Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

Here's one more article of interest; this one is from Italy, in Italian, and shows that the Italian media had the name of Rudy Guede on 19 November 2007; the article also includes a claim that investigators were circulating in public places with Guede's photo:


Source: https://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/2007/11/20/47946-rudy_guede_ecco_quarto_uomo.shtml

Google translation:

What I get for the date is:

{{IMG_SX}} Perugia, November 19, 2007, thus it appears to be based on various parameters other than real time.



.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Another question that you didn't answer, Vixen. If, as you assert, it's so blindingly obvious that members of the Court of Cassation were bribed or otherwise influenced by the Mafia to annul the conviction, then why was no one ever prosecuted? As discussed, you can't claim that there's an ongoing investigation [ETA: of which we're unaware], as the statute of limitations has run.

 

[Vixen]

However, I forgot that there's another correction, assuming that the time stamp on the article is the local zone time of the computer accessing the article equivalent to the time as stamped in New York. My computer is on our zone's Daylight savings time now, while in November it would be on Standard time. The same is true for New York. This suggests that the original New York time stamp and mine would each gain an hour for the equivalent Standard times. So, if the original New York time stamp for the article was 12:10 pm Standard time in November, because of Daylight Savings Time it would now (in May) be 1:10 pm. Thus, my DST correction would make my November Standard zone time read 11:10 am. The time in Perugia and Italy for the release of Rudy Guede's name and photo to the public through the media would then be no later than about 6 pm (18:00 on the 24-hour clock).

I think the whole point being missed is that Knox didn't know the 'fourth person's' name as of the time Curt Knox was visiting, is what John Follain is implying. When she asked Curt Knox, is his name Rudy, when he replies he doesn't know yet, she quickly says she saw the name on TV. Hmmm.



.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It was not a joke. I was pointing out that a 'cut throat' gesture does NOT mean 'she had her throat slit' as Altieri tried to waffle his way out of explaining how he knew, to tell Knox. A 'cut throat' gesture very commonly means, 'finito', 'the end', 'finished'.


Do you still want to labour the point??



.

Are you being deliberately obtuse again? You claimed that your statement about a judge who's a Freemason's letting a fellow Freemason off "with a wink and a nod," (or words to that effect) was made in jest, not the alleged throat-cutting gesture (which I still maintain could have been the medic's indicating to a police officer or another medic the location of Meredith's wounds).

 

[Vixen]

I've expressed no such thing. That's just your usual dishonest attempt to mischaracterize criticism of your conspiracy theories as evidence of discomfort or fear on the part of your critics. As I (and others elsewhere) have mentioned repeatedly, and you've ignored as always, this is basic Conspiracism 101, and most of us have seen it many times before.


He drowned, but your "logical, mathematical, and objective mindset" is apparently incapable of accepting that the confused initial reports and conspiracy-mongering stating that he had survived were simply mistaken. That's not due to curiosity, any more than Anders Björkman's denial of the existence of nuclear weapons and the possibility of human space flight are due to curiosity, despite your attempts to spin them as such because you don't want to admit that he's a raving lunatic conspiracy theorist. And because of your well-known penchant for twisting people's words, I suppose I need to add that, no, I did not just call you a raving lunatic, or imply that you are one.


See above.


Because it is. You are theorizing that the CIA and the Swedish government conspired to "disappear" him and other senior officers of the Estonia, who somehow survived the sinking.


I should probably just leave the damned thing unplugged.





You're projecting again.


Understand all the lies fed to the Italian press by the police and parroted by the British tabloids?


Straw man (for about the 100th time).


Which never makes mistakes, except when they rule in favor of Amanda Knox, in which case they're always mistaken or corrupt.


Irrelevant. And in any case, the US legal system is an outgrowth of the English legal system, which is roughly as old.


So tell us, Vixen, why has Italy had an order of magnitude more cases accepted by the ECHR than either the UK, France, Germany, or Spain?


No. As has been explained to you repeatedly, and you have continued to ignore, in an inquisitorial system, this is simply not the case. The paramount objective is to get at the "truth," not to be fair to the defendant(s).


No one accepts you as an authority on criminal law, Italian or otherwise.


Which worked in this case. You just refuse to accept it because you don't like the outcome, so you have to invent conspiracy theories to explain why things happened the way they did.


And again, this is a straw man, but you just won't let go of it.


Again, you are not an authority on any legal system, Italian or otherwise.


"Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word insight that I wasn't previously aware of."


Why? Because he has the same last name as a couple of members of the Canadian Mafia who happen to have been born in the same medium-sized city in Italy??


Who were never prosecuted.


The problems with the DNA evidence have been covered ad nauseam.







Giulio Andreotti was an Italian prime minister. Mario Andretti is an American retired race car driver. And it wasn't a political opponent, it was (allegedly) a journalist. That's some real top-notch insight you've got there, Vixen.

Information seems to indicate that early in his career, when the Mafia in his home region was relatively benign, Andreotti did in fact associate with them. However, after a far more violent Mafia faction took over, he "went straight," and became rather anti-Mafia, although he may still have been somewhat corrupt. But in any case, that proves exactly nothing about Bongiorno.


The "insufficient evidence" canard with respect to Knox and Sollecito has been discussed extensively.

With respect to Andreotti, the "insufficient evidence" acquittal was on charges of Mafia association. He was definitively acquitted on the murder charge, which even his political opponents agreed was completely bogus.


[citation needed]

Also, Vixen, kindly explain, if you would, how Vanessa Sollecito managed to become a lieutenant in the Carabinieri when she was a member of a "well-known Italian crime family."


Assumes facts not in evidence.


The truth: The Canadian Mafia decided to set up a legitimate-looking company to bid on the project, rig the bid, subcontract out the work to actual contractors, and pocket the difference, while also laundering several billion Euros in illicit cash through the enterprise. The front company was run by a real engineer with no criminal history. Dalla Vedova was engaged to do the legal work for the front company. There is zero evidence that he knew what was actually going on, and he was never charged when the scheme was discovered. Oh, and BTW, this all happened before Kercher was murdered. See here.


Assumes facts not in evidence.


The first is a blatant lie. Vanessa was fired from the Carabinieri partly because she wouldn't denounce her brother, and partly due to blatant discrimination because he was accused of a heinous crime.

As for the second, I couldn't find any information that Raffaele even has an aunt.


[citation needed]


Granting, arguendo, that that's true, there are several conditions upon which the US will decline to extradite someone. One of those is when the person would face double jeopardy. From the (US) Congressional Research Service:

Double Jeopardy​

​

Depending on the treaty, extradition may also be denied on the basis of a number of procedural considerations. Although the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against successive prosecutions for the same offense does not extend to prosecutions by different sovereigns, it is common for extradition treaties to contain clauses proscribing extradition when the transferee would face double punishment and/or double jeopardy (also known as non bis in idem). The more historic clauses are likely to bar extradition for a second prosecution of the "same acts" or the "same event" rather than the more narrowly drawn "same offenses." The new model limits the exemption to fugitives who have been convicted or acquitted of the same offense and specifically denies the exemption where an initial prosecution has simply been abandoned.​

Your claim yourself to be utterly in contempt of my views, saying they they are 'conspiracy theory' but in fact, I would say I was the true sceptic and you the rookie. Why? Because you seem not to understand that in a current affairs news item, quoting the views of the persons who have brought about the 'new investigation' into a major catastrophic event, is really not the same as endorsing them. When such an event happens, people want to understand what is the reasoning behind such a new investigation. You claim I am a CT-er because I have doubts about the 'official explanation' and no doubt, I am sure you feel terribly smug and pleased with yourself for the put down. However, you are the rookie because two highly distinguished, refined and well-educated gentlemen also had doubts about the 'official explanation' and weren't afraid to say so. Those two men? The sea captains of two nearby vessels at the scene of the catastrophe. Two Finns. Finns are extremely conformist, we all have the same homes, do the same saunas, eat the same foods, drink the same coffee. Yet Captains Thörnroos of the Isabella and Mäkelä of the Europa had no problem in being honest with what they thought. Whilst people like yourself believe that not following the 'official line' is extremely suspicious, people with higher values perhaps or thinking capacity, who trust their own ability to assess a situation, aren't afraid of saying so, ergo your belief that you are the sceptic and I am not, is quite misguided and ill-founded.

As for Vanessa Sollecito, Sollecito's sister in the Carabinieri, she was sacked in disgrace because she was caught trying to get insider info on how the case was going. She was corrupt!

As for Dalla Vedova, he was doing work for the US Embassy when he was assigned to AK's case. Luca Ghirga was an ex-footballer, small time attorney, who was probably out of his depth, hence the wheeler dealer Dalla Vedova. As you yourself said, the ECHR awards for breaches are modest as it is the finding that is the valuable part, but AK and Dalla Vedova went for the ECHR because they saw dollar signs. Having had their sentences annulled by an 'insufficient evidence' loophole which is NEVER used but was still there and by means of how powerful politicians such as Berlusconi and Andreotti could evade justice, this was the same loophole Bongiorno persuaded the once-mafia-charged-Bruno and Marasca of the Fifth Chambers to use (who were not used to dealing with murder cases and diverted away from First Chambers) you should readily be able to see that whilst the evidence was absolutely sound (Massei, Nencini,, Micheli) it was reasoned by M-B that there was a 'possibility' of DNA contamination (which Nencini rejected) as if that was the only evidence in a huge block of overwhelming evidence. This evidence has never been expunged or put aside, as it might have been done had it gone back down to the Appeal Court for the disputed element/s to be tried again. So it is a dutch acquittal.

But as I mentioned before, the Italians are perfectly well aware of the corrupt shenanigans that went on. We saw this when Sollecito had the chutzpah to apply for millions of Euros in compensation for 'wrongful imprisonment' even though the evidence against him is still damning. The court made sure he didn't get a penny. Likewise, it made sure the greedy AK - whose eyes were also on the $$$m's - not from the ECHR, but in the remote possibility she could also swing the Calunnia conviction with her sweetness and light personna. Well, we all saw how the Cassazione gave her the bum's rush and told her to go forth and multiply. They saw exactly where she was cynically coming from. So as we see, the audacious heists from jail are rebalanced by the Italian Courts who know EXACTLY what has gone on through the back channels.


As for your point about double jeopardy, we don't have that in Europe any more. Look up the Russell Bishop case. He was acquitted of a horrible murder but then convicted decades later, thanks to new technology. In addition, whilst Hillary and David Thorne for the US State department pledged never to extradite AK, remember who is now the POTUS and a very angry vindictive and vengeful one. The Orange Buffoon was NOT happy about AK telling people not to vote for him after all he had done for her in acquiring her freedom. U$30m for Ashli Babbit: that gives you a ball park of how much passed hands between Hellmann, Conti & Vecchiotti et al to pull off the Great Escape from Cappanne. No, Trump will happily sign the extradition papers should they ever come up.



.

 

[Vixen]

Note: Because I've discussed this case in other threads, I've been in the habit of referring to Amanda, Raffaele, etc., by their last names. But as most people here don't do that, I'm going to attempt to break that habit.

Question, Vixen: Why did Amanda call Filomena?

To tell her she couldn't get hold of Mez on her phone. She wanted Filomena to find the body.



.

 

[Vixen]

Another question that you didn't answer, Vixen. If, as you assert, it's so blindingly obvious that members of the Court of Cassation were bribed or otherwise influenced by the Mafia to annul the conviction, then why was no one ever prosecuted? As discussed, you can't claim that there's an ongoing investigation [ETA: of which we're unaware], as the statute of limitations has run.

Some crimes do not have a SoL. You did note how Hellmann was forced to 'take retirement' after freeing the pair?



.

 

[Vixen]

Are you being deliberately obtuse again? You claimed that your statement about a judge who's a Freemason's letting a fellow Freemason off "with a wink and a nod," (or words to that effect) was made in jest, not the alleged throat-cutting gesture (which I still maintain could have been the medic's indicating to a police officer or another medic the location of Meredith's wounds).

That cannot be correct as Mez did NOT have her throat cut. She was STABBED in the neck.

The throat area is at the front. Sheee-eeesh!





.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Thank you for telling me what you think of me. I'll bear it in mind.

Oh, please, spare us. You routinely insult other posters by claiming or insinuating, inter alia, that we've been brainwashed, that we have a blind faith in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence, or, worst of all IMO, that we actually know or suspect that they're guilty, but we're not intellectually honest enough to admit it. Yet when I accurately describe your debating style, you act all offended.

Did you not know about the PR Agency? Perhaps take on board the Yorkshire homily, 'Shut gob, pin back t'lug'oles and put t'brain in gear' before doing your showboating heckling act.

What Stacy said.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, please, spare us. You routinely insult other posters by claiming or insinuating, inter alia, that we've been brainwashed, that we have a blind faith in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence, or, worst of all IMO, that we actually know or suspect that they're guilty, but we're not intellectually honest enough to admit it. Yet when I accurately describe your debating style, you act all offended.


What Stacy said.

Citation, please, of where I said a poster was 'brainwashed'. Stop lying. Stop claiming to speak for anyone but yourself.

I am not offended. What I call out are your deflections into ad hominem attack instead of concentrating on the topic. In addition, your heavy use of exploding irony meters as if that scores you a point and marks you out as incredibly clever.








.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Your claim yourself to be utterly in contempt of my views, saying they they are 'conspiracy theory' but in fact, I would say I was the true sceptic and you the rookie.

Of course you would.

Why? Because you seem not to understand that in a current affairs news item, quoting the views of the persons who have brought about the 'new investigation' into a major catastrophic event, is really not the same as endorsing them.

You have asserted that you find several conspiracy theories about the Estonia to be credible, when they are clearly either extremely implausible or flat-out impossible. And kindly don't attempt to deflect by cherry-picking the one or two that are at least remotely plausible. In fact, let's try to avoid any additional discussion of the Estonia (or the Luton Airport carpark fire) in this thread, shall we? There's plenty of evidence here that you propound conspiracy theories about Mafia interference in Amanda and Raffaele's trials.

When such an event happens, people want to understand what is the reasoning behind such a new investigation. You claim I am a CT-er because I have doubts about the 'official explanation' and no doubt, I am sure you feel terribly smug and pleased with yourself for the put down.

I've made no such claim. Again, I claim you are a conspiracy theorist because you promote conspiracy theories. This has been pointed out to you, by me and by others, many times.

However, you are the rookie because two highly distinguished, refined and well-educated gentlemen also had doubts about the 'official explanation' and weren't afraid to say so. Those two men? The sea captains of two nearby vessels at the scene of the catastrophe. Two Finns. Finns are extremely conformist, we all have the same homes, do the same saunas, eat the same foods, drink the same coffee. Yet Captains Thörnroos of the Isabella and Mäkelä of the Europa had no problem in being honest with what they thought. Whilst people like yourself believe that not following the 'official line' is extremely suspicious, people with higher values perhaps or thinking capacity, who trust their own ability to assess a situation, aren't afraid of saying so, ergo your belief that you are the sceptic and I am not, is quite misguided and ill-founded.

As was pointed out to you by people considerably more knowledgeable about forensic engineering and maritime matters than I, there is no reason to believe that ship captains are qualified to evaluate reports of this nature. Forensic engineering is not part of their normal training or experience, and because of the extreme rarity of such events, it's highly likely that they'd never attended such a disaster before (or since), and certainly not often enough to have a "feel" for how they ought to unfold.

Further, this is another basic play from the conspiracists' playbook: "Something is wrong; therefore, I am right."

As for Vanessa Sollecito, Sollecito's sister in the Carabinieri, she was sacked in disgrace because she was caught trying to get insider info on how the case was going. She was corrupt!

More on this in a later post.

As for Dalla Vedova, he was doing work for the US Embassy when he was assigned to AK's case. Luca Ghirga was an ex-footballer, small time attorney, who was probably out of his depth, hence the wheeler dealer Dalla Vedova. As you yourself said, the ECHR awards for breaches are modest as it is the finding that is the valuable part, but AK and Dalla Vedova went for the ECHR because they saw dollar signs.

Having had their sentences annulled by an 'insufficient evidence' loophole which is NEVER used but was still there and by means of how powerful politicians such as Berlusconi and Andreotti could evade justice, this was the same loophole Bongiorno persuaded the once-mafia-charged-Bruno and Marasca of the Fifth Chambers to use (who were not used to dealing with murder cases and diverted away from First Chambers) . . .

To quote @Garrison, "You keep saying this; it keeps not being true."

. . . you should readily be able to see that whilst the evidence was absolutely sound (Massei, Nencini,, Micheli) it was reasoned by M-B that there was a 'possibility' of DNA contamination (which Nencini rejected) as if that was the only evidence in a huge block of overwhelming evidence. This evidence has never been expunged or put aside, as it might have been done had it gone back down to the Appeal Court for the disputed element/s to be tried again. So it is a dutch acquittal.

More on the DNA evidence in a later post.

But as I mentioned before, the Italians are perfectly well aware of the corrupt shenanigans that went on. We saw this when Sollecito had the chutzpah to apply for millions of Euros in compensation for 'wrongful imprisonment' even though the evidence against him is still damning. The court made sure he didn't get a penny. Likewise, it made sure the greedy AK - whose eyes were also on the $$$m's - not from the ECHR, but in the remote possibility she could also swing the Calunnia conviction with her sweetness and light personna. Well, we all saw how the Cassazione gave her the bum's rush and told her to go forth and multiply. TheyM saw exactly where she was cynically coming from. So as we see, the audacious heists from jail are rebalanced by the Italian Courts who know EXACTLY what has gone on through the back channels.

As for your point about double jeopardy, we don't have that in Europe any more. Look up the Russell Bishop case. He was acquitted of a horrible murder but then convicted decades later, thanks to new technology. In addition, whilst Hillary and David Thorne for the US State department pledged never to extradite AK, remember who is now the POTUS and a very angry vindictive and vengeful one. The Orange Buffoon was NOT happy about AK telling people not to vote for him after all he had done for her in acquiring her freedom. U$30m for Ashli Babbit: that gives you a ball park of how much passed hands between Hellmann, Conti & Vecchiotti et al to pull off the Great Escape from Cappanne. No, Trump will happily sign the extradition papers should they ever come up.

This is all a giant red herring. The point is, you claimed that the purported statement that the US would not extradite Amanda even if she were reconvicted was evidence of a conspiracy, some other form of corruption, or simple bad faith on the part of the US. I pointed out that it is, in fact explicable by the US prohibition against double jeopardy. Tell us, Vixen, would you criticize Italy for refusing to extradite a fugitive who was facing a death sentence in the US?

As a side note, granting, arguendo, that your guilter fantasy of a new trial were to somehow come true, Trump would have exactly zero say in whether the US complied with the extradition request; that would ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court, although they might simply let an appellate court decision stand if at least six justices saw no compelling reason to review it ("the Rule of Four"). And before you start, yes, theoretically he could order her illegally arrested and put on a plane to Italy while her case was still pending, but he'd have to find people willing to carry out those orders and accept the consequences of doing so (and if he started pardoning people for carrying out his illegal orders, even Republicans would have a hard time not voting to convict him in the inevitable impeachment trial).

Further, Trump is, of course, extremely petty and vindictive, but handing Amanda over to the Italians without allowing the legal process to play out would be extremely unpopular (especially if, as you contend, most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that she's innocent). And Trump cherishes his popularity.

EDIT: Repeated word deleted.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Back to Vanessa, first, as I mentioned, the claim that she was attempting to interfere and/or improperly access information is a guilter lie. Someone pulled it out of an orifice, and the rest of you just mindlessly parroted it, because it supports the guilter narrative. If you'd like to prove me wrong on that, feel free to link to a reliable source. We'll wait.

Second, how is it that you claim that Vanessa was "corrupt" due to her purportedly attempting to access information on her brother's murder case, yet you do not consider Napoleoni corrupt for her clearly criminal attempt to dig up dirt on her ex-husband?

Finally, kindly answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked. How is it that a member of a "prominent Italian crime family" got to be a lieutenant in the Carabinieri in the first place?

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs, Thanks for this link. But this is what I get for the headline and time stamp:


Perugia and Italy are 6 hours ahead of New York time (excluding differences in the start dates of daylight saving time, not relevant in November).

So the news would have been out in Perugia and Italy by 6 pm at the latest. It probably took some time from the police announcement to the ABC reporter to send the story to New York. Here's the news:


So this news would have been available for publication by Italian media before 6 pm (18:00 on a 24-hour clock) their time, and would certainly have made the evening and morning TV news programs.

ETA: If the time stamp self-adjusts for local zone time, New York time would have been 1:10 pm (13:10) and therefore the time in Perugia and Italy when the news was released would have been no later than about 7 pm (19:00). The conclusion would not be changed.

I just clicked on the link to the article at 1:37 pm my time. The article still shows
"November 19, 2007, 10:10 AM"

For anyone willing to accept the obvious evidence, it is a proven fact the news of Guede being a new suspect was released to the public well before "lunchtime" on Nov. 20.

 

[Methos]

Summary: Guede was a suspect in the murder/rape of Kercher on or before 19 November 2007. The prosecutor had prepared an International Arrest Warrant for Guede as of 19 November 2007. The information that Guede (including name and photo) was a suspect had leaked to the (Italian) media (ANSA etc.) on or before 19 November, so Prosecutor Mignini prepared an official document on 19 November 2007 releasing the name and photo of Guede as a suspect to the media. Guede was arrested (or detained for not having a ticket on a train and then arrested) in Germany on 20 November 2007. He was extradited to Italy and arrived back in Italy on 6 December 2007.

Well, I'm way behind on the discussion about the timing of Guede's arrest in Germany, but just for the record here's a
Wayback Link to the original German Police Press release. The google translation reads:

Mainz Police HeadquartersNovember 20, 2007, 4:17 p.m.
Mainz Criminal Investigation DepartmentMainz/Koblenz,
Suspect wanted in Italy for homicide arrested for fare dodging
Joint press release from the Koblenz Public Prosecutor's Office and the Mainz Police Headquarters

On November 20, 2007,a 20-year-old man on a train from Koblenz to Mainz was stopped by a train attendant near Boppard and handed over to the Federal Police at Mainz Central Station as a fare dodger. Because the man could not provide identification, he was handed over to officers from the Mainz Police Headquarters at 7:16 a.m. due to immigration issues.The man called himself Rudy Hermann Guede, but was unable to provide identification.He was fingerprinted, and his fingerprints were checked by the Federal Criminal Police Office. There, the identity could not initially be confirmed, but an international search led officers to the suspect wanted in Italy in connection with a homicide.The files are currently being completed. Tomorrow, he will appear before an investigating judge, who will decide whether the man should be detained for the extradition proceedings initiated under the European arrest warrant that the Italian authorities have since issued.

As I said, just for the record

 

[Stacyhs]

And was it misquoted in any way? Naseer Ahmad is his real name - 'ManFromAtlan' is merely his blog site title in which he provides his identity - so there was no wrongdoing on my part whatsoever.

I didn't say you misquoted it. That's your mischaracterization yet again. I said you didn't cite it:

#3545

Are you really quoting (but, interestingly, failing to cite) a comment from the PGP darling (and nutcase) Naseer Ahmad, aka Ergon and The Man From Atlan? Naseer who claims he's Jesus incarnate and from the planet Atlan? You really are scraping the bottom of he barrel here, Vixen!

I know who he is as I posted his actual name and his 2 pseudonyms in my post. That you would quote this delusional nutcase as some kind of evidence was the point of my comment.

I can see you are judging other people by your own standards. Some of us have higher ones.

BTW I always put my citation after the quote so there was no anomaly there either.

You did not post a link to it. Period. Adding "~NA" is not a citation.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, sorry, on my screen it shows as:

ByABC News
November 19, 2007, 8:10 PM

Let's say that is New York time, five hours behind Greenwich Mean Time GMT, which itself is one hour behind Central European Time (Italy) so that puts it as 20 November 2007 02:00am in Italy.

This is how time zones work. In the early days of history people fixed time according to where the sun was in the sky. Thus, in England, it could be say, 5:20pm in one part of the country and 6:00pm elsewhere. So the system of Time Zone was born, with GMT - as its name 'Mean' infers - being the midpoint, whereby the regions to its east is ahead of it, measured in round hours and those to the west behind. So, when a newspaper prints its story there may well be a date difference because of this. For example, when Melbourne celebrates News Year's Day, whilst it is 1 January in Melbourne, UK papers will still show the date as being 31 December.


.

You have been provided numerous media articles and Mignini's own blackout withdrawal order that the news Guede was a fourth suspect was made public on Nov. 19. Period. You can try to misdirect from that all you want with claims of time changing but the fact remains: Guede's name was released well before "lunchtime" on Nov. 20 which is what you have been claiming. Therefore, her knowledge of his name when she spoke to her father that morning is completely reasonable and not inculpatory in any way.

 

[Vixen]

Of course you would.


You have asserted that you find several conspiracy theories about the Estonia to be credible, when they are clearly either extremely implausible or flat-out impossible. And kindly don't attempt to deflect by cherry-picking the one or two that are at least remotely plausible. In fact, let's try to avoid any additional discussion of the Estonia (or the Luton Airport carpark fire) in this thread, shall we? There's plenty of evidence here that you propound conspiracy theories about Mafia interference in Amanda and Raffaele's trials.


I've made no such claim. Again, I claim you are a conspiracy theorist because you promote conspiracy theories. This has been pointed out to you, by me and by others, many times.


As was pointed out to you by people considerably more knowledgeable about forensic engineering and maritime matters than I, there is no reason to believe that ship captains are qualified to evaluate reports of this nature. Forensic engineering is not part of their normal training or experience, and because of the extreme rarity of such events, it's highly likely that they'd never attended such a disaster before (or since), and certainly not often enough to have a "feel" for how they ought to unfold.

Further, this is another basic play from the conspiracists' playbook: "Something is wrong; therefore, I am right."


More on this in a later post.





To quote @Garrison, "You keep saying this; it keeps not being true."


More on the DNA evidence in a later post.





This is all a giant red herring. The point is, you claimed that the purported statement that the US would not extradite Amanda even if she were reconvicted was evidence of a conspiracy, some other form of corruption, or simple bad faith on the part of the US. I pointed out that it is, in fact explicable by the US prohibition against double jeopardy. Tell us, Vixen, would you criticize Italy for refusing to extradite a fugitive who was facing a death sentence in the US?

As a side note, granting, arguendo, that your guilter fantasy of a new trial were to somehow come true, Trump would have exactly zero say in whether the US complied with the extradition request; that would ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court, although they might simply let an appellate court decision stand if at least six justices saw no compelling reason to review it ("the Rule of Four"). And before you start, yes, theoretically he could order her illegally arrested and put on a plane to Italy while her case was still pending, but he'd have to find people willing to carry out those orders and accept the consequences of doing so (and if he started pardoning people for carrying out his illegal orders, even Republicans would have a hard time not voting to convict him in the inevitable impeachment trial).

Further, Trump is, of course, extremely petty and vindictive, but handing Amanda over to the Italians without allowing the legal process to play out would be extremely unpopular (especially if, as you contend, most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that she's innocent). And Trump cherishes his popularity.

EDIT: Repeated word deleted.

You might need to rely heavily on such methods but you cannot force others to be like you. You are not in charge of other people.


No, there is no 'fantasy' of a new trial. The truth is unchanging, which is something you fail to grasp. Being released from prison does not change the truth of what you did or didn't. Instead of living a lie, just get on with your life and stop cashing in on deception. If you are going to moan about mental health then maybe it is actually healthier to accept you did something horrible in your youth and then people might be more sympathetic and help with the healing, instead of turning up at the courts - not giving a toss about the calunnia conviction - but just wanting to screw vast lucrative sums of money out of the public from being infamous.

What would you rather have, dispose of your debt and sleep soundly in your bed or bribe your way out of jail knowing you cheated but now you have to paint a false face to the world of an Evil Prosecutor fairy tale for life.


From Othello: Act 3 Scene 3

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

What is worth more, a good name, or getting out of jail early, with all of the evidence of your guilt still there on the books. No wonder, Houston, we have a problem!



.

 

[Stacyhs]

The absurdity comes from a poster claiming the use of the Christian name, Rudy, was because AK couldn't pronounce 'the African' one.

Sigh. You do understand that we can go back and read what people say, don't you? If so, then why do you insist on mischaracterizing what people say?
THIS is what I said:

Gee, I dunno, Vixen. Let's see if we can figure out why she might remember and use the name "Rudy" and not the African name of "Guede". Which is easier for an English speaker to remember after hearing it on TV?

I made no claim whatsoever that "AK couldn't pronounce 'the African' one."

 

[Vixen]

Back to Vanessa, first, as I mentioned, the claim that she was attempting to interfere and/or improperly access information is a guilter lie. Someone pulled it out of an orifice, and the rest of you just mindlessly parroted it, because it supports the guilter narrative. If you'd like to prove me wrong on that, feel free to link to a reliable source. We'll wait.

Second, how is it that you claim that Vanessa was "corrupt" due to her purportedly attempting to access information on her brother's murder case, yet you do not consider Napoleoni corrupt for her clearly criminal attempt to dig up dirt on her ex-husband?

Finally, kindly answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked. How is it that a member of a "prominent Italian crime family" got to be a lieutenant in the Carabinieri in the first place?

So we are moving on from the ad hominem logical fallacy to the teeth-gritting insufferable tu quoque one? As if Napoleoni's accessing of rivals' records in an acrimonious divorce a few years ago cancels out Vanessa Sollecito's interference in a police investigation.

Do you understand why tu quoque is a PITA argument?

Think about why ad hominem and tu quoque are much loved in the playground but disdained by grown adults.

.


.

 

[Vixen]

I just clicked on the link to the article at 1:37 pm my time. The article still shows
"November 19, 2007, 10:10 AM"

For anyone willing to accept the obvious evidence, it is a proven fact the news of Guede being a new suspect was released to the public well before "lunchtime" on Nov. 20.

Have a look at this headline and tell me what you think about the date on the by line.

"Sydney Australia celebrates the coming of 2008​

International, Lifestyle, Society

By K. Mar Hauksson
2:06 pm December 31, 2007


The clock hit 00:00 in Sydney at 13:00 GMT so they are well into 2008 when the Scandinavians celebrate their New Year." ~ ICE News