Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strawberry]

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?

Blaming the victim my ass. You're really clutching at straws now.

 

[Bill Williams]

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".

Machiavelli - I just need to check something. You do know, don't you, that the SC acquitted Knox? Just checking, because your cut-and-paste method is starting to be seen in the service of.....

..... saying anything, and quoting anything out of context to prove the conclusion you started with.

But you do know don't you, that the Marasca panel acquitted both Knox and Sollecito?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Having no lawyer is not a fundamental breach of one's human rights, according to ECHR, as long as there are good reasons for that. But doesn't matter; the commiting of a crime like calunnia does not depend on whether someone else committed a violation. Knox was an adult responsible of the actions she carried on voluntarily, a principle valid under any circumstance, no matter if others ate treating you rightly or wrongly. There are no areas of immunity from the consequences of criminal actions.

 

[Machiavelli]

Blaming the victim my ass. You're really clutching at straws now.

Yes blaming the victim.

 

[Bill Williams]

Having no lawyer is not a fundamental breach of one's human rights, according to ECHR, as long as there are good reasons for that. But doesn't matter; the commiting of a crime like calunnia does not depend on whether someone else committed a violation. Knox was an adult responsible of the actions she carried on voluntarily, a principle valid under any circumstance, no matter if others ate treating you rightly or wrongly. There are no areas of immunity from the consequences of criminal actions.

You will say anything as long as it slanders Amanda Knox. What is the matter with you?

 

[Strawberry]

Yes blaming the victim.

You're clutching at straws now.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

You are saying people under custody are not responsible of what they do?

And btw, what about when she refused to clarify her statements against Lumumba before Judge Matteini?
And what about the following weeks, including the Dec 17. interrogation, during which she still failed to talk about and clear her false accusation?

 

[Bill Williams]

You are saying people under custody are not responsible of what they do?

And btw, what about when she refused to clarify her statements against Lumumba before Judge Matteini?
And what about the following weeks, including the Dec 17. interrogation, during which she still failed to talk about and clear her false accusation?

You will get a better handle on this case when you stop obsessing about Amanda Knox.

You will better understand this case when you start reading current Italian-language news reports since Monday, like the one from Umbria where the police are now blaming the prosecutor (guess who!?) for this judicial mess.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

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).

 

[moije2]

Yes blaming the victim.

You are really coming across as a live wire. That is the stupidest comment you have made in quite a while.

Question. Why do you spend time at this site?

A judiciary that - by your stated assessments - issues motivations that are illogical to the extreme must be a real source of embarrasment for you. Or pain.

 

[Dougm]

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.

You could have saved some time. Just start out with the assumption that anything that our friend Mach posts is complete and utter confirmation biased BS.

You can look it up if you want to confirm, but the track record indicates that is what you will find.

 

[kwill]

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?

Blaming the victim?

There's not a woman in the world whose first thought wouldn't be "period?" if there's a spot of blood in the bathroom she shares with another woman. When Amanda thought "period?" she of course didn't know there was a victim, because she didn't know there'd been a murder.

This is your evidence that an innocent woman was acting with malice? Because she wondered if her housemate might have unknowingly left menstrual blood behind?

I guess if she'd actually killed Meredith, it would be a pretty awful thing to say -- but since we know she didn't have anything to do with what happened to Meredith, it's just a normal reaction. And to this day she hasn't, as far as I know, ever had a bad word to say about Meredith or anybody else.

 

[Dougm]

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.

I can't believe you said that. After months of quoting news articles as if they are factual. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic, in a desperate attempt to slander two innocent people.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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?

Just because someone says a person failed to clean up after themselves does not make it victim blaming, even if that messy person ends up dead. You aren't making any sense here.

 

[analemma]

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".

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.

 

[acbytesla]

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?

Out of context. This is hardly "blaming" anyone. It was merely Amanda searching for a logical explanai on for finding a few drops of blood.

 

[analemma]

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).

There is no drug dealers ring associated with her: You are , again, making things up.
This is part of the media lies blitz that was addressed by the motivation that "does not lead to the truth"

 

[acbytesla]

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).

That is NOT evidence of anything. There is no limit to how disgusting you get is there?

 

[analemma]

That is NOT evidence of anything. There is no limit to how disgusting you get is there?

Capital question.

Maybe Mach is Joe McCarthy in disguise.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is no drug dealers ring associated with her: You are , again, making things up.
This is part of the media lies blitz that was addressed by the motivation that "does not lead to the truth"

You should decide whether it's me making things up, or if it's news reports.
There is news coverage from both 2011 and 2014 (including interview of Federico). There is also picture and text of police papers. Names of Perugian attorneys as well.

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/meredith-condannato-pusher-che-avrebbe-rifornito-cocaina-amanda-knox

http://www.today.it/cronaca/amanda-knox-sesso-spacciatore.html

There is even the admission of this by some pro-Knox supporters...