Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Matthew Best]

In a facebook (?) exchange with Kay (?) Kelsey, whom he wanted a marriage of convenience with, to avoid jail.

Not that it matters, but .... evidence?

 

[Ken Dine]

A truly disgusting individual! Let's hope that he hasn't and won't reproduce . . .

Since they seem to be prime candidates for it, surely most of the 'Guilters' will soon be awarded a Darwin:

Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by accidentally removing themselves from the pool:

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/

In San Jose, California, Herman, an avid hunter, used the butt of his shotgun to bash his girlfriend's windshield during an argument. But his loaded gun accidentally discharged into his stomach, killing him and ending the argument.

"I cannot help but notice that there is no problem between us that cannot be solved by your departure."

 

[JREF2010]

LOL! This is precisely why they are going to ECHR!

Give it up dude. You are not making any sense. Get some rest dude.

The verdict if Guilty would not have mattered to many of us, so the Innocent verdict doesnt mean anything to the Guilters. Thats easy enough to understand..

The ECHR overturning the Perugia based-interrogation, will be interesting. It wont mean anything to the guilters, because they'll always believe their own thing.

Im also interested if Maori files a case against Rudy for Calunnia, and Girgha files Calunnia against Rudy. Is the Calunnia automatically filed against Rudy, now that Amanda and Raffaele are completely released from the crime, and Rudy having blamed them for his crime?

 

[Desert Fox]

As I recall from reading one analysis of the decision several days ago, the court also said that anti-foreigner sentiments may have been driving the cops to focus in on Amanda too early.

Ironically, it was that female cop in charge of the murder investigation (behind Mignini), Monica Napoleoni, who was giving Amanda dirty looks on Day-1.

I wonder if she stole Amanda's vibrator

 

[toto]

"It is certain that knox was present in that house"

I am not surprised those advocating guilt are running with the startling sentence from the report. It is a pro guilt translation but one which Raffaelle's lawyer appears to accept (the meaning of the words that is, not necessarily their truth - "If Amanda had a role, it could have been as a spectator" she says). I am thinking the judges are basing it on more her words on the night/morning of her false statements about Lumumba which led to her calannia conviction, which they vigorously want to uphold, it seems, but it is hard to work through the google translation thoughtfully provided on the injustice website. I would concede that the report has words and phrases in it that the pro guilters can latch on to and repeat again and again, and it reminds me that A and R's definitive acquittal is not at all pyrrhic, but very hard won and very real and very meaningful. Bongiorno calls the judgement "an extraordinary act of courage."

http://www.quotidiano.net/meredith-processo-bongiorno-1.1283092
A poster on a pro guilt site thinks not enough attention is being paid to the negative stuff in the report about A and R, but I think he is missing the big picture. Anyway am looking forward to the translations from both sides.

 

[toto]

Just to add I am well aware that the judges say she was not at the scene of the murder.

 

[Kauffer]

This is a theory which apparently no judge was ready to buy. It appears the defence wasn't able to convince any court of such theory (and me neither), based on trial facts.
The SC says the ECHR won't change this.

If this is what they said, they are wrong. It is for the ECHR and the council to decide whether or not the trial was fair.

An adjudged violation of Article 6 in Italian law means that the verdict cannot stand.

The European Court of Human Rights is not some marginal, tangential institution. It's articles interpreted through its case law are supreme in Italy. It is a higher court than Cassation.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am baffled by this SC motivation. No doubt that's because we are getting it in bits and pieces from sources that are either uncomprehending or not impartial. Did the ISC say they were convicted because of stunning errors or acquitted because of them? Is the ISC hamstrung by the judicial fact of Amanda's confirmed conviction for aggravated calunnia into saying she was present (thus giving her a reason for pointing the finger at someone else and thereby aggravating her crime) and simply making its decision concordant with that one or is there some proper, evidential basis for the well-publicised statement that she and Raffaele were present while the murder was in progress?

 

[Kauffer]

I am baffled by this SC motivation. No doubt that's because we are getting it in bits and pieces from sources that are either uncomprehending or not impartial. Did the ISC say they were convicted because of stunning errors or acquitted because of them? Is the ISC hamstrung by the judicial fact of Amanda's confirmed conviction for aggravated calunnia into saying she was present (thus giving her a reason for pointing the finger at someone else and thereby aggravating her crime) and simply making its decision concordant with that one or is there some proper, evidential basis for the well-publicised statement that she and Raffaele were present while the murder was in progress?

Great last question. But she was not convicted on the aggravation. They did not accept Nencini on this point. Since the court has clearly thrown out the idea that if guilty of callunia she must be guilty of murder, then if the evidence for the callunia conviction - the statement that she was present - is evidence that she was there, then they are ignoring her later denials and accepting her "confession" on face value, having, as we know, also thrown out the eye and ear witness testimony. Of course, they've also accepted that she was under duress in the interrogation, so there's some flakiness about all of this.

 

[anglolawyer]

Great last question. But she was not convicted on the aggravation. They did not accept Nencini on this point. Since the court has clearly thrown out the idea that if guilty of callunia she must be guilty of murder, then if the evidence for the callunia conviction - the statement that she was present - is evidence that she was there, then they are ignoring her later denials and accepting her "confession" on face value, having, as we know, also thrown out the eye and ear witness testimony. Of course, they've also accepted that she was under duress in the interrogation, so there's some flakiness about all of this.

Oh, they reversed Nencini on aggravation? In that case, they weren't in the bind I was hypothesising.

 

[analemma]

I find interesting how much devotion Machiavelli has to Mignini and the ILE. Not one word of criticism. Yet he is merciless with his derogatory libelous comments of many of the Supreme Court justices.

Interesting indeed.
I think this is very revealing about what motivates Mach
Moderators: Please note that I am NOT attempting to identify Mach, I am just proposing where his sympathies lie.

Until recently, I thought that Mach was simply a run of the mill guilter who was VERY knowledgeable about Italian law and was interested in protecting the "Honor of the Italian Court System" or some twisted "search for truth".
But the postings by Mach since the Motivation are clearly nonsensical and indicate such an over the top state that concerns about his welfare were raised by other contributors.
I have noticed that his arguments and logic always conform to the now familiar thinking and tactics of the Italian prosecutors.
And his outrageously insulting trashing of the most respected members of the Italian Judiciary points strongly toward the fact that Mach does not care one iota about the image of the Italian Judiciary and is ONLY interested in protecting the now discredited hallucinations of the Police and Prosecutors, which are, in light of the Motivation, as dead as any hallucination has ever been.
Since he/she does not respect the authority of the Italian Judiciary and continues to cling desperately to the corpse of the ridiculous "shoddy police work", it may be that Mach is either a member of the Italian Police and/or Prosecutors establishment or has an OBSESSION to protect or improve their now forever tarnished image of the Italian Police.

 

[platonov]

Can I just ask - why on earth are you responding to Vixen at this stage? The case is over and the right side won. Its finished, it doesn't matter what garbage the likes of Vixen and Machiavelli spew out about Amanda Knox. Nor does it matter what hateful comments they direct at you or anybody else here - Amanda and Raffaele are still free to get on with the rest of their lives with their names cleared by Italy's highest court.

Obviously those two will still troll the thread because they are bitter that they lost, but there's no need to humour them anymore. Debate's over, and we won.

‘we won’
Who is this ‘we’ and what did you win?

As long as a single human remains unconvinced w.r.t. Amanda’s moral purity and personal hygiene not to mention her culpability in the rape/murder of a young woman the battle is not over.

There is still work to be done.
Don’t falter now that ultimate victory is in sight. Another 500k posts should do the trick.

 

[platonov]

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE !!!

You are probably correct about your hunches, but I suspect there's even more going on with most 'Guilters' since a variety of complex psychotic explanations can underlie what is seemingly their same (or similar) deranged behavior.

In short, for a variety of reasons that we don't even want to delve into, they are flaming NUTZ and in a very dark place! As such, they absolutely can't be reasoned with –– only old age and/or eventual death will ever stop most of them.

Of course, a libel suit or two could perhaps make a dent in their hides.

That’s the spirit.

When can we expect AK to begin this legal onslaught now that she has been proven COMPLETELY INNOCENT?

Or failing that at least join ISF to have the protection of the MA as LJ suggested.

 

[carbonjam72]

Just to add I am well aware that the judges say she was not at the scene of the murder.

And also -

"It is certain that knox was present in that house"

But does this mean present in the house AT THE TIME of the murder?

Saying Amanda was certainly present in the house where she lived, at any time in general, doesn't seem like a very damaging statement. It wouldn't even contradict her and Raf's alibi at his apartment.

 

[carbonjam72]

I am baffled by this SC motivation. No doubt that's because we are getting it in bits and pieces from sources that are either uncomprehending or not impartial. Did the ISC say they were convicted because of stunning errors or acquitted because of them? Is the ISC hamstrung by the judicial fact of Amanda's confirmed conviction for aggravated calunnia into saying she was present (thus giving her a reason for pointing the finger at someone else and thereby aggravating her crime) and simply making its decision concordant with that one or is there some proper, evidential basis for the well-publicised statement that she and Raffaele were present while the murder was in progress?

If Amanda were present when the crime occurred, then and only then would she be in a position to know that Patrick was not present. And therefore, only if Amanda were present, could her purported 'calunnia' against Patrick have been 'aggravated' as I understand it.

So the fact that cassation rejected the charge of aggravated calunnia, seems to imply that Amanda's presence in the house at the time of the crime is considered 'not proven beyond a reasonable doubt'.

(Probably ninja'd here, sorry if this is repetitive).

But I also think its a mistake to look at this report as a coherent whole. I think after the elimination of the murder charge, it becomes a compromise to save face, and as DC has pointed out, to tee up the calunnia conviction for the ECHR to reject when they get around to it.

 

[Bill Williams]

And also -

"It is certain that knox was present in that house"

But does this mean present in the house AT THE TIME of the murder?

Saying Amanda was certainly present in the house where she lived, at any time in general, doesn't seem like a very damaging statement. It wouldn't even contradict her and Raf's alibi at his apartment.

This.

Even Amande admits being in the house at 10:30 am Nov 2. So barring any further clarity from Marasca, why is this being trumpeted as suspicious?

So far, Machiavelli's campaign to say that Marasca "really" thinks they are guilty (cf. dietrology) is sounding like the post-Raffaele-press-conference where guilters claimed he withdrew his alibi.

They are reading into these things their bias.

 

[acbytesla]

I am baffled by this SC motivation. No doubt that's because we are getting it in bits and pieces from sources that are either uncomprehending or not impartial. Did the ISC say they were convicted because of stunning errors or acquitted because of them? Is the ISC hamstrung by the judicial fact of Amanda's confirmed conviction for aggravated calunnia into saying she was present (thus giving her a reason for pointing the finger at someone else and thereby aggravating her crime) and simply making its decision concordant with that one or is there some proper, evidential basis for the well-publicised statement that she and Raffaele were present while the murder was in progress?

I think what they are saying is both. That if the police had done a better job of finding evidence they might be proven to be guilty. As it is, they failed miserably to find any credible proof that they were involved.

But if not for the confession. But you really have to be a moron grasping at straws or are just plain desperate to take that confession seriously.

 

[acbytesla]

Not that it matters, but .... evidence?

I don't believe he said this for a second. The whole idea that Amanda marrying Raffaele to keep him safe from extradition simply would not have worked.

 

[toto]

This.

Even Amande admits being in the house at 10:30 am Nov 2. So barring any further clarity from Marasca, why is this being trumpeted as suspicious?

So far, Machiavelli's campaign to say that Marasca "really" thinks they are guilty (cf. dietrology) is sounding like the post-Raffaele-press-conference where guilters claimed he withdrew his alibi.

They are reading into these things their bias.

Not that I agree with the report on this point but I don't think 4 to 5 pm (Nov 1) and 10.30 a.m. (Nov 2) count as Night. But I agree it is best to read the report in full. I suspect that the pro guilt people will be able to exploit the report to some extent, but then it will also be interesting how much of Hellmann is reincorporated in the report as well as issues discussed here, such as time of death and so on.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not that I agree with the report on this point but I don't think 4 to 5 pm (Nov 1) and 10.30 a.m. (Nov 2) count as Night. But I agree it is best to read the report in full. I suspect that the pro guilt people will be able to exploit the report to some extent, but then it will also be interesting how much of Hellmann is reincorporated in the report as well as issues discussed here, such as time of death and so on.

What I was (weakly) getting at was.....

..... why is this group of folk saying that the Marasca/Bruno report is crap (because it buttresses a view of innocence), except for the parts they can pull out of it which proves the pair guilty? Which is it: crap or incriminating? Well, it seems it all depends on the confirmation bias. They tried this with Raffaele's press conference - claiming that Raffaele had "pulled his alibi for Amanda", when no one else in the world saw it that way. And esp. when reading his appeal documents to Cassazione it was plain as day what he was saying - 1) don't use your flawed evidence against Amanda to convict me, 2) Amanda is innocent.

Raffaele, pre-acquittal, held a press conference where he outlined (in effect) the separation strategy. That strategy was to say, "Look you're claiming all this stuff which you say proves Amanda guilty. Well.... what's that stuff got to do with me?"

The strategy, apparently, worked. For them both. If Raffaele was not guilty, then Amanda has to be not guilty. That means both of them are not guilty. And this is aside from there not being any presence of them at the murder scene.

The logic of the illogical Mignini-persecution is that, really, you only have to prove one of them not-guilty, and then the other follows.

Mignini understood this. It's why he had to move heaven and earth against Raffaele once the Nike-tread evidence fell apart. No Raffaele, no Amanda. So 46 days later they had to go get......



It's as simple as that.