Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Machiavelli]

this is cruel but Mach, the expression is that you jumped from your chair, not on it. That's what women do when they see a mouse. Accept my apologies for pointing this out. It just made a funny image. I mean no disrespect.

Thanks for the language hint.

 

[RoseMontague]

I find it hard to belive you actually believe to your rethoric when you say things like that.

LOL.

I find it hard to believe there is a huge file of evidence that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith (this is one of your claims).

I find it hard to believe that Amanda was writing in a secret mafia code.

 

[Machiavelli]

A personal comment about your personal comment. This is pure conspiracy theory (yet another one from you) silliness. The more of this you post the lower your credibility gets.

We can agree to disagree. Our opinions the fish blood statement is one of the things that shows how, about perception of some aspects of reality, we may be at polar opposites. However, sorry, I don't believe your habit of believing what I say will come down from the level where it is.

 

[anglolawyer]

There isn't any "crucial document" which allegedly Mignini "can't find". I find it hard to belive you actually believe to your rethoric when you say things like that.

Oh come on. Are you suggesting there is no obligation to record in writing the judicial authority for depriving a suspect of access to advice? What if there is an appeal but the PM dies, or goes insane or gets bumped on the head and can't remember.

Never mind. I know where the order is. It's in the bottom left hand draw of Mignini's desk with his pencil sharpener, spare long johns, paper clips, Dansette tape recorder instruction manual, the EDFs, the missing telephone recordings, an signed and framed picture of Matteini, a rough draft of his memoirs, an old mouse trap, ear muffs (to blot out the screams) and other detritus.

 

[RoseMontague]

Oh come on. Are you suggesting there is no obligation to record in writing the judicial authority for depriving a suspect of access to advice? What if there is an appeal but the PM dies, or goes insane or gets bumped on the head and can't remember.

Never mind. I know where the order is. It's in the bottom left hand draw of Mignini's desk with his pencil sharpener, spare long johns, paper clips, Dansette tape recorder instruction manual, the EDFs, the missing telephone recordings, an signed and framed picture of Matteini, a rough draft of his memoirs, an old mouse trap, ear muffs (to blot out the screams) and other detritus.

You forgot his enemies list. Still growing, I would imagine.

 

[Machiavelli]

I find it hard to believe there is a huge file of evidence that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith (this is one of your claims).

Well there is a huge file of evidence that Amanda had a disturbed personality, and it is a personality disease of the narcissistic cluster kind. Some attraction for Meredith is rather obvious from her demeanor, I won't use the term "huge file" because it's maybe inappropriate, but her seeking attention of Meredith and in presence of Meredith stand out as a trait of several over-the-top behaviors she had.

I find it hard to believe that Amanda was writing in a secret mafia code.

Secret? I said cryptic, not secret. You don't have to believe it. It's manifest. I see it. But it seems it's like the colour test for daltonism. Either you see it, or you don't. (If you don't, maybe you don't want).
Amanda's statement is an obvious blackmailing of her accomplice. No other reasonable interpretation is actually possible.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well there is a huge file of evidence that Amanda had a disturbed personality, and it is a personality disease of the narcissistic cluster kind. Some attraction for Meredith is rather obvious from her demeanor, I won't use the term "huge file" because it's maybe inappropriate, but her seeking attention of Meredith and in presence of Meredith stand out as a trait of several over-the-top behaviors she had.

Secret? I said cryptic, not secret. You don't have to believe it. It's manifest. I see it. But it seems it's like the colour test for daltonism. Either you see it, or you don't. (If you don't, maybe you don't want).
Amanda's statement is an obvious blackmailing of her accomplice. No other reasonable interpretation is actually possible.

Keep digging, Mach. The only thing you are accomplishing is convincing the posters here that you have lost it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh come on. Are you suggesting there is no obligation to record in writing the judicial authority for depriving a suspect of access to advice? What if there is an appeal but the PM dies, or goes insane or gets bumped on the head and can't remember.

Never mind. I know where the order is. It's in the bottom left hand draw of Mignini's desk with his pencil sharpener, spare long johns, paper clips, Dansette tape recorder instruction manual, the EDFs, the missing telephone recordings, an signed and framed picture of Matteini, a rough draft of his memoirs, an old mouse trap, ear muffs (to blot out the screams) and other detritus.

But why do you make up things that way? You are talking about an order which would expire within 48 hours, and which is not impugnable nor under the scrutiny of a judge. You are talking about reasons which are explained within the recording and transcript of a hearing (which exists, and was fully recorded). You have a judge stating she heared the parties, listened to the reasons, accepted Mignini's poinst. (and for some reason, you don't aske the defence to provide you all their "submissions"). You also have the decree of arrest.
What kind of submission would you expect to find more? Within a 48 hour- long procedure?

 

[codyjuneau]

....
A personal comment: about the cryptic language. As I read Amanda’s hand written memoir for the first time I jumped on the chair when I read about her “memory” of “bloods on Raffaele’s hands” that she says remembers, but thinks is tas “probably” “fish blood”. I felt chilled because this is exactly the kind of cryptic language which I associate to the most dangerous criminals (those who commit crimes in association) and I interpret it as pure mafia-style communication.

.
I suspect Migi had the very same thoughts.
.

 

[RoseMontague]

.
I suspect Migi had the very same thoughts.
.

LOL, yes. Good one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Keep digging, Mach. The only thing you are accomplishing is convincing the posters here that you have lost it.

I don't believe you. I'm not convincing you of anything. Nor in positive nor negative. You are just already prejudiced. I never saw you engaged in a logical reasoning involving reality, you deal only with "your " reality; you just state you "personal" opinions, which stem from your "personal" assumptions. Everything is very "personal" in you: you believe that because you believe that. So there is nothing to say. There is no reason to try to convince you. You are not a rational interlocutor.

 

[anglolawyer]

But why do you make up things that way? You are talking about an order which would expire within 48 hours, and which is not impugnable nor under the scrutiny of a judge. You are talking about reasons which are explained within the recording and transcript of a hearing (which exists, and was fully recorded). You have a judge stating she heared the parties, listened to the reasons, accepted Mignini's poinst. (and for some reason, you don't aske the defence to provide you all their "submissions"). You also have the decree of arrest.
What kind of submission would you expect to find more? Within a 48 hour- long procedure?

Mach, I record it if a client phones me to ask whether I sent that letter yet. Lawyers record everything, whether appealable in 48 hours or not. Sorry, but I pull rank here. Such an order is an important part of the record and should be written. And you will have to prove that the reasons were adumbrated at the Matteini hearing. I do not accept a bald assertion that they were.

In this case, the deprivation of access to advice goes to the root of the whole affair. It is strongly arguable they would never have been convicted of anything (certainly not calunnia) had they received timely advice.

 

[christianahannah]

Some are available, but you have to pay at the cleark's office (each page). The investigation transcripts (like the Matteini hearing) however are not available. Only the court documents can be released.
The status of each document is classified "ostensible"/"not ostensible" (can be released to public - cannot).
I have Matteini in Italian and I did the translation with Clander.
I don't have the transcript of the hearing.
Documents of the prosecution, well there is the decree of arrest, and the spontaneous statement.
I don't remember as for Knox's hearing; there was no mention of art. 104 in Patrick defence submissions.

Well thank you and please give my thanks to Clander as well. I don't think many can appreciate the difficulty of speaking, writing, and thinking multiple languages along with trying to do this in context of different cultures and make it understandable. I still have problems with understanding the legalese aspect but that is only because there is so much of it.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

<snip> but her seeking attention of Meredith and in presence of Meredith stand out as a trait of several over-the-top behaviors she had.

Secret? I said cryptic, not secret. You don't have to believe it. It's manifest. I see it. But it seems it's like the colour test for daltonism. Either you see it, or you don't. (If you don't, maybe you don't want).
Amanda's statement is an obvious blackmailing of her accomplice. No other reasonable interpretation is actually possible.

Machiavelli,

These things you believe are biased, cannot you see this? You interpret every single thing Amanda and Raffaele did and said as proof of guilt. You repeatedly claim it is evident they are conniving, manipulative criminals. However it is just as obvious that their statements and actions have innocent, rational explanations if you view them in the light of innocence. With regard to law, you are supposed to lean toward innocence and in fact assume innocence, until otherwise proven. Why do you assume every single action, every single statement, gesture and expression as ruthlessly evil?

Also, are you a lawyer? How do you know so much about the law? (I am just curious because I honestly cannot say I know nearly as much about our laws as you do about Italy's.)

 

[Briars]

dupl
.

 

[Briars]

Keep digging, Mach. The only thing you are accomplishing is convincing the posters here that you have lost it.

I agree with Mac bringing up blood of any kind on the hands of her partner an odd and aggressive statement. Why mention it?
.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>A personal comment: about the cryptic language. As I read Amanda’s hand written memoir for the first time I jumped on the chair when I read about her “memory” of “bloods on Raffaele’s hands” that she says remembers, but thinks is tas “probably” “fish blood”. I felt chilled because this is exactly the kind of cryptic language which I associate to the most dangerous criminals (those who commit crimes in association) and I interpret it as pure mafia-style communication.

I know exactly what you mean. It's kinda like "Luca Brazzi sleeps with the fishes."

 

[Mary_H]

Exactly. And as you alluded to above, in 104 rulings there is a requirement for the PM to produce a written motivation if (s)he (the PM) has unilaterally enacted the ruling for the 48 hours prior to presentation before a judge.

Call me wearily unsurprised, but Mignini neglected to produce this motivation either during or after the Matteini hearing. That's just one part of the reason why Matteini is as culpable for this unlawful activity as Mignini himself is.<snip>

No one should be surprised, since Raffaele wrote about this in his book and I have quoted and cited the excerpt here twice.

She said dryly.

 

[Dan O.]

I agree with Mac bringing up blood of any kind on the hands of her partner an odd and aggressive statement. Why mention it?
.

No you don't. You are simply making that up after the fact. If Amanda had not mentioned blood from preparing the fish you would claim that she was hiding something. It leaves us wondering what it was that you did to your sister.

 

[Mary_H]

Well there is a huge file of evidence that Amanda had a disturbed personality, and it is a personality disease of the narcissistic cluster kind. Some attraction for Meredith is rather obvious from her demeanor, I won't use the term "huge file" because it's maybe inappropriate, but her seeking attention of Meredith and in presence of Meredith stand out as a trait of several over-the-top behaviors she had.

You don't realize how shocking this comment is, especially if it reflects the actual view of the prosecution.

Secret? I said cryptic, not secret. You don't have to believe it. It's manifest. I see it. But it seems it's like the colour test for daltonism. Either you see it, or you don't. (If you don't, maybe you don't want).

If you do, maybe you do want.

Amanda's statement is an obvious blackmailing of her accomplice. No other reasonable interpretation is actually possible.

When you make claims like this, you need to back them up by quoting the parts of the statement you are referring to, and explaining how and why you see blackmail in them. The same goes for the claim you made here:

It is a matter of fact that she wrote a series of manipulative statements. Albeit you won't acknowledge that, I consider that self-evident.

Mignini was actually consistent in all his statements. But the problem is that you are unable to understand them.<snip>

My stories are all straight. Yet you seem to not understand them (just like the one about sleep deprivation syndrome).

It's true, there is a lot we don't understand. In fact, we are baffled. Can you similarly entertain the notion that you don't understand Amanda?

The important difference is Amanda is on trial for murder, Mignini isn't.