Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

But the SC wrote quite the contrary of that. They emphasized that Knox's malice in committing calunnia is out of question, and could not depend on any possible detectives' behaviour. They said even theoretical violations could not change this fact, which they called "irrefutable".
Not only, the court also pointed out that Knox's declarations contained " inconsistency and lying" even before her interrogation, and calls this a "strong element" of suspicion of her involvement in the murder.

I believe the reason why people on this thread have a hard time believing you is because of your demonstrated bias to try to "spin" everything towards your confirmation bias. This post is a case in point.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sigh.

Barbie Nadeau is now reporting on CNN that despite, "Knox testifying that she was at the house at the time of the murder," there was no evidence she was in the murder room.

Sigh.

Ten points to the one who spots the inaccuracy of Barbie Latza Nadeau's account.

 

[davefoc]

Machiavelli seems to think if he can best us , here, in an argument over what the Marasca report says, that somehow that will make a difference.

I don't get it. It seems to me that Machiavelli needs to convince Italians in their own language.

I mean I could cave in and admit he's right. So? Truly I am nobody, so why would he waste an English language key stroke.

I don't get it.

I get it a bit. Machiavelli has interpreted some sections of the report in a particular way that as much as possible support his contention that AK/RS are guilty.

The only relevant information on this topic is:
1. How has the report been interpreted by credible sources?
2. What are the specifics in the report about the items that Machiavelli is referring to.

This thread so far has focused on news reports from credible sources and nothing there supports what Machiavelli is saying, but that doesn't mean he is wrong.

There has been very little discussion focused on the actual report in the areas that Machiavelli is referring to. Most of the posts directed at Machiavelli on this so far have not been responsive. I plan to follow this discussion a bit, but I'm waiting for posts based on the report and especially posts based on a credible translation.

 

[moije2]

POST 801 above: A premise: I really don't think I have to "reconcile" things in a paper written by Mad Hatter and March Hare. The motivations is a joke, completely barmy and inconsistent, it cannot be reconciled with reality, law or with itself.

then

But the SC wrote quite the contrary of that. They emphasized that Knox's malice in committing calunnia is out of question, and could not depend on any possible detectives' behaviour. They wrote even duress during interrogation wouldn't explain her hand written memoirs, which are manifestly voluntary and malicious to the court. They said even theoretical violations could not change this fact, which they called "irrefutable".
Not only, the court also pointed out that Knox's declarations contained " inconsistency and lying" even before her interrogation, and calls this a "strong element" of suspicion of her involvement in the murder.

I don't get it. You say the report is nonsense and yet you are insistent in quoting certain sections which support elements which appeal to you. This document which "cannot be reconciled with itself, reality etc" is being cherry picked for negative comments about AK and RS. Or was that just AK?

I do appreciate the consistency of these various motivation reports. The continued carnival ride of logic.

 

[Diocletus]

But the SC wrote quite the contrary of that. They emphasized that Knox's malice in committing calunnia is out of question, and could not depend on any possible detectives' behaviour. They wrote even duress during interrogation wouldn't explain her hand written memoirs, which are manifestly voluntary and malicious to the court. They said even theoretical violations could not change this fact, which they called "irrefutable".
Not only, the court also pointed out that Knox's declarations contained " inconsistency and lying" even before her interrogation, and calls this a "strong element" of suspicion of her involvement in the murder.

None of this matters, unless they have Knox repeating her "malicious" statements at some point after they got her a lawyer. But that didn't happen.

 

[analemma]

But the SC wrote quite the contrary of that. They emphasized that Knox's malice in committing calunnia is out of question, and could not depend on any possible detectives' behaviour. They wrote even duress during interrogation wouldn't explain her hand written memoirs, which are manifestly voluntary and malicious to the court. They said even theoretical violations could not change this fact, which they called "irrefutable".
Not only, the court also pointed out that Knox's declarations contained " inconsistency and lying" even before her interrogation, and calls this a "strong element" of suspicion of her involvement in the murder.

I KNOW what they wrote: They said that Amanda a bad person who made crazy accusations under duress.

The question is WHY did they even bring up the subject, since that verdict became unchangeable in 2013 with nutcase Cheffri. Because this verdict was settled and closed two years ago they had no reason to discuss it.

I think that the court recognized the magnitude of the injustice that was perpetrated upon Amanda knox because of the "interrogation under duress" and want to correct this by causing the slander conviction overturned and annulled, so that she can receive compensation for the injustice.
The court admitted that the basis of the evidence for the slander conviction was obtained by putting Amanda under duress, without a lawyer.

There is no way, under ITALIAN LAW, that THIS court can annul the slander conviction, but by ADMITTING, in the motivation, that Knox was put under duress, without a lawyer, means that they are providing the ECHR with the evidence to overturn the slander because of admitted duressed interrogation without a lawyer. The fact that Italy is admitting duress is such a violation of the ECHR due process principles that it makes an ECHR annulment almost mandatory, it is a direct slap in the face of the ECHR.
I see the court as admitting all that had been done wrong and moving to show Italian justice can correct its errors and provide justice, an outcome that will do much to restore the worlds respect for Italian justice.

So, let me ask: Are you either not reading what we are writing, or are you not smart enough to understand what we are talking about, or are you simply changing the subject to insert a meaningless red herring into our discussions?

 

[moije2]

I KNOW what they wrote: They said that Amanda a bad person who made crazy accusations under duress.

The question is WHY did they even bring up the subject, since that verdict became unchangeable in 2013 with nutcase Cheffri. Because this verdict was settled and closed two years ago they had no reason to discuss it.

I think that the court recognized the magnitude of the injustice that was perpetrated upon Amanda knox because of the "interrogation under duress" and want to correct this by causing the slander conviction overturned and annulled, so that she can receive compensation for the injustice.
The court admitted that the basis of the evidence for the slander conviction was obtained by putting Amanda under duress, without a lawyer.

There is no way, under ITALIAN LAW, that THIS court can annul the slander conviction, but by ADMITTING, in the motivation, that Knox was put under duress, without a lawyer, means that they are providing the ECHR with the evidence to overturn the slander because of admitted duressed interrogation without a lawyer. The fact that Italy is admitting duress is such a violation of the ECHR due process principles that it makes an ECHR annulment almost mandatory, it is a direct slap in the face of the ECHR.
I see the court as admitting all that had been done wrong and moving to show Italian justice can correct its errors and provide justice, an outcome that will do much to restore the worlds respect for Italian justice.

So, let me ask: Are you either not reading what we are writing, or are you not smart enough to understand what we are talking about, or are you simply changing the subject to insert a meaningless red herring into our discussions?

Very much in agreement. I posted a bit ago a similar observation. The ISC has as much as admitted that there was a violation of Ms Knox's rights. Now this will buttress her claims. Right out of the horse's mouth!

 

[Anode]

I get it a bit. Machiavelli has interpreted some sections of the report in a particular way that as much as possible support his contention that AK/RS are guilty.

The only relevant information on this topic is:
1. How has the report been interpreted by credible sources?
2. What are the specifics in the report about the items that Machiavelli is referring to.

This thread so far has focused on news reports from credible sources and nothing there supports what Machiavelli is saying, but that doesn't mean he is wrong.

There has been very little discussion focused on the actual report in the areas that Machiavelli is referring to. Most of the posts directed at Machiavelli on this so far have not been responsive. I plan to follow this discussion a bit, but I'm waiting for posts based on the report and especially posts based on a credible translation.

Interpreted? Well the section he is quoting (9.4.1) is a description of Knox's written statement. The one that accused Lumumba. It pretty much summarizes the statement and declares that it said "I was in the kitchen, Ms. Kercher and another person went in to her room to have sex". She heard a heartrending cry from her friend. It was unbearable and she agonizingly slid down to the floor, squatting on the ground and held her hands tight to her ears.

Mach is saying that the document says it's a fact she was there at the time of "dell'omicido". In fact the document is just going over the various pieces of evidence. In the paragraphs just before this it was describing the "incontrovertible and impossibility that they didn't leave biological traces in the room." And the "absolute impracticability of the possibility of a posthumous selective cleaning, able to remove certain biological traces while leaving others."

I'm with the rest of you. My Italian is not good enough to do a translation of this document in a reasonable amount of time and I certainly don't have the time even if it was that good. I'm satisfied with the summary from the news reports and someday, perhaps, it will show up translated on a site that we trust.

 

[acbytesla]

........... it's just that we waited so long for the Marasca report to come out - apparently so that we could get back to serious discussion on this case. So we could get away from an endless loop of threads about the meaning of "met"!!

Yea, like that happened.

I never argued that they didn't meet, only that they didn't "know" each other.

 

[Kauffer]

But the SC wrote quite the contrary of that. They emphasized that Knox's malice in committing calunnia is out of question, and could not depend on any possible detectives' behaviour. They wrote even duress during interrogation wouldn't explain her hand written memoirs, which are manifestly voluntary and malicious to the court. They said even theoretical violations could not change this fact, which they called "irrefutable".
Not only, the court also pointed out that Knox's declarations contained " inconsistency and lying" even before her interrogation, and calls this a "strong element" of suspicion of her involvement in the murder.

The only possible way in which the callunia conviction could be deemed safe according to convention law is if Amanda adopted post her lawyerless interrogation, the statements in question. Nothing else matters here. She didn't do that and therefore nothing she is alleged to have said and nothing she wrote counts for anything against her. The ECHR must uphold her complaint. That is the law.

The first memoriale in any case is a very properly interpreted as Amanda casting doubt on the "verity" or veracity of anything she had previously said and calls her own reliability into question - at the point where she was beginning to recover from her arduous and illegal mental battering at the hands of the police and Mignini - if he was just a notary then I'm a monkey's uncle.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach is saying that the document says it's a fact she was there at the time of "dell'omicido". In fact the document is just going over the various pieces of evidence. In the paragraphs just before this it was describing the "incontrovertible and impossibility that they didn't leave biological traces in the room." And the "absolute impracticability of the possibility of a posthumous selective cleaning, able to remove certain biological traces while leaving others."

I'm with the rest of you. My Italian is not good enough to do a translation of this document in a reasonable amount of time and I certainly don't have the time even if it was that good. I'm satisfied with the summary from the news reports and someday, perhaps, it will show up translated on a site that we trust.

I had 1/2 an hour this afternoon to look at the places where Marasca uses the phrase, "forte (il) sospetto". I can't believe I fell for it. Machiavelli always makes me look!

In the Gooogle-translate that I can manage, that phrase is used in Marasca's summary of what other's thought was the strong case against them. Marasca in no way, shape or form says there was at any time a strong case, or ANY case against them.

It turns out every news outlet in Italy is right, and the one obsessive tweeter named Machiavelli_Aki is selling us a bill of goods.

Or whatever phrase is current with you. Selling snake oil, that sort of thing.

I can't believe I wasted 1/2 an hour. In fairness, though, it was more like 18 minutes.

 

[Ken Dine]

Machiavelli - the blame game is starting. My Italian is rusty, but now it seems like the police are blaming the prosecutors for the mess of the last 8 years!? Can you help with the translation of this piece?

http://www.giornaledellumbria.it/article/article231054.html

Yowza, the Italian cops are hopping mad and apparently blaming Mignini, who was part of their judiciary, for most of the screwups. They obviously feel the judiciary was protecting one of their own, Mignini, while dumping most of the blame on the cops.

I mostly agree with the cops, except for the ones who badgered Amanda into a false confession, as well as some of their leaders, such as that twit who placed Amanda's picture up on his Mafia wall of shame.

There was actually some good police work done to eventually capture Guede. The cops could have probably centered in on Guede sooner if Mignini wasn't pulling their strings to go after Amanda.

The excellent article you found clearly states that the cops want the law changed so that a member of the judiciary doesn't lead future criminal investigations, which I certainly agree with.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yowza, the Italian cops are hopping mad and apparently blaming Mignini, who was part of their judiciary, for most of the screwups. They obviously feel the judiciary was protecting one of their own, Mignini, while dumping most of the blame on the cops.

I mostly agree with the cops, except for the ones who badgered Amanda into a false confession, as well as some of their leaders, such as that twit who placed Amanda's picture up on his Mafia wall of shame.

There was actually some good police work done to eventually capture Guede. The cops could have probably centered in on Guede sooner if Mignini wasn't pulling their strings to go after Amanda.

The excellent article you found clearly states that the cops want the law changed so that a member of the judiciary doesn't lead future criminal investigations, which I certainly agree with.

The article in question is from Umbria. It sure must suck to be Mignini these days.

 

[kwill]

... the SC ... emphasized that Knox's malice in committing calunnia ...

Knox's malice.

Really? It's just astonishing to see that phrase on my screen. Knox's malice. The woman was basically kidnapped by the Italian authorities and wrongfully held in prison for four years. She's still being slandered repeatedly and viciously by both paid reporters and unpaid bloggers and commenters.

And in spite of all that I have seen nothing -- not one syllable from her mouth or from her pen -- that sounds like malice. She may well harbor resentment (and who could blame her?), but whatever happened under duress and without counsel in that interrogation room, it wasn't malice.

Amazing.

 

[analemma]

Knox's malice.

Really? It's just astonishing to see that phrase on my screen. Knox's malice. The woman was basically kidnapped by the Italian authorities and wrongfully held in prison for four years. She's still being slandered repeatedly and viciously by both paid reporters and unpaid bloggers and commenters.

And in spite of all that I have seen nothing -- not one syllable from her mouth or from her pen -- that sounds like malice. She may well harbor resentment (and who could blame her?), but whatever happened under duress and without counsel in that interrogation room, it wasn't malice.

Amazing.

Well said.
and so true.

 

[Strozzi]

Don't forget the vibrator

That is the pink bunny I referred to in my post. The authorities are holding all evidence seized in this case. If it is not returned, we will have to wonder which of the PLE has taken it home. Who said this discussion is almost over?

 

[acbytesla]

Knox's malice.

Really? It's just astonishing to see that phrase on my screen. Knox's malice. The woman was basically kidnapped by the Italian authorities and wrongfully held in prison for four years. She's still being slandered repeatedly and viciously by both paid reporters and unpaid bloggers and commenters.

And in spite of all that I have seen nothing -- not one syllable from her mouth or from her pen -- that sounds like malice. She may well harbor resentment (and who could blame her?), but whatever happened under duress and without counsel in that interrogation room, it wasn't malice.

Amazing.

So true. I personally am impressed at how these 2 have carried themselves over the years. I would have lost it and said something really spiteful. They are much classier than me.

 

[Strozzi]

Just replying here because its up-thread.

1. Mach, were any of the judges in your view, acting from ulterior motives? Were they closet masons for example, or corrupt in some other way?

2. Also, you said Guede's trial has not been sealed for 5 years, and that you had posted content from his trial (in the Kercher case I presume). Can you provide any links to that. (Both Nina Burleigh and just yesterday Barbie Nadeau stated Guede's case was still under seal. Where is the discrepancy from what they say and what you say coming from?).

In particular, I'm curious as to Guede's original interview when he returns to Perugia from Germany, I belive it was in December 2007, and was a 7 hour interview with Mignini, Biscotti and Judge Matteini.

3. Lastly, what do you make of the logic the Marasca court applied, that the absence of any traces of Knox or Raf in the murder room, when there is copious evidence of only Rudy Guede, implies Amanda and Raf did not participate in the murder? You had the same issue, but you explained it by proposing that Amanda and Raf "immediately ran out of the room" after stabbing Meredith. Cassation did not adopt your view. Do you still maintain Amanda and Raf, immediately ran out of the room after stabbing Meredith? Is that still your breakdown of the crime?

When Mignini was asked by a CNN correspondent why there is no physical evidence of Knox in the murder room, Mignini replied that maybe she directed the slaughter from the living room. Doesn't Machiavelli's explanation that Knox ran from the bedroom at the moment of blood flowing sound in tune with Mignini's explanation?

Mignini was also asked in the CNN interview what would it mean if the break-in was real. Mignini responded that then she would be innocent. (Can't have that, can we?)

 

[Machiavelli]

Knox's malice.

Really? It's just astonishing to see that phrase on my screen. Knox's malice. The woman was basically kidnapped by the Italian authorities and wrongfully held in prison for four years. She's still being slandered repeatedly and viciously by both paid reporters and unpaid bloggers and commenters.

And in spite of all that I have seen nothing -- not one syllable from her mouth or from her pen -- that sounds like malice. She may well harbor resentment (and who could blame her?), but whatever happened under duress and without counsel in that interrogation room, it wasn't malice.

Amazing.

Actually AK said quite a number if disgusting things, both before her arrest, during her prison time and over the subsequent time, by various means including book and social network profiles.

 

[Machiavelli]

The only possible way in which the callunia conviction could be deemed safe according to convention law is if Amanda adopted post her lawyerless interrogation, the statements in question. Nothing else matters here. She didn't do that and therefore nothing she is alleged to have said and nothing she wrote counts for anything against her. The ECHR must uphold her complaint. That is the law.

The first memoriale in any case is a very properly interpreted as Amanda casting doubt on the "verity" or veracity of anything she had previously said and calls her own reliability into question - at the point where she was beginning to recover from her arduous and illegal mental battering at the hands of the police and Mignini - if he was just a notary then I'm a monkey's uncle.

As for the law, casting doubt may well be calunnia. As long as her doubt is not sincere but malicious, asserting a doubt is certainly calunnia. The SC (like all courts) believe AK's casting doubt was a lie. No judicial authority seems ready to believe her memoriale was sincere (and there ate good reason for that).