[Continuation] The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Stacyhs]

Nobody was scolded. I very politely asked that person to not direct the term 'stupid woman' at me (even if disguised in a sophisticated way).

"I object to your obnoxious sexist language" is not polite, disguised, or sophisticated in any way. But telling someone she is NOT a stupid woman is somehow obnoxious and sexist? I suppose it would have been better if I'd said you were not a stupid humanoid or homo sapien?

 

[Vixen]

I find it hilarious that someone insists that x' and z' are the proper English possessive punctuation but has never once provided evidence for it despite repeated requests.

Please, please, please, I beg you to read what wiki has to say:

In the case of plural nouns ending in -s, the possessive is spelled by only adding an apostrophe and is pronounced the same (for example: Peasants' Revolt). In the case of singular nouns ending in -s (or -z in another sibilant -z or -x sound; or -se, -ze, -ce or -xe. Example, Verreaux's eagle),[citation needed] the possessive was traditionally[2] also spelled by adding only an apostrophe (despite often being pronounced differently):

wiki


Not that I needed to look it up.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen earlier claimed that Sollecito had never withdrawn his interrogation claim that Knox had gone out the night of Nov. 1. She wanted a court document as evidence he had. Happily provided:

Matteini motivation:

Can you please provide a link that works?

I did already. Click on the link.

 

[Stacyhs]

When a crime is committed, you lodge a complaint with the police and they are obliged to act.

Here is Knox' testimony in court when cross-examined by Pacelli:

Quote:
CP: When you wrote the memorandum, were you hit by police? AK: When? CP: When you wrote the memorandum. Were you hit by police?
AK: No.
CP: Mistreated?
AK: No.
CP: Did the police suggest the contents?
AK: No.
CP: You gave it to them freely?
AK: Yes.
CP: Voluntarily?
AK: Yes.
CP: Listen, in this memorandum, you say that you confirm the declarations you made the night before about what might have happened at your house with Patrick. Why did you freely and spontaneously confirm these declarations?
AK: Because I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real. So I wanted to say that I was confused, and that I couldn’t know. But at the same time, I knew I had signed those declarations. So I wanted to say that I knew I had made those declarations, but I was confused and not sure.
CP: But in fact, you were sure that Patrick was innocent?
AK: No, I wasn’t sure.
CP: Why?
AK: Because I was confused! I imagined that it might have happened. I was confused.

Ummmm....she's talking about during writing the memorandum, not the interrogation. She does say she was hit during the interrogation. Do I really need to quote and cite that for you?

In fact, she contradicted herself several times.

Exactly where and how?

The ECHR court relied on Boninsegnia who was not the judge in the Calunnia case she was convicted in.

So? They also relied on the Italian SC ruling of 2008 regarding the lack of a lawyer violation.

Boninsegna was not present at that hearing.

And that is relevant how?

Why did Della Vedova use the Boninsegna case instead of the one in which she was convicted?

Again...that is relevant how?

 

[Numbers]

Knox was not deprived of a lawyer in criminal proceedings. The documents (see here Matteini, whilst we are looking at it) states she was a person 'informed of the facts' and only became a suspect after she confirmed she had taken 'Patrick' to the cottage for sex with the victim.

ECHR appear to have been misled by Dalla Vedova in that respect, with his selective quoting.

As you know, the ECHR has no power in a State's criminal affairs. Della Vedova would not be able to successfully repeat his claimed facts again should Italy hold a revision trial as it was based on a false premise to begin with.

Vixen, your quoted post is full of nonsensical half-truths, falsehoods, and misunderstandings of Italian and ECHR law.

The ECHR defines the beginning of criminal proceedings in its case law as including the pre-trial stage (inquiry, investigation). Requirements of fairness and provisions including the right of defense are considered to begin at this stage because the fairness of a trial is likely to be compromised by an initial failure by the authorities to comply with them. See paragraph 49 of the Guide to Article 6 (criminal branch) cited below.

"Criminal proceedings" in Italy are those actions of the authorities as specified in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, starting with CPP Article 1.

Thus, interrogations and witness questionings are part of the criminal proceedings.

Whether or not Knox was a suspect or a witness prior to her statement about Lumumba on 6 November 2007, she became a suspect after making that statement. The interpreter, prior to Knox making her statement against Lumumba, played an inappropriate and unfair role rather than acting as a fair interpreter. This is known from the interpreter's testimony in the Massei trial, among other evidence. Thus, Knox's statement was derived in violation of Convention Article 6.3e, and the trial courts did not redress this violation by any consideration of the unfair influence of the interpreter. Therefore, the trial and conviction were violations of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e. See Knox v. Italy 76577/13 paragraphs 182 - 188.

The failure to provide a fair interpreter is a violation of the right of representation of the accused, and thus should lead to a finding of a nullity in the trial (CPP Article 178).

Following Knox's statement against Lumumba, she was a suspect, and under Italian law the interrogation was to stop and the police were required to tell her to consult a lawyer (CPP Article 63). Any additional interrogation should have been conducted according to CPP Article 64, which includes warnings about self-incrimination and the responsibilities of a witness (a warning against calunnia). A defense lawyer must be present during such an interrogation. The Italian authorities (that is, Mignini) did not follow any of these requirements of Italian or ECHR law. Thus, specifically because of the denial of a defense lawyer during this interrogation (falsely called a spontaneous statement by Mignini) the ECHR found a violation of Convention Article 6.3c. Nothing in the trial proceedings remedied this violation. Thus, the ECHR found a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c. See Knox v. Italy, paragraphs 146 - 167 for a more detailed explanation. In particular, paragraph 152 explains that at the time of the interrogation or interview by Mignini, generating the 5:45 am statement, Knox was without any doubt the subject of a criminal charge within the meaning of the Convention.

The denial of a lawyer during this later part of the interrogation is therefore another failure of representation and thus should lead to a finding of a nullity in accordance with CPP Article 178.

The roles of the ECHR and the CoM, and the solemn responsibilities of the respondent state found in violation of the Convention, have been explained in the continuations of this thread many times.

Sources:

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

 

[Stacyhs]

How true is Stacyhs' claim that Sollecito retracted his second statement at the Matteini hearing (re remand) to say Knox was with him all night?

Not true at all. The first statement he gave police was 2 Nov 2007 and the second on the 5 Nov 2007. Matteini was 9 Nov 2007.

Oh, dear. That is not what I said, Vixen. THIS is what I said:

Vixen earlier claimed that Sollecito had never withdrawn his interrogation claim that Knox had gone out the night of Nov. 1. She wanted a court document as evidence he had. Happily provided:

Matteini motivation:

Do you see anywhere in the above where I said he "retracted it at the Matteini hearing"?

I quoted and cited what Matteini wrote in her report and it clearly states "during the hearing for the confirmation of the arrest, Raffaele Sollecito said that he had spent the whole night between 1 and 2 November with Amanda Knox,..."

As you pointed out, Sollecito said Knox went out on the night of Nov.5/6. The hearing for his arrest was on Nov. 8. I don't know about your calendar, but on mine Nov. 8 comes AFTER Nov. 5/6.

Sheesh.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, dear. That is not what I said, Vixen. THIS is what I said:



Do you see anywhere in the above where I said he "retracted it at the Matteini hearing"?

I quoted and cited what Matteini wrote in her report and it clearly states "during the hearing for the confirmation of the arrest, Raffaele Sollecito said that he had spent the whole night between 1 and 2 November with Amanda Knox,..."

As you pointed out, Sollecito said Knox went out on the night of Nov.5/6. The hearing for his arrest was on Nov. 8. I don't know about your calendar, but on mine Nov. 8 comes AFTER Nov. 5/6.

Sheesh.

Here is the crying Matteini statement.

He clearly says Knox went out until 1:00am. This version is the original court report translated into English.

 

[Vixen]

OK, I see it now. Sollecito says he remembers just going to bed and getting up at 10:00 next day. Knox says she can't remember whether Sollecito was with her at the cottage with 'Patrick' or not.

http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...x-Lumumba-Sollecito-translated-in-English.pdf

That's strange, I thought he was up battling a flood in his kitchen at about 11:00.

 

[Stacyhs]

These are claims by Robyn Butterworth, Mez' Meredith's friend who took the courage of her convictions to the witness box.

She " took the courage of her convictions to the witness box"? What an odd statement to make. One is supposed to take the truth to the witness box, not their convictions. A conviction is a belief and Butterworth certainly believed Knox had killed her friend. That's called being a hostile witness: a witness whose relationship to the lawyer’s client is such that his testimony is likely to be prejudicial.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please, please, please, I beg you to read what wiki has to say:

Quote:
In the case of plural nouns ending in -s, the possessive is spelled by only adding an apostrophe and is pronounced the same (for example: Peasants' Revolt). In the case of singular nouns ending in -s (or -z in another sibilant -z or -x sound; or -se, -ze, -ce or -xe. Example, Verreaux's eagle),[citation needed] the possessive was traditionally[2] also spelled by adding only an apostrophe (despite often being pronounced differently):

wiki


Not that I needed to look it up.

Please, please, please, I beg you...you've presented this before and it was proved that it does not apply to what you think it does.

Notice that the highlighted is followed by "[citation needed]" which would explain why you've never been able to give an actual example of x' or z' being used or states as being correct. The citation provided for [2], when read, makes no mention whatsoever of x' or z'.
Neither does your wiki link ever give an example of any word ending in x' or z' but does use two possessive words ending in x: " the suffix's derivation" and
Verreaux's eagle. No example or use of z' is given.

Please, please, please, I beg you to stop making claims you cannot support with evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

Here is the crying Matteini statement.


[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52530803760_e7432521f3_c.jpg[/qimg]



He clearly says Knox went out until 1:00am. This version is the original court report translated into English.

ON NOV. 5 "He clearly says Knox went out until 1:00am." What part of him saying that on NOV 5 and "…during the hearing for the confirmation of the arrest (NOV 8), Raffaele Sollecito said that he had spent the whole night between 1 and 2 November with Amanda Knox" is not registering for you? Is NOV 8 AFTER NOV 5 or not?

 

[Stacyhs]

OK, I see it now. Sollecito says he remembers just going to bed and getting up at 10:00 next day.

No, you don't see it. He also says they had dinner together, AK received a text saying she didn't have to go to work, and the woke up together. NO WHERE does he say went out. NONE of that is in dispute.

Knox says she can't remember whether Sollecito was with her at the cottage with 'Patrick' or not.

And? Do we really need to go over internalized false confessions and her "more like a dream", "confused", "I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion" admission?



[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52530364366_78ed5bf153_c.jpg[/qimg]


http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...x-Lumumba-Sollecito-translated-in-English.pdf

That's strange, I thought he was up battling a flood in his kitchen at about 11:00.

You thought wrong. RS wrote in his book that they watched Amelie, which ended at 9:10, the went into the kitchen to wash up leftover breakfast dishes and to make dinner and that's when the pipe started leaking. Amanda said the same thing.

Why do you insist on making snarky, exaggerated, and pejorative comments about the pair instead of just sticking to the facts? That's hardly the behavior of someone who is "only interested in the truth"; it's the behavior of someone with an extreme bias.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

Please try to remember that Meredith Kercher is the victim here.

Nobody has forgotten that. Please try to remember that Guede is the perpetrator.

Your obsessive personal vendetta against Knox, who wasn't the perpetrator, is not helping Kercher.

The highlighted is pure virtue signaling.

 

[Bill Williams]

Robyn and Sophie's testimony

Vixen has told a massive untruth about either Robyn's or Sophie's court testimony, they were the 'British friend's' of the victims. It is useless to speculate if Vixen did this knowingly or simply made it up.

Vixen upthread has a massively slanderous post about Knox's behaviour and words that first day, all of which was untrue. Vixen claimed that on the day of the discovery, Knox bullied people and said massively cruel things to people. I won't repeat it, people can look to Vixen's statement for itself.

Later, Vixen wrote that Knox had not become a suspect until the late night Nov 5/6 interrogation. I asked Vixen to 'pick a lane', her previous slander of Knox upthread left the impression that Knox had been a suspect from the git-go, with the falsely claimed, overt cruel behaviour from Knox. Indeed, that's what investigators said was a clue to suspecting Knox, her pre-interrogation behaviour!

Vixen's response? That that account of Knox's massively cruel behaviour was part of either Sophie's or Robyn's testimony at trial, not something that Vixen herself had just made up off the cuff.

An additional untruth. On pp. 275-278 of John Follain's 'A Death in Italy', the prosecution-friendly Follain recounts their testimony. They testified that everyone that first day was crying, except for Knox. Yet Follain recounts Sophie's additional testimony about Knox's perceived 'coldness':

It wasn't the kind of thing Sophie had meant to say, because she hadn't wanted to sound as if she was accusing Amanda.

There was also testimony from both of them about the toy-vibrator and condoms Amanda kept in her toiletry case in the bathroom. Robyn also testified about her opinion of Amanda, that Amanda had an 'exuberant character', had failed to keep the bathroom clean, and had seemed cold after the murder, even refusing a hug.

Robyn said that Meredith had told her that that overt display of those items had left her uncomfortable. Sophie later said that she thought of Amanda as a 'show off'. Yet....

For Sophie, owning a vibrator didn't mean that Amanda had killed Meredith, but showing off with it had struck Meredith as weird.

That's the sum total of what John Follain reports about the British friend's testimony, as it relates to their observations of Knox's 'character.'

It is nowhere near Vixen's over-the-top vilification of Knox during that first day, that Vixen ended up falsely claiming had been one of the British friend's testimony.

My bet is that Vixen does not respond to this, simply moves on to the next factoid.

 

[TruthCalls]

Vixen has told a massive untruth about either Robyn's or Sophie's court testimony, they were the 'British friend's' of the victims. It is useless to speculate if Vixen did this knowingly or simply made it up.

Vixen upthread has a massively slanderous post about Knox's behaviour and words that first day, all of which was untrue. Vixen claimed that on the day of the discovery, Knox bullied people and said massively cruel things to people. I won't repeat it, people can look to Vixen's statement for itself.

Later, Vixen wrote that Knox had not become a suspect until the late night Nov 5/6 interrogation. I asked Vixen to 'pick a lane', her previous slander of Knox upthread left the impression that Knox had been a suspect from the git-go, with the falsely claimed, overt cruel behaviour from Knox. Indeed, that's what investigators said was a clue to suspecting Knox, her pre-interrogation behaviour!

Vixen's response? That that account of Knox's massively cruel behaviour was part of either Sophie's or Robyn's testimony at trial, not something that Vixen herself had just made up off the cuff.

An additional untruth. On pp. 275-278 of John Follain's 'A Death in Italy', the prosecution-friendly Follain recounts their testimony. They testified that everyone that first day was crying, except for Knox. Yet Follain recounts Sophie's additional testimony about Knox's perceived 'coldness':


There was also testimony from both of them about the toy-vibrator and condoms Amanda kept in her toiletry case in the bathroom. Robyn also testified about her opinion of Amanda, that Amanda had an 'exuberant character', had failed to keep the bathroom clean, and had seemed cold after the murder, even refusing a hug.

Robyn said that Meredith had told her that that overt display of those items had left her uncomfortable. Sophie later said that she thought of Amanda as a 'show off'. Yet....


That's the sum total of what John Follain reports about the British friend's testimony, as it relates to their observations of Knox's 'character.'

It is nowhere near Vixen's over-the-top vilification of Knox during that first day, that Vixen ended up falsely claiming had been one of the British friend's testimony.

My bet is that Vixen does not respond to this, simply moves on to the next factoid.

Bill, I called Vixen out on this up-thread. She even provided quotes that she felt was confirming her commentary, which I found interesting since the quotes did nothing of the sort. I called her out a second time because of this.. no response yet - I wait with bated breath.

As for Amanda being a suspect on 5/6 Nov, obviously there is a wealth of facts and circumstantial evidence that proves she was a suspect going in, but I always point to two indisputable facts - Mignini stating he immediately felt the killer was a woman because the body was covered and that he believed the break-in was staged, meaning an inside job. As there were four women living at the cottage, one was dead, one was in Rome, one was out of town and supposedly had an iron clad alibi... this left Amanda. It doesn't take a genius...

 

[Guss]

You might think that is fine but I hope noone openly laughs in your face when you have received bad news.

Please try to remember that Meredith Kercher is the victim here.

Vixen, instead of fibbing and appeals to others, why not talk about timelines or the condition of Meredith's jacket, the lack of any wipe marks with luminol or why Amanda would raise the alarm pointing to the blood in the bathroom, why too RS?
Why in the world would the Guilty AK and RS do such a thing?

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen claimed that on the day of the discovery, Knox bullied people and said massively cruel things to people.

That "massively cruel" thing was "Butterworth also testified that when one of their other friends had said she hoped that Meredith had not suffered, Amanda responded with, 'What do you think? She ******* bled to death.'"

Anger is an expected and normal reaction to a murder. Amanda was angry by that point having first been in shock, then crying, then anger.

SHOCK and CRYING: evidenced by the blank, dazed look on her face outside the cottage when being comforted by Raffaele. Of course, we all know how that was presented in the media! These are not the faces of two people who were seconds ago "canoodling".




Luca Altieri testimony:

Mignini: Listen, when… do you remember if you saw Amanda cry in the Police Station?
Altieri: Amanda had already cried outside the house, also going to the Police Station in the car, yes, at a certain point…
Mignini: When did she cry?
Altieri: Now, after I… she asked me this… I don’t remember well if she asked how, with what she had been killed, basically, how they had cut her throat, and when I gave her the answer to this question she burst out crying.

Dalla Vedova: She was crying because she was in shock, do you think?Altieri: Do I think?
Dalla Vedova: Your statement to the police [verbale] ends thus: she started crying.
Altieri: Yes

Dalla Vedova: However earlier you said that Amanda cried the first time when you were outside the house, then also in the car Altieri: Yes, it’s there that… it’s there that I visually saw him console her, outside the house when she was cryingDalla Vedova: And to you it seemed right that she behaved this way or did it seem strange to you? Altieri: No, it seemed normal.

Filomena Romanelli:

I saw her just one moment breakdown where she almost cried but then she managed to maintain composure.

ANGER:

When confronted by Diane Sawyer about the remark,*Knox said, "I was angry. I was pacing, thinking about what Meredith must have been through." She also admits that she regrets what she said to Kercher's grieving friends. "I wish I could have been more mature about it, yeah."

Amanda in WTBH pg 82:

When I wasn’t on the phone, I paced. I walked by one of Meredith’s British friends, Natalie Hayworth, who was saying, “I hope Meredith didn’t suffer.” Still worked up, I turned around and gaped. “How could she not have suffered?” I said. “She got her******** throat slit. ******** bastards.”
I was angry and blunt. I couldn’t understand how the others remained so calm. No one else was pacing. No one else was muttering or swearing. Everyone else was so self-contained.

The almost exclusively negative media presentation of Amanda, early formed opinions and confirmation bias dictated how many people perceived Amanda then and to this day. Some PGP have a palpable and unbalanced hatred for her which I think says more about them than her. You can still read their vicious comments on the internet today. Why the need to hate someone they've never met over a murder of someone they've never met 15 years ago, especially when that person has been acquitted is just nuts.

 

[Vixen]

Please, please, please, I beg you...you've presented this before and it was proved that it does not apply to what you think it does.

Notice that the highlighted is followed by "[citation needed]" which would explain why you've never been able to give an actual example of x' or z' being used or states as being correct. The citation provided for [2], when read, makes no mention whatsoever of x' or z'.
Neither does your wiki link ever give an example of any word ending in x' or z' but does use two possessive words ending in x: " the suffix's derivation" and
Verreaux's eagle. No example or use of z' is given.

Please, please, please, I beg you to stop making claims you cannot support with evidence.

Grow up. Please stop vandalising my posts with your ignorant 'corrections'.


Asking politely.

 

[Vixen]

ON NOV. 5 "He clearly says Knox went out until 1:00am." What part of him saying that on NOV 5 and "…during the hearing for the confirmation of the arrest (NOV 8), Raffaele Sollecito said that he had spent the whole night between 1 and 2 November with Amanda Knox" is not registering for you? Is NOV 8 AFTER NOV 5 or not?

READ IT AGAIN. He clearly states at the arrest hearing that HE CANNOT REMEMBER WHETHER KNOX WENT OUT OR NOT.

That is hardly a vote of confidence in her or a confirmation they spent the whole night together.

 

[Vixen]

No, you don't see it. He also says they had dinner together, AK received a text saying she didn't have to go to work, and the woke up together. NO WHERE does he say went out. NONE of that is in dispute.





And? Do we really need to go over internalized false confessions and her "more like a dream", "confused", "I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion" admission?



[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52530364366_78ed5bf153_c.jpg[/qimg]


http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...x-Lumumba-Sollecito-translated-in-English.pdf



You thought wrong. RS wrote in his book that they watched Amelie, which ended at 9:10, the went into the kitchen to wash up leftover breakfast dishes and to make dinner and that's when the pipe started leaking. Amanda said the same thing.

Why do you insist on making snarky, exaggerated, and pejorative comments about the pair instead of just sticking to the facts? That's hardly the behavior of someone who is "only interested in the truth"; it's the behavior of someone with an extreme bias.

Do read the court documents. It is a fact found that Sollecito was lying about his computer use. That is not exaggerated. This was corroborated by independent impartial forensic computer experts and the internet provider. (Or are these also part of the great Mignini Conspiracy, too?)


Couldn't give a toss about whether someone is in a 'dream' or not. If the law says the law has been broken it has been broken, whether or not the lawbreaker has a justification or an excuse, unless it is enshrined in the specific statute there are mitigating factors. I am not aware that Calunnia has any mitigating let-offs.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do read the court documents. It is a fact found that Sollecito was lying about his computer use. That is not exaggerated. This was corroborated by independent impartial forensic computer experts and the internet provider. (Or are these also part of the great Mignini Conspiracy, too?)


Couldn't give a toss about whether someone is in a 'dream' or not. If the law says the law has been broken it has been broken, whether or not the lawbreaker has a justification or an excuse, unless it is enshrined in the specific statute there are mitigating factors. I am not aware that Calunnia has any mitigating let-offs.

I believe a pretty all-encompassing let-off never-was-in-the-first-place is when the police and prosecutors knowingly choose to disregard the law and fundamental human rights in order to extract a “confession” through coercion, bullying and threats. Especially where the original conviction is more-or-less entirely dependant on those unlawfully coerced statements.

The European Court of Human Rights agrees with me.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, people who know anything about the law know that the term “mitigation” or “mitigating factor” has no effect upon any assessment of guilt: it only affects the severity of the sentence imposed (assuming a guilty verdict).

 

[Stacyhs]

There was also testimony from both of them about the toy-vibrator and condoms Amanda kept in her toiletry case in the bathroom.

This whole vibrator nonsense is just the PGP making much ado about nothing trying to link her to being sexually deviant (I guess millions of women all over the world must be sexual deviants then!). For heaven's sake, it was just a gag gift given to Knox. Butterworth even said that Meredith pointed out the beauty case with that and the condoms in it on the day of the S. Africa-England match (mid-October) but that she didn't actually see them. It must have been real important to Amanda still being in her bathroom cosmetic bag over a month later!

Amy Frost said that Meredith found it a little strange but that it "didn't necessarily annoy her".

I highly doubt a sexually active woman in 2007, which Meredith was, would be shocked or upset about a pink bunny vibrator. Meredith wasn't a Victorian prude.

 

[Stacyhs]

Grow up. Please stop vandalising my posts with your ignorant 'corrections'.


Asking politely.

Please present evidence that they are 'ignorant corrections'. Asking politely for the umpteenth time.

Grow up?

Projecting much?

 

[Stacyhs]

READ IT AGAIN. He clearly states at the arrest hearing that HE CANNOT REMEMBER WHETHER KNOX WENT OUT OR NOT.

YOU WANTED A COURT DOCUMENT WITH SOLLECITO RETRACTING HIS STATEMENT THAT KNOX HAD GONE OUT THE NIGHT OF NOV. 1. I GAVE YOU THAT DOCUMENT:

Quote:
…during the hearing for the confirmation of the arrest, Raffaele Sollecito said that he had spent the whole night between 1 and 2 November with Amanda Knox, that he had returned to his flat around 8:00 pm-8:30 pm, that he had had dinner with his girlfriend, that he had realized she had received text messages on her mobile phone, that she had told him she would not need to got to work to the pub Le Chic that night, as she had been told via text message on her mobile, that they had gone to bed, they had woken up the next morning…..

DO YOU SEE HIM ANYWHERE IN THAT STATEMENT SAYING KNOX HAD GONE OUT THAT NIGHT? THE MOST HE COULD DO IS SAY HE COULDN'T REMEMBER FOR SURE.

IF THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, TAKE IT UP WITH MATTEINI.

See? I can yell right back.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52531455045_87e5b0b994_c.jpg[/qimg]

That is hardly a vote of confidence in her or a confirmation they spent the whole night together.[/QUOTE]

That is hardly a statement saying she did go out that night.
I also provided his statement from his book earlier where he clearly says she did NOT go out. I'll say it once again although I doubt it will connect: his interrogation description of that night corresponds with what she did on Halloween night as backed up by other witnesses. Just like Curatolo, he got the two nights mixed up. The only difference is, Curatolo was not being called a liar, denied a lawyer, yelled at and threatened when he got his nights mixed up. But he is allowed to be mixed up, right?

 

[Vixen]

I believe a pretty all-encompassing let-off never-was-in-the-first-place is when the police and prosecutors knowingly choose to disregard the law and fundamental human rights in order to extract a “confession” through coercion, bullying and threats. Especially where the original conviction is more-or-less entirely dependant on those unlawfully coerced statements.

The European Court of Human Rights agrees with me.

No they do not. The ECHR went by Bongiorno's dishonest statements in Boninsegna. The Matteini report clearly shows she was not a suspect until after her confession, and in any case an interpreter was there. There is zero evidence a 'confession was extracted'. The ECHR and Boninsegnia criticises the police for being too familiar, too nice, comforting, hugging and patting her hand, which was inappropriate.


Occam's razor says she named Patrick to deflect attention away from herself and to pervert the course of justice.

 

[Vixen]

By the way, people who know anything about the law know that the term “mitigation” or “mitigating factor” has no effect upon any assessment of guilt: it only affects the severity of the sentence imposed (assuming a guilty verdict).

I was using the term colloquially, because, of course, in assessing which charges to bring, the prosecutor can indeed weigh up whether a killing was murder, manslaughter, self-defence, or by someone unfit to plead (mentally defective, insane, etc.)


Most crimes are a straightforward test of did you do it or did you not.

 

[Vixen]

YOU WANTED A COURT DOCUMENT WITH SOLLECITO RETRACTING HIS STATEMENT THAT KNOX HAD GONE OUT THE NIGHT OF NOV. 1. I GAVE YOU THAT DOCUMENT:



DO YOU SEE HIM ANYWHERE IN THAT STATEMENT SAYING KNOX HAD GONE OUT THAT NIGHT? THE MOST HE COULD DO IS SAY HE COULDN'T REMEMBER FOR SURE.

IF THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, TAKE IT UP WITH MATTEINI.

See? I can yell right back.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52531455045_87e5b0b994_c.jpg[/qimg]

That is hardly a vote of confidence in her or a confirmation they spent the whole night together.

That is hardly a statement saying she did go out that night.
I also provided his statement from his book earlier where he clearly says she did NOT go out. I'll say it once again although I doubt it will connect: his interrogation description of that night corresponds with what she did on Halloween night as backed up by other witnesses. Just like Curatolo, he got the two nights mixed up. The only difference is, Curatolo was not being called a liar, denied a lawyer, yelled at and threatened when he got his nights mixed up. But he is allowed to be mixed up, right?

I don't know what you are quoting but you appear to be quoting someone's version of the hearing and they omit to mention Sollecito's proviso that he could not remember whether Knox went out or not.

Read the original Matteini report.

 

[Vixen]

She " took the courage of her convictions to the witness box"? What an odd statement to make. One is supposed to take the truth to the witness box, not their convictions. A conviction is a belief and Butterworth certainly believed Knox had killed her friend. That's called being a hostile witness: a witness whose relationship to the lawyer’s client is such that his testimony is likely to be prejudicial.

Butterworth said nothing of the sort. She gave a straightforward account of Knox' behaviour, which she testified she found strange, distressing and upsetting.

 

[Vixen]

No, you don't see it. He also says they had dinner together, AK received a text saying she didn't have to go to work, and the woke up together. NO WHERE does he say went out. NONE of that is in dispute.





And? Do we really need to go over internalized false confessions and her "more like a dream", "confused", "I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion" admission?



[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52530364366_78ed5bf153_c.jpg[/qimg]


http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...x-Lumumba-Sollecito-translated-in-English.pdf



You thought wrong. RS wrote in his book that they watched Amelie, which ended at 9:10, the went into the kitchen to wash up leftover breakfast dishes and to make dinner and that's when the pipe started leaking. Amanda said the same thing.

Why do you insist on making snarky, exaggerated, and pejorative comments about the pair instead of just sticking to the facts? That's hardly the behavior of someone who is "only interested in the truth"; it's the behavior of someone with an extreme bias.

Who cares what Sollecito wrote in his self-serving ghost-written book, which is a pack of lies, as proven at the merits trial.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen has told a massive untruth about either Robyn's or Sophie's court testimony, they were the 'British friend's' of the victims. It is useless to speculate if Vixen did this knowingly or simply made it up.

Vixen upthread has a massively slanderous post about Knox's behaviour and words that first day, all of which was untrue. Vixen claimed that on the day of the discovery, Knox bullied people and said massively cruel things to people. I won't repeat it, people can look to Vixen's statement for itself.

Later, Vixen wrote that Knox had not become a suspect until the late night Nov 5/6 interrogation. I asked Vixen to 'pick a lane', her previous slander of Knox upthread left the impression that Knox had been a suspect from the git-go, with the falsely claimed, overt cruel behaviour from Knox. Indeed, that's what investigators said was a clue to suspecting Knox, her pre-interrogation behaviour!

Vixen's response? That that account of Knox's massively cruel behaviour was part of either Sophie's or Robyn's testimony at trial, not something that Vixen herself had just made up off the cuff.

An additional untruth. On pp. 275-278 of John Follain's 'A Death in Italy', the prosecution-friendly Follain recounts their testimony. They testified that everyone that first day was crying, except for Knox. Yet Follain recounts Sophie's additional testimony about Knox's perceived 'coldness':


There was also testimony from both of them about the toy-vibrator and condoms Amanda kept in her toiletry case in the bathroom. Robyn also testified about her opinion of Amanda, that Amanda had an 'exuberant character', had failed to keep the bathroom clean, and had seemed cold after the murder, even refusing a hug.

Robyn said that Meredith had told her that that overt display of those items had left her uncomfortable. Sophie later said that she thought of Amanda as a 'show off'. Yet....


That's the sum total of what John Follain reports about the British friend's testimony, as it relates to their observations of Knox's 'character.'

It is nowhere near Vixen's over-the-top vilification of Knox during that first day, that Vixen ended up falsely claiming had been one of the British friend's testimony.

My bet is that Vixen does not respond to this, simply moves on to the next factoid.

Being a suspect by the police in an initial investigation is not the same as there being enough probable cause to charge by the prosecutor.

As for the sex toys business, since the treatment of the victim was utterly disgusting with her privacy invaded and her body mutilated, then I am afraid lewd behaviour by a suspect does become relevant in a sex crime.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do read the court documents.

Do stop with that tired old, overused bit o' rhetoric. I quote and cite court documents far more often than you do, so the irony isn't lost on anyone here.

It is a fact found that Sollecito was lying about his computer use. That is not exaggerated.

Yes, it is exaggerated. Since the laptop was fried by the postal police (and not by Sollecito as you have falsely claimed) it could not be proved that he wasn't on it. Also considering that the police were accessing his computer and doing searches on it on Nov. 5 while he was being interrogated, who knows what they could have accidentally altered?

Professor Alfredo MILANI in collaboration with Doctor Antonio d’Ambrosio, Doctor Engineer Andrea Chiancone, Doctor Paolo Bernardi, Doctor Emanuele Florindi, Doctor Marina Latini and Doctor Engineer Valentino Santucci, University of Perugia were Sollecito's experts and they were highly critical of the method used by the disc -burning, Naruto-not-finding postal police. I'll link to it. Pay attention to 3. Main critical points of the Postal Police expert report and 4 Conclusions. Not that you will.

Marasca: " The computers of Amanda Knox and Kercher, which might have been useful to the investigation, were, incredibly, burned by the careless actions of the investigators, causing a short circuit due probably to an erroneous power supply; and they cannot give any more information, given that the damage is irreversible."

As Marasca said, "... even if we cannot talk about a false alibi, it is appropriate to talk about a failed alibi." Do you need to have the difference between "false" and "failed" explained?

This was corroborated by independent impartial forensic computer experts and the internet provider. (Or are these also part of the great Mignini Conspiracy, too?)

See above

Couldn't give a toss about whether someone is in a 'dream' or not. If the law says the law has been broken it has been broken, whether or not the lawbreaker has a justification or an excuse, unless it is enshrined in the specific statute there are mitigating factors. I am not aware that Calunnia has any mitigating let-offs.

Of course you don't give a toss because it doesn't confirm you bias. You handwave away everything that doesn't.

I am not aware that Calunnia has any mitigating let-offs

Oh? What about the person having to KNOW what they're saying is false? Amanda clearly did not as she said in her first memorandum and clarified even more strongly in her second.

 

[Vixen]

Please present evidence that they are 'ignorant corrections'. Asking politely for the umpteenth time.

Grow up?

Projecting much?

Please take your radical ideas about the English language to another thread.

 

[Stacyhs]

Who cares what Sollecito wrote in his self-serving ghost-written book, which is a pack of lies, as proven at the merits trial.

I see you just hand wave away everything else. Par for the course.

Stop referring to the Massei trial as if it's enshrined in stone. It was annulled. Stamping your foot and repeating 'merits, merits, merits' doesn't change that fact.

You just can't stop with the false "ghost-written" bit, can you? What next? RS and Gumbel will be making a public apology and admitting they lied any day now?

 

[Vixen]

Do stop with that tired old, overused bit o' rhetoric. I quote and cite court documents far more often than you do, so the irony isn't lost on anyone here.



Yes, it is exaggerated. Since the laptop was fried by the postal police (and not by Sollecito as you have falsely claimed) it could not be proved that he wasn't on it. Also considering that the police were accessing his computer and doing searches on it on Nov. 5 while he was being interrogated, who knows what they could have accidentally altered?

Professor Alfredo MILANI in collaboration with Doctor Antonio d’Ambrosio, Doctor Engineer Andrea Chiancone, Doctor Paolo Bernardi, Doctor Emanuele Florindi, Doctor Marina Latini and Doctor Engineer Valentino Santucci, University of Perugia were Sollecito's experts and they were highly critical of the method used by the disc -burning, Naruto-not-finding postal police. I'll link to it. Pay attention to 3. Main critical points of the Postal Police expert report and 4 Conclusions. Not that you will.

Marasca: " The computers of Amanda Knox and Kercher, which might have been useful to the investigation, were, incredibly, burned by the careless actions of the investigators, causing a short circuit due probably to an erroneous power supply; and they cannot give any more information, given that the damage is irreversible."

As Marasca said, "... even if we cannot talk about a false alibi, it is appropriate to talk about a failed alibi." Do you need to have the difference between "false" and "failed" explained?





See above




Of course you don't give a toss because it doesn't confirm you bias. You handwave away everything that doesn't.



Oh? What about the person having to KNOW what they're saying is false? Amanda clearly did not as she said in her first memorandum and clarified even more strongly in her second.

I am supposed to rely on someone who just now - very knowingly - omitted to include the next sentence in Sollecito's arrest hearing in which he stated he could not remember whether Knox went out or not.


Any particular reason you need to lie about the facts contained in a court document?

The issue about the laptops has been thoroughly discussed already, if you would care to do a search on the thread.

 

[Stacyhs]

Being a suspect by the police in an initial investigation is not the same as there being enough probable cause to charge by the prosecutor.

That's a Capt. Obvious moment.

As for the sex toys business, since the treatment of the victim was utterly disgusting with her privacy invaded and her body mutilated, then I am afraid lewd behaviour by a suspect does become relevant in a sex crime.

So now it's 'sex toyS', is it? Are you claiming having a vibrator (and no evidence she even used it seeing how it was in the case in the bathroom the whole time) is 'lewd behavior'? Clutch those pearls!

 

[Vixen]

That's a Capt. Obvious moment.


So now it's 'sex toyS', is it? Are you claiming having a vibrator (and no evidence she even used it seeing how it was in the case in the bathroom the whole time) is 'lewd behavior'? Clutch those pearls!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716696385e4844c54b.jpg[/qimg]

She seemed very excited by the Vaseline jar in Mez' room. How weird.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't know what you are quoting but you appear to be quoting someone's version of the hearing and they omit to mention Sollecito's proviso that he could not remember whether Knox went out or not.

Read the original Matteini report.

Oh, good lord. It's from the original Matteini Report, pg 10 as you've already been told and linked to.

and they omit to mention Sollecito's proviso that he could not remember whether Knox went out or not.

No, it does not:

This aspect being clarified, it is [now] possible to take cognizance that Sollecito Raffaele, at the review hearing, affirmed having spent the entire night of the 1st and 2nd November with Knox Amanda having made a return to his house around the time 20.00 – 20.30, of having dined with the ragazza, of having become aware of the arrival of messages on the ragazza’s cell phone, of having known from the same [=Amanda] that that night she was not required to go to work at the Le Chic pub, as had been communicated by means of an SMS sent to her cell phone, and of having therefore gone to sleep together to wake the morning after around 10.00 when Amanda was going out to go back to via della Pergola to take a shower; during the course of the same declarations, he added, on the contrary, that he could not remember whether Knox had left or not

 

[Stacyhs]

Please take your radical ideas about the English language to another thread.

Please quote and cite evidence that x' or z' is correct English possessive punctuation. Doing so will guarantee my 'radical ideas about the English language" won't come up again. The fact you can't should tell you something.

 

[Vixen]

Please quote and cite evidence that x' or z' is correct English possessive punctuation. Doing so will guarantee my 'radical ideas about the English language" won't come up again. The fact you can't should tell you something.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13955064#post13955064


I get that this can be very difficult to understand. However, I also get that you do not understand it. Either way, please cease and desist from defacing my posts, as I have politely requested.