Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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.

She knew that leaving menstrual blood around and not cleaning was the specific behaviour unnerving to Meredith, and of which she had complained with Knox since unacceptable to her. Thus she knew perfectly that it would be hardly attributable to Meredith as something "normal".
Instead she attributed it to Meredith as if a possible "normal" behaviour of hers while talking to the police (and to the public, in her letter).
This is not credible.
Malicious - to me - means the voluntary action of doing something wrong in a lucid manner, which is what Knox does as she tells a false story including a blaming of the victim.

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?

Because she falsely wondered - or better, actually did not say "wonder if", she assumed it was so and implied it was natural to assume so.

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.

You guess wrongly. It's always an awful thing to voluntarily convey a false picture of reality and portray a murder victim falsely. She blamed the victim, and turned out as a liar.
Obviously this is not the only thing she said that makes her a repulsive charachter.

In the very same "letter" she says other chilling statements. For example: the washing machine detail when she talks about Meredith, is something I found chilling.

 

[Machiavelli]

She wasn't there. Nothing you state actually happened. It's your fantasy.

Maybe it's Bruno & Marasca's fantasy then. We are reading what they wrote.

 

[Bill Williams]

She knew that leaving menstrual blood around and not cleaning was the specific behaviour unnerving to Meredith, and of which she had complained with Knox since unacceptable to her. Thus she knew perfectly that it would be hardly attributable to Meredith as something "normal".
Instead she attributed it to Meredith as if a possible "normal" behaviour of hers while talking to the police (and to the public, in her letter).
This is not credible.
Malicious - to me - means the voluntary action of doing something wrong in a lucid manner, which is what Knox does as she tells a false story including a blaming of the victim.



Because she falsely wondered - or better, actually did not say "wonder if", she assumed it was so and implied it was natural to assume so.



You guess wrongly. It's always an awful thing to voluntarily convey a false picture of reality and portray a murder victim falsely. She blamed the victim, and turned out as a liar.
Obviously this is not the only thing she said that makes her a repulsive charachter.

In the very same "letter" she says other chilling statements. For example: the washing machine detail when she talks about Meredith, is something I found chilling.

You are disgusting. You're obsessed with Knox - as well as inventing what Knox "knows".

 

[Kauffer]

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.

There are no good reasons for her not having a lawyer. The callunia crime is not insulated from procedural law. Otherwise, police can simply compel the crime by applying duress to a suspect - which is what they did in this case. This is why the ECHR insists on the importance of a lawyer being provided at the earliest opportunity. Without one, nothing that is said is useable against a suspect in connection with any criminal charge.

The only exception to the rule that a lawyer must be provided is an emergency situation, but even then there are restrictions on what can be done and what can be used for a later prosecution. You appear to think that the denial of a lawyer is an acceptable routine matter. It is not. It is in fact a grant of immunity with regard to matters associated with self incrimination. She would not, for example, have been immune from the commission of another kind of crime whilst in custody.

 

[Vixen]

They were statements made under duress, i.e., compulsion. Ergo, they're not "her statements"; rather, the statements are attributable to the persons imposing the duress.

And, she did clarify the "statements": she said "they hit me."

Only under her self-imposed duress of being under suspicion of murder.

Was there, didn't help her "friend".

Ah, diddums do, police asked for a simple list of frequenters to the house, the victimising so-and-sos.

 

[LondonJohn]

I hear that in the ISC report, the judges say that Knox and Sollecito like TOTALLY killed "poor Mez", that the ISC considers the two to be sub-human scum, and that the ISC would like to see the two of them hanged, drawn and quartered, and for their body parts to then be pulled through Perugia behind a 4x4.

The report then goes on to say that the SC is only acquitting them because either a) every judge on the panel got a new Lamborghini from David Marriott, or b) Sollecito's father threatened the judges on the panel with a slow and gruesome death if they did not acquit, or c) the US Government told the ISC judges that it was going to order CIA-led assassinations of the judges on the panel if they did not acquit. Which of those three options is the correct one depends on small nuances in the translation.

 

[Kauffer]

Maybe it's Bruno & Marasca's fantasy then. We are reading what they wrote.

We will wait for a proper and comprehensive translation. You are not an objective or reliable source.

 

[Kauffer]

I'm author rank 3.2K for literary fiction, and 4.5K for Action and Adventure in amazon.com. That suits me just fine. My book was actually higher ranked than Amanda's one day. Comparisons are odious, but hers is non-fiction (in the loosest sense) and is ghost-written, as is Raff's.

If you look at all these media reports, you'll find they are all virtually identical.

The beauty of Peter Owen in the TIMES is he actually used shoe leather and turned up on the scene.

It's Richard, dear. And he got most of the "facts" wrong, which is what happens when you regurgitate Italian police leaks.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe it's Bruno & Marasca's fantasy then. We are reading what they wrote.

Through your own very distorted glasses.

Machiavelli reminds me of the great Vizzini (played by Wallace Shawn) in the movie The Princess Bride.

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are condemning the victim, Knox, for assuming that her housemate had perhaps been dealing with a menstrual (leakage) issue. I grew up with many sisters. I shared a bathroom with several. It is not unusual for a female to be trying to deal with menstrual leakage and hurriedly disrobe in the bathroom, stepping out of her clothes (slacks & underpants) and dealing with washcloth, towel and/or toilet paper - which sometimes hurriedly land on the floor. The nobby bath mat had a brownish-reddish smear on it. It needed to be thrown in the washing machine. It was normal to think that her housemate had perhaps been dealing with a female matter and had not cleaned up in a thorough way.

After Knox got out of the shower she dried herself and scooted on the bathmat across the cold tile floor and hall to her room, where she dressed. She then went into the larger bathroom anteroom where all the young women shared a hair drier. While there she discovered the disgusting matter in the adjoining space's toilet, which together with her earlier observations of irregular issues caused her concern that something was really not right. She hurriedly left.

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.

 

[LondonJohn]

Only under her self-imposed duress of being under suspicion of murder.

Was there, didn't help her "friend".

Ah, diddums do, police asked for a simple list of frequenters to the house, the victimising so-and-sos.

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.

 

[Vixen]

You are condemning the victim, Knox, for assuming that her housemate had perhaps been dealing with a menstrual (leakage) issue. I grew up with many sisters. I shared a bathroom with several. It is not unusual for a female to be trying to deal with menstrual leakage and hurriedly disrobe in the bathroom, stepping out of her clothes (slacks & underpants) and dealing with washcloth, towel and/or toilet paper - which sometimes hurriedly land on the floor (and aren't picked up immediately as they dash off to put fresh clothes on. Right, ladies?) The nobby bath mat had a brownish-reddish smear on it. It needed to be thrown in the washing machine. It was normal to think that her housemate had perhaps been dealing with a female matter and had not cleaned up in a thorough way.

After Knox got out of the shower she dried herself and scooted on the bathmat across the cold tile floor and hall to her room, where she dressed. She then went into the larger bathroom anteroom where all the young women shared a hair drier. While there she discovered the disgusting matter in the adjoining space's toilet, which together with her earlier observations of irregular issues caused her concern that something was really not right. She hurriedly left.

From the Encyclopaedia of of Rational Explanations, Volume Umpty-9.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

There was a small amount of visible blood in the bathroom - despite the police's attempt to manipulate everyone into believing there was much. Of course Amanda is going to speculate about possible causes. And of course the last thing on most reasonable peoples' minds would be that someone had been murdered in the next room.

 

[Strawberry]

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.

I'm not sure Vixen and others even realise what planet they're on.

What we're witnessing from these two is the last gasp of a dying hate campaign. There's probably not much point in even responding to them at this stage.

 

[carbonjam72]

Here's an article from sky news, apparently Lyle Kercher has weighed in to share his wisdom:

http://news.sky.com/story/1549146/kercher-brother-we-may-never-get-the-truth

Mr Kercher said: "While one can understand these as reason for such a decision, it does seem at odds with the apparent DNA evidence we had understood always linked the defendants to the scene."

Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito were acquitted again in March

He said he had not had time to study the court's explanation in full, because his copy was in Italian and needed to be translated, but he added: "Though the inference at the time was there was more than one attacker, whether the man who is in prison is the sole perpetrator will probably never be truly known.

"We must now try to move on with our respective lives and for our part, concentrate on remembering and grieving for Meredith who for too long has been the forgotten victim among all of this."

It's not like Dr Peter Gill wouldn't take their phone call, and be happy to explain it to them over a cup of tea.

 

[js202]

You are disgusting. You're obsessed with Knox - as well as inventing what Knox "knows".

Yes, it is preposterous mendacity and sophistry, unworthy of a response. But one has known for going on eight years that expecting something different from this particular source would be like going to a dog looking for a "quack." As with the only other remaining hardcore guilter still slouching across these pages, no citation or argument can pierce through the insanity.

Only recently the trial transcript in which Laura Mezzetti compared Ms. Knox and Ms. Kercher as equally uncleanly was referenced in this continuation. As with the Machiavelli entity's implication that Ms. Knox in her six weeks in Perugia had become a) a sort of prostitute, trading her body for drugs, and b) the hub of a drug ring with spokes presumably projecting into the Afghani heroin trade, it makes one dumber and more base for have waded into the stench of the lies and innuendo.

 

[moije2]

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.

This is your twisted twist on the story. On what you base your entire lie of an argument. And what you spend your time on in slander of an innocent. Normal, yeh right. That is what she was saying. Everyday occurrence. Sure. Not an accident. Your arguments are tortured.

 

[moije2]

Here's an article from sky news, apparently Lyle Kercher has weighed in to share his wisdom:

http://news.sky.com/story/1549146/kercher-brother-we-may-never-get-the-truth



It's not like Dr Peter Gill wouldn't take their phone call, and be happy to explain it to them over a cup of tea.

Kercher has to make statements like this after being duped by looney prosecution theories and Maresco. It is self protective. And is understandable.

 

[Ken Dine]

I hear that in the ISC report, the judges say that Knox and Sollecito like TOTALLY killed "poor Mez", that the ISC considers the two to be sub-human scum, and that the ISC would like to see the two of them hanged, drawn and quartered, and for their body parts to then be pulled through Perugia behind a 4x4.

The report then goes on to say that the SC is only acquitting them because either a) every judge on the panel got a new Lamborghini from David Marriott, or b) Sollecito's father threatened the judges on the panel with a slow and gruesome death if they did not acquit, or c) the US Government told the ISC judges that it was going to order CIA-led assassinations of the judges on the panel if they did not acquit.
Which of those three options is the correct one depends on small nuances in the translation.

I choose option 'C' – what did I win?

 

[Machiavelli]

This is your twisted twist on the story. On what you base your entire lie of an argument. And what you spend your time on in slander of an innocent. Normal, yeh right. That is what she was saying. Everyday occurrence. Sure. Not an accident. Your arguments are tortured.

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