• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
A person knowingly giving the police a false alibi - as Knox and Sollecito did - will find themselves under the scrutiny of the Old Bill as a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints.
Click to expand...

It has never been proved that it was a false alibi. As you've been told a many, many times, Knox placing herself at the cottage that night became a judicial fact upon the definitive calunnia conviction. Marasca had no choice but to deal with that but even then he said that IF she came into contact with blood it happened AFTER the murder and no one disputes she was at the cottage AFTER the murder. Sollecito has never been proved to be outside his apartment that night. An unsubstantiated alibi is not the same thing as a false alibi.
 
Vixen said:
A person knowingly giving the police a false alibi - as Knox and Sollecito did - will find themselves under the scrutiny of the Old Bill as a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints.
Click to expand...

No it's not. What are you talking about?
 
Vixen said:
Er, because Raff dropped her in it..?
Click to expand...

ER, no. Raff saying she went out that night would not have made any difference. She could have still blamed Guede. After all, she had already pointed out his feces and bloody footprint to the police. And, if guilty, she would have known they'd find his bloody shoe prints in the hallway and bedroom.
 
Vixen said:
A person knowingly giving the police a false alibi - as Knox and Sollecito did - will find themselves under the scrutiny of the Old Bill as a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints.
Click to expand...

LOL. Um...no. Say a man gives a false alibi as to his location when his wife was murdered because he was at his mistress' house. He lies because he's afraid that the police will find out he was cheating on his wife and it will make him look guilty. The police then find the DNA and fingerprints of the next door neighbor in the murder room and on the victim's body. Are they going to arrest the husband or the neighbor?
 
Stacyhs said:
Sollecito has never been proved to be outside his apartment that night. An unsubstantiated alibi is not the same thing as a false alibi.
Click to expand...

Vixen should deal with her litany of claims that have proven to be bogus:

That the reason Mignini lost his defamation lawsuit against Sollecito & Gumbel was because "within a week" Sollecito & Gumbel would apologize to Mignini. Bogus claim.

That Knox was ineligible for international travel because she was a felon. Two bogus claims in one.

That the picture Vixen posted of the window below Filomena's proved that it had no bars on it. Bogus claim. Vixen posted a pic of a window **with** bars covering it.​
You'd think Vixen would clean up these bogus messes of hers before simply repeating other bogus claims.

Like a false alibi being as valid as DNA! Hoots.
 
Last edited:
If we started listing all the bogus claims, we'd end up in Continuation 35...or more.

I wonder if Amanda flew to Italy today in a private chartered jet?
 
Stacyhs said:
I bet there were many people on the night of the murder who couldn't provide a proven alibi. Any person who was home alone that night reading or watching TV and who neither made nor received any phone calls between 9 PM and midnight wouldn't have an alibi. Come to think of it, Nara Capezalli was home alone that night. Can she prove she didn't kill Meredith? :rolleyes:Just because someone doesn't have an alibi, doesn't mean they committed the crime.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with that. I think that the Mignini and the cops had a pre-existing template in place by the night of the interrogations, with the theories of multiple attackers and the staged break-in already in place. All that needed to happen was to transfer the cop's protection of Rudy onto suitably soft targets. Perugia may have been full of potentially soft targets, all you need to do is wreck their computers and subject them to a totally hypothetical case with, as Mignini and Vixen argues, no motive required and your potentially in business. it just so happened that K&S were suitably soft targets.

Hoots
 
Bill Williams said:
Worse than the guilters?

"I apologize for using you for my entertainment."

https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-your-content-my-life-a9f7b010fe55?fbclid=IwAR3Nk0YLgFfwJAA2NzcHZy3CsC45Gpa_VKJZ4Sm3bbk1MPoV1EOKKWOsxVY

Fits all of us......
Click to expand...

The guilters are obsessed with Amanda Knox. I'm obsessed with the guilters. A subtle distinction. I wish I didn't have 10 volumes of data in my head about Amanda's every recorded moment in Italy, but unfortunately it was necessary for my quest to understand why certain people think the stripped naked girl lying dead with her throat slit in a forced entry apartment surrounded exclusively by the bloody prints of a male burglar whose DNA was found in the rapekit and had a criminal history of forced entry trespassing and carrying a knife was actually the victim of her American flatmate who had no connection with the burglar. BTW my quest remains unfulfilled.
 
bagels said:
The guilters are obsessed with Amanda Knox. I'm obsessed with the guilters. A subtle distinction. I wish I didn't have 10 volumes of data in my head about Amanda's every recorded moment in Italy, but unfortunately it was necessary for my quest to understand why certain people think......
Click to expand...

I'm obsessed, too, but I've only got 2.5 volumes of data. In my travels I've met dudes/dudettes who have 25 to 30 volumes. Those people are REALLY nuts!

None of them are guilter-nutters. Seriously. Instead, the guilter-nutters rely (or used to) on a coupl'a dozen talking points, endlessly repeated regardless of that little thing called "evidence". (Granted, 2 or 3 of the now departed nutters had volumes of dietrology.....)

But, seriously, I should apologize for using them as entertainment. I've PM'ed with a good cross-section of them, and have discovered things which I would not want applied to me. So suffice it to say that one person's tragedy is still no excuse to vilify some internet stranger.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
I'm obsessed, too, but I've only got 2.5 volumes of data. In my travels I've met dudes/dudettes who have 25 to 30 volumes. Those people are REALLY nuts!

None of them are guilter-nutters. Seriously. Instead, the guilter-nutters rely (or used to) on a coupl'a dozen talking points, endlessly repeated regardless of that little thing called "evidence". (Granted, 2 or 3 of the now departed nutters had volumes of dietrology.....)

But, seriously, I should apologize for using them as entertainment. I've PM'ed with a good cross-section of them, and have discovered things which I would not want applied to me. So suffice it to say that one person's tragedy is still no excuse to vilify some internet stranger.
Click to expand...

The most satisfying obsession must be for the ECHR

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Simplified_Conv_ENG.pdf

"Simplified version of selected articles from the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols

Summary of the preamble

The member governments of the Council of Europe work towards peace and greater unity based on human rights and fundamental freedoms. With this Convention they decide to take the first steps to enforce many of the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1 ‐ Obligation to respect human rights

States must ensure that everyone has the rights stated in this Convention.

....

Article 3 ‐ Prohibition of torture

No one ever has the right to hurt you or torture you. Even in detention your human dignity has to be respected.

....

Article 6 ‐ Right to a fair trial

You have the right to a fair trial before an unbiased and independent judge. If you are accused of having committed a crime, you are innocent until proved guilty. You have the right to be assisted by a lawyer {from the first interrogation} who has to be paid by the state if you are poor. {You have the right to a fair interpreter if you do not understand the language of the police and courts.}"

Above are some simplified versions of the important Convention articles for the case Knox v. Italy. For completeness, I added the phrase specifying that the lawyer's assistance must be available from the first interrogation to reflect the ECHR case-law from Salduz and subsequent cases for Article 6.3c, and the sentence on the interpreter to reflect Article 6.3e.
 
Last edited:
bagels said:
The guilters are obsessed with Amanda Knox. I'm obsessed with the guilters. A subtle distinction.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm obsessed with the case which includes how the PGP approach it. The PGP's obsession with Knox is why they tend to concentrate on Knox's personality and their need to vilify and disparage her personally. They criticize every little thing she does including misrepresenting her Halloween costume, etc.


I wish I didn't have 10 volumes of data in my head about Amanda's every recorded moment in Italy, but unfortunately it was necessary for my quest to understand why certain people think the stripped naked girl lying dead with her throat slit in a forced entry apartment surrounded exclusively by the bloody prints of a male burglar whose DNA was found in the rapekit and had a criminal history of forced entry trespassing and carrying a knife was actually the victim of her American flatmate who had no connection with the burglar. BTW my quest remains unfulfilled.
Click to expand...

For the PGP, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a chicken because, damn it, you can see it's really a chicken in its eyes!
 
Last edited:
"Amanda Knox Returns to Italy for First Time Since Her Acquittal

Ms. Knox, an American who was exonerated in a 2007 murder, went back to the country where her legal drama unfolded to speak about wrongful convictions and how journalists cover cases like hers.
....

The murder case captured headlines worldwide for years, fueling debates over sexism, the Italian criminal justice system and international law.
....

In January, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Italian authorities had failed to provide adequate legal assistance during Ms. Knox’s initial, nightlong interrogation in 2007."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/...ml?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage
 
Last edited:
"Why Amanda Knox returned to Italy years after her harrowing murder case

Amanda Knox returned to Italy on Thursday for the first time since she was freed from prison there, after she was acquitted in a sensational murder case that captivated the public for years.

Knox agreed to speak at the Criminal Justice Festival’s “Trial by Media” panel in Modena on Saturday, the latest step in her long journey back to public life.

Knox’s life was upended during her time studying abroad in Perugia, Italy. In 2009, she and her boyfriend at the time, Raffaele Sollecito, were first convicted of the 2007 murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher. Knox spent four years in prison before an appeals court overturned her sentence in 2011, whereupon she returned to the United States. In 2015, their convictions were overturned by Italy’s highest appeals court, which said that there was no evidence that she had committed the crime."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...harrowing-murder-case/?utm_term=.ffcc02255266
 
"How Amanda Knox’s Trial Was the Dawn of the Fake News Era

The case also featured allegations of mental instability in a leader who would insist upon his fantastically excellent health. A Seattle newspaper criticized the case and quoted unnamed legal experts who reportedly believed Magistrate Giuliano Mignini to be “mentally unstable.” Eleven days later, Mignini filed a defamation claim. “I am quite a healthy man,” the BBC reported Mignini as saying. “I don’t go to the doctor much, and I have never visited a psychologist.”"

https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...-nina-burleigh-fake-news-italy-murder-847731/
 
Amanda Knox in Italy, pm Mignini: "She is a free woman, she can go where she wants, but I remain perplexed"
„- In the Cassation sentence, from page 45 to page 49, it is clearly written that Amanda was in the place and at the time of the crime, so much so that she was guilty of the victim's blood.“
Click to expand...

Potrebbe interessarti: http://www.perugiatoday.it/cronaca/...mXJ2Fz3qFw1aLwY2kB15fFnignvRzCRTSc1QM-13WqPBY
Seguici su Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/PerugiaToday/100142986753754


Mignini has the the same blinkered view of what Marasca said as some PGP. Again, he is ignoring the fact that it was the PREVIOUS (GUEDE) SC that said she was at the cottage at the time of the murder which he had no choice but to deal with. He also ignores the part where Marasca said, the IF she came into contact with MK's blood, it was some time AFTER the murder. Surely the Sherlock Holmes of Italy can understand that...or maybe not.
 
Stacyhs said:
Potrebbe interessarti: http://www.perugiatoday.it/cronaca/...mXJ2Fz3qFw1aLwY2kB15fFnignvRzCRTSc1QM-13WqPBY
Seguici su Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/PerugiaToday/100142986753754


Mignini has the the same blinkered view of what Marasca said as some PGP. Again, he is ignoring the fact that it was the PREVIOUS (GUEDE) SC that said she was at the cottage at the time of the murder which he had no choice but to deal with. He also ignores the part where Marasca said, the IF she came into contact with MK's blood, it was some time AFTER the murder. Surely the Sherlock Holmes of Italy can understand that...or maybe not.
Click to expand...



(Barring the fact that it was actually the Chieffi SC ruling on Knox's criminal slander that placed her at the cottage at the time of the murder... and not Guede's SC confirmation....)


Exactly. What pro-guilt commentators (and, it would astonishingly seem, Maresca and Mignini) cannot or will not understand is that had the Marasca SC panel stated unequivocally that Knox was nowhere near the cottage at the time of the murder, this would have set up a judicial conflict between two different SC panels - a conflict which necessarily would have required a remedy, very possibly involving some sort of retrial.

Rather, the Marasca SC panel clearly and pointedly (through its choice of wording) decided to play the "realpolitik" game: it clearly decided that it simply wasn't worth butting up against the previous SC final verdict and opening up a messy, time-consuming judicial can of worms in Italy. Because, as it correctly says, even if one accepts that Knox was there, there's still no evidence to convict her (or Sollecito, of course) of murder. And since it was purely the murder (and murder-related) crimes of Knox and Sollecito that the Marasca SC panel was responsible for considering, that was all that was important from a judicial/legal perspective.

It really is very simple, to anyone with any intelligence, foresight, understanding of the case, and understanding of Italian criminal justice. I can forgive (some of) the pro-guilt commentators their ignorance or low intellects, but it's impossible to believe that Marasca or Mignini don't understand the situation perfectly well. And that makes their comments nothing more or less than mendacious, mischievious attempts to mislead. Disgusting (but one expects nothing less from that pair, I suppose....)
 
Stacyhs said:
It has never been proved that it was a false alibi. As you've been told a many, many times, Knox placing herself at the cottage that night became a judicial fact upon the definitive calunnia conviction. Marasca had no choice but to deal with that but even then he said that IF she came into contact with blood it happened AFTER the murder and no one disputes she was at the cottage AFTER the murder. Sollecito has never been proved to be outside his apartment that night. An unsubstantiated alibi is not the same thing as a false alibi.
Click to expand...

Crini established it as a legal fact Sollecito in particular put forward a false alibi and that counted as evidence against him. (Nencini.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom