• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are probably right. But it doesn't really matter.

Machiavelli suggests that the present ruling opens the door for civil litigation. But even if that were so it is highly unlikely there will be any.

The only people with standing are the Kerchers. Their own scumbag lawyer has said it is over. I'm guessing that he took this case on a contingency basis. If there was really a chance to still make money on this case do we really think he would abandon it? I don't.

Imagine if he has been billing the Kerchers all this time. Does anyone think that the Kerchers would want to throw good money after bad?

I'm convinced that these absurd objections and bizarre and twisted translations of the motivation is much much more about the nut jobs justifying and rationalizing their own disgusting behavior over the last 8 years.

They simply cannot accept the fact that they were wrong. Terribly wrong.

Imagine that you had just spent years villifying justifying and writing horrible things eulogising about 2 good kids sociopathic sadistic adults. Some of the things these people wrote are beyond disgusting. There have been in fact many veiled death threats. No one thinks that they themselves are horrible people. Believe it or not, even many serial killers refuse to believe that about themselves. If Amanda and Raffaele were truly innocent, guilty, what does that say about the guilters malcontents' behavior? For this sake, to them Amanda and Raffaele must be guilty innocent. Otherwise they would have to take a long look in the mirror and they might not like what they see,


FIFY
 
The reason for this was that there was absolutely no reliable evidence of the guilt of Knox or Sollecito.

In an earlier post, you expressed doubt about the translation of the short-form verdict that appears after the "For These Reasons" (abbreviated as P. Q. M. in the original Italian).

Here is the text in Italian:

Visto l'art. 620 lett. a) cod.proc.pen., annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine al reato di cui al capo b) della rubrica per essere Il reato estinto per prescrizione;
visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.
Ridetermina la pena inflitta alla ricorrente Amanda Marie Knox per il delitto di calunnia in anni tre di reclusione.

You can check this text against the original, which appears on Amanda Knox's blog, and bears the stamps of the CSC authorities and signatures of Marasca and Bruno.

Here is a translation to English, courtesty of Google Translate, with the relevant part highlighted:

In view of art. 620 letter. a) cod.proc.pen., canceled without the court judgment concerning the offense referred to in Chapter b) The crime of the address book to be extinguished by prescription;
having regard to Articles. 620 letter. I) and 530, paragraph 2 cod. proc. pen .; Excluding the aggravating circumstance of art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in connection with the crime of slander, cancels without referring the judgment under appeal in regard to the offenses referred to in Chapters a), d) and e) of section for the applicants have not committed the crime.
Restates the sentence imposed on the applicant Amanda Marie Knox for the crime of libel in three years' imprisonment.

Note that Google translates "non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto" as:

"the applicants have not committed the crime".

So says your translation, which is about as reliable as a Tricky Dicky categorical denial.
 
So, with regard to your first post today being "about the law," you presumably are referring to this self-interested gibberish:

"Technically this verdict leaves the 'judicial truth' open, that effects possibility of legal actions or claims."


You mean this, to your way of thinking, optimistic spin you put on the ISC's final and definitive motivation? Correct? How much would you like to bet that the jackal Maresca is good and done with the Kerchers as clients, and that the Kerchers have no money or appetite to take on any other attorney, whatsoever, towards this longstanding losing cause and sucker bet?

In fact it's laughable spin like this you've been promulgating here for five years, with the expectation that posters with an actual modicum of reason and sense take seriously your assertions that you come here and "teach us lessons." And, er, defeat us.

Knox and Sollecito are free, moving about openly in society and getting on with their personal and professional lives. Meanwhile, the corner into which you are now boxed, as your last-ditch locus of victory and lesson-teaching, is vanishing fast.

It's a complete travesty that persons who commit a heinous murder should be freed by a couple of bent wigs, who are also senators, who've clearly accepted backhanders by lobbyists.

Get the junior one to scribble a load of drivel about Gallileo and the Friends of Amanda PR campaign thinks their idol has been "exonerated", when truth is, Raff's been rescued and she forever remains a blackguard who sang la-la as her "friend" was butchered.
 
So says your translation, which is about as reliable as a Tricky Dicky categorical denial.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Your statement is, however, false; the sense of the Google translated passage is correct; some bits have been mangled. The key parts are accurate.

In particular, the following is an accurate translation:

Note that Google translates "non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto" as:

"the applicants have not committed the crime".

An alternative translation could translate "fatto" as "act".
 
Last edited:
You are entitled to your opinion.

Your statement is, however, false; the sense of the Google translated passage is correct; some bits have been mangled. The key parts are accurate.

In particular, the following is an accurate translation:

Note that Google translates "non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto" as:

"the applicants have not committed the crime".

An alternative translation could translate "fatto" as "act".

Oh, OK. If it's a google translation, it's probably more accurate than the one churned out yesterday.
 
It's a complete travesty that persons who commit a heinous murder should be freed by a couple of bent wigs, who are also senators, who've clearly accepted backhanders by lobbyists.

Get the junior one to scribble a load of drivel about Gallileo and the Friends of Amanda PR campaign thinks their idol has been "exonerated", when truth is, Raff's been rescued and she forever remains a blackguard who sang la-la as her "friend" was butchered.

You do not understand what evidence there is in this case, let alone have the ability to interpret it. Your foolishness extends to repeating constantly, erroneous statements of fact that you've picked up from every conceivable unreliable source and which is not confirmed by the primary source material. The text messages on Halloween, which you asserted for many weeks actually existed when we told you they did not and you had never seen them, is just one example.
 
In another part of the forest a poster also calling himself Machiavelli used to adopt a lofty and detached tone. Facts were facts. He had no axe to grind. He had looked at Amanda and formed a detached, objective view, informed by his experiences of the theatre. She was obviously guilty. He took no great pleasure in saying so. It was what it was. Now, by contrast, we have a raving obsessive the balance of whose mind has been distoibed, encompassing entire governments, media organisations and whole armies of lawyers and judges within a conspiracy of fiendish complexity, all dangling from strings pulled by the mysterious group that coalesced around the witch for the sheer, wicked pleasure of denying justice. Bring back the old Machiavelli! Free the Machiavelli one!


He's Irish now?
 
Nope. But they are innocent. The court said they didn't commit the act.

Only a guilty person would consider it a great victory they are free, even though they were condemned in perpetuity as probably guilty. Suppose you were genuinely wrongfully convicted. Would you feel "grateful" to have that hovering over your head?

No, you would not rest.
 
Last edited:
You do not understand what evidence there is in this case, let alone have the ability to interpret it. Your foolishness extends to repeating constantly, erroneous statements of fact that you've picked up from every conceivable unreliable source and which is not confirmed by the primary source material. The text messages on Halloween, which you asserted for many weeks actually existed when we told you they did not and you had never seen them, is just one example.

Fact remains, Mez snubbed Amanda on halloween, and Amanda's self-described, "Nazi within" kicked in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom