ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito , sexism issues

Closed Thread
Old 17th April 2017, 11:07 AM   #241
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Then the correct thing to do is keep schtum.
Why, does she not have the right to voice her opinion like millions of other people?
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 11:11 AM   #242
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, that is your opinion. I say everyone who fears what Trump is doing should have, and should still, speak out against Trump.

As I said earlier, if Knox had voted for Trump simply because he donated money to her defense, you'd be accusing her of selling her vote. There is nothing Knox can do that you will not twist against her.
If she walked on water, Vixen would say, "Oh look, she can't even swim."

The following is a comment best placed in the new thread Vixen started, but the mods have disallowed comments other than about the McCann's.... but, there has been a consistent, unfair PR campaign against Knox that also includes YouTube stuff and blogs, and even a fake-wiki. None of it can be sustained by even the most surface of allegations or assertions - such things which often fall by clicking on the very links they provide!

I wonder if ISF/JREF would tolerate a thread about the sustained anti-Knox PR campaign?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 11:38 AM   #243
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Why, does she not have the right to voice her opinion like millions of other people?
No. Because several years ago, Trump voluntarily donated some money to her defense fund. She is now morally and ethically obligated to never speak out against the president who is trying to impose a Muslim ban, regulate against women's control of their own bodies, allowing coal mines to dump their toxic waste into our streams and rivers, reversed the Clean Power Plan, trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, build an incredibly expensive (and ultimately useless) wall on the Mexican border, allowed the Keystone Pipeline to be built, and reduce taxes for the richest people in the country while removing programs that benefit the poorest like Meals on Wheels.

In Vixen's view, if someone once donates money to you, you lose all moral and ethical rights to ever speak out against them even if you become aware later that they are a danger to everything you believe in.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 01:05 PM   #244
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No. Because several years ago, Trump voluntarily donated some money to her defense fund. She is now morally and ethically obligated to never speak out against the president who is trying to impose a Muslim ban, regulate against women's control of their own bodies, allowing coal mines to dump their toxic waste into our streams and rivers, reversed the Clean Power Plan, trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, build an incredibly expensive (and ultimately useless) wall on the Mexican border, allowed the Keystone Pipeline to be built, and reduce taxes for the richest people in the country while removing programs that benefit the poorest like Meals on Wheels.

In Vixen's view, if someone once donates money to you, you lose all moral and ethical rights to ever speak out against them even if you become aware later that they are a danger to everything you believe in.
This what I would call the bribe rule. If X donates money to Y than Y by accepting the money has agreed to always be nice to X. Thus since Trump has donated money to Amanda's defence fund he has bribed Amanda and as an ethical bribee she is ethically bound to always say nice things about him.

Now if you think that bribing someone is not ethical than of course Amanda is not ethically obligated to always say nice things about Trump. (Or avoid saying publically anything negative about Trump.).

I find it remarkable that anyone would take Amanda's refusal to be bribed has unethical. Oh and since Trump donated the money to Amanda's defence fund in order to help her pay her legal bills not to bribe her to say nice stuff about him and failing that say nothing negative about him publically,; I fail to see where Amanda had any "ethical" obligation to not diss Trump in public to begin with.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 01:41 PM   #245
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
This what I would call the bribe rule. If X donates money to Y than Y by accepting the money has agreed to always be nice to X. Thus since Trump has donated money to Amanda's defence fund he has bribed Amanda and as an ethical bribee she is ethically bound to always say nice things about him.

Now if you think that bribing someone is not ethical than of course Amanda is not ethically obligated to always say nice things about Trump. (Or avoid saying publically anything negative about Trump.).

I find it remarkable that anyone would take Amanda's refusal to be bribed has unethical. Oh and since Trump donated the money to Amanda's defence fund in order to help her pay her legal bills not to bribe her to say nice stuff about him and failing that say nothing negative about him publically,; I fail to see where Amanda had any "ethical" obligation to not diss Trump in public to begin with.
It's interesting that all the commentary by media recently and harped on by the PGP is based on public statements supporting Amanda Knox that were made by Donald Trump in March, 2010* or earlier, when he was not a candidate for political office, and her recent (2017) public statements disagreeing with some of his policies or methods.

While Trump made public statements supporting Knox's innocence, and claimed to be considering helping her family*, or claimed later to have helped her family, no one has produced any evidence that Trump provided financial assistance to Knox or her family.

As pointed out by others, whether or not Knox supports Trump politically should not be influenced by his statements in her favor or aid to her or her family. The PGP argue otherwise because they have no reasonable, credible arguments demonstrating that Knox was guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher, or of "calunnia" against Patrick Lumumba**, and thus they resort to these distractions.

* See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCIa5WUbTr4

** Knox's complaint that her trial and conviction for calunnia was unfair, a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, is awaiting judgment before the European Court of Human Rights, which considers it a "noteworthy pending case" against Italy, according to the ECHR Country Profile for Italy.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 04:38 PM   #246
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Grinder stuck to his guns there was a difference, conceding even if this was just a public perception, as claimed by the lawyer.

Point is, 'did not commit the act' is not in the wording.
Well it is. It was on the original document when the SC verdict was announced and then too in the motivations. The notion that it was there by accident is clearly ridiculous.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 04:43 PM   #247
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, good lord. I'll just ignore all that "drug dealer" nonsense.

Once again, accepting a donation to her defense fund long before Trump ran for POTUS in no way obligates Knox to vote for him. He didn't buy her vote

Amanda Knox:


(KIRO 7 News)

At this point, I'm surprised some PGP posters haven't condemned Knox for the way she brushes her teeth, her choice of shampoo, and what brand of coffee she drinks. Give 'em time. It really is getting that ridiculous.
Thanks for this. So Trump did donate. We just don't know how much. I do think AK gives a good account here. Eta I note she was grateful for the donation too, so that clears that up.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett

Last edited by toto; 17th April 2017 at 04:46 PM.
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 04:51 PM   #248
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Trump is not a fool. He has been around a long time. He knows legal fees do not amount to $100.


Amanda's attorney Dalla Vedova is involved in huge construction legal issues and has been linked to a mafia-related scandal regarding the building of a bridge legal case. (Trump made his millions in the construction industry.)

Amanda made it plain by her article that she was publicly humiliating him.

She could easily have stated her plan to vote Democrats without bringing in his kind donation to her. (Do felons get a vote in the US?)

Trump oversaw a large amount of fundraising activity when he headed the Celebrity Apprentice USA. I enjoyed that programme and thought Trump a very fair person in whom he fired and in whom he declared winner.

Some of the events raised >$500K, so it will not have been a small sum donated to 'free Amanda Knox'.
But having money raised for charity by other people is not the same as donating himself. We don't have a clue he much he donated and you assume far too much in my opinion.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 04:52 PM   #249
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
This what I would call the bribe rule. If X donates money to Y than Y by accepting the money has agreed to always be nice to X. Thus since Trump has donated money to Amanda's defence fund he has bribed Amanda and as an ethical bribee she is ethically bound to always say nice things about him.

Now if you think that bribing someone is not ethical than of course Amanda is not ethically obligated to always say nice things about Trump. (Or avoid saying publically anything negative about Trump.).

I find it remarkable that anyone would take Amanda's refusal to be bribed has unethical. Oh and since Trump donated the money to Amanda's defence fund in order to help her pay her legal bills not to bribe her to say nice stuff about him and failing that say nothing negative about him publically,; I fail to see where Amanda had any "ethical" obligation to not diss Trump in public to begin with.

You are rather evading the point.

Having accepted the money from Trump, Amanda now claims his motive for supporting her was purely racist. Then why accept the money at all, or at least send it back.

She is not obliged to say anything nice about him. However, it is extremely rude to claim he is a racist for supporting her, yet fail to refund his immoral funds.

If grateful for the donation, then by all means slag off the Republicans and anti-abortionists, but there isn't any need to claim the donation was improper.

Given that this is a woman convicted of accusing her Congolese boss of the murder and rape, getting him arrested in the middle of the night in front of his wife and young family, it is rather RICH her calling Trump a racist. She has not even complied with the court's order to pay Patrick recompense.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 05:17 PM   #250
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are rather evading the point.

Having accepted the money from Trump, Amanda now claims his motive for supporting her was purely racist. Then why accept the money at all, or at least send it back.
It's probably useless to ask for a citation to buttress this claim. Last time you linked to a newspaper account which did not buttress the last round of ludicrous stuff.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 05:27 PM   #251
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are rather evading the point.

Having accepted the money from Trump, Amanda now claims his motive for supporting her was purely racist. Then why accept the money at all, or at least send it back.

She is not obliged to say anything nice about him. However, it is extremely rude to claim he is a racist for supporting her, yet fail to refund his immoral funds.

If grateful for the donation, then by all means slag off the Republicans and anti-abortionists, but there isn't any need to claim the donation was improper.

Given that this is a woman convicted of accusing her Congolese boss of the murder and rape, getting him arrested in the middle of the night in front of his wife and young family, it is rather RICH her calling Trump a racist. She has not even complied with the court's order to pay Patrick recompense.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
PGP posters who consistently display vile hypocrisy in their posts have the cheek to use the term pot kettle black against other posters.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 06:08 PM   #252
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by toto View Post
Thanks for this. So Trump did donate. We just don't know how much. I do think AK gives a good account here. Eta I note she was grateful for the donation too, so that clears that up.
Thanks for pointing out Stacyhs's quote from Amanda Knox; I had missed or forgot the part where Knox acknowledges a donation from Donald Trump.

In my opinion, and according to law, donations, unless given with mutually agreed conditions, do not bind the recipient to endorse the political campaign or a donor, or to not publicly disagree with the public statements of a donor.

According to the motivation report of her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, written by the Hellmann court and made final by the Chieffi CSC panel, Knox named Lumumba to overcome the pressure of the police interrogation. And this naming of Lumumba was at the suggestion of the police. Thus, statements attributing her motive for naming Lumumba as Meredith's murderer to racism are absurd.

Even some prominent members of his own political party, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, have denounced some of Trump's comments as racist, so Knox's statements reflect the opinion of even some who otherwise support Trump. Trump made such comments of his own free will, unlike Knox, who made them during a coercive police interrogation.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 06:30 PM   #253
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are rather evading the point.

Having accepted the money from Trump, Amanda now claims his motive for supporting her was purely racist. Then why accept the money at all, or at least send it back.
She is not obliged to say anything nice about him. However, it is extremely rude to claim he is a racist for supporting her, yet fail to refund his immoral funds.
If grateful for the donation, then by all means slag off the Republicans and anti-abortionists, but there isn't any need to claim the donation was improper.

Given that this is a woman convicted of accusing her Congolese boss of the murder and rape, getting him arrested in the middle of the night in front of his wife and young family, it is rather RICH her calling Trump a racist. She has not even complied with the court's order to pay Patrick recompense.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Highlight #1: That is your twisted interpretation. She does question his refusal to accept that 5 African-American men are innocent despite DNA evidence that they did not commit rape and the confession of the serial rapist who contributed that semen derived DNA. After all, this is the same guy who was sued by the gov't for rental racial discrimination and who has called Mexicans "rapists and killers".

She is under no obligation to return his money any more than Trump is obligated to return any money donated to his campaign fund by those who now regret voting for him.

Highlight #2: Lumumba wasn't arrested "in the middle of the night"; he was arrested in the morning when he and his family were up. Why the need to misrepresent this? You know it wasn't "in the middle of the night", so why the need to misrepresent it? Oh, wait...it's what you do.

You also know (but refuse to acknowledge) that it was the police who brought up Lumumba, not Knox. It was the police who misinterpreted her text and jumped to the conclusion that he was involved. It was the police who incorrectly believed a "black man's hair" was found and connected Lumumba to it. You know all this but your guilt colored glasses blind you to the truth of it.

I have read that Knox is not legally obligated to pay Lumumba while her calunnia conviction has been "appealed" to the ECHR (I know that's not the right legal wording). I have no citation for this but perhaps someone more educated on this can address it. Perhaps Numbers?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 06:49 PM   #254
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Thanks for pointing out Stacyhs's quote from Amanda Knox; I had missed or forgot the part where Knox acknowledges a donation from Donald Trump.

In my opinion, and according to law, donations, unless given with mutually agreed conditions, do not bind the recipient to endorse the political campaign or a donor, or to not publicly disagree with the public statements of a donor.

According to the motivation report of her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, written by the Hellmann court and made final by the Chieffi CSC panel, Knox named Lumumba to overcome the pressure of the police interrogation. And this naming of Lumumba was at the suggestion of the police. Thus, statements attributing her motive for naming Lumumba as Meredith's murderer to racism are absurd.

Even some prominent members of his own political party, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, have denounced some of Trump's comments as racist, so Knox's statements reflect the opinion of even some who otherwise support Trump. Trump made such comments of his own free will, unlike Knox, who made them during a coercive police interrogation.
Lest Vixen (conveniently) forgets, said police interrogation was without a lawyer (which violated her rights under Italian law) and was unrecorded. We have is the police's version of what happened during the interrogation which differs greatly from Knox's. But, of course, they have no motive at all for claiming the interrogation was completely above board, legal, and not coercive. Chamomile tea and cakes, anyone?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 17th April 2017 at 07:00 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 07:10 PM   #255
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,528
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
This what I would call the bribe rule. If X donates money to Y than Y by accepting the money has agreed to always be nice to X. Thus since Trump has donated money to Amanda's defence fund he has bribed Amanda and as an ethical bribee she is ethically bound to always say nice things about him.

Now if you think that bribing someone is not ethical than of course Amanda is not ethically obligated to always say nice things about Trump. (Or avoid saying publically anything negative about Trump.).

I find it remarkable that anyone would take Amanda's refusal to be bribed has unethical. Oh and since Trump donated the money to Amanda's defence fund in order to help her pay her legal bills not to bribe her to say nice stuff about him and failing that say nothing negative about him publically,; I fail to see where Amanda had any "ethical" obligation to not diss Trump in public to begin with.
Vixen's thinking is if Amanda did it, must be bad. I am 100 percent sure if Amanda supported Trump Vixen would have trashed Amanda as not having a mind of her own and she is only supporting Trump because of the money...Therefore Amanda is a prostitute. .
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 08:38 PM   #256
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Highlight #1: That is your twisted interpretation. She does question his refusal to accept that 5 African-American men are innocent despite DNA evidence that they did not commit rape and the confession of the serial rapist who contributed that semen derived DNA. After all, this is the same guy who was sued by the gov't for rental racial discrimination and who has called Mexicans "rapists and killers".

She is under no obligation to return his money any more than Trump is obligated to return any money donated to his campaign fund by those who now regret voting for him.

Highlight #2: Lumumba wasn't arrested "in the middle of the night"; he was arrested in the morning when he and his family were up. Why the need to misrepresent this? You know it wasn't "in the middle of the night", so why the need to misrepresent it? Oh, wait...it's what you do.

You also know (but refuse to acknowledge) that it was the police who brought up Lumumba, not Knox. It was the police who misinterpreted her text and jumped to the conclusion that he was involved. It was the police who incorrectly believed a "black man's hair" was found and connected Lumumba to it. You know all this but your guilt colored glasses blind you to the truth of it.

I have read that Knox is not legally obligated to pay Lumumba while her calunnia conviction has been "appealed" to the ECHR (I know that's not the right legal wording). I have no citation for this but perhaps someone more educated on this can address it. Perhaps Numbers?
I have no information on this. Amanda Knox rightfully flew back home to the US after she was "provisionally" acquitted on the murder/rape charge and released from prison since the acquittal had immediate effect. (All such "provisional" acquittals have immediate effect.) The Hellmann's court provisional conviction of Knox attributed her sentence for "simple" calunnia to three years of imprisonment already served and compensation to Lumumba and costs for his civil suit. The Hellmann court verdict was issued on 3 October 2011.

However, the prosecution appealed the muder/rape acquittal and the lack of aggravating circumstances in the calunnia conviction, while the calunnia judgment was appealed by Knox. Knox did not need to pay the civil suit compensation and costs while the calunnia charges were under appeal. The Chieffi CSC panel heard these appeals and quashed the murder/rape acquittal but made the "simple" calunnia conviction definitive, remanding the case to the Nencini court. The Chieffi CSC panel judgment was issued on 25 March 2013.

Thus, had Knox been resident in Italy on 25 March 2013, she would have been obligated to pay the civil suit compensation. However, because she was legally in the US, outside the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, there was no legal obligation for her to pay the civil damages. And there was no moral obligation for her to pay them, because the calunnia conviction was so clearly the result of a wrongful conviction produced by an unfair trial in which her rights under Italian law (including the Italian Constitution) and ECHR case-law were violated. Knox lodged a complaint against Italy for the calunnia conviction with the ECHR within six months after the publication date (on or about 18 June 2013) of the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report.

I can state that in cases where a person made a payment in accordance with a court judgment that the ECHR ruled unfair, the ECHR ordered the respondent State to compensate the person who made the payment.

Last edited by Numbers; 17th April 2017 at 08:46 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 02:51 AM   #257
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It's interesting that all the commentary by media recently and harped on by the PGP is based on public statements supporting Amanda Knox that were made by Donald Trump in March, 2010* or earlier, when he was not a candidate for political office, and her recent (2017) public statements disagreeing with some of his policies or methods.

While Trump made public statements supporting Knox's innocence, and claimed to be considering helping her family*, or claimed later to have helped her family, no one has produced any evidence that Trump provided financial assistance to Knox or her family.

As pointed out by others, whether or not Knox supports Trump politically should not be influenced by his statements in her favor or aid to her or her family. The PGP argue otherwise because they have no reasonable, credible arguments demonstrating that Knox was guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher, or of "calunnia" against Patrick Lumumba**, and thus they resort to these distractions.

* See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCIa5WUbTr4

** Knox's complaint that her trial and conviction for calunnia was unfair, a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, is awaiting judgment before the European Court of Human Rights, which considers it a "noteworthy pending case" against Italy, according to the ECHR Country Profile for Italy.
Amanda herself said so.


Amanda is, and remains, convicted of a serious criminal offence for which she rightly served three years, and a further one year on remand as an aggravated murder suspect.

Raff's claim for compensation for his four years (remember, he is not convicted) was dismissed on the grounds of his own negligence and for the fact 'Amanda was indisputably present at the murder scene when the young Kercher was killed' and he was almost certainly with her.

The ECHR claim by Amanda of 'Torture' (Art. 3) and Right to a Fair Trial (Art. 6) has not yet even been accepted as 'permissable'.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 02:54 AM   #258
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Vixen's thinking is if Amanda did it, must be bad. I am 100 percent sure if Amanda supported Trump Vixen would have trashed Amanda as not having a mind of her own and she is only supporting Trump because of the money...Therefore Amanda is a prostitute. .
She didn't have to mention the donation at all.

Given that she accepted it and was enormously in Trump's debt for the financial help, it defies belief that she should criticise him as 'racist' for giving it to her.

What type of person accepts money from a blackguard and then brags about how they ripped them off?
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 02:57 AM   #259
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Lest Vixen (conveniently) forgets, said police interrogation was without a lawyer (which violated her rights under Italian law) and was unrecorded. We have is the police's version of what happened during the interrogation which differs greatly from Knox's. But, of course, they have no motive at all for claiming the interrogation was completely above board, legal, and not coercive. Chamomile tea and cakes, anyone?
You are only automatically entitled to a lawyer if you are a suspect.

As soon as she became a suspect - when she put herself and Patrick at the crime scene - the interview was terminated.

She attended the questura entirely uninvited and of her own volition.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 03:10 AM   #260
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Highlight #1: That is your twisted interpretation. She does question his refusal to accept that 5 African-American men are innocent despite DNA evidence that they did not commit rape and the confession of the serial rapist who contributed that semen derived DNA. After all, this is the same guy who was sued by the gov't for rental racial discrimination and who has called Mexicans "rapists and killers".

She is under no obligation to return his money any more than Trump is obligated to return any money donated to his campaign fund by those who now regret voting for him.

Highlight #2: Lumumba wasn't arrested "in the middle of the night"; he was arrested in the morning when he and his family were up. Why the need to misrepresent this? You know it wasn't "in the middle of the night", so why the need to misrepresent it? Oh, wait...it's what you do.

You also know (but refuse to acknowledge) that it was the police who brought up Lumumba, not Knox. It was the police who misinterpreted her text and jumped to the conclusion that he was involved. It was the police who incorrectly believed a "black man's hair" was found and connected Lumumba to it. You know all this but your guilt colored glasses blind you to the truth of it.

I have read that Knox is not legally obligated to pay Lumumba while her calunnia conviction has been "appealed" to the ECHR (I know that's not the right legal wording). I have no citation for this but perhaps someone more educated on this can address it. Perhaps Numbers?

It is rubbish to say Amanda 'is not legally obligated to pay Lumumba while her calunnia conviction has been "appealed" to the ECHR'. The ECHR has absolutely no jurisdiction over Italian law.


The 'black man's hair' you claim police found was black fibre.


It was Amanda who brought up Patrick's name.


AIUI It was early morning when Patrick was arrested. As a late-night bar owner, he probably was still in bed.


According to the TELEGRAPH 6 Mar 2009:

Quote:
Last week the court heard that Miss Knox, who worked part-time as a waitress in Mr Lumumba's pub, pointed the blamed at him after police asked her to provide the names and telephone numbers of Miss Kercher's friends.
Scrolling through the contacts list on her mobile phone, she reached that of Mr Lumumba and allegedly started crying, telling a police officer: "It was him, it was him, he was crazy, he killed her."
He was arrested shortly afterwards, four days after Miss Kercher's body was discovered, half-naked and in a pool of blood.

How is this any different from Susan Smith or Nathan Till.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 03:15 AM   #261
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Thanks for pointing out Stacyhs's quote from Amanda Knox; I had missed or forgot the part where Knox acknowledges a donation from Donald Trump.

In my opinion, and according to law, donations, unless given with mutually agreed conditions, do not bind the recipient to endorse the political campaign or a donor, or to not publicly disagree with the public statements of a donor.

According to the motivation report of her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, written by the Hellmann court and made final by the Chieffi CSC panel, Knox named Lumumba to overcome the pressure of the police interrogation. And this naming of Lumumba was at the suggestion of the police. Thus, statements attributing her motive for naming Lumumba as Meredith's murderer to racism are absurd.

Even some prominent members of his own political party, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, have denounced some of Trump's comments as racist, so Knox's statements reflect the opinion of even some who otherwise support Trump. Trump made such comments of his own free will, unlike Knox, who made them during a coercive police interrogation.
Stop dissembling. Amanda Knox remains convicted for life for the calumny against Patrick Lumumba.

Every court determined it was malicious and unfounded and that she knew he was innocent when she made her claim, entirely without any pressure. Marasca - the final Supreme Court - states she did so to 'cover up for Rudy'.


Stop trying to revise history with your quasi-legal outpourings.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 03:22 AM   #262
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's probably useless to ask for a citation to buttress this claim. Last time you linked to a newspaper account which did not buttress the last round of ludicrous stuff.
As well as Amanda's own article, we have the evidence that Trump is a close friend of Guido Lombardi and the latter is a publicist for him in Europe.

You can see the alleged ties here.

Quote:
The Lombardi-Trump relationship
Lombardi and Trump have been friends for years (see the bottom story about Ronald Kessler’s book release party). He also lives in Trump Tower just a few floors away (though apparently not just as a “Trump supporter” and a Lega Nord “sympathizer”).
And also:

Quote:
Guido Lombardi, the Lega Nord, Marine Le Pen, and the National Front
The clip from the film that you should watch starts at 26:59 and goes for another nine minutes and 45 seconds. In it, close Trump friend and "shadow adviser" Guido “George” Lombardi, a longtime representative of the extreme right-wing Italian party Lega Nord1 (Northern League), takes the French team to Trump's campaign HQ. Up to that time, they were the only cameras that had ever entered. To my knowledge, no one else has made it that far again.

To say 'nobody knew of Trump's far right sympathies until he was elected' is being disingenuous, as even the Republicans were loath to nominate him.

Fair enough, knock his policies, but if he has bankrolled you out of a life sentence in jail, don't knock him for it as a 'racist'.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 05:27 AM   #263
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As well as Amanda's own article, we have the evidence that Trump is a close friend of Guido Lombardi and the latter is a publicist for him in Europe.

You can see the alleged ties here.



And also:




To say 'nobody knew of Trump's far right sympathies until he was elected' is being disingenuous, as even the Republicans were loath to nominate him.

Fair enough, knock his policies, but if he has bankrolled you out of a life sentence in jail, don't knock him for it as a 'racist'.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Provide a link showing that Trump "bankrolled" the acquittal. Provide the moral contect where funding a defence muzzles the wrongfully accused.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 05:42 AM   #264
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This makes no sense whatsoever. Provide a link showing that Trump "bankrolled" the acquittal. Provide the moral contect where funding a defence muzzles the wrongfully accused.

It's called, 'manners'.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 06:36 AM   #265
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She didn't have to mention the donation at all.

Given that she accepted it and was enormously in Trump's debt for the financial help, it defies belief that she should criticise him as 'racist' for giving it to her.

What type of person accepts money from a blackguard and then brags about how they ripped them off?
Your ability to continually twist and distort to the point where things no longer even remotely resembles what they started out as is as impressive as it is disturbing.

You have no idea how much he donated yet you are now up to "enormously in Trump's debt". You have no idea how much money he donated but I get it - you need to build everything up for dramatic effect.

She considers him a racist because of his position on the Central Park Five. It has nothing to do with the fact that he donated to her defense fund. This is exactly the type of screwed up reasoning you use throughout this case.

Quote:
Given that this is a woman convicted of accusing her Congolese boss of the murder and rape, getting him arrested in the middle of the night in front of his wife and young family
It is a proven fact the police misinterpreted the SMS message and felt it was proof Amanda met Lumumba that evening. Not even the police dispute that is what they believed.

The interrogation was not recorded, no lawyer was provided and the "interpreter" they provided worked for the police and actively worked to convince Amanda she was repressing memories due to trauma. Not exactly overwhelming evidence that Amanda deliberately fingered Lumumba. Regardless, it was NOT Amanda's fault the police failed to do even the most basic of background checks on Lumumba before arresting him. If they had they would have uncovered several patrons who would confirm he was at his bar working. It wasn't Amanda that forced the police to go arrest him in his home in front of his wife and child. This was five days after the murder and he had been continuing his life, running his bar all along. There was absolutely no reason to suspect he was a risk for flight or further crimes. They could have put him under surveillance until the completed their investigation into him. And, I suppose, you think it was Amanda's fault the police kept the bar closed another six weeks after his release.

No, the police did what they did because they wanted to make a big splash and become international heroes. Similarly, you like to try to blame everything on Amanda because writing nasty things about innocent people is what you do.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 06:37 AM   #266
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's called, 'manners'.
Manners? You still haven't pointed to anything remotely supportive of your wild claims, except claiming that receiving a donation to your defence binds you forever to any future folly of the donor.

Why? It's the moral equivalent to offering your seat to the elderly.

You still have not substantiated that Knox called him a racist or that he "bankrolled" her defence. But we knew that would happen.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 18th April 2017 at 06:38 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 06:50 AM   #267
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As well as Amanda's own article, we have the evidence that Trump is a close friend of Guido Lombardi and the latter is a publicist for him in Europe.

You can see the alleged ties here.



And also:




To say 'nobody knew of Trump's far right sympathies until he was elected' is being disingenuous, as even the Republicans were loath to nominate him.

Fair enough, knock his policies, but if he has bankrolled you out of a life sentence in jail, don't knock him for it as a 'racist'.
Incredible, you really are incapable of learning anything and correcting your mistakes.

How many times have you been told Lombardi is NOT Trump's publicist? Even the cites you provide never mention publicist. Yet you continue to refer to him as such.

How many times have you been told it was Trump's position on the Central Park Five that motivated Amanda to refer to Trump as a racist. It had nothing to do with his donating to her defense fund.

ETA: How many times have you been told Amanda never faced a life sentence yet you keep referring to it as a life sentence.

Who said "nobody knew" ? I know several of us suggested perhaps Amanda didn't know, which is why what she thinks of Trump today has no bearing on accepting a donation years earlier.

I think I have a new term for people like you... a Distortionary. You distort everything to fit your vision.

Last edited by TruthCalls; 18th April 2017 at 06:52 AM.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 07:08 AM   #268
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,528
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She didn't have to mention the donation at all.

Given that she accepted it and was enormously in Trump's debt for the financial help, it defies belief that she should criticise him as 'racist' for giving it to her.

What type of person accepts money from a blackguard and then brags about how they ripped them off?
Nonsense and totally absurd. She was not in Trump's debt. She thanked him and that was all that required. To suggest that from that moment on she was not entitled to her own voice would be pathetic. Trump is a racist. He did publish an ad suggesting NY bring back the death penalty and condemned the Central Park 5.

Also Trump already said he had donated to her defense. He had said it on multiple occasions. This was common knowledge and she had said in her book that some of Trump's comments were counter productive.

And you're lying again to say that Amanda had 'bragged that she ripped Mr Trump off' Why do you do this over and over and over again?

Get off your silly high horse.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 07:47 AM   #269
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
And you're lying again to say that Amanda had 'bragged that she ripped Mr Trump off' Why do you do this over and over and over again?

Get off your silly high horse.
Given that this thread is called, "The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito", one wonders why anyone would need to stoop to these childish claims to make their case. Consider just how far the poster is from the forensics in the murder room with this!

Imagine that Knox had, in fact, leaned out the window atop the Space Needle and yelled, "Ya'hooo, I ripped off a future president of these United States"? Imagine she is in reality the worst human being possible, a combination of Lizzie Borden and the Mata Hari.

Does that change that all courts agreed that the crime back in 2007 (before Trump had even heard of Amanda Knox) was unpremeditated? This was so much so that the two convicting courts had to invent out of whole cloth (with no evidence led) why Knox would take a knife from Raffaele's to the cottage for innocent reasons!!!

But let's not talk about that. Let's make wild claims about "Trump bankrolling her defence," and let's hardly ever mention Raffaele except as a puppy-dog footnote.

And forget Rudy Guede, the only one who actually fled Perugia after the crime.

This case is as easy to solve as it it horrid. That this 25th continuation on JREF/ISF is wasting time on whether or not Knox is an ungrateful cretin because Trump may or may not have bankrolled her defence says it all.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 18th April 2017 at 07:49 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 08:33 AM   #270
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,528
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Given that this thread is called, "The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito", one wonders why anyone would need to stoop to these childish claims to make their case. Consider just how far the poster is from the forensics in the murder room with this!

Imagine that Knox had, in fact, leaned out the window atop the Space Needle and yelled, "Ya'hooo, I ripped off a future president of these United States"? Imagine she is in reality the worst human being possible, a combination of Lizzie Borden and the Mata Hari.

Does that change that all courts agreed that the crime back in 2007 (before Trump had even heard of Amanda Knox) was unpremeditated? This was so much so that the two convicting courts had to invent out of whole cloth (with no evidence led) why Knox would take a knife from Raffaele's to the cottage for innocent reasons!!!

But let's not talk about that. Let's make wild claims about "Trump bankrolling her defence," and let's hardly ever mention Raffaele except as a puppy-dog footnote.

And forget Rudy Guede, the only one who actually fled Perugia after the crime.

This case is as easy to solve as it it horrid. That this 25th continuation on JREF/ISF is wasting time on whether or not Knox is an ungrateful cretin because Trump may or may not have bankrolled her defence says it all.

You're so right. What makes me laugh is despite all of the demonizing and vilifying that Vixen et al have done I can't think of a single thing that Amanda has done that makes me think negatively about her. Not one. There have been paparazzi and reporters digging through her life for 10 years and what have we seen? Wild parties? DUIs? Drunk and disorderly? Assault? Vandalism? Possession of illegal drugs? Ex boyfriends trashing her? Nope, none of this. Instead we get pictures of Amanda leaving a thrift store or singing karaoke or on the UW campus. I hear about a couple of boyfriends and an occasional article in a small newspaper. For such a supposedly wild and out of control horrible young woman she sure manages to hide it very well. I don't think badly of Amanda accepting money from Trump and then having the courage to oppose his attempt to become President. In fact I highly approve. One should keep in mind that Trump almost NEVER donates his own money any way. Pretty much all of his donations came from his foundation which he contributed very little to.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 09:14 AM   #271
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You're so right. What makes me laugh is despite all of the demonizing and vilifying that Vixen et al have done I can't think of a single thing that Amanda has done that makes me think negatively about her. Not one. There have been paparazzi and reporters digging through her life for 10 years and what have we seen? Wild parties? DUIs? Drunk and disorderly? Assault? Vandalism? Possession of illegal drugs? Ex boyfriends trashing her? Nope, none of this. Instead we get pictures of Amanda leaving a thrift store or singing karaoke or on the UW campus. I hear about a couple of boyfriends and an occasional article in a small newspaper. For such a supposedly wild and out of control horrible young woman she sure manages to hide it very well.
The first such vilification - out of whole cloth - was an unsolved knifing in Seattle about a month after her return. Guess what the trolls said?

The second such vilification was Knox dressing for Hallowe'en 2011 as a Seattle Sounder soccer player; complete with curly-cue mustache because the soccer player in question was a Frenchman.

Guess what the trolls said? That Knox had dissed the Kerchers by dressing as a cat-burglar on the fourth anniversary of the horrible murder.

There were only two things wrong with that. Oct 31 is not the anniversary. And the French soccer player who'd played for the Sounders had never been a cat burglar.

Without feeding too much into LondonJohn's over-psychologizing things (MOO), it does give one pause what is going on.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 09:28 AM   #272
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
"The ECHR claim by Amanda of 'Torture' (Art. 3) and Right to a Fair Trial (Art. 6) has not yet even been accepted as 'permissable'."

This is an odd statement. One minor point: "permissable" is not the ECHR term; the terminology is "admissible". On a more important issue of terminology, the Article 3 allegation is violation of the prohibition of "inhuman and degrading treatment", not of "torture". Such exaggerations and misstatements are characteristics of the PGP arguments, posted in attempt to hide the lack of substance or evidence in their arguments.

Most importantly, the ECHR, in its Country Profile for Italy, lists the Knox v. Italy case as a "noteworthy pending case". That means the case is awaiting judgment by the ECHR. This means that the case as a whole is considered admissible and there will certainly be a judgment in the "reasonable ECHR near future" - which may be 2017 or 2018; the case is considered important from a human rights perspective by the ECHR.

Here is the relevant text from the Country Profile for Italy:

"Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13)

Case communicated to the parties in April 2016

This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.

Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?.../factsheets&c=
Link to "Italy" under Country Profiles (lower part of page); See p. 12

Last edited by Numbers; 18th April 2017 at 09:55 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 09:52 AM   #273
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop dissembling. 1, Amanda Knox remains convicted for life for the calumny against Patrick Lumumba.

2. Every court determined it was malicious and unfounded and that she knew he was innocent when she made her claim, entirely without any pressure. Marasca - the final Supreme Court - states she did so to 'cover up for Rudy'.


3. Stop trying to revise history with your quasi-legal outpourings.
1. This conviction is to be reviewed as the alleged result of an unfair trial, contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights, by the ECHR. This information has been posted many times on this forum. Here is the ECHR statement on the case:

http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?.../factsheets&c=
Link to Country Profile for Italy (PDF); See p. 12.

The ECHR will judge this case, which it labels a "noteworthy pending case" against Italy, probably in 2017 or 2018.

When the ECHR finds that Italy has violated Knox's rights in subjecting her to an unfair trial contrary to the Convention, Italy will be obligated, under the solemn treaty it signed to become a founding member of the Council of Europe, to correct and redress the violation. Thus, under an Italian Constitutional Court decision, Knox will be entitled to request a revision trial, and Italy will be obligated under the Convention to use that mechanism to acquit her of the calunnia charge. If Italy were somehow not to do so, it would be another violation of the Convention and lead to another ECHR case and actions by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

2. There are flat-out falsehoods in this statement. The Hellmann court did not rule that she acted with malice, and instead stated that she made her statement to relieve the pressure of the interrogation. The Marasca CSC panel made no statement endorsing the claim that she covered up for Guede; the statement you apparently refer to was part of the Marasca review of the Nencini motivation report.

3. Perhaps some careful reading of the available materials without bias on your part would enlighten your arguments and allow you to understand the basics of this case of wrongful conviction of Knox for calunnia and the wrongful conviction for murder/rape of Knox and Sollecito followed by their definitive acquittal - that is, exoneration.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th April 2017 at 09:53 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 10:58 AM   #274
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are only automatically entitled to a lawyer if you are a suspect.

As soon as she became a suspect - when she put herself and Patrick at the crime scene - the interview was terminated.

She attended the questura entirely uninvited and of her own volition.
Give me a break. Only a fool believes Amanda was only a "witness" and not a suspect by the time she walked into the questura on Nov. 5. Even Mignini has admitted he suspected her two days after the murder: “Undoubtedly I started to suspect Amanda.” (Netflix documentary).

Are "witnesses" secretly recorded in the police station waiting room for 3 days? Do "witnesses" have their phones wiretapped and recorded starting a day after the murder?
You really think the police would call Raffaele in at 10:00 at night because they thought he was only a "witness"?


The head of police, E. Giobbi declared he knew she was guilty when he saw her and Raffaele eating pizza a couple days after the murder because she should have been in bed crying. (reporter P. Ciolino)

"Erika Pontini, who covered the case in Perugia for La Nazione of Florence and who was close to Officer Napoleoni, recalled, “On the night of the fifth, we knew, journalists knew, something was going to happen. They thought Sollecito was the fragile link in the chain.”
(Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 190). )

Keep trotting out the "witness" vs "suspect" nonsense for those who don't know better. I suspect even you know better but just can't admit it to yourself much less anyone else.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 11:42 AM   #275
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Give me a break. Only a fool believes Amanda was only a "witness" and not a suspect by the time she walked into the questura on Nov. 5. Even Mignini has admitted he suspected her two days after the murder: “Undoubtedly I started to suspect Amanda.” (Netflix documentary).

Are "witnesses" secretly recorded in the police station waiting room for 3 days? Do "witnesses" have their phones wiretapped and recorded starting a day after the murder?
You really think the police would call Raffaele in at 10:00 at night because they thought he was only a "witness"?


The head of police, E. Giobbi declared he knew she was guilty when he saw her and Raffaele eating pizza a couple days after the murder because she should have been in bed crying. (reporter P. Ciolino)

"Erika Pontini, who covered the case in Perugia for La Nazione of Florence and who was close to Officer Napoleoni, recalled, “On the night of the fifth, we knew, journalists knew, something was going to happen. They thought Sollecito was the fragile link in the chain.”
(Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 190). )

Keep trotting out the "witness" vs "suspect" nonsense for those who don't know better. I suspect even you know better but just can't admit it to yourself much less anyone else.
VQA (same rank* as the Perugia chief-of-police) Giobbi testified in the Massei trial that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were suspects before they entered the police station on Nov. 5. Giobbi's testimony included stating that Amanda was "suspected" because of her behavior - he stated she became an investigative target when she, in his perception, wiggled her hips and shouted "voila" after putting on booties (protective shoe covers) before they went to view the downstairs flat of the cottage.

He claims in his testimony he had set up questioning for them for Nov 5-6. Excerpt:

"P {Judge Massei}: ... especially the motivations of investigative activity maybe if you can dwell on investigative same.

T {Dr. Giobbi}: This is the investigative activity President, I said that in the light of these acquisitions, which are then also meditate on the basis of professional experience, we decided to hear the two together Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito inside the police headquarters the night before Decree custody issued by the Public Prosecutor. This is to say roughly the investigative path that I personally conducted with colleague Profazio to support and help the squad."

* Vice questore aggiunto {Deputy vice-superintendent ?}

Last edited by Numbers; 18th April 2017 at 11:54 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 11:52 AM   #276
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is rubbish to say Amanda 'is not legally obligated to pay Lumumba while her calunnia conviction has been "appealed" to the ECHR'. The ECHR has absolutely no jurisdiction over Italian law.

The 'black man's hair' you claim police found was black fibre.


It was Amanda who brought up Patrick's name.


AIUI It was early morning when Patrick was arrested. As a late-night bar owner, he probably was still in bed.


According to the TELEGRAPH 6 Mar 2009:




How is this any different from Susan Smith or Nathan Till.
1) I didn't say she had no obligation to pay the fine. I said

Quote:
I have read that Knox is not legally obligated to pay Lumumba while her calunnia conviction has been "appealed" to the ECHR (I know that's not the right legal wording). I have no citation for this but perhaps someone more educated on this can address it. Perhaps Numbers?
Note I am not stating it as a fact but only as something I read, said I had no citation, and asked if anyone here could address it. Why the need for you to present it as anything other than what it is?

2) Another twisting of my words which were:
Quote:
It was the police who incorrectly believed a "black man's hair" was found and connected Lumumba to it.
What part of "incorrectly believed" is eluding you? I made no claim one was found. But at the time of the interrogation, it is what the police believed because they had failed to wait for the forensic results. Massiei wrote "As for what appeared to be hair like filaments on the victim's body, when examined under a microscope they appeared to be strands of wool...". So the police suspected a black man was involved from this "evidence". Do you really think they didn't recognize the name "Lumumba" as being African when they asked about the misunderstood text message?

3) If you understand it was "early morning" then why did you write "in the middle of the night"? More dramatic effect? There is no evidence Lumumba was "still in bed" but that's a nice touch. He makes no mention of that at all in his infamous "I fired Foxy Knoxy" fantasy. Nor does he mention being dragged off by the police in his pajamas. What he does mention is being punched, kicked, and hit on the head by them.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 18th April 2017 at 11:57 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 11:57 AM   #277
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Vixen
2. Every court determined it was malicious and unfounded and that she knew he was innocent when she made her claim, entirely without any pressure. Marasca - the final Supreme Court - states she did so to 'cover up for Rudy'.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
2. There are flat-out falsehoods in this statement. ........... The Marasca CSC panel made no statement endorsing the claim that she covered up for Guede; the statement you apparently refer to was part of the Marasca review of the Nencini motivation report.
The Marasca-Bruno report first summarizes the charges which were in front of the original Massei court.....
Quote:
KNOX ALONE furthermore [is accused] of: F) of the offence under C.P. Articles 81 second section, 368 section 2, and 61 no. 2, for having, with several actions [all] executing a single criminal plan, via an accusation lodged in the course of statements given to the Mobile Squad at the Questura [police station] of Perugia, on the date of November 6, 2007, falsely accused DIYA LUMUMBA, known as “Patrick”, of the crime of homicide against the young MEREDITH KERCHER, knowing him innocent, all with the aim of obtaining impunity for all [involved] and in particular for RUDY HERMANN GUEDE, himself [a person] of color as LUMUMBA; in Perugia, on the night between November 5 and 6, 2007.
Marasca/Bruno in 2015 are summarizing the charges as heard by the Massei court in 2009.

Then there is the "circumstantial evidence" which M/B say "could be considered" as "an initiative to cover for Guede".

This is part of that long section 9.4.1 which summarizes what Marasca-Bruno think Nencini thought of as the evidence. Note, not M/B, but Nencini, and the point for writing this is not for M/B to sustain Nencini's fact-finding, but to make a ruling as to whether or not Nencini's "evidentiary framework" should have led to a conviction:
Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
9.4.1. With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it can now be observed that her presence in the house at the scene of the crime was considered an established fact during the trial.........
Does the past tense of "was considered" have no meaning to Vixen?

The items in 9.4.1 which were summariazed, are the items considered as "established fact" at the Nencini trial.
- that Knox was in the kitchen listening to screams
- traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom"
Note that M/B pause at this point to write what it is that they are considering, and why all of this is nonsense.... a pause M/B feel a need to make just in case a reader mistakes this summary of Nencini's views as being endorsed by them.....
Quote:
Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.
Then M/B resume summarizing, with the implied caveat, "even if all the below is accepted"!
- the calumny against Lumumba by Knox could be seen as "an initiative to cover for Guede"
- only someone with a "qualified relationship" to the home would have simulated a burglary
- contradictions by the accused in SMS records
- witnesses like Curatolo who saw Knox in the plaza
- Quintavalle who saw Knox trying to buy cleaning products the ext morning
- biological traces labeled from A to I.
At this point Marasca/Bruno's writing starts to show how much they actually don't believe what Nencini had found as factual, expressing an opinion that it would be silly to consider Knox having habitually carried a knife!

.......... and that (finally) in no way can the footprints found at the scene be traced to the appellant.

M/B then start 9.4.2 which is the "evidentiary framework" Nencini had tried to build about Sollecito.

So it is clear - what the Marasca-Bruno report is doing, is patently not finding certain items as factual. What they are doing is as summarized in 9.4.3 which is the point of an appeal - whether or not the evidentiary framework that the lower court thought it had had supported conviction.

Meaning, EVEN IF ALL THE ABOVE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS TRUE:
Quote:
9.4.3. It can easily be observed that the conclusion that there was a lack of an evidentiary framework consistent and sufficient to support the prosecution’s hypothesis regarding the more serious case of murder certainly reverberates on the residual, secondary accusations, listed here, d) theft of cellular phones and e) simulation of a crime.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 18th April 2017 at 12:01 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 12:20 PM   #278
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
The Marasca-Bruno report first summarizes the charges which were in front of the original Massei court.....
Marasca/Bruno in 2015 are summarizing the charges as heard by the Massei court in 2009.

Then there is the "circumstantial evidence" which M/B say "could be considered" as "an initiative to cover for Guede".

This is part of that long section 9.4.1 which summarizes what Marasca-Bruno think Nencini thought of as the evidence. Note, not M/B, but Nencini, and the point for writing this is not for M/B to sustain Nencini's fact-finding, but to make a ruling as to whether or not Nencini's "evidentiary framework" should have led to a conviction:
Does the past tense of "was considered" have no meaning to Vixen?

The items in 9.4.1 which were summariazed, are the items considered as "established fact" at the Nencini trial.
- that Knox was in the kitchen listening to screams
- traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom"
Note that M/B pause at this point to write what it is that they are considering, and why all of this is nonsense.... a pause M/B feel a need to make just in case a reader mistakes this summary of Nencini's views as being endorsed by them.....
Then M/B resume summarizing, with the implied caveat, "even if all the below is accepted"!
- the calumny against Lumumba by Knox could be seen as "an initiative to cover for Guede"
- only someone with a "qualified relationship" to the home would have simulated a burglary
- contradictions by the accused in SMS records
- witnesses like Curatolo who saw Knox in the plaza
- Quintavalle who saw Knox trying to buy cleaning products the ext morning
- biological traces labeled from A to I.
At this point Marasca/Bruno's writing starts to show how much they actually don't believe what Nencini had found as factual, expressing an opinion that it would be silly to consider Knox having habitually carried a knife!

.......... and that (finally) in no way can the footprints found at the scene be traced to the appellant.

M/B then start 9.4.2 which is the "evidentiary framework" Nencini had tried to build about Sollecito.

So it is clear - what the Marasca-Bruno report is doing, is patently not finding certain items as factual. What they are doing is as summarized in 9.4.3 which is the point of an appeal - whether or not the evidentiary framework that the lower court thought it had had supported conviction.

Meaning, EVEN IF ALL THE ABOVE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS TRUE:
Bill, will you please stop confusing this issue with facts? Please rely on innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations, misrepresentation, twisting of words, gross exaggerations, and rumor.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 12:49 PM   #279
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 551
When PGP attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime, we see yet another example of grotesque and disgusting hypocrisy from PGP posters.

This is from Vixen’s post dated 20.03.2016 “and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.”. There is no evidence Vinci used photoshop.
As I have pointed in the post below, Vixen makes a false allegation Hellman was bribed.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11764307

PGP posters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime but spread lies that people have committed crimes. PGP posters constantly attack Amanda and lying and then spread malicious lies about people.
Quintavelle when questioned by the police shortly after the murder if he had seen Amanda in his shop, said he had not seen her. He gave a completely different account a year later to a newspaper reporter and said he had seen her which clearly indicates that Quintavelle lied. Curalto did not come forward until months later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele in the square which indicates he lied. Rudy Guede lied Amanda was at the cottage. PGP posters attack Amanda for making false accusations against Lumumba but feel it was perfectly acceptable for people to make false accusations against Amanda. PGP posters brand Amanda a liar but defend Quintavelle, Curalto and Rudy Guede who spread lies about Amanda.

Patrick Lumumb initially described brutal treatment by the police in an interview to the Daily Mail. His bar was kept shut by the police after he was released which deprived him of his livelihood. PGP posters are strangely silent about the brutal treatment Lumumba received from the police. As can be seen from the link below Lumumba told numerous lies and PGP posters defend Lumumba. Yet another example of PGP posters attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying whilst supporting liars.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/patrick-lumumba/
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 12:54 PM   #280
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Bill, will you please stop confusing this issue with facts? Please rely on innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations, misrepresentation, twisting of words, gross exaggerations, and rumor.
The real mystery?

Why is it that the PGP who are left go on and on only about "Knox scrubbing blood from her hands," and "Knox was found as covering for Guede"? Why do they stop there when claiming that the final Marasca/Bruno found some things as factual?

I think I know why.

Because they'd also, then, have to say that Marasca-Bruno also found as factual:
- that Knox was in the kitchen listening to screams
- traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom" is indictaive of guilt
- only someone with a "qualified relationship" to the home would have simulated a burglary
- contradictions by the accused in SMS records means also she was trying to cover for Guede
- witnesses like Curatolo who saw Knox in the plaza is factual
- Quintavalle who saw Knox trying to buy cleaning products the next morning is also factual
- biological traces labeled from A to I also point to guilt.
However, Marasca/Bruno state as plainly as can be what it thought of the "amnesiac" investigation that produced these "facts".

So the reason why the PGP don't just simply include all of the above as indicative of Knox's guilt - is because this is exactly the "evidentiary framework" that Marasca/Bruno found so wanting!!!!!!! (Do the extra "!" help make the point?)

It would also open the PGP to the accusation that they believe the case had been definitively ended by the Nencini decision, when it was the M/B criticism of the Nencini's "evidentiary framework" by them which led to the acquittals. They always miss that step.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 18th April 2017 at 12:56 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.