Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

How do you know, when you claim you don't understand a iota of the text?

Because others that do assure me that it doesn't say what you claim.

 

[kwill]

My information is Meredith complained with British friends specifically of having found toilet paper stained with menstrual blood.

She did complain about Knox's toilet habits, but not only about using the toilet brush: she complained also about Knox not flushing the toilet even when she used it for her period.

These were the specific topics Meredith mentioned to her friends.

Bolding mine. Do you see the problem here? Amanda Knox can't be held responsible for what Meredith said to her British friends. She reports that she and Meredith did have a conversation about using the brush every time she used the toilet. She reports this conversation without rancor or resentment.

No malice.

Your grand unified theory of the crime requires a leap of logic -- that because Meredith talked to her friends about Amanda, it follows that Amanda knew of these conversations and resented them. And yet there's not one word out of her mouth or her pen to that effect. You know there isn't.

That's why you have to stoop to interpreting her plain English (she thought the blood smears might be from M's period) as an attempt to trash talk her housemate (Meredith was the real slob!). It's absurd.

By the way, another lovely early fall day here in Seattle today. I'm sure Amanda enjoyed it and didn't waste a moment wondering why so many people are still working so hard to find malice in her. That she's managed to hang onto her spirit of optimism and generosity in the face of so much unjust and nasty nonsense is incredible.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not sure whether Vixen and other realise that the ONLY strand of reasoning the ISC used to suggest Knox might have been in the cottage was Knox's own false statement! Which was - oops - extracted improperly and unlawfully while Knox was denied access to a lawyer, and should as such be deemed null and void in respect of Knox herself. Ooops! There is a sum total of.....ohhh...... ZERO reliable evidence of Knox's (or Sollecito's) presence at the cottage any time between 6pm on 1st November 2007 and around 10am on 2nd November 2007.

But the ECHR will clear up this last stain on Italian criminal justice, as the ISC itself appears to know full well. Shame on all of them, from the top to the bottom.

And there I was thinking her statements accusing Lumumba were inadmissible on the murder charge.

 

[Planigale]

No. They said that Knox is malicious because she wrote a false testimony in her hand written memorial while she was "free from external influence" and not under stress. Her accusations - according to SC - are not even "crazy", but rather they are evidence that appears oriented to cover up Guede casting "strong suspicion" on her.



The SC states Knox is obviously guilty because her false accusations are related to a behaviour which was not carried on under duress.
From the SC report it looks like they bring up the subject for two reasons. The forts, is that there was a defence point of recourse that referred procedurally to the ECHR complaint (they claimed the complaint would be relevant to the decision and asked the court to wait for ECHR decision first). So the SC ruled the ECHR finding about alleged violations would be irrelevant to their own finding, since, so they decided, the calunnia finding does not depend on the police/interrogation treatment of Knox and its possible violations.
The second reason, when one reads the report, seems to be that the SC mentions the calunnia among the "valid" evidence that they acknowledge as elements of "strong suspicion"; however, they say those elements are not sufficient due to the highest standard of reasonable doubt. So the SC discuss the calunnia as an argument part of their "reasoning about evidence of murder".

mach please re-read this and see how foolish it sounds.

"she was "free from external influence" and not under stress"

She had been under questioning through the night from about 22.00 through Mignini's interviewing after he arrived at 03.00. Then she is detained without access to a lawyer by the police. Of course she was directly under the influence of the police how much more influence can you have than locking some one up? No stress! She was far from home, in a foreign country, she spoke the language poorly. Her flat mate had just been murdered, she was effectively homeless, she had been accused of participation of the murder and was locked up in jail without access to a lawyer. Can you really say none of this would have been stressful. Your dislike of Knox results in you writing nonsense. Even if she was guilty she would still find these events stressful, since she was innocent even more so.

You make the mistake of thinking that once she was out of the interview room anything said in there ceased to have any effect. Do you really think that she just forgot what happened in there? You knoww perfectly well that locked up alone the events of that night would replay themselves. That is exactly what these written memoriale show; the continued influence on her as she tries to reconcile the constructed memory created by the police with reality. Psychological studies show created memories are persisting not transient.

 

[Planigale]

I suppose that a drug dealers ring was arrested and convicted because of their phone contacts with Knox does not amount to an "ounce" of evidence of something to you (of anything whatever).

Mach please re-read this
"was arrested and convicted because of their phone contacts with Knox'
Do you really believe that having phone contact with Knox is a crime in Italy? Do you really believe that they were convicted because of phone contact with Knox?

There is no evidence of phone contacts, what was originally said was the phone number was found on Knox's phone. It was never claimed that there was evidence of communication.

We actually have Knox's phone records so you could point to the telephone communication on the phone if you wished, if it happened. But no one can do that no one has said those are the calls knox made to the drug dealers.

 

[Planigale]

What you are contending is that under the Italian legal system the police are not accountable for what they do to suspects they have in custody and the Italian courts will support any action by police as long as the police are able to beat the admissions of a crime out of a suspect?
Without a lawyer.
If the SC actually thinks that the ECHR is going to agree with the gestapo-torture interrogation sessions without a lawyer, then they are as deluded as are you.In spite of the obviously twisted TJMK nonsense you spout above, the SC served a big slow pitch up to the ECHR and just said "please save us from looking like nitwits by knocking this out of the park and showing that justice in Italy is something that Italy wants". I am truly impressed that this panel thought enough of justice to make this extra effort.

A bit OTT. No one thinks the Italian police tortured Knox. Intimidated maybe, tortured, NO.

 

[LondonJohn]

mach please re-read this and see how foolish it sounds.

"she was "free from external influence" and not under stress"

She had been under questioning through the night from about 22.00 through Mignini's interviewing after he arrived at 03.00. Then she is detained without access to a lawyer by the police. Of course she was directly under the influence of the police how much more influence can you have than locking some one up? No stress! She was far from home, in a foreign country, she spoke the language poorly. Her flat mate had just been murdered, she was effectively homeless, she had been accused of participation of the murder and was locked up in jail without access to a lawyer. Can you really say none of this would have been stressful. Your dislike of Knox results in you writing nonsense. Even if she was guilty she would still find these events stressful, since she was innocent even more so.

You make the mistake of thinking that once she was out of the interview room anything said in there ceased to have any effect. Do you really think that she just forgot what happened in there? You knoww perfectly well that locked up alone the events of that night would replay themselves. That is exactly what these written memoriale show; the continued influence on her as she tries to reconcile the constructed memory created by the police with reality. Psychological studies show created memories are persisting not transient.

I think you're wasting your time trying to point out logic and reason here to this particular individual. In my view, he's demonstrated more than adequately that he is totally wedded to an a priori belief in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito (and a rather vindictive and bitter belief at that). As such, he will distort, dissemble and misrepresent where necessary to support his position. His position will never change, regardless of the evidence. Of that I'm hugely confident.

But fortunately Machiavelli/Yummi is a nobody when all is said and done (just as many of us discussing the case here are - in respect of the case and its dynamics). His point of view is worthless and irrelevant, as well as being incorrect and really rather nasty. Personally, I don't give two figs what he thinks. On the other hand, I think we can all be pretty confident that the two bodies whose opinions DO matter - the Italian Supreme Court and the ECHR - will ultimately sort this sorry saga out properly. The ISC has gone so far, and I am very confident that the ECHR will figure out the rest.

 

[LondonJohn]

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 6h6 hours ago Imola, Emilia Romagna

#calunnia trial of #amandaknox in #Florence: Mignini said Knox was not clearly a suspect to him by the 05:45 interrogation.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Annella]

Machiavelli...I understand you have been attending the farcical Amanda Knox slander trial and wonder if you can answer a very simple question. I appreciate you have likely been over this territory many times before but humor me OK?

How is it that Amanda has been charged for saying she was slapped yet Mr Lumumba received a very very healthy paycheck from a British tabloid for accusing Perugian police of the very same thing, and worse! He has never been charged for the words he sold below. I cannot understand this at all and hope you can shed some light?

At 6.30am on Tuesday, November
6, the bell to his fourth-floor
flat in the town buzzed insistently
and a woman's voice outside
demanded he opened the door.
He had barely had time to do so
when the woman, assisted by,
Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others,
barged their way in.
"They were wearing normal
clothes and carrying guns," he says.
"I thought it must be some sort of
armed gang about to kill me. I was
terrified.
"They hit me over the head and
yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put
handcuffs on me and shoved me out
of the door, as Aleksandra pulled
Davide away, screaming."
He was greeted outside by a
convoy of seven police cars, sirens
blazing, and driven to Perugia's
police station, where he was subjected
to a ten-hour interrogation.
"I was questioned by five men and
women, some of whom punched
and kicked me," he claims. "They
forced me on my knees against the
wall and said I should be in America
where I would be given the electric
chair for my crime. All they kept
saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'
"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I
was scared and humiliated. Then,
after a couple of hours one of them
suggested they show me a picture of
'the dead girl' to get me to confess.
"It might sound naive, but it was
only then that I made the connection
between Meredith's death and my
arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I
killed Meredith?'
"They said, 'Oh, so now you've
remembered' and told me that if I
confessed I'd only get half the
30-year sentence."
It wasn't until 5.30pm that –
still handcuffed and unfed – he was
shown the evidence against him.

Slapped, unfed, humiliated, threatened. Sound familiar somehow Mach??

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, if Amanda was involved in the murder, as Mach believes, it would have been a disgusting statement (sort of - according to ones view of perfectly natural human functions) to attribute the blood in the bathroom to the victim's menstruation, being untruthful and sort of smutty, but if she wasn't then it's nothing more than a reasonable account of her own explanation to herself of the presence of blood there. The judges have finally held in favour of innocence (with, if one believes Mach, a far more disgusting gloss on their judgment than anything Amanda said) so I guess we have the last word.

So we are talking past each other here it seems.

 

[Planigale]

A 20-centimeter stain, I'd rather say.
A "blaming of the victim" is when someone puts on the victim the blame of something that he/she was himself/herself to blame for.
This is the element that makes Knox's suggestion "disgusting" or better, suspicious, since it is malicious: not credible, disingenuous.

It is not credible that Knox would assume it's normal to think that Meredith had left menstrual blood (and in such amount) around, and did not clean. The reason why it is not credible is that, according to witnesses, such behaviour was exactly the behaviour of which Meredith blamed Knox because she found it unnerving and was the reason of Meredith's complaint. Also, it was a topic on which Meredith "shamed" Knox talking about it with her British friends.
Leaving menstrual blood and not cleaning was Knox's behaviour, not Meredith's, and it was a topical fact that it was unacceptable to Meredith.

So it is not credible that Knox could assume it was normal for Meredith to behave so: she perfectly knew that it wouldn't be normal for her, that it would be unacceptable to Meredith.
Thus, she was lying. Her statement is "blaming the victim".
Blaming the victim is a nasty behaviour, it's malicious and doesn't look good, whatever one thinks about Knox's involvement in the muder.

Another widely illogical statement.

This behaviour (leaving a menstrual blood stain) is according to Kercher you say normal behaviour for Knox. So you accept that such things happen? Or do you think that Kercher was not telling the truth, or you think that you misinterpret what kerchief said.

If it was acceptable behaviour for Knox, if it happened to her (for instance by dropping a pad on the floor), then it would be reasonable to think that others might do the same thing.

If someone thinks that it is normal behaviour to do something it is entirely reasonable for them to think someone else might do the same thing.

You are so wrapped up in an emotional response to Knox that it prevents you thinking logically.

 

[Kauffer]

And witnesses (British girls) offerend information that causes what she says to appear not credible. Not difficult to understand.

...the British girls, from whose testimony we understand that Amanda and Meredith never argued eh? Would one really ask someone one disapproved of if one could use their condoms?

 

[Planigale]

Not exactly, this is not exactly Knox's story. In her letter she discovers the stain while still in the bathroom, in her police statements she discovers it even before the shower.
But anyway the point is, Knox was not living with "a sister", she was living with Meredith Kercher, and she perfectl knew that a certain behaviour wouldn't be normal for Meredith, it would be unacceptable to her.
Yet she portrayed it as if it would have been normal for Meredith, and this is false. She also built a narrative that included such not credible assumption that it would have been normal for Meredith, this means its inconsiscency propagates to her story, this also becomes one of the (many) elements that make her narrative of events become not credible.

Reality. They had lived together since 20 September. So 41 days. Knox would have had one period (we know the date of her period), Kercher one or two. There will be no 'normal', just a single event.

 

[Kauffer]

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 6h6 hours ago Imola, Emilia Romagna

#calunnia trial of #amandaknox in #Florence: Mignini said Knox was not clearly a suspect to him by the 05:45 interrogation.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I thought Mignini's point was that the events leading up to the signing of the 5:45 statement were in fact not an interrogation, but Amanda merely talking while Mignini took notes - something it seems he says started as late as 3am.

Some very close questioning of Mignini about this nonsense and whatever daft opinion about suspect status, entitlement to a lawyer and the wider legal rights of those held over night at police stations is called for.

Mignini is a liar.

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought Mignini's point was that the events leading up to the signing of the 5:45 statement were in fact not an interrogation, but Amanda merely talking while Mignini took notes - something it seems he says started as late as 3am.

Some very close questioning of Mignini about this nonsense and whatever daft opinion about suspect status, entitlement to a lawyer and the wider legal rights of those held over night at police stations is called for.

Mignini is a liar.

No, the point is that, even though she was most certainly a suspect by 5.45 (even on Mignini's view) he was nonetheless entitled to take a spontaneous statement from her. That is the whole point of the spontaneous statement bull **** after all. It provides an exception to the general rule that suspects must have lawyers etc. so its remarkable that fat Mig has forgotten his lines here. Still, it was nearly 8 years ago and he is getting on a bit so we should maybe give him a break.

Or not.

 

[JihadJane]

No, the point is that, even though she was most certainly a suspect by 5.45 (even on Mignini's view) he was nonetheless entitled to take a spontaneous statement from her. That is the whole point of the spontaneous statement bull **** after all. It provides an exception to the general rule that suspects must have lawyers etc. so its remarkable that fat Mig has forgotten his lines here. Still, it was nearly 8 years ago and he is getting on a bit so we should maybe give him a break.

Or not.

 

[Kauffer]

No, the point is that, even though she was most certainly a suspect by 5.45 (even on Mignini's view) he was nonetheless entitled to take a spontaneous statement from her. That is the whole point of the spontaneous statement bull **** after all. It provides an exception to the general rule that suspects must have lawyers etc. so its remarkable that fat Mig has forgotten his lines here. Still, it was nearly 8 years ago and he is getting on a bit so we should maybe give him a break.

Or not.

Well quite. Mignini's ruse was designed to overcome the legal problem associated with the 1:45 statement, which he realised could not be used. She should have clearly had a lawyer at that point (even if she should have had one before) and questioning stopped. By asserting that events after 1:45 were Amanda being spontaneous and voluntary, he was attempting to create a situation in which lawyerless statements could be used against her. It's nonsense, because he was obviously interrogating her. His ruse worked, of course, for a considerable time.

 

[Kauffer]

Not exactly. My information is Meredith complained with British friends specifically of having found toilet paper stained with menstrual blood.
She did complain about Knox's toilet habits, but not only about using the toilet brush: she complained also about Knox not flushing the toilet even when she used it for her period.
These were the specific topics Meredith mentioned to her friends. The cleaning of bathroom over bathroom habits in general - not just toilet brush - and the specific theme of menstrual blood also mentioned.
In fact menstrual blood is not the only "dirty" theme involving Knox and that Knox talks about to blame somebody: the other is ◊◊◊◊. The English girls were stunned by the fact Knox emphasized the ◊◊◊◊ in the toilet so much that way, right because that was another theme in what Meredith had complained about with Knox.



Of course it shows what being disingenuous means. But you are wrong: this is only one example, there is a series, a ton of Knox's statements that are disgusting and show some kind of "malice" (I say lying), they are really many and I can explain why for each one. And believe me this does not depend on the fact that I decided Knox is guilty: these just look very bad themselves. But not only Knox: Sollecito too. His story about the hand-pricking of Meredith, for example, is one of the most repugnant statements.

Citing directly from testimony, where are these complaints?

These baseless allegations surrounding the relationship between Amanda and Meredith always portray Meredith as the angry disapproving party. Little by little, over the years, people like you have sullied Meredith's reputation in a forlorn attempt to implicate Amanda in her murder. It has always been necessary to the ridiculous case that Meredith must have been a petty, angry, uncharitable, hateful individual.

As for the pricking of Meredith, this is merely Raffaele attempting to rationalise evidence which he is being told exists against him and Amanda. One of the early themes of the case is both Amanda and Raffaele trusting information they are being given with regard to evidence, knowing that they are not guilty and so trying to explain its existence consistent with their innocence. Of course, we now know the evidence was all bunk, as do they. You will recall that initially Raffaele believed what he was told with regard to his shoe prints in blood being found in kercher's room. Additionally, Amanda believed that Raffaele had implicated her.

All this goes to prove only that the police and prosecutor were and are manipulating liars. And you have fallen for their lies.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well quite. Mignini's ruse was designed to overcome the legal problem associated with the 1:45 statement, which he realised could not be used. She should have clearly had a lawyer at that point (even if she should have had one before) and questioning stopped. By asserting that events after 1:45 were Amanda being spontaneous and voluntary, he was attempting to create a situation in which lawyerless statements could be used against her. It's nonsense, because he was obviously interrogating her. His ruse worked, of course, for a considerable time.

Mignini and Machiavelli are not on the same page. Mach said she was 'strongly suspected' already when she arrived at the Q. True, per Mach, she was not strongly suspected of murder but only of the trivial offence of covering up a murder so, his argument presumably runs, she was fair game to be interrogated about the murder without a lawyer, tape running, comfort breaks etc. There must be a flaw in his argument somewhere but I can't think what Hopefully the ECHR will figure it out

 

[Mr Fied]

Confused.com

Could someone help me out here? I am not a member of Mensa, have never helped write a book about the case using made up facts and downright lies, or a native Italian speaker, so maybe that is my problem. But as I understand things:

There is no evidence Amanda ever traded sex for drugs.

In fact it was Meredith in a relationship with a drug producer.

There are no phone records showing Amanda in contact with any drug dealers.

Amanda's list of sexual partners, made while she was frightened for her life, does not show this abundance of conquests in Italy as some have implied.

There is no evidence of Amanda or Raff at the murder scene.

The courts have decided that basically what evidence there was, was fabricated or overly exaggerated.

There is no evidence that Meredith and Amanda were not on friendly terms.

There is no evidence Amanda and Raff had any more than a fleeting acquaintance with Guede.

There is certainly no record of any phone or email contact between them.

Yet we are still supposed to believe they are guilty.

Have I missed anything?