Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

The 5th section indeed does. Although they are more pro-Sollecito, and pro-Clinton, insofar as they state that Knox is probably guilty of murder, that she was certainly on the murder scene when the murder was committed, and she is certainly guilty of calunnia.

Why do you suppose they upheld the calunnia charge and hinted that Knox is guilty of murder? Their small remaining integrity? Or fear of disciplinary reprisal? If the latter, did they concede enough to avoid such a fate do you think?

 

[acbytesla]

But this is you making up your own world as usual. In fact "the investigators" is not an institution in Italy (not even "Italy" is an institution). The press conference was by the Questura, which meant Ministry of Interiors (approval of Giuliano Amato at the time).
The Procura is Judiciary, nothing to do with the press conference.

The prosecution did not take any bow from the public, nor made any declaration at all.
The prosecution did not have their credibility affected in the slightest by De Felice press conference. Had nothing to do with it. The prosecution refrained from any comment in the public, and never made political conferences. I know Italy slighlty better than you, and I can state this adamantly.

You also appear to be ignorant about what the police actually said to the press.

As I said, you're in denial. 15 police officers sitting behind a table filled with microphones is them "taking a bow". It is clueless not to pick up on this. Giobbi took it even further putting Amanda's picture on the wall next to Mafia Dons.

It matters little that they offered the usual caveats, it was the optics that matter. Case closed was the headline printed around the world.

Tell me you're not too obtuse to see this.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ok - acc. to the Italian Supreme Court, both of them are innocent, and this case is over.

Reality:
1) the Supreme Court does not make fact finding, and may not find people "innocent" or "guilty";
2) the Supreme Court (5th section) never suggests Knox is innocent; on the contrary only states "reasonable doubt";
3) quite on the contrary, also they emphasize that there can't be any possible question about the fact that she is guilty of calunnia
4) the SC say anyway it is a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when the murder was committed (!)
5) at least five times the report states there is anyway serious evidence against Knox and Sollecito, leading to "strong suspicion" on them
6) the SC even points out Knox washed her hands in Meredith's blood
7) the SC report is contradictory, makes a series of factually false statmements and states series of legal idiocies.

 

[Machiavelli]

As I said, you're in denial. 15 police officers sitting behind a table filled with microphones is them "taking a bow". It is clueless not to pick up on this. Giobbi took it even further putting Amanda's picture on the wall next to Mafia Dons.

It matters little that they offered the usual caveats, it was the optics that matter. Case closed was the headline printed around the world.

Tell me you're not too obtuse to see this.

The Procura is Judiciary, nothing to do with the press conference.
Are you too obtuse to not see this?

The prosecution did not take any bow from the public, nor made any declaration at all.
Are you too obtuse to not see this?

The prosecution did not have their credibility affected in the slightest by De Felice press conference.
Can you understand this?

The Perugians' sentiment, and the Italian press, is what Italian political organs, local or national, care about, not about titles in foreign press (countries don't have foreign politics: only internal politics; this is what politicians care about). Can you understand that too?

It is a matter of fact that the police had no problem changing their conclusions and stated so publicly. Can't you see that this undermines your theory?

Can't you see that the amandaknoxcase.com site tells a false narrative, and this implies the pro-Knoxes are liars?

 

[JREF2010]

The Marasca/Bruno report only shows thing about themselves, and they will face the consequence on their credibility, not the prosecution.
Btw, the Marasca/Bruno also says Knox is an obvious liar and was on the crime scene when Meredith was killed, since you appear to like the report that much.

I know that you don't care about truth, because you never cared about. Had you some interest in truth, you would be interested in reality of things, rather than attempting to parse rhetoric.
You would note, for example, that the computer drives were not destroyed, that Questura and Procura are two independent powers, or that the pro-Knox narratives are shown to be fabricated with proven lies.

the truth is the prosecution lost, the sloppy crap work they did and the deals they made to Rudy is despicable.

the calunnia will be dropped too by another ECHR judge, and no one will care.
maybe Im wrong, maybe the ECHR will believe the Migninni budget cut alibi for not recording the interrogation. we will see...

 

[acbytesla]

The Procura is Judiciary, nothing to do with the press conference.
Are you too obtuse to not see this?

The prosecution did not take any bow from the public, nor made any declaration at all.
Are you too obtuse to not see this?

The prosecution did not have their credibility affected in the slightest by De Felice press conference.
Can you understand this?

The Perugians' sentiment, and the Italian press, is what Italian political organs, local or national, care about, not about titles in foreign press (countries don't have foreign politics: only internal politics; this is what politicians care about). Can you understand that too?

I NEVER said the prosecution. I said the investigators. They are the ones that ignored the evidence and saw evidence where it didn't exist. But it is my understanding, that the PM directs the inestigation.

I'm sure that Mignini probably had the authority to prosecute or not prosecute this case. But he too had stars in his eyes. This was an opportunity to get the public to forget his pathetic and absurd prosecution in the MOF case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Reality:
1) the Supreme Court does not make fact finding, and may not find people "innocent" or "guilty";
2) the Supreme Court (5th section) never suggests Knox is innocent; on the contrary only states "reasonable doubt";
3) quite on the contrary, also they emphasize that there can't be any possible question about the fact that she is guilty of calunnia
4) the SC say anyway it is a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when the murder was committed (!)
5) at least five times the report states there is anyway serious evidence against Knox and Sollecito, leading to "strong suspicion" on them
6) the SC even points out Knox washed her hands in Meredith's blood
7) the SC report is contradictory, makes a series of factually false statmements and states series of legal idiocies.

Wow, Machavelli.... you actually demonstrated that the Italian Supreme Court has found them guilty! Why didn't you say so to begin with?

What is hard to take seriously about you is this - apologies for the repetition....

No one else in Italy, other than you, is talking this way. No blog, no news report, no nothing. No one is as fixated on Amanda Knox than you.

Please, for mercy's sake, climb out of your intellectual bunker and read some Italian language news reports. They are quite informative.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why do you suppose they upheld the calunnia charge and hinted that Knox is guilty of murder?

They did not upheld the calunnia charge: that was done by the Chieffi court.
The Bruno Marasca panel emphasized that guilt of calunnia is certain and cannot be questioned.

Their small remaining integrity?

"Their" who? Bruno & Marasca have an integrity? Maybe they have some sense of justice, and since they understand Knox is guilty, they may have felt the need to pay some respect to this feeling.

Or fear of disciplinary reprisal? If the latter, did they concede enough to avoid such a fate do you think?

Impossible to know for certain. We may even assume they just didn't want to call two guilty people "innocent", they bent to political pressure but set a kind of limit to their corruption.
Once could even imagine other factors, like avoid collision with Chieffi and Hellmann's calunnia finding, or maybe were just trying to cobble together something that looked "logical" or "moderate".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...And to think -- she was convicted all because of a cartwheel.

Combined with a cultural expectation that an innocent person wouldn't be so nonchalant.

But I heard her say it in an interview: she said she didn't do a cartwheel in the police station.

Knox's odd behavior and lack of visible grief would come back to haunt her. Investigators and press drew attention to all of her actions, like allegedly doing a cartwheel at the police station while waiting to be questioned.

"I never did a cartwheel. I did do a split," Knox admits, adding that she was stretching after sitting for hours when a police officer commented on her flexibility.

Same thing though, she didn't act like they expected an innocent person to act.

You can't ignore the fact she was convicted because of a crazy prosecutor that imagined a satanic ritual murder for whatever reason, we don't know.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wow, Machavelli.... you actually demonstrated that the Italian Supreme Court has found them guilty! Why didn't you say so to begin with?

What is hard to take seriously about you is this - apologies for the repetition....

No one else in Italy, other than you, is talking this way. (...)

The Bruno Marasca report is taking this way itself, with no need of external help. This is just what's written in the report.
I even posted pictures of the pages.
You don't trust your own lying eyes?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interesting to go back to the original thread and see how many so-called skeptics were just certain she was guilty:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161229

Et cetera.

Didn't lionking reconsider his position?

 

[bagels]

They did not upheld the calunnia charge: that was done by the Chieffi court.
The Bruno Marasca panel emphasized that guilt of calunnia is certain and cannot be questioned.

Did they have the procedural ability to toss out Chieffi's calunnia conviction and declare Knox innocent of the charge without ordering another trial?

 

[Puppycow]

Didn't LionKing reconsider his position?

Probably. Like I said, I don't usually follow this thread, and I'm not about to go looking back through all of them. Just don't have the time and I have too many other things that interest me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well nobody's perfect. But I thought it was interesting how a poster brought up very reasonable points that should have caught the attention of anyone trying to make a case for Knox's guilt from a skeptical point of view, but they were promptly ignored and left to the wayside while the argument about cartwheels and whatnot continued. Here's the post in question:

A lot of us took a good look at the DNA evidence. We didn't ignore it, it least I didn't.

But then it became obvious that evidence wasn't good evidence just because scientific DNA was invoked.

The rest of that post doesn't support a guilty position. The Innocence Project has accumulated overwhelming evidence that false confessions are common.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Although they are more pro-Sollecito, and pro-Clinton, insofar as they state that Knox is probably guilty of murder, that she was certainly on the murder scene when the murder was committed, and she is certainly guilty of calunnia.
You are delusional. Talk about facts of the case, if you can.

Who's delusional?

 

[bagels]

A lot of us took a good look at the DNA evidence. We didn't ignore it, it least I didn't.

But then it became obvious that evidence wasn't good evidence just because scientific DNA was invoked.

The rest of that post doesn't support a guilty position. The Innocence Project has accumulated overwhelming evidence that false confessions are common.

Well I was mostly referring to the pro guilt posters. In fact reading through the first 10 pages or so that poster and a couple others continually bring up a point that to this day has never been truly addressed by the pro guilt crowd, which is what is a coherent narrative of the crime that involves both Knox and Sollecito plus Guede. Guede's involvement is cemented by the evidence, but a narrative involving Knox never accounts for him in a way that makes sense, why was he invited, how did Knox coordinate meeting with him, what were his actions? Why did Knox stab her roommate in front of this stranger? Why did this stranger sexually assault a woman he just saw stabbed to death? Guede's presence in the pro guilt narratives is always ethereal and elusive. He's more like a painting incidentally hanging on the wall while Knox engages in her devilry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Probably. Like I said, I don't usually follow this thread, and I'm not about to go looking back through all of them. Just don't have the time and I have too many other things that interest me.

Well I appreciate your post. Given the slew of personal attacks that followed my OP, it's nice to be vindicated (though IMO I was vindicated quite a ways back when the evidence was actually looked through with a fine toothed comb).

 

[Annella]

I wonder how Machiavelli reconciles the Supreme Court stating that Knox and Sollecito "should have been excluded from having participated in the murder'' given the evidence!

 

[bagels]

Well I appreciate your post. Given the slew of personal attacks that followed my OP, it's nice to be vindicated (though IMO I was vindicated quite a ways back when the evidence was actually looked through with a fine toothed comb).

IMO you were vindicated on the first page of the first thread when nobody advocating guilt could put together a simple coherent narrative of the crime involving all three alleged perpetrators consistent with a plausible reality and at least loosely conforming to the available facts. Such a feat has still yet to be accomplished, 100,000 posts later.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rudy's December 2007 interview upon return from Germany, available?

The prosecution had nothing to do with the police or any government press conference. There is no link between the two things in the eyes of Italians.
I can easilly show that the "amandaknoxcase" site narrative by the pro-Knox activists, when they talk about the Questura press conference, is just a series of nonsensical lies. (through which they try to rationalize their belief and justify a conspiracy theory).
Police conspiracies obviously exist (Italy included), but to say that the Questura press conference in Perugia was a blow to the prosecution's credibility is simply idiotic, unrelated to reality.

Hey Mach, You mentioned Guede's trial was not under seal? You're talking about Rudy's conviction for the Kercher murder? Or something else? Because Nina Burleigh had said Guede's case was still under seal, and I'm pretty sure I saw that mentioned in another news report today as well.

Also, do you know if Rudy's original interview with Mignini (and I believe Matteini and Biscotti) or a transcript from that is available to the public? It would be interesting to hear Rudy's original version of what happened that night when he returned from Germany.