International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347719)

Guss 9th December 2020 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomG (Post 13319546)
Sorry to have to tell you this Welshy but half of your links are redundant. The Amanda Knox case Wiki is not functioning anymore.

Hoots

IA has been alerted and It should be back up soon, cross our fingers.

Vixen 9th December 2020 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13318539)
Citation needed.

Would you care to explain then why Amanda's parents were charged with calunnia for merely repeating what Amanda told them about being smacked on the back of the head but neither prosecution friendly reporter Follain who wrote the story nor the paper that printed this "calunnia" was charged?

Refer to the Italian Criminal Code. It's all codified.


The parents were charged because they were deliberately touting an untrue story of police brutality to the US media in an attempt to pervert justice in her favour and undermine public confidence in the Italian legal system. In the USA the legal equivalent is Obstruction of Justice, a felony, which attracts up to five years imprisonment, depending on the State.

I can't believe all this time you never knew what calunnia was but here you are campaigning against Knox' conviction for it.

Vixen 9th December 2020 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13318570)
You're as predictable as rain in India during the monsoon season.

He was sentenced to 16 years in prison... until 2024. Last I looked this is 2020.
Community service isn't "doing the time". He's going to be living in an apartment in Viterbo, not in a prison cell. Yes, it is more upsetting for victims of crime to see the perpetrator getting away with it. Which, in this case didn't happen as the perpetrator didn't get away with it...he just got off very easily earning a college degree paid for by the state, getting to spend a lot of his lenient sentence in work release and then doing community service living in an apartment also paid for by the state.

I think in the USA you call it 'out on licence' and the UK calls it 'on parole'.


Penny dropped?

Vixen 9th December 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13318623)
May I remind you of this "calunnia" spoken by Lumumba and printed in the Daily Mail in early 2008 against the police? So, did the police investigate this as required by law and find it to be true which explains why Lumumba was not sued which you say they would have been compelled to do? Or, did they fail in their duty and not investigate it at all? Which is it, Vix?

Lumumba denied it. He understands the law, as does Sollecito.

Vixen 9th December 2020 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antony (Post 13320372)
Comments section has its usual share of haters:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1767832.html

:dl:

Most of the comments seem to be from someone called, 'Antony'.

AnimalFriendly 9th December 2020 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13320673)
Lumumba denied it.

:sdl:

You mean all he had to do was deny it and the mighty Perugian law enforcement monolith backed off? Who knew?

In reality, if these paragons of justice were to have had any interest in Lumumba's calumny whatsoever, they need only have subpoenaed DM's interview tapes. Which would have proven these particular lies of his.

Stacyhs 9th December 2020 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13320670)
Refer to the Italian Criminal Code. It's all codified.


The parents were charged because they were deliberately touting an untrue story of police brutality to the US media in an attempt to pervert justice in her favour and undermine public confidence in the Italian legal system. In the USA the legal equivalent is Obstruction of Justice, a felony, which attracts up to five years imprisonment, depending on the State.

I can't believe all this time you never knew what calunnia was but here you are campaigning against Knox' conviction for it.

Okey dokey. From Article 368 of the Italian Penal Code:

Quote:

Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years.
So, Vixen....did Knox's parents KNOW Amanda had not been smacked by a cop during her interrogation? Did the police have any evidence of Amanda telling her parents that she had not been hit? No, they did not and how do we know that? Because they would have presented it as evidence during their lawsuit against her which they lost.

In order to be charged with calunnia, you must identify the person you're defaming. Did Chris or Edda ever identify the person who hit Amanda? No, they did not. All they said was she "was hit in the back of the head by a police officer with an open hand at least twice." Who exactly was she defaming? Which officer? What would the charges say? "Some unidentified Perugia police officer Vs. Chris Knox and Edda Mellas"?

I can't believe after all this time you never knew this.

Stacyhs 9th December 2020 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13320672)
I think in the USA you call it 'out on licence' and the UK calls it 'on parole'.


Penny dropped?

Do people in the UK "out on licence" get their apartments paid for by the state? Parolees in the US most certainly do not.

When someone is out on licence /on parole, they are still under the supervision of the court system, not social services.

Quote:

Rome’s surveillance court has now entrusted him to social services in what his lawyer, Fabrizio Ballarini, said was a sign of Guede’s “high level of social integration” and “irreproachable conduct”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...munity-service

Penny dropped yet?

Stacyhs 9th December 2020 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13320673)
Lumumba denied it. He understands the law, as does Sollecito.

Yes, he denied it later. Which means he, in fact, confessed to the crime of calunnia against the police! So why was he not charged with calunnia?

What the hell does "as does Sollecito" mean?

Stacyhs 9th December 2020 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13320680)
:dl:

Most of the comments seem to be from someone called, 'Antony'.

True. He's having to correct idiotic comment like this:

Quote:

Bernie691 day ago
How inconvenient for her.
Perhaps had she not lied multiple times, falsely accused her boss and cleaned her room and her boyfriends house with bleach her word may be more credited.
She was only acquitted on the third trial after a massive budget for her defence was provided by American tv networks.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...12bdbd6d26.png

Welshman 9th December 2020 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13320670)
Refer to the Italian Criminal Code. It's all codified.


The parents were charged because they were deliberately touting an untrue story of police brutality to the US media in an attempt to pervert justice in her favour and undermine public confidence in the Italian legal system. In the USA the legal equivalent is Obstruction of Justice, a felony, which attracts up to five years imprisonment, depending on the State.

I can't believe all this time you never knew what calunnia was but here you are campaigning against Knox' conviction for it.

How can we know if Amanda's claim about being abused during the interrogation was untrue when there was no tape recording of the interrogation which contravenes Italian law.

Stacyhs 9th December 2020 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshman (Post 13321107)
How can we know if Amanda's claim about being abused during the interrogation was untrue when there was no tape recording of the interrogation which contravenes Italian law.

Silly boy....don't you know that Knox and Sollecito weren't suspects? They were just "witnesses informed of the facts" at the time they were being "interviewed" on Nov. 5/6. Not that Mignini and the police all stated later that they damn good and well already suspected K and S well before then. Nah...they weren't suspects. How convenient for the police.

Bill Williams 9th December 2020 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13320670)
The parents were charged because they were deliberately touting an untrue story of police brutality to the US media in an attempt to pervert justice in her favour and undermine public confidence in the Italian legal system. In the USA the legal equivalent is Obstruction of Justice, a felony, which attracts up to five years imprisonment, depending on the State.

Given that you said that the prosecutor was required by law to charge them, why was not John Follain or the publisher charged?

Numbers 9th December 2020 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13321051)
Okey dokey. From Article 368 of the Italian Penal Code:



So, Vixen....did Knox's parents KNOW Amanda had not been smacked by a cop during her interrogation? Did the police have any evidence of Amanda telling her parents that she had not been hit? No, they did not and how do we know that? Because they would have presented it as evidence during their lawsuit against her which they lost.

In order to be charged with calunnia, you must identify the person you're defaming. Did Chris or Edda ever identify the person who hit Amanda? No, they did not. All they said was she "was hit in the back of the head by a police officer with an open hand at least twice." Who exactly was she defaming? Which officer? What would the charges say? "Some unidentified Perugia police officer Vs. Chris Knox and Edda Mellas"?

I can't believe after all this time you never knew this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13321091)
Yes, he denied it later. Which means he, in fact, confessed to the crime of calunnia against the police! So why was he not charged with calunnia?

What the hell does "as does Sollecito" mean?

Neither Amanda Knox's parents nor Patrick Lumumba were ever accused of calunnia against the police, nor could they for any statements they made as quoted in news media.

The elements of the Italian crime of calunnia (CP Article 368), in brief: Willfully (that is, knowingly) falsely reporting a person has committed a crime to a police agent, prosecutor, magistrate, or judge (that is, "a judicial authority", autorità giudiziaria).

As mentioned in a previous post by Methos, the crime of calunnia should not be confused with the Italian crime of diffamazione (CP Article 595) or diffamazione col mezzo della stampa (CP Article 596-bis) - defamation and defamation by means of the media (press).

Knox's parents could not have been accused of calunnia; they were accused of defamation and/or defamation by means of the media. This absurd case was, IIUC, eventually dropped by the Italian courts, but I am not aware of the court reasoning used to drop the case.

Lumumba, IIUC, was never charged for the DM article. Possibly, the publication in the UK was considered outside Italian jurisdiction. This may have also been the reasoning used for the case against Knox's parents, as well as the case brought against Sollecito and Gumbel for Honor Bound (which was only published outside Italy).


Quote:

Art. 368.
Calunnia.

Chiunque, con denunzia, querela, richiesta o istanza, anche se anonima o sotto falso nome, diretta all'autorità giudiziaria o ad un'altra autorità che a quella abbia obbligo di riferirne o alla Corte penale internazionale, incolpa di un reato taluno che egli sa innocente, ovvero simula a carico di lui le tracce di un reato, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni.
La pena è aumentata se s'incolpa taluno di un reato pel quale la legge stabilisce la pena della reclusione superiore nel massimo a dieci anni, o un'altra pena più grave.
La reclusione è da quattro a dodici anni, se dal fatto deriva una condanna alla reclusione superiore a cinque anni; è da sei a venti anni, se dal fatto deriva una condanna all'ergastolo; e si applica la pena dell'ergastolo, se dal fatto deriva una condanna alla pena di morte.
Quote:

Art. 595.
Diffamazione.

Chiunque, fuori dei casi indicati nell'articolo precedente, comunicando con più persone, offende l'altrui reputazione, è punito con la reclusione fino a un anno o con la multa fino a euro 1.032.
Se l'offesa consiste nell'attribuzione di un fatto determinato, la pena è della reclusione fino a due anni, ovvero della multa fino a euro 2.065.
Se l'offesa è recata col mezzo della stampa o con qualsiasi altro mezzo di pubblicità, ovvero in atto pubblico, la pena è della reclusione da sei mesi a tre anni o della multa non inferiore a euro 516.
Se l'offesa è recata a un Corpo politico, amministrativo o giudiziario, o ad una sua rappresentanza o ad una autorità costituita in collegio, le pene sono aumentate.
Quote:

Art. 596-bis.
Diffamazione col mezzo della stampa.

Se il delitto di diffamazione è commesso col mezzo della stampa le disposizioni dell'articolo precedente si applicano anche al direttore o vice-direttore responsabile, all'editore e allo stampatore, per i reati preveduti negli articoli 57, 57-bis e 58.
Source: https://www.altalex.com

Stacyhs 9th December 2020 07:37 PM

OK, OK, Numbers, defamation instead of calunnia. Substitute defamation for calunnia, but everything else still stands.

The fact that the lawsuit against AK's parent was allowed to just disappear with no further follow up is evidence that it was nothing more than an intimidation and face saving attempt. The fact that Lumumba was never charged, even after he later admitted it was a bunch of lies, is evidence that Vixen's claim that "... the police, prosecutors and judges are compelled by law to sue for calunnia defamation" is a load of bs.

Numbers 9th December 2020 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 13321421)
Given that you said that the prosecutor was required by law to charge them, why was not John Follain or the publisher charged?

That failure for the prosecutor to charge properly under Italian law CP Article 596-bis strongly suggests that the defamation charge against her parents was an attempt to intimidate Knox.

Stacyhs 9th December 2020 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numbers (Post 13321575)
That failure for the prosecutor to charge properly under Italian law CP Article 596-bis strongly suggests that the defamation charge against her parents was an attempt to intimidate Knox.

Exactly! Mignini used lawsuits as a weapon to intimidate not only Knox, but anyone who dared criticize or cross him. He's not the only one. It's a common practice used in Italy by politicians and other prosecutors against journalists especially and why there's an effort to decriminalize defamation. But politicians and those in authority don't want to do that as it takes away a very handy weapon they can wield against the press. Witness how Trump has tried to discredit the press in the US with his Fake News and Enemy of the People campaign. Just imagine if he had the same ability to sue for defamation as the Italians politicians do!

Vixen 16th December 2020 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13321073)
Do people in the UK "out on licence" get their apartments paid for by the state? Parolees in the US most certainly do not.

When someone is out on licence /on parole, they are still under the supervision of the court system, not social services.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...munity-service

Penny dropped yet?

Yes, they might well do. Friend of mine is a probation officer and she was often looking for suitable accommodation for vulnerable newly released prisoners. The Department for Work and Pensions would probably help with housing costs. The Probation Service in England & Wales used to be a quasi-social services outfit but then it merged with the police department in recent years, which has caused a lot of problems, which I won't bore you with.

I see no anomaly in Guede being helped with accommodation after twelve years in jail and no family roots.

Vixen 16th December 2020 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13321091)
Yes, he denied it later. Which means he, in fact, confessed to the crime of calunnia against the police! So why was he not charged with calunnia?

What the hell does "as does Sollecito" mean?

Lumumba and Sollecito were wise enough not to pursue the allegations.

If you suffer police brutality it is important to report it at the time. Otherwise you will find it hard to defend yourself from having made a knowingly false allegation.

Vixen 16th December 2020 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshman (Post 13321107)
How can we know if Amanda's claim about being abused during the interrogation was untrue when there was no tape recording of the interrogation which contravenes Italian law.

It's a she said he said situation, isn't it? Her interviews were all recorded (writing a statement is a recording). Neither she nor her (very expensive) counsel reported it at the time. So obviously she was groomed into claiming that by her misguided supporters and family.

Vixen 16th December 2020 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13321154)
Silly boy....don't you know that Knox and Sollecito weren't suspects? They were just "witnesses informed of the facts" at the time they were being "interviewed" on Nov. 5/6. Not that Mignini and the police all stated later that they damn good and well already suspected K and S well before then. Nah...they weren't suspects. How convenient for the police.

You do know Italy has an Arguido system don't you? Good.

Vixen 16th December 2020 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 13321421)
Given that you said that the prosecutor was required by law to charge them, why was not John Follain or the publisher charged?

You are free to report them if you think they have committed a crime. Bear in mind, books are generally seen as 'opinion'.

Vixen 16th December 2020 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13321481)
OK, OK, Numbers, defamation instead of calunnia. Substitute defamation for calunnia, but everything else still stands.

The fact that the lawsuit against AK's parent was allowed to just disappear with no further follow up is evidence that it was nothing more than an intimidation and face saving attempt. The fact that Lumumba was never charged, even after he later admitted it was a bunch of lies, is evidence that Vixen's claim that "... the police, prosecutors and judges are compelled by law to sue for calunnia defamation" is a load of bs.

AFAIAA either the statue of limitations has run out or the case is still technically ongoing*. The pair are not going to be subject to extradition so what can the Italians do except wait until they set foot on Italian soil?

*There hasn't been any news the charges have been dropped.

Vixen 16th December 2020 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13321584)
Exactly! Mignini used lawsuits as a weapon to intimidate not only Knox, but anyone who dared criticize or cross him. He's not the only one. It's a common practice used in Italy by politicians and other prosecutors against journalists especially and why there's an effort to decriminalize defamation. But politicians and those in authority don't want to do that as it takes away a very handy weapon they can wield against the press. Witness how Trump has tried to discredit the press in the US with his Fake News and Enemy of the People campaign. Just imagine if he had the same ability to sue for defamation as the Italians politicians do!

Trump is a friend of Amanda Knox.

Do we see a pattern here?

Matthew Best 16th December 2020 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328179)
Trump is a friend of Amanda Knox.

Er, no.

Vixen 16th December 2020 09:24 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13328180)
Er, no.

Er, yes.

Matthew Best 16th December 2020 09:30 AM

I think Amanda Knox is innocent. That doesn't make me her friend.

Bill Williams 16th December 2020 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams
Given that you said that the prosecutor was required by law to charge them, why was not John Follain or the publisher charged?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328173)
You are free to report them if you think they have committed a crime. Bear in mind, books are generally seen as 'opinion'.

You have no idea of much do you?

This was not Follain's book. He wrote a piece about Knox for (I believe) The Sunday Times. In it he reported on an interview he'd had with Knox's parents. **He** reported what Knox had told the parents. According to them, She'd told them that she'd been hit at interrogation. The parents, acc. to Follain, simply relayed what they'd been told. As was Follain. As was the publisher, The Sunday Times.

For this, Knox's parents had been charged by Mignini. Neither Follain nor the Sunday Times were included in the action. Yet they had participated in the libel. The relevant fact here is that the allegation never got past the charge phase. Clearly, it was Mignini threatening the parents, that they'd never see their daughter again. Strangely, he saw no need to threaten either Follain or the British media!

But back to the original claim you'd made. You'd said that prosecutors **by law** were required to charge those who had done such things. 'Opinions' are defamation, too. Indeed, what else is there?

But one thing is constant. Trips down the Vixen rabbit hole.

Stacyhs 16th December 2020 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328166)
Yes, they might well do. Friend of mine is a probation officer and she was often looking for suitable accommodation for vulnerable newly released prisoners. The Department for Work and Pensions would probably help with housing costs. The Probation Service in England & Wales used to be a quasi-social services outfit but then it merged with the police department in recent years, which has caused a lot of problems, which I won't bore you with.

I see no anomaly in Guede being helped with accommodation after twelve years in jail and no family roots.

Rather than just using all the time wasting speculative verbiage, why not take a couple minutes and do a quick google to actually find an answer to the question? Which is what I did.
Unlike some people, I can handle being wrong and admitting it:

Quote:

You won’t be considered for early release until you have a suitable address. This could be with friends or family or at a hostel. You might get help from the council to pay for your accommodation. You aren’t allowed to move without permission from your probation officer.
https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgeb...ce-conditions/

Welshman 16th December 2020 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328170)
It's a she said he said situation, isn't it? Her interviews were all recorded (writing a statement is a recording). Neither she nor her (very expensive) counsel reported it at the time. So obviously she was groomed into claiming that by her misguided supporters and family.

Video or audio recordings can give irrefutable proof what happened in an interrogation which written statements don't give. Again how can it be fair to charge Amanda with calunnia when there is no independant recording which establish what happened in the interrogation.

Stacyhs 16th December 2020 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328172)
You do know Italy has an Arguido system don't you? Good.

You do know that the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Knox and Sollecito became official suspects during their Nov. 5/6 interrogations, don't you?

You do know that is why their interrogations should have been stopped and they should have been provided lawyers right there and then, but that didn't happen, don't you?

You do know that is why Mignini was censured by the Council of Magistrates for violation of correct procedure in the arrest of Knox and Sollecito, don't you?

Stacyhs 16th December 2020 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Yes, he denied it later. Which means he, in fact, confessed to the crime of calunnia against the police! So why was he not charged with calunnia?

What the hell does "as does Sollecito" mean?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328169)
Lumumba and Sollecito were wise enough not to pursue the allegations.

If you suffer police brutality it is important to report it at the time. Otherwise you will find it hard to defend yourself from having made a knowingly false allegation.

Wise enough? Yes...they understood what happens when you dared to accuse the cops of violence against you when you have no proof. Accuse the police and they slap you with a defamation suit. It's easy and it costs them nothing but it literally costs you a lot and can last years. They lived in Italy. They knew how it worked. Amanda did not. Nor did her parents.

Lumumba certainly knew how it worked. He only got his bar back 3 months after being totally cleared of any involvement. There was no reason for that delay. Or was there?

Stacyhs 16th December 2020 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328170)
It's a she said he said situation, isn't it? Her interviews were all recorded (writing a statement is a recording).

No, it's not. Those words are not hers. Those are the words of the police as they chose to interpret them. For example, saying that she replied to Patrick's message that "we would meet immediately" which we know she never did. Where are the suggestions from the interpreter that she had amnesia? Where are the suggestions to imagine what happened? No, Vixen, those statements are NOT a recording of what went on in the interrogation room

Quote:

Neither she nor her (very expensive) counsel reported it at the time. So obviously she was groomed into claiming that by her misguided supporters and family.
What has the cost of her counsel have to do with anything other than for you to imply that she bought her way out of this? Which is exactly what you're doing. Remember that it's the state that has the money behind it. The defense has to pay for any expert to support its case. The state has its own experts, its own forensic lab at its disposal. It's the defendants that go into debt, not the prosecution.

Amanda did report it in her memorial on Nov. 6, the same day it happened:

Quote:

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
Just how many of her "misguided supporters and family" had she conferred with on Nov. 6, 2007, Vix?

It's no coincidence that Lumumba's first account of his non-recorded interrogation included being hit and threats of being imprisoned for 30 years if he didn't confess by the police. Sounds like their standard interrogation M.O. But, of course, he wasn't a suspect when he was dragged out of his house at dawn by the police either, was he, Vixen?

Stacyhs 16th December 2020 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328173)
You are free to report them if you think they have committed a crime.

And yet Mignini sued Sollecito and Gumbel for Honor Bound. Which he lost.

Quote:

Bear in mind, books are generally seen as 'opinion'.
What a silly statement. No, books are seen as belonging to genres.

Stacyhs 16th December 2020 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Exactly! Mignini used lawsuits as a weapon to intimidate not only Knox, but anyone who dared criticize or cross him. He's not the only one. It's a common practice used in Italy by politicians and other prosecutors against journalists especially and why there's an effort to decriminalize defamation. But politicians and those in authority don't want to do that as it takes away a very handy weapon they can wield against the press. Witness how Trump has tried to discredit the press in the US with his Fake News and Enemy of the People campaign. Just imagine if he had the same ability to sue for defamation as the Italians politicians do!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13328179)
Trump is a friend of Amanda Knox.

1. No, he most certainly is not. She detests him and the two have never even met.
Quote:

Even if Trump means well, his schemes tend to be blunt, selfish, and short-sighted, rather than nuanced, empathetic, and thought through."
(Knox on Trump)
You have a very odd idea of what constitutes a friendship.

2. What the hell has that to do with anything in my post?

Quote:

Do we see a pattern here?
Yes: your pattern of failing to support your claims with facts or evidence and instead substituting them with "probablys, mights, likelys, and maybes". That and downright falsehoods.

Bill Williams 16th December 2020 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13328436)
You do know that the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Knox and Sollecito became official suspects during their Nov. 5/6 interrogations, don't you?

You do know that is why their interrogations should have been stopped and they should have been provided lawyers right there and then, but that didn't happen, don't you?

It's unclear why **anyone** argues otherwise. Why?

Because it's what Mignini told CNN's Drew Griffin in 2010. The text of that interview is on TJMK.

Mignini said that the first interrogation had to be stopped at 1:45 am because - as he alleged - Knox had implicated herself. He told Griffin what the relevant statute was, guaranteeing Knox a lawyer from that point onwards.

Except... he then told Knox that she could continue if she wanted, and he'd act "as if only a notary" and write stuff down. He then argued that Knox did **need** a lawyer, after telling Griffin she did. Apparently this became the 5:45 am "confession", which ha had differences from the 1:45 am "confession".

And it had happened without a lawyer present, which Mignini told Drew Griffin had been by-passed on a technicality.

So.... it's amazing that **anyone** would argue she'd not been a suspect at interrogation.

LondonJohn 16th December 2020 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 13328687)
It's unclear why **anyone** argues otherwise. Why?

Because it's what Mignini told CNN's Drew Griffin in 2010. The text of that interview is on TJMK.

Mignini said that the first interrogation had to be stopped at 1:45 am because - as he alleged - Knox had implicated herself. He told Griffin what the relevant statute was, guaranteeing Knox a lawyer from that point onwards.

Except... he then told Knox that she could continue if she wanted, and he'd act "as if only a notary" and write stuff down. He then argued that Knox did **need** a lawyer, after telling Griffin she did. Apparently this became the 5:45 am "confession", which ha had differences from the 1:45 am "confession".

And it had happened without a lawyer present, which Mignini told Drew Griffin had been by-passed on a technicality.

So.... it's amazing that **anyone** would argue she'd not been a suspect at interrogation.



Mignini was arrogant and complacent because this "spontaneous statement" mendacity was exactly the sleight-of-hand con trick he'd been able to use with complete alacrity and complete protection over many years as a public prosecutor. Heck, he was probably schooled in it by one of his predecessors.

And to be (slightly) fair to CNN, neither they nor - apparently - any of their Italy-based journalists understood just how and why this contrajudicial trick was played, seemingly throughout Italy (or at least from Florence southwards....). And I suspect Mignini would have known this, and would therefore have known that his "explanation" would have been uncritically accepted.

I remember writing in these threads some time shortly after the 2015 acquittals/annulments, when there were some around these shores wondering what anyone still had to talk about wrt this case, that aside from following Knox's application through the ECHR adjudication and its aftermath*, and also aside from following Sollecito's and Knox's wider claims for compensation from Italy**, the one other remaining area of interest for me was in discovering whether there might be any professional repercussions for Mignini, Comodi, Stefanoni, Giobbi and the whole team of Italian state police who investigated this crime. And I remember writing then - and several more times since - that, Italy being the judicially- and politically-broken nation that it is, it was extremely unlikely that any of them would ever face anything even approaching proper accountability or sanction for their roles in this sorry, often downright-disgraceful saga.

I still hold that belief.



* and there's still that aftermath to consider, especially given Italy's *less than stellar* track record in applying the required ECHR remedies in a timely and fair manner.

** and I strongly suspect that there will be future developments on both those fronts before long.

Vixen 18th December 2020 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 13328254)
You have no idea of much do you?

This was not Follain's book. He wrote a piece about Knox for (I believe) The Sunday Times. In it he reported on an interview he'd had with Knox's parents. **He** reported what Knox had told the parents. According to them, She'd told them that she'd been hit at interrogation. The parents, acc. to Follain, simply relayed what they'd been told. As was Follain. As was the publisher, The Sunday Times.

For this, Knox's parents had been charged by Mignini. Neither Follain nor the Sunday Times were included in the action. Yet they had participated in the libel. The relevant fact here is that the allegation never got past the charge phase. Clearly, it was Mignini threatening the parents, that they'd never see their daughter again. Strangely, he saw no need to threaten either Follain or the British media!

But back to the original claim you'd made. You'd said that prosecutors **by law** were required to charge those who had done such things. 'Opinions' are defamation, too. Indeed, what else is there?

But one thing is constant. Trips down the Vixen rabbit hole.

BiWi you really need to familiarise yourself with what Obstruction of Justice consists of. There is a big difference between a defendant and her family and friends falsely claiming ot all and sundry of police brutality to garner public support and defeat the ends of justice, and some hack journalist quoting them in a newspaper.

Vixen 18th December 2020 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13328502)
And yet Mignini sued Sollecito and Gumbel for Honor Bound. Which he lost.



What a silly statement. No, books are seen as belonging to genres.

AIUI It was settled out of court which is why you have heard no more about it as it usually includes a confidentiality clause.

AIUI with the consent of the court, which is often the case in libel/defamation cases, Gumbel in exchange for an undisclosed sum and apology, was acquitted.

Vixen 18th December 2020 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13328511)
1. No, he most certainly is not. She detests him and the two have never even met.

(Knox on Trump)
You have a very odd idea of what constitutes a friendship.

2. What the hell has that to do with anything in my post?



Yes: your pattern of failing to support your claims with facts or evidence and instead substituting them with "probablys, mights, likelys, and maybes". That and downright falsehoods.

Once again, you have changed the subject by means of sophistry. We were talking about Trump being characteristic of a typical supporter of Amanda Knox, a white American found guilty of killing someone of a different nationality.

Do we see a pattern here?

BTW has Knox ever sent you a note of thanks for being one of her staunchest defenders? No, I thought not, so you are in the same boat as her other supporters, including Trump.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.