Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
carbonjam72 said:
(...)
The question I raised with you Mach, is that if all three participated in a gang-style type sexual assault and murder as you believe, then why IN THE ROOM WHERE THE SEXUAL ASSAULT AND MURDER OCCURRED, is there only one set of footprints? (...)
Click to expand...

No. There are still several other shoeprints inside the murder room.
Besides the disputed shoeprints on the pillowcase, there is a number of other shoeprints, some of small size, which belong to shoes that were not found inside the apartment.

This question is the heart of the matter. I don't see any alternative but to conclude that no one else was present at the violent crime in that small bloody room, involved in a life and death struggle on that well saturated blood soaked floor.
Click to expand...

This reasoning makes no sense. There is actually only one shoeprint clearly attributable to Guede in the murder room, at least there is no trail of prints that belong to Guede.
The only shoeprints in blood attributable to Guede are only one trail, almost all outside the murder room, and just walking away going straight out of the house.
But the murderer or murderers must have done tens or dozens or maybe hundreds of steps inside the murder room. Where are they?
Simply, the fact is most of the time people do not leave shoeprints or footprints. Not even murderers. Especially not murderers who attempt to carefully alter and clean up parts of the scene.

Be honest Mach, you know Amanda and Raf are innocent. You too smart a guy not to know it.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous.
 
Machiavelli said:
There are two sets of footprints. It's a key point. You seem to forget the bloody footprints on the bathmat and the luminol footrpints.
Those do not belong to the same person who left the trail of bloody footprint, they express a different modus operandi. Also, they belongt to two different individuals.

No, I didn't find it convincing, obviously. It doesn't take in account a mass of information that I consider essential. It is also not really consistent imho.
Click to expand...

That's not what he asked you. He and I and in fact lots of us want to know why there are only Guede's prints in Ms Kercher's bedroom? Why is there no evidence in this room supporting the contention that Amanda Knox was there and killed Meredith Kercher?
 
Machiavelli said:
There are two sets of footprints. It's a key point. You seem to forget the bloody footprints on the bathmat and the luminol footrpints.
Those do not belong to the same person who left the trail of bloody footprint, they express a different modus operandi. Also, they belongt to two different individuals.

No, I didn't find it convincing, obviously. It doesn't take in account a mass of information that I consider essential. It is also not really consistent imho.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli has rebooted his argument. If people take the bait, this will be the third or fourth time around this merry-go-round in this thread alone!
 
Kaosium said:
Because it's boring and it's in Italian.

If you're just messing with me, mission accomplished because I am now completely befuddled.

If it was the generic mitigation which changed the sentence from 'Life' to 24 years, where does 30 years ever come into the equation? If it was the generic mitigation which was responsible for that, why did you ever claim there were two reductions for 'fast track?'

I wonder if you're just funning with us here! :p
Click to expand...

Question:
"If it was the generic mitigation which changed the sentence from 'Life' to 24 years, where does 30 years ever come into the equation?"

Answer:
From somewhere else: from the automatic fast track discount.

The discount from "life" to 30 years.
The equation is from "life" to 30 years. A theoretical (full track trial) "life" term to a real, discounted (fast track trial) 30 years. It's not a very difficult equation to understand, there is only one operation.

I thought you intended to be maybe serious sometimes but you defy my hope. Why do you go on making the same question?
 
Wow, I could have had a V8

Diocletus said:
Honestly, I don't think that the defense lawyers knew about the scope of the evidence suppression, for the simple reason that they didn't have the evidence.
Click to expand...
This. It is one of Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns. Some day someone in Italy is going to read the ABA standards on DNA evidence, slap their forehead, and say, "Why aren't we doing it this way?"
 
Solitary for Raffaele

Kauffer said:
You don't get that even in the supermaxes. It's all a bit Count of Monte Cristo isn't it?
Click to expand...
Raffaele spent several months in solitary before his appearance in front of Judge Micheli. Both he and Amanda were held under precautionary detention rules that were intended for mafia figures and what not. Go figure.
 
Machiavelli said:
Yes



NO!

On the appeal, the calculation works like this: first, a mitigation from (theoretical) "life" to 24 years. Then, a discount of 1/3 from this latter 24 years, that makes 16.

There was no "6-year cut" (from 30 to 24) due to generic mitigation!

The generic mitigation cut is a theoretical calculation that works starting from a theoretical "life" (the original, edittale term, the "life" term not the 30 years) and brings it down to a theoretical 24 years.

The generic mitigation is a cut that works from life to 24 years, it does NOT work from 30 to 24 years as you say.

It is not a "6 years cut". It is a step down, a downgrading of the penalty from a theoretrical (edittale) ergastolo (life), down to an imprisonment term that was decided - on a discretional and customary basis by the judge - to be set at 24 years.



Yes, from this you get the last calculation, from a theoretical 24 to a final, practical 16 years due to the automatic fast track discount.



Yes.
But there is no discount "from 30 to 24".



Well why don't you read the penal code?
Click to expand...

That ole generic mitigation could be worth many many decades couldn't it? From life to 24 years could be a helluva lot of time. A helluva lot!
 
Machiavelli said:
Question:
"If it was the generic mitigation which changed the sentence from 'Life' to 24 years, where does 30 years ever come into the equation?"

Answer:
From somewhere else: from the automatic fast track discount.

The discount from "life" to 30 years.
The equation is from "life" to 30 years. A theoretical (full track trial) "life" term to a real, discounted (fast track trial) 30 years. It's not a very difficult equation to understand, there is only one operation.

I thought you intended to be maybe serious sometimes but you defy my hope. Why do you go on making the same question?
Click to expand...

Read your last post to me again! It contains this line:

"The generic mitigation is a cut that works from life to 24 years, it does NOT work from 30 to 24 years as you say."
 
Kauffer said:
That's not what he asked you. He and I and in fact lots of us want to know why there are only Guede's prints in Ms Kercher's bedroom? Why is there no evidence in this room supporting the contention that Amanda Knox was there and killed Meredith Kercher?
Click to expand...

But it's an idiotic question. First, there is a false assertion: it is not true that there are only Guede's footprint. Read the Rinaldi-Boemia report, and you'll find there is a number of other shoeprints inside the murder room, in a dirty watery substance on sheets of papers that were spread on the floor. They don't belong to Meredith's shoes.
Second: who cares if there are no shoeprints that can be proved belonging to the murderers? Who cares about physical prints of the murderers inside one particular room! It is not the only way by which murderers leave their traces. You don't always find the murderers footprints inside a room, especially if the murderer lives in the house. The scene is full of evidence of the presence of multiple perpetrators and of Amanda Knox. You may dispute them but I think you don't have arguments.
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
Read your last post to me again! It contains this line:

"The generic mitigation is a cut that works from life to 24 years, it does NOT work from 30 to 24 years as you say."
Click to expand...

And so, where's the problem?

Can't you understand that. even in the Appeal, the calculation of the discount is still applied (calculated based on) to the theoretical, so called edittale, penalty that the defendant would have got under a regular procedure, and NOT to the term to which he was convicted at the first instance?
Do you understand that the calculation always starts from "life", and not from 30 years, because "life" is the edittale penalty, no matter if he had got 30 years on his first instance? The generic mitigation is a calculation based on the code, not on what he got in another instance of the trial.
 
Machiavelli said:
But it's an idiotic question. First, there is a false assertion: it is not true that there are only Guede's footprint. Read the Rinaldi-Boemia report, and you'll find there is a number of other shoeprints inside the murder room, in a dirty watery substance on sheets of papers that were spread on the floor. They don't belong to Meredith's shoes.
Second: who cares if there are no shoeprints? Who cares about physical prints of the murderers! It is not the only way by which murderers leave their traces. You don't always find the murderers footprints inside a room, especially if the murderer lives in the house. The scene is full of evidence of the presence of multiple perpetrators and of Amanda Knox. You may dispute them but I think you don't have arguments.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there specifically of Amanda Knox's presence in Ms Kercher's room?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Raffaele spent several months in solitary before his appearance in front of Judge Micheli. Both he and Amanda were held under precautionary detention rules that were intended for mafia figures and what not. Go figure.
Click to expand...

The precautionary detention rules are not "intended for mafia figures", not even those rules applied to Knox and Sollecito. They are employed with a lot of suspects.
 
Machiavelli said:
Without warrant? If there is an order or an authorization from an investigating judge, the law enforcement indeed can enter private houses under cover, wiretap conversations, violate privacy of mail.
Actually, the penal code even acknowledges that the police may be authorized by an investigating judge to commit crimes. By an order or authorization of the Investigating Judge the Judicial Police may do illegal things like sell drugs, disseminate pedo-pornography, falsify documents and so on, within boundaries of security, if deemed useful for investigations.
A prosecution order is not enough, there must be an authorization from Investigating Judge. The Investigating Judge is the office that has these power, Matteini and Micheli are investigating judges.
Click to expand...

So in other words Matteini was in on this before the eighth? She was aware of what Mignini and the police were doing the whole time? That puts her comment to Amanda about Amanda being incarcerated before she could leave the country in an entirely different light....
 
Kauffer said:
What evidence is there specifically of Amanda Knox's presence in Ms Kercher's room?
Click to expand...

But why must be there be a specific piece of evidence of Amanda Knox that must be located inside the murder room? You ask for something that is completely unnecessary. This "locating" a piece of evidence from a specific person inside a room makes no sense. Evidence is a logical concept, it is not an object located within a small space.
 
Machiavelli said:
But why must be there be a specific piece of evidence of Amanda Knox that must be located inside the murder room? You ask for something that is completely unnecessary. This "locating" a piece of evidence from a specific person inside a room makes no sense. Evidence is a logical concept, it is not an object located within a small space.
Click to expand...

Because Meredith was murdered in that room by someone who was also in that room. Finding 'evidence' of Amanda's existence in the house she lived in doesn't prove anything.
 
Kaosium said:
So in other words Matteini was in on this before the eighth? She was aware of what Mignini and the police were doing the whole time? That puts her comment to Amanda about Amanda being incarcerated before she could leave the country in an entirely different light....
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was Matteini but certainly the Investigating Judge was wiretapping and investigating a lot of people on this case since the early days, they included all the downstairs young man, but also people like Juve and Daniel were investigated, also the boyfriends of Filomena and Laura. A lot of people were "suspects" in this sense.
 
Kaosium said:
Because Meredith was murdered in that room by someone who was also in that room. Finding 'evidence' of Amanda's existence in the house she lived in doesn't prove anything.
Click to expand...

Evidence proves things wherever you find it. If you find a reliable witness who lives in Australia, it's called evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom