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

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - here's Knox's private jet. I'd say her wealthy media backers were QUITE wealthy.....

Did someone whisper to you that this was a dumb mistake?

 

[acbytesla]

Well it sure sounded to me like you knew something about it, based on what you said. At least you admitted your statement was completely made up.

You don't sound like yourself all of a sudden. Are you feeling OK?

Mach has no problem exaggerating. Private Jet..... Man is he full of it. Never mind that there was massive amount of video taken by Network television news of her walking through the commercial terminal in Rome when she left Italy as well as her arriving at SeaTac Airport which is also a commercial airport.

If Amanda had flown to Seattle on a private jet, then Amanda would have touched down at Boeing Field which handles General Aviation NOT SeaTac. I guess Amanda's family drove her from Boeing Field to SeaTac just so she could meet that 747 from Rome just minutes after it touched down. That's why they held a press conference for her at SeaTac. It was just one big elaborate rouse.

 

[Caper]

Machiavelli - here's Knox's private jet. I'd say her wealthy media backers were QUITE wealthy.....

[qimg]http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/10/05/169255-a-british-airways-boeing-747-carrying-amanda-knox-taxis-to-the-termina.jpg[/qimg]

Did someone whisper to you that this was a dumb mistake?

Mach... Why don't you look how wrong you were on this one issue.... look inward and then think about what else you could be wrong about.

 

[acbytesla]

She should pay up she was convicted of the crime and served 3 years Patik lost he business and suffered the humiliation of being jailed. Amanda and her mother kept quiet for 2 weeks or more. Funny how Patrik should pay in your little world. The blindness towards what he suffered is a glimpse how you twist everything for Amanda.

Well you think she should go back to jail. Any damages done to Patrk were done by the Perugian authorities with no real evidence. And despite that Patrik had an alibi from a dozen patrons. You can hardly blame Amanda. Well, you are willing to parrot that line.

 

[Briars]

Briars,

One, the police closed Patrik's bar for months after he was released. IMO they are as much to blame as anyone. Two, the argument from authority (she was convicted; therefore, she must have been guilty) is unpersuasive at a discussion forum that prizes critical thinking. Three, Amanda did not keep quiet; she wrote the second memoriale of 7 November (which Mignini quoted back to her in part) and the letter to her lawyer. In the second memoriale she retracted her accusation, and in the letter she reverted to her version of events of 1 November prior to her coercive interrogation of 5 November. The second memoriale has come up here many times; I am not sure why you have not assimilated it into your thinking.

Why has Patrik maintained that Amanda never apologized to him when she has? Why should an observer of the case ignore this?

She should pay him the money she owes him period. She was confused days later and it slowly dawned on her that Patrik could not have been there. Please cite the date of her first verbal apology please.

 

[acbytesla]

She should pay him the money she owes him period. She was confused days later and it slowly dawned on her that Patrik could not have been there. Please cite the date of her first verbal apology please.

Pleas cite the first day that Amanda was even allowed to see anyone, Remember Mignini kept her away from everyone including her family and legal counsel.

 

[Diocletus]

She should pay him the money she owes him period. She was confused days later and it slowly dawned on her that Patrik could not have been there. Please cite the date of her first verbal apology please.

He lost out on a payday when he had his lawyer cuss her up and down. Too bad.

Or, perhaps she has paid him in settlement of his claim and we won't be hearing from him again. Time will tell.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it has not escaped my notice that you failed to answer

She should pay him the money she owes him period. She was confused days later and it slowly dawned on her that Patrik could not have been there. Please cite the date of her first verbal apology please.

Her full retraction came within about 36 hours (from the night of 5-6 November to the morning of 7 November). She apologized to the court for naming Patrik on 30 November 2007. Some have said that she did not apologize to Patrick. I think that this is hair-splitting, but in any case she apologized at other times. One such time was at the opening of the trial of second instance, in December, 2010. Interestingly, he acknowledged her apology at that time but claimed it was insincere.

In an article by Nick Pisa in the Daily Mail on 10 October 2011, Lumumba is quoted as saying, "That is fundamental to me - the fact that she has never apologised to me in person, and I can't understand that" Lumumba is also quoted as saying, "She could have told them in those two weeks that I had nothing to do with this, but she didn't. She could have clarified everything but she never, never said anything." Is this an accurate assessment, given the contents of the second memoriale and the letter to her lawyer?

Now that you know that Mr. Lumumba contradicted himself in the statements* he made to Vogt in 2010 and to Pisa in 2011, will you please answer my questions?
ETA
*She was in court when she apologized in 2010, and I am not certain that Patrik was there. Even if he were not, the "in person" business is a canard.

 

[Diocletus]

You better have a second look, what you've noticed is incorrect. Several documents are missing. For example, Quintavalle's testimony is (by now) missing. Cutatolo, Capezzali and Monacchia are missing. Mignini's closing arguments are missing. Preliminary hearing documents are missing. The British girls testimony is missing. A lot of things are missing in that page besides Giobbi's testimony.

Oh I see, it's kind of like the lab records. All if the important stuff is missing.

 

[acbytesla]

She apologized to the court for naming Patrik on 30 November 2007. Some have said that she did not apologize to Patrick. I think that this is hair-splitting, but in any case she apologized at other times. One such time was at the opening of the trial of second instance, in December, 2010. Interestingly, he acknowledged her apology at that time but claimed it was insincere.

In an article by Nick Pisa in the Daily Mail on 10 October 2011, Lumumba is quoted as saying, "That is fundamental to me - the fact that she has never apologised to me in person, and I can't understand that" Lumumba is also quoted as saying, "She could have told them in those two weeks that I had nothing to do with this, but she didn't. She could have clarified everything but she never, never said anything." Is this an accurate assessment, given the contents of the second memoriale and the letter to her lawyer?

Now that you know that Mr. Lumumba contradicted himself in the statements he made to Vogt in 2010 and to Pisa in 2011, will you please answer my questions?

Since Patrik has made such a big deal about Amanda apologizing directly to him personally. I'm curious, when would Amanda have had an opportunity to do so? Did Patrick visit Amanda ain jail and ask what happened and Amanda refused to see him or talk to him? I must have missed that if he did. After all, Patrik was released in two weeks while Amanda was in jail or prison from November 6th on. And she was in isolation for weeks after she was arrested. So Briars...when would she have had an opportunity?? .

 

[acbytesla]

You better have a second look, what you've noticed is incorrect. Several documents are missing. For example, Quintavalle's testimony is (by now) missing. Cutatolo, Capezzali and Monacchia are missing. Mignini's closing arguments are missing. Preliminary hearing documents are missing. The British girls testimony is missing. A lot of things are missing in that page besides Giobbi's testimony.

Oh I see, it's kind of like the lab records. All if the important stuff is missing.

You have to wonder how it is possible that all these things are missing?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am not sure why Mach is so proud of the missing stuff

Oh I see, it's kind of like the lab records. All if the important stuff is missing.

LOL, exactly right.

 

[Machiavelli]

Holy cow.... you've just outed yourself.... I will not call this an out and out lie, because there are many reasons why you would want to make such a declarative statement as...

Only to retract it minutes later. I will give you honesty on this one - spotting your mistake and then correcting it.

I didn't spot actually anything. I don't know If I made a mistake, because I don't know in fact anything about the alleged private jet. I never checked the detail, but the detail makes no difference, the topic to me is money. The media paid a lot of money fo Knox and they invested in Knox's story.
I suppose the 3.8 million for a book deal was not a myth. It doesn't matter the item how this money was spent. The point is that Knox was buisness and some people did pay a lot of money, while others were ready to pay lots of money.

You once said that Amanda Knox was resistant to sleep-fatigue and sleep deprivation induced from trauma and lack of sleep...

.... THEN you started a long conversation listing your own non-existant bona fides for making such a statement.

I make another bold statement: the problem is yours. You try to reverse the priority themes in all my statements (as well as you do when you attempt to pick a straw in Vogt's article, and you forget about the beams of your temple). Actually, you just try to divert the attention from the topic to me.
I just maintain, if you like me to repeat my claim, that YOUR claim which alleged a sleep deprivation as a cause of Knox accusing Patrick was manifestly unfounded.
The problem is about YOUR claim, not mine. You claimed sleep deprivation as an important factor, for a series of logical consequences, not me. You have a burden of proof, not me. Actually, you just have a number of evience against your claim. I pointed them out, because they are manifest. That pissed you off, and so you responded by attemtping to be provocative by diverting your discourse on the writer.

Do you just make things up, so as to make Amanda Knox look guilt-ish? I'd hesitate to call it out right lying because there are many, many other reasons why someone would do this.....

.... but you ARE in the habit of making things up, and making them sound declarative.

You are making things up. You are the one who assserts people violate the law, make illegal interrogations, deliver fake HIV tests, put forward Satanic ritual scenarios, you assert that Stefanoni lied or that information is denied to the defence. You are the one who accepts people writing about 100 Guede's DNA instances in the muder room, you accept the omissions and "mistakes" all over the US media networks. You assert that Chiriboga stated Knox didn't enter the shop, and it's you who are parroting the silliest claim of the defence (like that Sollecito could not testify or other idiocies), and you are the one who attempts to make out "legal deductions" based on lur own interpretation of a law you don't know, about SC rulings which you don't have...
You are the one who need to stop making things up.
And you need to do that before attempting to "use" the words and "tone" of others as kind of "argument". In a couple of posts I said what I had to say about the private jet "myth", and you better close it, because you are not in the position for criticizing my statements and "declaratory style" of single phrases over a couple of my posts.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well it sure sounded to me like you knew something about it, based on what you said. At least you admitted your statement was completely made up.

You don't sound like yourself all of a sudden. Are you feeling OK?

I think you may take care of the alleged Mignini's statements which you mentioned. Maybe you misreported them by just saying something casually about a detail you heard about but you don't remember well. Or maybe it was me who missed them.

 

[Machiavelli]

Since Patrik has made such a big deal about Amanda apologizing directly to him personally. I'm curious, when would Amanda have had an opportunity to do so? Did Patrick visit Amanda ain jail and ask what happened and Amanda refused to see him or talk to him? I must have missed that if he did. After all, Patrik was released in two weeks while Amanda was in jail or prison from November 6th on. And she was in isolation for weeks after she was arrested. So Briars...when would she have had an opportunity?? .

In a written note, together with the cheque by which she pays him the damages that she owes to him, by the law, since she was definitively convicted for calunnia in his detriment.

 

[Diocletus]

In a written note, together with the cheque by which she pays him the damages that she owes to him, by the law, since she was definitively convicted for calunnia in his detriment.

But who's going to pay Patrick's criminal lawyer? And by that I mean his lawyer for his civil case, who is apparently an actual criminal?

 

[Bill Williams]

I didn't spot actually anything. I don't know If I made a mistake, because I don't know in fact anything about the alleged private jet. I never checked the detail, but the detail makes no difference, the topic to me is money. The media paid a lot of money fo Knox and they invested in Knox's story.

Did someone whisper to you that you'd made a mistake? You actually DO know that you made one. BTW - please note I am not accusing you of lying. But you do have a habit of saying the first thing that comes to mind that is derogatory about Knox and makes excuses for Mr. Mignini.

Sounds like an Andrea Vogt blog.

Would it be helpful for you if I sent to you by PM what you in fact said about Knox's ability to avoid sleep fatigue? Can I repost here your comments about your bona fides as a sleep clinician?

 

[RandyN]

In a written note, together with the cheque by which she pays him the damages that she owes to him, by the law, since she was definitively convicted for calunnia in his detriment.

There is no such thing as a definitive conviction in Italy.

If there is then please explain the case from year 2000 in which Hellmann was part of a 3 judge panel that overturned a murder conviction that had passed even the SC.

Lumumba has told more lies about Knox than she ever did about him. Cant blame Lumumba though since he was under the corrupt influence of Mignini who was holding his bar and method to earn a living hostage until he could get Lumumba to comply with his wishes...which in this instance was for him to shut up about the police beating him and his illegal unrecorded interrogation without the benefit of the Italian law required lawyer...

Knox never blamed Lumumba for anything not suggested to her by Perugia police...the proof is that the statement was not even in Knoxs language...rather a police written story. AN illogical illegally obtained story btw...why do Italians ignore judicial and police corruption?

Knox should sue Lumumba but we know she will not. Not because she can not but because she is too nice. Lumumba should shut up and be happy with his settlement from Italy and with his huge payment from the Daily Mail for his slander of Miss Knox. What was that amount again? 180 thousand Euros?

 

[RWVBWL]

Another reason why I discuss this case...

For alotta different reasons,
I am interested in this tragic murder+rape case.

Be it drugs dealers or users, store owners, or alleged rape scenes,
well this case, which I can identify with alot of the personal aspects of it,
has kept my interest since I 1st read of it happening back in Nov. 2007.

With that said,
I wanna ask a copula questions to an Italian pro-guilter:

Greetings Machiavelli,
Glad that you are back here participating once more!

Have you ever had to face a court of law for an alleged sex crime?
1 were a person, who claimed that you had committed a horrible crime,
lied to the court?

Have you ever had to tell a court of law and a jury exactly what you drank,
what your hands, your lips, your penis did with an alleged victim who said that you raped her?

Well, I did.
In very graphic detail.
And I have shared published links to this incident before here on The JREF.
I was found innocent of raping a female friend.

I need to ask a pointed question or 2 to a pro-guilter.
And heck, as you are Italian, that's even better!
Here goes:

In a Sex Game Gone Wrong,
Why is only Rudy Guede's DNA inside Meredith?
Why is there no DNA of Raffaele anywhere on or inside Miss Kercher?

Or on her clothing?

You'll probably argue, wait, RW,
there is a bra-clasp with Raff's DNA on it.

Question: that Bra-clasp has other male DNA on it besides Raffaele, correct? Does the sample containing the DNA of Rudy Guede on Meredith's clothing also show other male DNA contributers too?
Or is it only Raffaele's sample found on that bra-clasp collected 47 days later that has other male contributers?

Hey, Diocletus,
can you check on that?

This bra-clasp that was picked up not with sterile, clean tweezers but with gloves with visibile contaminates on the fingertips,
and was then passed back+forth, dropped on the floor+IIRC, picked back up again. correct? And then stored inappropriately in an aqueous buffer ,
and now no further testing may be done on this controversial piece of evidence, right?

Watch the video,
look at the photographs:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html


Rudy Guede wore his shoes inside Meredith's bedroom to this Sex Game...
He left a shoeprint in Meredith's blood on the pillow case of her pillow placed underneath her naked genitalia, right?

Why are only DNA, fingerprints, handprints, or shoeprints coming from Rudy Guede himself,
found inside of Meredith's bedroom?

Was Raffaele told that he could not touch, could not fondle, Miss Kercher in this sex game gone wrong?
And so only Rudy Guede did so?

 

[RandyN]

But it is quite the other way around: I am saying that the "murder" (the illegality) was not committed.
If you say that it was committed you bear a burden. Now it come out that your opinion is based on your own legal deductions that processes information you inferred from opinions quoted in an article by Andrea Vogt...
You statement "if there is something else I should know, then tell me" is not intended to be irony, i suppose.



But I actually did!
The 01:45 interrogation is not usable, because interrogation of informants (witnesses) cannot be used in a case against the witness himself/herself.
The 05:45 statement is not usable (in a trial, against the person who released it, as evidence in the case that was being investigated at the time) because the person was a suspect for that same charge but yet did not have full enforcement of defensive rights.

But there is no acknowledgement of illegality in this. There is no violation of code articles whatsoever.

I think intellectual honesty is just the quality of honesty when applied to intellectual processes.

snip

Well if this violates no codes or articles then it is untrue that Italy requires defendants to be provided lawyers ever... no mater the name and status the police wish to make up to call them.

You see your statement is simply not intellectually honest...in fact it is illogical and goes against reason.

And it proves that the Italian judiciary is corrupt beyond repair. They allow that the statements CAN NOT be used but they ignore the fact that the police and prosecutor did NOTHING to protect the defendants rights and in this case Mignini clearly had a responsibility to do exactly that and yet he did the exact opposite and you may wish to trust his lie about being a notary but his further actions to isolate and deny lawyers until the first hearing tells logical, intellectually honest people all they need to understand about Mr Mignini and how his corruption is the basis for this whole case against AK and RS.