Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

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.

Yea, you're a credible source. Don't you get it Mach? Your track record for honesty makes everything you say suspect. I haven't read a single thing.

 

[analemma]

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.

Nonsense.
Name them.
And lets not have the normal tabloid lies unsubstantiated BS.

 

[Vixen]

You're right, it is. And everyone EXCEPT YOU is saying something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

Should I believe CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail or you?

Hmmmmm, let me think.

Any fule know that far from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail, being an eclectic range of objective frontline reporting, they are all quoting from the same press release, generally speaking, either Reuters or AP.

We have had hacks lapping up PR spin before.

Only a low information voter would "appeal to the authority" of a bunch of tabloids and broadsheets.

 

[Strawberry]

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.

I haven't seen her say anything disgusting at all. Not so the guilters, many of whom have behaved abominably throughout this case.

 

[carbonjam72]

I see two possibilities here:

1) The Court really did say that not even the ECHR can undo the calunnia. In this case, the court is really just inviting/begging the ECHR to do just that.

2) The Court simply said: "nothing we can do about the calunnia at this point--that's all on Chieffi . . . by the way, did we mention that Knox was under duress". In this case, the court is putting the responsibility on Chieffi, and loading the dice against Italy before the ECHR.

Well DC, this is just great reading of the tea leaves if you ask me. And, I must go back to my pre-motivation prediction.

I predicted that this motivation would overturn the calunnia, in addition to explaining the acquittals.

Since that was technically not an option for Marasca, to overturn the calunnia conviction, this panel in your theory, has done the next best thing: tee-up the appeal to ECHR for a reversal by conceding the legal predicates of the claim of the appeal - a statement made under duress and without a lawyer.

So if you're wrong, then I guess I'm wrong. And if you're correct, well excuse me for taking a victory lap. Nice working with you.

 

[acbytesla]

Any fule know that far from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail, being an eclectic range of objective frontline reporting, they are all quoting from the same press release, generally speaking, either Reuters or AP.

We have had hacks lapping up PR spin before.

Only a low information voter would "appeal to the authority" of a bunch of tabloids and broadsheets.

Before, all you did quote was the press. And ignored actual court documents. But now that they say something you don't like, they're hacks. There is NO NEED to SPIN this document sweetheart.

It's over and it says the police blew it. BIG TIME.

 

[analemma]

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).

Where do you get this nonsense?
Are you trying to maintain your correct prediction average?

And really, knock off the slander nonsense.
We all know that Italy, with the help of this motivation, will take a pretty hard hit from the ECHR, who will certainly believe her memoriale was sincere and the Italian police/prosecutors( who just got trashed by the motivation) will be known worldwide to be nothing more than a bunch of stupid, self serving, inbred, thugs.

 

[carbonjam72]

Any fule know that far from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail, being an eclectic range of objective frontline reporting, they are all quoting from the same press release, generally speaking, either Reuters or AP.

We have had hacks lapping up PR spin before.

Only a low information voter would "appeal to the authority" of a bunch of tabloids and broadsheets.

Hence all of these are tabloids and broadsheets? (I'm conceding the DM).

How's that book coming? Do you think you'll do as well in sales and reviews as Amanda's book? (Not that you'd care).

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Nonsense.
Name them.
And lets not have the normal tabloid lies unsubstantiated BS.

He can't.

He's lied about how Marasca uses "forte sospetto" in his motivations report, he's lied about Marasca finding that Amanda was at the cottage during the murder, and Machiavelli now is lying about Knox saying "disgusting things".

He's obsessed with Amanda.

 

[acbytesla]

I haven't seen her say anything disgusting at all. Not so the guilters, many of whom have behaved abominably throughout this case.

ie: Machiavelli who said without an ounce of proof that Amanda had been whoring herself out for drugs.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

AK & RS are such good people from such good families, this is probably what's most offensive to most people who read these types of comments.

What boggles the mind Mach, is how you can spin this motivation report as a species of victory for Mignini, when he is obviously going to be left without a chair when the music stops.

 

[Kauffer]

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).

The ECHR will have no truck with any of this nonsense. She had no lawyer and continued to have no lawyer for two days afterwards. That is, very simply, a fundamental breach of Amanda's Article 6 rights. Nothing she said or wrote may be used against her. Italy has no defence to this case. There is nothing that they can do in law to justify Amanda's prosecution, trial or guilty verdict.

 

[Bill Williams]

Any fule know that far from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail, being an eclectic range of objective frontline reporting, they are all quoting from the same press release, generally speaking, either Reuters or AP.

We have had hacks lapping up PR spin before.

Only a low information voter would "appeal to the authority" of a bunch of tabloids and broadsheets.

Before, all you did quote was the press. And ignored actual court documents. But now that they say something you don't like, they're hacks. There is NO NEED to SPIN this document sweetheart.

It's over and it says the police blew it. BIG TIME.

The confirmation bias and two-faced comments from Vixen is astounding. As you say - when a newspiece says something she likes, she quotes it. When it doesn't she slags them.

When all of them say essentially the same thing - she says it's really just one press release and PR spin. After a while one begins to doubt the person making this wind-vane claims.

Point being, not one - not one - Italian news outlet in Italian reports what she and Machiavelli are on about. Even an Umbrian news source is now reporting on how the police are turning on the prosecutors as the blame game heats up.

 

[kwill]

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.

What you happen to find "disgusting" is mildly interesting to me, but also beside the point.

Amanda Knox has displayed no malice toward any person; her blog especially is a model of grace in the face of ugliness. I'm so glad she's free of this horror.

 

[Kauffer]

Any fule know that far from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail, being an eclectic range of objective frontline reporting, they are all quoting from the same press release, generally speaking, either Reuters or AP.

We have had hacks lapping up PR spin before.

Only a low information voter would "appeal to the authority" of a bunch of tabloids and broadsheets.

What does any of this rot have to do with the fact that Amanda and Raffaele are exonerated by the report?

 

[Machiavelli]

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

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 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.

(...)

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".

 

[Strawberry]

ie: Machiavelli who said without an ounce of proof that Amanda had been whoring herself out for drugs.

Yes, like that. Even worse, the haters over on some guilter site who were posting pictures of Amanda's under age sisters with disgusting comments underneath.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

Such as?

 

[Machiavelli]

What you happen to find "disgusting" is mildly interesting to me, but also beside the point.

Amanda Knox has displayed no malice toward any person; her blog especially is a model of grace in the face of ugliness. I'm so glad she's free of this horror.

Do you think blaming the victim by suggesting it was normal to assume Meredith had left menstrual blood on the carpet and didn't clean, was a model of grace too?

 

[Kauffer]

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.

It is manifestly not irrelevant. An ECHR decision to uphold an application IS the law in Italy!

Amanda was not "free from external influence" when she wrote her 1st memoriale. She was in police custody in the questura and denied access to a lawyer. Yet the memoriale documents the earliest signs of her recovery from the compulsion of the police.