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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
The man holding the " Perugia hates you" sign actually looks very familiar. Is he one of the police officers who was shown in earlier photos?
Click to expand...

You mean Profazio?



No, that's not him, though they both have beards. Perhaps knuckle-dragging hatemongers all look alike?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting the signs Kaosium.

I don't have much free time. It can be maddening trying to catch up on posts and track down what everyone's talking about.

I take it that's Naploeoni's brother?
 
Wildhorses said:
Thanks for posting the signs Kaosium.

I don't have much free time. It can be maddening trying to catch up on posts and track down what everyone's talking about.

I take it that's Naploeoni's brother?
Click to expand...

No idea, actually.

Looked like a soccer fan to me.
 
Question:
There was a case featured years ago on one of those crime TV shows about a couple where their child was killed. They have a D&D Forgotten Realms novel.
The police claimed that the parents sacrificed the child due to finding the novel.
The story of the parents, which is more likely, is that the child was attacked by a dog and the child's wounds were extremely neat looking due to medical attempts.
Anybody know what case this was and what the resolution was?
 
Grinder said:
Only a fanatic could look at the picture of her walking into court with the oversized t-shirt emblazoned with the words "All You Need is Love" and not cringe.

Even when the kids themselves say they did something that caused some of their troubles some people feel the need to explain it away with Stockholm Syndrome or some such thing.

I don't think this is helping their case.

Sometimes life doesn't let people just be themselves and this is one of them.

ETA - the famous t-shirt wasn't just noticed by a couple of reporters. It was everywhere because it was so bizarre.
Click to expand...


Yes sure...if Knox would have dressed in a pant suit everyday she would have been in the clear now... no problemo.:rolleyes:

What is bizarre is the fact that such a baseless ridiculous case still gets any sort of legitimate reporting as if this case is somehow close and the Italians may just be correct.


This is stuff I find bizarre....more bizarre...the most bizarre.

I find bizarre the fact that the Italian SC overturned the conviction of a 60 year old pedophile because the 11 year old victim may have been in love.

I find it bizarre that the defendants in this case were clearly denied legally required rights and yet the sanctions for those violations consisted of nothing. In fact the courts clearly sidestepped a SC decision and to this day they discuss in court details of these illegal interrogations.

A shirt a kid sister brought for another kid to wear on Valentines day? Not so bizarre actually. Especially a completely innocent kid. What is bizarre is that the press notices this but completely misses (for 6 years now) the facts about no evidence, lying incoherent witnesses, police slapping a girl during interrogation, etc....I find these things f' nnnn unbelievably bizarre and its distractions like talk of the t shirt BS or a sign held up on a blog as an excuse for what is only Italian BS face saving....the Bella Figura which is described quite well in an article I read yesterday...

http://pitchforksposts.com/2014/02/13/the-disfigured-face-of-bella-figura-raffaele-sollecitos-italy/
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
The man holding the " Perugia hates you" sign actually looks very familiar. Is he one of the police officers who was shown in earlier photos?
Click to expand...

I think it might just be Yummi. No members here named Yummi right?
 
RandyN said:
I think it might just be Yummi. No members here named Yummi right?
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe it could be Yummi. I don't know what Yummi looks like but I think the man holding the sign is a member of the Perguia police force. I've seen his picture before. It might have been in a video of the police at the cottage.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
It would seem the kids never listened to advise when they had options. The PR effort was run while they were in jail and Marriott negotiated the book deal and may still be setting up the big TV interviews.

How much of the book deal went to Marriott will most likely never be known. I doubt that this blog effort is approved by him.



Pot - Kettle Lamp - Text :p



Stop piling on :(

The Amanda fans love what she does. The Amanda haters love what she does. The question is how do these kind of posts impact people in the middle. How does Abrams look at them?
Click to expand...

You must be joking right? Did you read Abrams last piece? How about a review on that rather than you or LK opinion on Knox trying to defend herself. GHWB too much?

She should start holding up signs that read "Mignini lied" "Patrick Lumumba was beaten by police too", "There was no testable DNA on the knife blade", "Napolini rigged a case against her ex too", "The head of the ISC is a truther" "The ISC broke the law", "We are still waiting to see the electronic data files"...you know present some real actual facts about this case.

Grinder you seem quite like GHWB who not only fails to understand the bar code but also the power of the twit...errr tweet.
 
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
In my opinion, she needs to stop blogging and holding up signs saying she's innocent. I don't know who's advising her, if anyone, but I would have thought the less said the better.



acbytesla said:
I think the opposite. She needs her story front and center. She can't afford the public to forget her and the idea that this young woman may have to do more than 20 years in prison for something she didn't do.
Click to expand...

I agree tesla...this story needs repeated daily until the media finally decides to get off their lazy useless butts and do some work....which would be quite easy in this case BTW. Abrams and ABC produce articles that read like something from National Enquirer or DM. BBC buys a "documentary" produced by Russell and Vogt...sorry that is prejudging them...lol. Id bet my life on the slant this BBC program will take.

Silence is always what the evil and corrupt wishes for. Lets not talk about Rita slapping Knox during her interrogation. Right. Silence about Mignini acting only as a notary. Ssshhhh it was a simple mistake that Stefanoni forgot the quantification read "too low" and so she accidentally said the quantity was large..."a couple hundred picograms"! Sure keep silent ....

NO! The time to yell loudly about the obvious stupidity and corruption of this case is long overdue. Sadly I think the Italians are so shackled and overwhelmed by the corruption that they are resigned to live with it because there is no easy way for them to be rid of it.

The PM resigned today. So there is at least one smart man left in Italy.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
Only a fanatic could look at the picture of her walking into court with the oversized t-shirt emblazoned with the words "All You Need is Love" and not cringe.

Even when the kids themselves say they did something that caused some of their troubles some people feel the need to explain it away with Stockholm Syndrome or some such thing.

I don't think this is helping their case.

Sometimes life doesn't let people just be themselves and this is one of them.

ETA - the famous t-shirt wasn't just noticed by a couple of reporters. It was everywhere because it was so bizarre.
Click to expand...


I agree. I think both Knox and Sollecito have exercised extremely poor judgement many times throughout this trial process. This was one example. By any measure, there was zero upside (in judicial terms most importantly, but also in the court of public opinion) for Knox to have turned up to her own murder trial wearing that t-shirt. Unbelievably bad judgement.

Again, I cannot help but blame her lawyers. I cannot comprehend how Dalla Vedova or one of his underlings didn't see Knox before the start of that day's proceedings, and say "You simply cannot wear those clothes". And of course Knox's lawyers should have drummed into her from the very start that it was critically important for her to dress demurely and unprovocatively throughout the entire trial. It's one of the most basic and fundamental rules of defendant conduct in a criminal trial. At least Sollecito's lawyers appear to have understood this - although Sollecito has gone on to make numerous other judgement errors in my opinion.

As you so eloquently pointed out, sometimes life doesn't let people just be themselves. There are conventions and restrictions that have to be followed. And just as someone working behind the counter in a high street bank should not (and would not be allowed to) turn up to work wearing jeans and a t-shirt, so somebody who's a defendant in a criminal trial should wear sober, smart, appropriate attire at all times. The problem is of course, in the former example, the person would be sent home and probably disciplined by his/her line manager; in the latter example, if the person's lawyer isn't smart or strong enough to insist that the person change his/her clothing, it's technically "allowed" - but it's massively unwise and potentially detrimental to the desired ultimate outcome.


Having said all of that, I'd reiterate that it shouldn't make a jot of difference to the objective assessment of Knox's (or Sollecito's) guilt, non-guilt or innocence. But sometimes these sorts of things do have adverse subliminal influences on judges and juries(and judicial panels). And they are of course cannon fodder for the media, and for anyone who is itching to attack her. There was simply no practical upside to this stupid clothing decision. And I'm afraid it's yet another example of just how unsuitable Dalla Vedova was to be acting as Knox's lead criminal defence lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Both Amanda and Raffaele have learned the hard way they may as well be themselves. If they cry, their manipulative. If they don't, their cold. If she smiles in court (usually because she's just spotted family who she hasn't seen in months) she's uncaring towards the victim. If she is serious in court or sullen, she's trying to fool the cameras into thinking that she cares.

If she naively stays behind to cooperate with police, she gets charged. If after an unjust conviction in 2009, and then a release in 2011, she doesn't return for trial in 2013, then she's disrespectful of the system, and.... everyone's favourite.... disrespectful to the victim's family.

When she puts one single, solitary link on her blog to raise money for the victim's family, she's roundly criticized for being insensitive... for raising money for them!!!!

Both Raffaele and Amanda have been through the wringer on this one. In my books it doesn't matter if they do, or if they don't.... <fill in the blank here>. A hater is going to hate them and find a reason why.

May as well wear an, "All you need is love" T-shirt in court.... because it doesn't much matter. They're going to hate you, call into question your motives, or call you naive and not paying attention to PR... all the while accusing you of running a multi-million $$$ PR campaign....

Amanda and Raffaele are the paper and ink in some weird Rorschach test. I think it says more about the commentator than the wearer..... MOO.
Click to expand...


I think there's a fundamental difference between momentary facial expressions on the one hand, and a conscious clothing decision on the other hand.

In a trial lasting many months, it's entirely unreasonable to expect the defendant to maintain a neutral, sober facial/body expression at all times, especially at the start or end of a day's proceedings or during a break. And it's therefore a virtual certainty that cameras will pick up the occasional smile, laugh, goofy face or whatever. And of course those are the pictures that are beloved of photo editors, so they tend to get undue prominence. It can sometimes therefore give people (especially people with an anti-Knox point of view) to draw the incorrect inference that Knox laughed and smirked her way through the trial. I don't think there was anything she could have done about that, and I also think that most reasonable people are able to understand that it's perfectly natural (and virtually inevitable) for there to have been times when Knox smiled and laughed.

But a conscious clothing decision is, in my eyes, a completely different kettle of fish. That's not a spontaneous or instantaneous happening. That's something that requires consideration, a certain amount of planning, and ample opportunity to rectify. And, as I said, her lawyer simply shouldn't have allowed her anywhere near the courtroom (or the cameras....) wearing that t-shirt. Assuming of course that he or the other lawyers actually saw her before the start of that day's proceedings, as they should have done.
 
The T-Shirt in court is a real issue. . .I misunderstood what you were arguing about
I don't blame her as much as her lawyer though.
I have had to go to traffic court and am surprised how casual some people go to even there.
 
Kaosium said:
Oh, and this was the vicious assault of Amanda's which created such a furor:


Her sign says simply: 'We are innocent.'
Click to expand...


There certainly appears to have been an orchestrated campaign to place altered text onto Knox's sign, and to distribute these altered images around the internet. In my opinion, such activities only serve to tell us (and anyone) more about the mindset and motives of those orchestrating such activities. A certain pretend-lawyer has been coyly alluding to his role in this orchestration (and congratulating himself rather crassly in the process), and others have talked of the "campaign" to smear and mock Knox through this photoshopping-and-distribution game.

They seem to believe that they've made Knox's action in creating the sign-holding photo "backfire spectacularly". In fact, all they've done is shown just how misanthropic, bullying, vengeful and bitter many of them are. Oh well, tant pis........
 
Desert Fox said:
The T-Shirt in court is a real issue. . .I misunderstood what you were arguing about
I don't blame her as much as her lawyer though.
I have had to go to traffic court and am surprised how casual some people go to even there.
Click to expand...

I completely blame the Italian Lawyers for poorly instructing her and not directing her better, but maybe everyone underestimated the media slander that was going on, and something as innocent as a shirt would make more headlines than the DNA or the police destroying evidence.

Candace Dempseys book captures the earliest days the best, the media campaign presenting Amanda as she was, which the prosecution benefited from greatly.

The witch hunt with the innocent ignorance of the Judges and Jurors, in hindsight, were ill equipped with technical knowledge of DNA and RFU's and instead probably judging Amanda, like Edgardo Giobbi did, with gut instinct and a retarded Daily Mail like understanding of who Amanda was and the forensics.

Toss in an insane prosecutor who has a skill at creating massively complex disasters with a Nazi Gestapo approach to anyone who challenges his case, you probably end up with innocent people in the torture chamber or prison.

Then the great failure happens, Rudy Guede fools them all. He murdered raped, gets a free college degree and will soon be free to live his life and probably be offered big money by some filth media corp for his story. As an observer, I would say Rudy actually benefited by his crime against Meredith Kercher.

This Rudy Factor will always show Mignini and Marescas as failures, actually the entire Italian system failed, including the Defense and Judge/Jurors.

But anyway, the T-Shirt yes, it made headlines....
 
JREF2010 said:
Then the great failure happens, Rudy Guede fools them all. He murdered raped, gets a free college degree and will soon be free to live his life and probably be offered big money by some filth media corp for his story.
Click to expand...

If the story of the crime in Guede's words is ever published, I think it will be obvious that there is no coherent narrative.
As an observer, I would say Rudy actually benefited by his crime against Meredith Kercher.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I doubt that he'll be able to stay out of jail. Remember O.J.Simpson? With all his celebrity and connections, and given a second chance after the murder trial, he still couldn't stay on the right side of the law. Guede has none of his advantages, and will be subject to release on licence to boot.
 
RandyN said:
(...)

Silence is always what the evil and corrupt wishes for. Lets not talk about Rita slapping Knox during her interrogation. Right. Silence about Mignini acting only as a notary. Ssshhhh it was a simple mistake that Stefanoni forgot the quantification read "too low" and so she accidentally said the quantity was large..."a couple hundred picograms"! Sure keep silent ....
(...)
Click to expand...

It's a lie. And you know it. You have been shown repeatedly... but you denie it... Vecchiotti was caught lying. I have shown that and innocentisti folks deny it... Stefanoni never lied. Never cehated and never refused to deposit documentation. She answered all questions. But I see how you folks repeatedly try to rationalize about something different. You "imagine" things. Even Stefanoni guess about hundreds picograms was correct, and it was proven that the defence lied on several occasions (when they talked about 5 picograms found by Vecchiotti. or when they falsely claimed that Novelli and Stefanoni agreed to refuse the testing...).
We can take this point about alleged misconducts of Stefanoni as just one small example. Falsehood is a the roots of the arguments of pro-Knoxes. Of all their arguments.
 
Machiavelli said:
It's a lie. And you know it. You have been shown repeatedly... but you denie it... Vecchiotti was caught lying. I have shown that and innocentisti folks deny it... Stefanoni never lied. Never cehated and never refused to deposit documentation. She answered all questions. But I see how you folks repeatedly try to rationalize about something different. You "imagine" things. Even Stefanoni guess about hundreds picograms was correct, and it was proven that the defence lied on several occasions (when they talked about 5 picograms found by Vecchiotti. or when they falsely claimed that Novelli and Stefanoni agreed to refuse the testing...).
We can take this point about alleged misconducts of Stefanoni as just one small example. Falsehood is a the roots of the arguments of pro-Knoxes. Of all their arguments.
Click to expand...

Hi Machiavelli. Good to see you back. I don't recall any of these demonstrations of yours. You never back them up with cites or quotes. Why don't you extract one or two of the more damning citations in a Conti-Vechiotti and tell us what's wrong with them?
 
Machiavelli said:
It's a lie. And you know it. You have been shown repeatedly... but you denie it... Vecchiotti was caught lying. I have shown that and innocentisti folks deny it... Stefanoni never lied. Never cehated and never refused to deposit documentation. She answered all questions. But I see how you folks repeatedly try to rationalize about something different. You "imagine" things. Even Stefanoni guess about hundreds picograms was correct, and it was proven that the defence lied on several occasions (when they talked about 5 picograms found by Vecchiotti. or when they falsely claimed that Novelli and Stefanoni agreed to refuse the testing...).
We can take this point about alleged misconducts of Stefanoni as just one small example. Falsehood is a the roots of the arguments of pro-Knoxes. Of all their arguments.
Click to expand...

anglolawyer said:
Hi Machiavelli. Good to see you back. I don't recall any of these demonstrations of yours. You never back them up with cites or quotes. Why don't you extract one or two of the more damning citations in a Conti-Vechiotti and tell us what's wrong with them?
Click to expand...

The technical definition of what you are doing, Machiavelli, is called "flooding". It is to repeatedly assert that you have done something - "you have been shown repeatedly" - when you have shown no such thing.

Simply asserting something again and again and again is called flooding and is a violation of JREF's terms of references.

It's much like when you claim that Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report did not debunk the psychopathology of the two accused. You simply assert that Massei did not debunk psychopathology.

And, yes, I do note you kept that particular assertion in the double negative - refusing to cite anything that says Massei actually did believe Mignini's cock-and-bull claim that they suffered from some sort of psychopathology. The thing that is telling is that you never, ever correct any of your guilter/hater friends when they write the most vile of character assassinations based on some phantom psychopathology.

Amanda e Raffaele sono innocenti. Deal with it.
 
LondonJohn said:
I think there's a fundamental difference between momentary facial expressions on the one hand, and a conscious clothing decision on the other hand.

In a trial lasting many months, it's entirely unreasonable to expect the defendant to maintain a neutral, sober facial/body expression at all times, especially at the start or end of a day's proceedings or during a break. And it's therefore a virtual certainty that cameras will pick up the occasional smile, laugh, goofy face or whatever. And of course those are the pictures that are beloved of photo editors, so they tend to get undue prominence. It can sometimes therefore give people (especially people with an anti-Knox point of view) to draw the incorrect inference that Knox laughed and smirked her way through the trial. I don't think there was anything she could have done about that, and I also think that most reasonable people are able to understand that it's perfectly natural (and virtually inevitable) for there to have been times when Knox smiled and laughed.

But a conscious clothing decision is, in my eyes, a completely different kettle of fish. That's not a spontaneous or instantaneous happening. That's something that requires consideration, a certain amount of planning, and ample opportunity to rectify. And, as I said, her lawyer simply shouldn't have allowed her anywhere near the courtroom (or the cameras....) wearing that t-shirt. Assuming of course that he or the other lawyers actually saw her before the start of that day's proceedings, as they should have done.
Click to expand...

I go with RandyN on this one. She could have worn Hillary Clinton conservative pantsuits for all the sessions, and this travesty would have still happened.

It's all part of blaming the victim - Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt have made careers out of it.

Amanda may as well be Amanda with all the warts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom