thanks for the tip. But what basis is there for the implication you are making? Why not just come out and say what's on your mind instead of taking refuge in ambiguity and being all cryptic? Then we can discuss your problem.

 

[Bill Williams]

Either way could you advise anglolawyer that personal attacks are currently in breach of said MA – Im not minded to report it as I find such breaches instructive but other may be less indulgent.

Calling halides1 a racist.... albeit by using carefully crafted innuendo.... is not a breach of MA?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Calling halides1 a racist.... albeit by using carefully crafted innuendo.... is not a breach of MA?

Well, he says he is applying the label to the argument rather than the person. That is a weak line of attack against arguments that have nothing to do with race, but presumably it fits within the bounds of the MA.

In any case, the MA is a poor substitute for the Jedi art of holding one's fingers motionless above the keyboard and not typing anything.

May the force be with you.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, he says he is applying the label to the argument rather than the person. That is a weak line of attack against arguments that have nothing to do with race, but presumably it fits within the bounds of the MA.

In any case, the MA is a poor substitute for the Jedi art of holding one's fingers motionless above the keyboard and not typing anything.

May the force be with you.

Well, I cannot call Platonov a coward but his posts seem cowardly since he insinuates without actually saying what he means. This whole racism meme goes right over my head I'm afraid. That the likes of Machiavelli and Platonov keep stoking it only confirms my opinion that it's a distraction from the facts.

 

[GreyFox]

Children without xbox

Schools out.Suspect we will be seeing more of this behavior now!!!

 

[Grinder]

Well, I cannot call Platonov a coward but his posts seem cowardly since he insinuates without actually saying what he means. This whole racism meme goes right over my head I'm afraid. That the likes of Machiavelli and Platonov keep stoking it only confirms my opinion that it's a distraction from the facts.

Of course it's a distraction. The vast majority of PGP arguments fit the old legal saw, if the law is with you argue the law, if the facts are with you argue the facts if neither fits pound the table.

The bookkeeper repeats his racist rants weekly. Discuss minor differences between a diary and a book. Go on and on about a phone call in the middle of the day to Seattle.

What do they ignore? The facts about the actual murder that were proven at trial.

ETA - I also think that arguing that there is no motive is a similar pounding of the table. If the evidence convicts, then motive is not necessary. If there is a great motive but not enough evidence the court must not convict.

 

[toto]

I notice Creationists rather like calling Darwin a racist as well. They deduce that in part from the subtitle of his "Origins of the Species". Apart from also knocking Darwin I think they like to deflect attention from the Bible's attitude to slavery. I think in both cases they want to throw dirt there is (or may be seen to be) and see what sticks.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ridley Scott is doing an episode on the Kercher murder on CNN's "Crimes of the Century." (Scott may have the wrong century, since he's also covering the Lennon murder!)

A CNN Original series executive produced by director Ridley Scott, "Crimes of the Century" focuses on major news events that were shocking at the time and have since had far reaching repercussions. Among the stories the series will cover are the D.C. sniper attacks, John Lennon assassination, Andrea Yates trial, Ronald Reagan Assassination attempt, Oklahoma City Bombing, Amanda Knox trial, the Waco, Texas siege, and the Unabomber.

It does not say when, but Crimes of the Century is on CNN Sundays at 9 pm ET/PT - Knox's case seems to be Episode 6 of 7, and this coming Sunday is episode 2. But look at your local listings!

 

[RandyN]

No one will ever know unless Rudi or his real accomplices tell all. Fear could make it impossible to utter a sound.

The scream and Curatolo and the car from Rome. Mignini could ditch the "ear" witnesses easily as they didn't see anybody but once they accept Curatolo they are in a bind. As you pointed out and most here all agree the other evidence would put the murder before 10.

I wonder why so few of the PGP take the offer to ditch Curatolo and Nara, accept TOD no later than 10 and then put together a scenario?

Rudy has already told us the horrible scream was about 9:20 or so....of course like Nara he had no watch.

Yes Toto is the reason Mignini moved the ever changing TOD to 11:30. The only thing he changed more often was the motive. And in the end he asked for more time and more solitary confinement because they killed for no reason at all. I still think Toto provides the perfect alibi for AK and RS. If the court claims it proves they lied then how can they ignore the lies of Lumumba, Quintinvale, Stefanoni, why even Mignini himself is a proven liar. First he says they forgot to push the record button...then he says they could not afford to record the interrogation...but somehow he can afford to wire tap 30 thousand plus phone calls of the entire RS family. In all that there are several lies. making him a lying liar.

Even with leaving almost all the evidence vague and or destroyed they still can not put together anything that fits facts and proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why platonov must use distraction in order to attempt to make some point even though he fails miserably. But please platonov...make any argument you wish. Just dont be surprised when facts are presented to refute your lame weak as water innuendo.

The Supreme Court? I feel exactly as Judge Hellmann does...they went far beyond their mandate and by considering facts rather than rules and procedure they clearly broke the Italian laws that are suppose to govern them. Lets see if the Italians have the political will to correct the SC clear violations and investigate this bastardization of their own laws.

 

[Antony]

The Supreme Court? I feel exactly as Judge Hellmann does...they went far beyond their mandate and by considering facts rather than rules and procedure they clearly broke the Italian laws that are suppose to govern them. Lets see if the Italians have the political will to correct the SC clear violations and investigate this bastardization of their own laws.

That was my take on it. The nature of the ruling makes this an unambiguous case of Double Jeopardy.

Is there any part of the SC ruling that addresses the procedures of the Hellman appeal court?

 

[Machiavelli]

You are very bad, RoseM!

Yet when "view" is all important, Machiavelli will argue with the pictures which show the balcony completely exposed to the street and apartments across the street, lit by a street lamp.

(...)

I argue with you, because you rerfain from bringing and discussin your evidence. Pieces of evidence must be complete. You need to be cross questioned about them.
Statements and "questions" be devoid of assumptions, assumptions must be disputed an acknowledged before.
Remember this word, complete. Or you ar cheating.

 

[anglolawyer]

I argue with you, because you rerfain from bringing and discussin your evidence. Pieces of evidence must be complete. You need to be cross questioned about them.
Statements and "questions" be devoid of assumptions, assumptions must be disputed an acknowledged before.
Remember this word, complete. Or you ar cheating.

Oh yeah? And where is your complete timeline for the crime? So far you have committed yourself to a murder sometime after 10 p.m. which is hardly committal at all. You cannot sensibly explain the knife nor reconcile a TOD between 10 and 10.30 with either Toto or Nara. At some point, a reasonable and honest person must stand back and try to take in the whole picture. If you can't come up with something that makes sense (I and others here say you can't) you should be questioning your assumptions, including whether the burglary was real of faked and many other points besides.

 

[Bill Williams]

I argue with you, because you rerfain from bringing and discussin your evidence. Pieces of evidence must be complete. You need to be cross questioned about them.
Statements and "questions" be devoid of assumptions, assumptions must be disputed an acknowledged before.
Remember this word, complete. Or you ar cheating.

Machiavelli - you have a double standard. You refuse to be questioned at all. I ask you why the PLE did not even collect, much test the clothes that Amanda Knox left on her bed for all to see. Instead of answering the question, you ask me if I sver stopped beating my wife.

It is you who refrain from bringing discussion to ANYTHING. You simply want your point of view to be believed..... mainly because it is your point of view.

You believe that Amanda Knox was a suspect from early on, perhaps even as early as Nov 2. Yet you engage in silly word games, inventing different degrees of suspects.

You believe that Judge Hellmann was bribed to acquit the pair. Now THERE's one you refuse to discuss.

You simply want to throw mud and see what sticks. You even believe that there is a wide ranging Masonic conspiracy behind this.

And you have the nerve to say other refuse to discuss or present evidence.

The evidence is... the balcony IS exposed to the road. The IS a streetlight which illumines the balcony. And you refuse to address it... you are something.

 

[anglolawyer]

Mach

Would you mind telling your friends in other places that you are the one who says Amanda was already 'strongly suspected' before the interrogations began on 05-06 Nov? They seem to have got themselves into a lather about it as though it was my idea. I have to say, though, I am right behind you on this and regard it as a major breakthrough on your part.

I would be interested to know of any substantive difference between a 'strongly suspected person' and a 'formal suspect'. I am bound to admit, I cannot really see any meaningful distinction. Being a suspect just means the cops think you did it and the laws of most places reflect the resulting need to protect you from the type of abuse such as happened here.

Any help would be appreciated, as they are saying over there I don't know the difference between a witness interview and a custodial interrogation*. I would be grateful if you could help clear this up.


* a misnomer as interrogation of a suspect does not require that the suspect be in custody or even under arrest. I understand that much so no need to address it. Thanks.

 

[Grinder]

Mach

Would you mind telling your friends in other places that you are the one who says Amanda was already 'strongly suspected' before the interrogations began on 05-06 Nov? They seem to have got themselves into a lather about it as though it was my idea. I have to say, though, I am right behind you on this and regard it as a major breakthrough on your part.

Boy you are asking him to walk Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell

I would be interested to know of any substantive difference between a 'strongly suspected person' and a 'formal suspect'. I am bound to admit, I cannot really see any meaningful distinction. Being a suspect just means the cops think you did it and the laws of most places reflect the resulting need to protect you from the type of abuse such as happened here.

I'm betting that the difference is when the police formally say the person is a suspect. At least that's when it occurs at the time. Later the SC may rule that someone should have been a suspect and not allow the fruits of the improper (never illegal) behavior.

Did the SC say anything about them not transcribing or recording the interrogations.