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

[christianahannah]

He said if it's in the file the court will read it, and that's enough for the court. There is no need to spend the hearing time to read documents which they are going to read anyway.

And Amanda's email was admitted to the court file, correct?

A question for you or for anyone, concerning a court appearance by Amanda. Could Amanda have gone to Italy and spoken before the court (as Raffaele did) without fear of her being detained and not allowed to leave to go back to the states?

Aside from the cost of travel and accommodations how would an appearance before the court have benefitted or not benefitted Amanda?

 

[Bill Williams]

I never read tabloids. But, going back to 2008 and 2009, I recall Amanda Knox's testimony turned my opinion -still with some doubts, ignoring the evidence - towards a powerful perception of guilt. Now, through her later, subsequent declarations, she - Sollecito's as well - conveys to me the worse possible perceptions about her being guilty and about her personality.
Not only she is proven guilty as for the evidence, she also appears to me as guilty person in the most spectacular way. About everything she says and communicates, to me its speaks about lies.

You are correct about her being somehow different from what I expected. When I saw her in person I was surprised. Then when I saw her in media appearances I was even more surprised. But I was stunned because she appeared to me far worse than what I expected.
She conveyes basically two things to me: her being a liar, and her being a narcissist. Almost everything she says appears to me as a lie.I did not expect her to convey a negative impression to me up to this point.

I have a powerful perception every time I see that little green avatar here comes more BS
Did you avoid all phone cameras today

It would be an interesting issue for the mods, I admit. You have "inserted yourself into the case" by attending court sessions and actively tweeting. The tweets which have been posted have been, more or less, accurate - and IMO not nearly representative of the opinions you hold to.

That may just be me.

The issue the mods may wish to decide things on is this - your basis of deciding if she's lying or not, is solely the conclusion you start your reasoning with.

 

[Samson]

Who cares about stefanoni kercher. She's not a fact witness and she's not a defendant. She's an intermeddler in the criminal case who has hired a scumbag lawyer.

Who also had the gall to declare "we don't read these books" after Amanda and Raffaele painstakingly told their stories concerning her sister, when they could.

 

[billyryan]

You are trying to call moderators in?

Did you ever hear of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted,I think you might as well show your face in the court in Florence in January.

Any chance you would tell us how much the Masons payed Hellmann and Vecchiotti,were they paid in Euros dollars or gold,was it with your Samsung you took the photo's of the money being handed over

 

[katy_did]

You don't see ANY reason? C'mon. I admit, it's not exactly the end all be all, but I find it hard to believe it doesn't raise ANY concern.

No, I really don't, not at least as an indication of what Nencini was thinking before today. The points he made were justified and reasonable, so I don't see how they can be negative for the defence. It would be different if, as you said earlier, he were treating the defence and prosecution inconsistently, but I've seen no sign of that.

I'm more concerned about the possible counter-productive impact of the letter itself, although in truth it will probably have been forgotten by the time the next hearing rolls around.

 

[andreajo]

And Amanda's email was admitted to the court file, correct?

A question for you or for anyone, concerning a court appearance by Amanda. Could Amanda have gone to Italy and spoken before the court (as Raffaele did) without fear of her being detained and not allowed to leave to go back to the states?

Given her previous experience, I doubt she could ever be without that fear again.

Aside from the cost of travel and accommodations how would an appearance before the court have benefitted or not benefitted Amanda?

One of the things that she said when announcing that she would not go back for the trial was that her presence was distracting to the proceedings. At least the media is reporting what she said, and not what she was wearing, or whether she smiled or frowned or looked worried.

However, as Judge Nencini said, her written declaration can't carry the weight that a spontaneous declaration made in person would.

 

[katy_did]

I don't know why the fact that she wrote a letter should matter. So the court didn't get to hear her testify in person? This court has heard basically no real evidence in person. This isn't a real trial: it's just a long argument by a bunch of lawyers.

I don't think it will matter all, to be honest, one way or another. The argument in court (so far as I can tell) was just over whether it should be read aloud, and whether it should have the same status as a spontaneous statement like Raffaele's.

It's funny, Amanda seemed to have the more favourable impact on the jury during the first appeal, whereas this time it seems to be Raffaele who's coming across better. I hope he makes at least one more spontaneous statement in January as I think his first one was very effective.

 

[Machiavelli]

She obviously makes strong impressions on people. You, of course, believe that she killed Meredith which means that everything she says and does must appear false, callous, and infuriating in your eyes. I think that there must be more to it than just your belief in her guilt, since she appears to get under your skin more than the other two people who you believe are equally responsible for Meredith's death

Maybe you misunderstood: there are people who perceive what Knox says as infuriating and gets under their skin.
But to me, no, she does not infuriate me. No no, I don't feel any anger. Nothing personal. I am just extremely negatively impressed. I just can't believe a word she says. And I can't believe my eyes when I see her nodding while sayin no, failing to answer questions, sighing and swallowing inconsistently, smirking before talking: she really is incongruent, she is lying about everything and she offer a load of red flags to anyone. In other words, she such a bad actress far more than I expected. And she comes across as a more severe narcissist than I thought.

I must say that at the beginning of this case, back in 2008 and 2009, I had a very negative human perception from Sollecito, far more than Knox. I couldn't stand him talking. I found his whiny expressions oily, omertose, offensive and outraging. But Raffaele Sollecito, he maybe somehow improved a little. I still think he is lying, logically, but I don't have the same negative feeling from his voice as years ago. He still obviously refuses questioning and says things which are objectionable like playing the ethnicity card, saying he didn't notice blood on the bathmat etc., but these things are only logical things meaning he is forced to lie, it's not about human perception of his charachter.

Knox, let's say she surprised me later. Both her personality disturb and her lying are so massively obvious.

(..) Keep in mind that the people who really know her do not see her as a narcissistic liar. Consider the possibility that they may be right, and you might be mistaken.

I repeat it's nothing personal. My perception about her communication & interviews is just extremely negative. It would be negative even if I saw her for the first time without knowing who she is.

I'm not saying that this has an implication in terms of hatred or sympathy. I'm saying that the fact that she lies is just so absolutely obvious. And the fact that she is, well sick person, that she has problems such as her lack of empathy, a personality suffering, is also equally obvious.

 

[Machiavelli]

And Amanda's email was admitted to the court file, correct?

A question for you or for anyone, concerning a court appearance by Amanda. Could Amanda have gone to Italy and spoken before the court (as Raffaele did) without fear of her being detained and not allowed to leave to go back to the states?

Aside from the cost of travel and accommodations how would an appearance before the court have benefitted or not benefitted Amanda?

You need to be innocent in order to be "without fear".

Yes I acknowledge it's a rethorical answer. But I really think Knox can't be "without fear" ever, even when she is in the US.
The only way to live without fear is to confess.

 

[andreajo]

Knox, let's say she surprised me later. Both her personality disturb and her lying are so massively obvious.

I repeat it's nothing personal. My perception about her communication & interviews is just extremely negative. It would be negative even if I saw her for the first time without knowing who she is.

I'm not saying that this has an implication in terms of hatred or sympathy. I'm saying that the fact that she lies is just so absolutely obvious. And the fact that she is, well sick person, that she has problems such as her lack of empathy, a personality suffering, is also equally obvious.

I don't get that from her at all. But maybe that's because I am a female North American dork, and she makes sense to me. I still think you should consider the possibility that you have completely misunderstood her. Gender, age, and cultural gaps could be a big factor.

 

[RandyN]

Contrary to what? Mach was doing his usual fabrication. Rudy wasn't reported by anyone with that exact quote as I recall but did tell the boys he was interested. Mach only quoted the word "bang" not "intended" and I'd guess he was speaking in Italian so he didn't say bang at all. Even the expression "I intend to bang her" or "I intend to seduce her" or I intend to get into bed is not indicative of his being a rapist.
That kind of thinking or false logic is exactly what the prosecution and the PGP have used against Amanda and Raf from the beginning.

Kisses, cartwheels, kill for a pizza, hosting a violent party, rape prank etc.

Oh Rudy said he wanted to have sex with Amanda so he is obviously the murderer rapist - ridiculous. You are being contrary to logic and jumping to the most absurd conclusion. ...therefore Rudy is a rapist.

Even if you wish to pursue this "quote" of Mach's there is nothing in it that indicates he planned to force himself on her. Clearly Rudy believed she would welcome the advances.



There is no evidence that he raped anyone or forced anyone to have sex or abused women or anything of the sort. He was a pest in bars when he was high and stole from their purses.

Suddenly what Mach says is a report?

Well there is that small issue of evidence of RG DNA found inside MK vagina. I suppose you will now argue that it was possibly consensual sex... but please before you do that be so kind as to explain the aspirated blood droplets first on her bra and then also on her bare breasts. Perhaps both were into the rough sex thing maybe?

Yummi/Mac, AV and AV husband and AV partner Paul Russell all go into a courtroom...there has to be a joke there but it is probably tasteless which could never stop me so I will work on that.

Lies and nonsense would be more accurate than a report IMHO.

The Kercher letter was not read in court...out loud at least. Course, Stephanie is not a defendant...but then neither was Guede yet his letter was read by Mignini. How do we know Guede wrote this letter? Well, in fact the judges and defense lawyers tried to pin this down by asking why he could not read it himself and therefore Mignini (Guedes best defense lawyer IMO) read it for him...possibly after Guede had left the building...and or he couldn't understand the words or read the handwriting...

Perhaps Knox can re-submit a certified and notarized copy of her excellent spontaneous statement to the court. Certainly this court has to recognize that for Knox to return to Italy in person would be the dumbest thing on Earth to do given the lack of integrity and honesty displayed by the Italian judicial system thus far. And lets not forget Italy's less than stellar record of human rights abuses recorded at the ECOHR.

If Italy wants to have a respectable judicial system then they better start policing those who make a mockery of it from the inside...Mignini, Comodi, Stefanoni, Perugia police et al...and the most interesting of all...not one dissenting Italian voice to be heard...no politician, no news, even Hellmann has crawled into a cave. What does the mafia call that code of silence again? I wonder who taught who? Whom?

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe you misunderstood: there are people who perceive what Knox says as infuriating and gets under their skin.
But to me, no, she does not infuriate me. No no, I don't feel any anger. Nothing personal. I am just extremely negatively impressed. I just can't believe a word she says. And I can't believe my eyes when I see her nodding while sayin no, failing to answer questions, sighing and swallowing inconsistently, smirking before talking: she really is incongruent, she is lying about everything and she offer a load of red flags to anyone. In other words, she such a bad actress far more than I expected. And she comes across as a more severe narcissist than I thought.

Machiavelli, I can only read this with a sigh. To me, it is no wonder that you don't even try to put together a coherent narrative concerning guilt. You simply cherry pick within each element to make Knox seem the most "guilty", even if you contradict yourself on other points.

Please remember that the essence of your argument about the interrogation, was that Knox could "choose not to sleep," and therefore was fresh and ready to pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators.....

..... so much so, that on the basis of the "See you later" mistranslation (well done Anna Donnino), the cops went out and broke down Patrick Lumumba's door with nothing else against him.

Then when they had to let him go and squeeze Rudy in to the crime - because all the forensics pointed to him and him alone - they had to paint Knox as an Academy Award winning actress as a cover for the incompetence of the PLE/Mignini.
Which is it Machiavelli? Do you simply make this up as you go?

 

[Strozzi]

Nencini's statement regarding Knox's letter

But that does apply to the Kerchers' letter: it obviously won't be given any weight as evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, and I really don't think anyone was arguing it should. Amanda's letter on the other hand obviously was an attempt to set out her case as well as she could, and presumably she wanted it to be listened to and taken seriously. Nencini only pointed out that it couldn't be given the same weight as a statement made in person - and yet he still read it out to the court. I don't see any reason to read anything negative into it, especially as he's made some pretty pointed remarks to the prosecution too.

I don't know what to make of Nencini's statement. As a judge he undoubtedly would want Knox to be in court. He may be expressing his criticism of her, or he may be doing something else. He may be demonstrating his firmness to his judiciary overseerers to show that he is not weak on Knox - and may give real consideration to what she wrote. I just don't know which.

 

[RandyN]

You need to be innocent in order to be "without fear".

Yes I acknowledge it's a rethorical answer. But I really think Knox can't be "without fear" ever, even when she is in the US.
The only way to live without fear is to confess.

Don't be so foolish....she has already confessed to being completely innocent! And so far Italy has failed to provide its first fact that proves she is wrong. There is a good logical and sound reason for that. Same one that explains why you or Italy has yet to provide a guilty time line that fits the known facts...a normally simple task and yet.....

You do not because you can not!

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

You need to be innocent in order to be "without fear".

Yes I acknowledge it's a rethorical answer. But I really think Knox can't be "without fear" ever, even when she is in the US.
The only way to live without fear is to confess.

Have you ever allowed yourself to think about the possibility of her or Raff being innocent? I think most, not all, but most people who steadfastly believe in their innocence have at some point considered the possibility they had some part in the crime. I am wondering if you have ever thought through the possibility they are not guilty.

 

[kwill]

I never read tabloids. But, going back to 2008 and 2009, I recall Amanda Knox's testimony turned my opinion -still with some doubts, ignoring the evidence - towards a powerful perception of guilt.
Now, through her later, subsequent declarations, she - Sollecito's as well - conveys to me the worse possible perceptions about her being guilty and about her personality.
Not only she is proven guilty as for the evidence, she also appears to me as guilty person in the most spectacular way. About everything she says and communicates, to me its speaks about lies.

You are correct about her being somehow different from what I expected. When I saw her in person I was surprised. Then when I saw her in media appearances I was even more surprised. But I was stunned because she appeared to me far worse than what I expected.
She conveyes basically two things to me: her being a liar, and her being a narcissist. Almost everything she says appears to me as a lie.
I did not expect her to convey a negative impression to me up to this point.

You can't possibly understand how loudly this post speaks about you, and how little it says about her. That's okay. Carry on.

 

[andreajo]

You need to be innocent in order to be "without fear".

Suppose, for a moment, that a fearless innocent spends four years in jail for a crime she has not committed. Hey, presto, all of a sudden you have a fearful innocent.

 

[billyryan]

You need to be innocent in order to be "without fear".

Yes I acknowledge it's a rethorical answer. But I really think Knox can't be "without fear" ever, even when she is in the US.
The only way to live without fear is to confess.

I get if you are guilty you avoid all places you can be photographed,especially court rooms full of people you slandered

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't get that from her at all. But maybe that's because I am a female North American dork, and she makes sense to me. I still think you should consider the possibility that you have completely misunderstood her. Gender, age, and cultural gaps could be a big factor.

But I know many girls. Even known few North American ones. Actually, young women from North America they don't make that negative impression to me.
Actually, I recall only one woman from North America who made a comparable negative impression on me, and even more to a number of people who were working with me; maybe it's irony but that woman was a Canadian (no offence; I had a Canadian neighbour who was a very nice young guy).
I recall that woman, a narcissist, a sociopath, really an extremely negative charachter.
Acutally that woman, despite she was beautiful, I found her physically repulsive, on chemical grounds: I could not stand her odour. There was something wrong. An immediate alarm bell. The first negative message was physical, from molecules.

I obviously happened to know some other more ore less sick or disturbing individuale, probably most individuals I felt as disturbed tend to be men but I can think about several even if we speak about women. And anyway, "disturbs" are not the same, personalities are obviously very different from each other. I mean know superficially; mostly don't happen to know that kind of disturbed women closely, they are not part of my everyday life, but anyway I observe people a lot, and I happen to know a lot about several let's say "psychiatric" life situations.

 

[Strozzi]

You need to be innocent in order to be "without fear".

Machiavelli, let me correct (expand upon) what you wrote above: You need to be innocent in order to be "without fear" OR you need to be innocent and have not been falsely convicted and imprisoned for a crime that you did not commit in order to be "without fear".