• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
When did he say it, not sign it? BTW, would be a real scoop if you have this 3AM statement. Let's see it.
Click to expand...

I have it. But I don't think it's a real scoop.
The small technical problem in this moment is extrapolating it from a larger pdf file (I don't have a pdf distiller on this device).
 
RoseMontague said:
As I mentioned yesterday Amanda's book is continuing to rise. Here are the rankings for the eBook...


Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #313 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#3 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women
#4 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women
#7 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > Memoirs
Click to expand...

Diocletus said:
Don't mention this, Rose. There are guilters here and they might have a stroke. On the other hand, now that Amanda is convicted by nencini, maybe the Kerchers will snatch up all of the book royalties, so maybe guilters will feel ok buying the book, since it's really just the same as making a contribution in memory of Meredith.
Click to expand...

Obviously someone who sells that many books must be innocent!!!
 
Machiavelli said:
The police never told her there was blood on Sollecito's hands. They never named Patrick Lumumba. They never said Patrick wanted to have fun and wanted to have sex with Meredith, never told her Meredith uttered a terrible scream covering their ears, never told her that she was crouching in the kitchen knowing ("imagining") what was goind on. Never told her that Lumumba is a bad person and that she should be very afraid of him.
Click to expand...

This is a lie. All of the above is compatible with the known behavior of Mignini and Napoleoni (both criminally-charged for corruption).
 
RoseMontague said:
Also, I never said she should be arrested or charged. The cops considered her a suspect even long before this point. That is obvious.
Click to expand...

What does that mean, "considered a suspect"? That is totally subjective. Being a suspect means there are elements of evidence for a specific charge, evidence that can be filed. It does not mean that someone subjectively considers you something.
 
Machiavelli said:
I have it. But I don't think it's a real scoop.
The small technical problem in this moment is extrapolating it from a larger pdf file (I don't have a pdf distiller on this device).
Click to expand...

Download cutepdf, it is free. Print the pages you want to this virtual printer and it creates a new pdf of just those pages. Can't wait to see it, btw.
 
Machiavelli said:
The police never told her there was blood on Sollecito's hands. They never named Patrick Lumumba. They never said Patrick wanted to have fun and wanted to have sex with Meredith, never told her Meredith uttered a terrible scream covering their ears, never told her that she was crouching in the kitchen knowing ("imagining") what was goind on. Never told her that Lumumba is a bad person and that she should be very afraid of him.

What they told her, as for her own testimony, is that they didn't believe her, that Sollecito withdrew her alibi, that she was acting as a stupid liar, that they hit her twice at the back of her head, that they may consider her an accomplice if she didn't tell the truth, that they did not belive her when she said she didn't meet anyone, and also objected she sent an sms in Italian suggesting an appointment that evening.
That's all what they said. The rest is Amanda's.
Click to expand...

You would only know this if you had access to the interogation tapes.

So, you claim they told her that she was lying, that the person she spent the night with was no longer saying that, that she might be looking at a jail sentence if she didn't comply and tell them what they wanted, that she met someone, and that the person she met was the person in the sms.

So, by that measure, the police heavily suggested she knew something about the murder and gave Knox enough clues as to who they suspected the murderer could be - Patrick the sms guy. From that point on, anything from Knox is just window dressing on something suggested by the police - that's how these coerced false memories work!

Absolving the police of thier responsibility for inducing Knox's story is silly, illogical and downright unethical.

They brought Patrick into the room, not Knox. That they did not name him does not mean that they did not provide enough indications to suggest he could have been the murderer. Anyone familiar with the concept of privacy and confidentiality would know this - you do not need to name a person, just provide enough clues for them to be identified.
 
anglolawyer said:
Bearing in mind the ECHR is quite capable of overturning this entire farce solely because of the deprivation of this one right, this question has profound importance. I would even suggest that, if he pretends to intellectual honesty, Mach should support the inevitable ECHR appeal even if he retains his irrational belief in guilt since a decent, intelligent, civilised person should be able to see that everybody, guilty and innocent alike, is entitled to a fair trial.
Click to expand...

Actually, the ECHR is not capable of affecting the judicial findings in the merits. Even if there was a theoretical violation of one specific right in one point of the proceedings (but there wasn't any) this does not translate automatically into a prejudice about the fairness of the whole proceedings.
As for the ECHR in detail on the point of suspect's right to legal counsel, I can only urge you to study the ECHR jurisprudence in depth. A discussion on the ppoint could be interesting if based on actual jurisprudence.
 
Machiavelli said:
Abuse of office, not corruption, and remembr to say Mignini has been acquitted.
Click to expand...

So has Spezi, don't remember you telling us that,

Hey Mach do you think the brave Roman kangaroos will sign off on this verdict when it reaches cascione,I think that the motivation to keep this case from reaching a fair court (ECHR)will loom large in Rome and put awful pressure to somehow keep this case in house

Something Mach tells me that you are not really interested in my advice but none the less I recommend that you remove that square green aviator with the leaf of grass and drop of water,and replace it with your own photograph,I can supply you with a very recent photo if you are interested
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
I wonder if you would feel the same if you were an 11 year-old female child with a 60 year-old man's penis inside of you. Or perhaps if you were that child's father? Or perhaps if you were the father of a dead girl who was murdered by a man already known to be a criminal? How about if you found out this scumbag was going to be out walking the streets just 7 years later?
Click to expand...

I see that you have emotional instances on some points. I'm not saying "yes" or "no" to any position, there are conflicting instances to take in account in human societies; but it is a fact that many democratic jurisdictions chose to set up more or less lenient justice systems. This is a matter of fact. My personal opinion is that leniency does make sense, and that the first aim of justice system should to achieve deterrence, not retribution; to maximize safety and reduce conflicts, not to maximize subjective feelings of justice. Only my opinion. Then there are indeed many nuances in the application of principles, right and wrong ways to apply them, and conflicting interests on their applications. But I'm not alone in sharing those principles. Sure I would not consider safe that 60yr olds are just allowed to have sex with 11yr girls, but if I have to think about which criminal puts the biggest threat to public safety, I would think that a person who drives on cocaine and violating speed limits and killing children on zebra crossing is more dangerous compared to a 60yr old who has consensual sex with underages. Ad for Rudy Guede, he was not known to be a criminal but I just don't think he'll be walking the streets after 7 years, it will take a few years more; but also, I remind that Sollecito committed the same crime and he has been walking the streets after 4 years and will be walking the streets after another 8 years. Some people will not like this, too.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Actually, the ECHR is not capable of affecting the judicial findings in the merits. Even if there was a theoretical violation of one specific right in one point of the proceedings (but there wasn't any) this does not translate automatically into a prejudice about the fairness of the whole proceedings.
As for the ECHR in detail on the point of suspect's right to legal counsel, I can only urge you to study the ECHR jurisprudence in depth. A discussion on the ppoint could be interesting if based on actual jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

Why would that be interesting? All you ever say is that she had no right to counsel until migini decided to arrest her. Do you acknowledge that you are wrong, and that echr requires that a suspect may be entitled to counsel before formal arrest?
 
Machiavelli said:
What does that mean, "considered a suspect"? That is totally subjective. Being a suspect means there are elements of evidence for a specific charge, evidence that can be filed. It does not mean that someone subjectively considers you something.
Click to expand...

Like eating pizza and a hip waggle? Too funny. She buckled and confessed to facts they already knew were true (but were not), so yes, they suspected her and showed it from the wiretaps, the tag team cops, the late night interrogations, and the wanting to get her to say something before her mom arrived.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
I see that you have emotional instances on some points. I'm not saying "yes" or "no" to any position, there are conflicting instances to take in account in human societies; but it is a fact that many democratic jurisdictions chose to set up more or less lenient justice systems. This is a matter of fact. My personal opinion is that leniency does make sense, and that the first aim of justice system should to achieve deterrence, not retribution; to maximize safety and reduce conflicts, not to maximize subjective feelings of justice. Only my opinion. Then there are indeed many nuances in the application of principles, right and wrong ways to apply them, and conflicting interests on their applications. But I'm not alone in sharing those principle.s
Click to expand...

I think you are alone. I don't know any other child rape apologists.
 
Machiavelli said:
You are saying she should have been declared a suspect and arrested; now tell us 1. on what evidence 2. above all, on which charge
Click to expand...

I agree. When the questioning of Amanda began, there was no evidence and no potential charge against her. The same goes for Raffaele. They went into the Questura, during which time there took place some illegally-unrecorded transactions regarding a large number of police officers vs. no legal representation, and then there was enough evidence to charge them.

What happened is clear enough to rational observers.
 
billyryan said:
So has Spezi, don't remember you telling us that,
(...)
Click to expand...

Spezi actually has multiple convictions, and currently stands indicted for his malicious placing of false evidence against Antonio Vinci, for which he was caught in flagrante delicto.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom