Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

TOTAL NONSENSE. "Notte" in Italian means exactly the same as "night" in English. Gallileo described the night sky. November 1, 2007 Thursday night or "Novembre 1 2007 notte giovedì" does not mean November 2, Friday morning, as Machiavelli is now trying to tell us. The day in Italy begins at 00:00:00 or 12:00 AM just as it does in the UK or the US.

While there are differences in culture and meanings etc between the English speaking world and Italy, this is NOT one of them. Matteini is quite clear.

I am kind of curious an explanation of why he or she made this up however?

 

[Machiavelli]

TOTAL NONSENSE. "Notte" in Italian means exactly the same as "night" in English. Gallileo described the night sky. November 1, 2007 Thursday night or "Novembre 1 2007 notte giovedì" does not mean November 2, Friday morning, as Machiavelli is now trying to tell us. The day in Italy begins at 00:00:00 or 12:00 AM just as it does in the UK or the US.

While there are differences in culture and meanings etc between the English speaking world and Italy, this is NOT one of them. Matteini is quite clear.

I hope you are not trying to lecture us on Italian language, too...

 

[Numbers]

TOTAL NONSENSE. "Notte" in Italian means exactly the same as "night" in English. Gallileo described the night sky. November 1, 2007 Thursday night or "Novembre 1 2007 notte giovedì" does not mean November 2, Friday morning, as Machiavelli is now trying to tell us. The day in Italy begins at 00:00:00 or 12:00 AM just as it does in the UK or the US.

While there are differences in culture and meanings etc between the English speaking world and Italy, this is NOT one of them. Matteini is quite clear.

Mach may be confusing "dark" or "darkness" ("oscurità" in Italian) and "night" ("notte" in Italian), or "evening" ("sera" in Italian) and "night".

ETA: I have relied on my personal Italian speaker, Google Translate


Definition of night
noun
the period of darkness in each twenty-four hours; the time from sunset to sunrise.


Definition of evening
noun
the period of time at the end of the day, usually from about 6 p.m. to bedtime.

Definition of darkness
noun
the partial or total absence of light



From google translate:


adjective

dark

scuro, buio, oscuro, nero, cupo, bruno


noun

darkness

tenebre, buio, oscurità, ombra

night

notte, sera, nottata, buio, oscurità

 

[Machiavelli]

Once again the Knoxians just make stuff up and discuss it as if its fact.

"In alcune lingue, fra cui quella italiana e quella francese, si è soliti definire la prima parte della notte, quella antecedente la mezzanotte, con un termine specifico, e cioè sera.

Per tale motivo, in codeste culture le ore notturne sono convenzionalmente comprese nell'arco tra le 0:00 e le 5:00"

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notte

Acbytesla...since you know Italian so well, read what is written above.

Acbytesla has read Galileo...

Well, in fact Notte also means "night sky". But this only when you speak about the sky, not when talking about the time. If he knows Italian, he should know that...

 

[toto]

Notte in Italian is used from midnight on...or is also used for the bedtime hour which could be before. In Italian we call the hours of the evening up until around midnight "la sera"

But they were in bed weren't they, according to them?

 

[Kauffer]

Contamination

Well, if he wrote that the knife was carred inside a shoe box that was connected to Meredith Kercher, and if he relies on information from the case provided by Vecchiotti, no question he is ...

Given the position of scientists like Gill, Budowele and Hampikian, I'd like to know your views on contamination in DNA cases. Are you under the impression that the prevailing view in the scientific community is Novelli's view - that it is for the defence to prove?

Do you accept the existence of secondary and tertiary transfer and how this might skew the interpretation of evidence. How should this danger best be addressed?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

We know that he made some statements, but he never testified.
And Nencini points that out.
You can't consider a statement as it was of the same level of a testimony. You can perfectly understand that a spontaneous statement has basically no value as an alibi. In fact, in his 2014 press conference he put again distance between him and Knox's alibi.

(...)

-

I don't see why not. Isn't a confession in Italian court on the same level as testimony?

d

-

 

[toto]

I can see there might be a difference between "evening" and "night" but surely the phrase "...the whole night between 1st and 2nd November" is quite specific about including a few hours before midnight (at this time of year)?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach may be confusing "dark" or "darkness" ("oscurità" in Italian) and "night" ("notte" in Italian), or "evening" ("sera" in Italian) and "night".

ETA: I have relied on my personal Italian speaker, Google Translate


Definition of night
noun
the period of darkness in each twenty-four hours; the time from sunset to sunrise.


Definition of evening
noun
the period of time at the end of the day, usually from about 6 p.m. to bedtime.

(...)

No Italian speaker would use the words "sera" and "notte" along with the above timings. In Italian the time called "evening" (sera) starts at 6-7 pm or when it starts to get dark if darkness comes later.
While notte is instead only the time when every routine activity has ceased and only sleep is left.

In astronomy or wether terms notte can also mean the dark part of the 24 hours or the dark sky. But when people talk about their activities and normal life, a time like 9pm or 10pm would be always called "sera" (or "serata") and never "notte".

 

[Dan O.]

This is PM Mignini and Coroner Lalli conversing:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9289[/qimg]

Is there any way to find out when that photo was taken? This would still be the afternoon of the second. I recall there was some statement or testimony from one of the kids present that day as to how they learned how Meredith died. Is it possible that this photo was taken before the kids drove over to the police station?


ETA: in Massei (pg 102-103) we learn that Lalli arrived around 14:00-14:40 and carried out an initial inspection until 15:00.

 

[Kauffer]

We know that he made some statements, but he never testified.
And Nencini points that out.
You can't consider a statement as it was of the same level of a testimony. You can perfectly understand that a spontaneous statement has basically no value as an alibi. In fact, in his 2014 press conference he put again distance between him and Knox's alibi.



It doesn't change the point: he never provided an alibi to Amanda Knox. He only sought an alibi for himself.



"shared innocence" does not mean "alibi".



Another spontaneous statement (without timings, without questions). But don't forget that he didn't testify, that Nencini poionted this out and said that because of this it would be impossible to consider different roles, and that Sollecito made the point of his distance from Knox's alibi clear again in a subsequent press conference.

Look. This isn't difficult - I am not seeking to argue with you about what you think Mr Sollecito's position is, (not at this point). I am simply pointing out to you that Nencini, following on from both Massei and Hellmann agrees with me that he does in fact alibi Ms Knox.

Furthermore, we must say that this matter of the alibis - provided by both for each other - has not been raised as an issue in any of the trial courts. At no point in the proceedings (and correct me if you think I am wrong) have any of the prosecutors or civil parties raised the matter of Mr Sollecito's support for Ms Knox's alibi. It is not an issue which has added to the weight of evidence against Ms Knox. In other words, it is not a substantive matter for the courts and has had and continues to have no bearing on the case at trial.

You can disagree with the courts if you wish but you must surely recognise what their positions are.

 

[Machiavelli]

I can see there might be a difference between "evening" and "night" but surely the phrase "...the whole night between 1st and 2nd November" is quite specific about including a few hours before midnight (at this time of year)?

It doesn't seem specific at all to me. I can't see how this must include a few hours before midnight, especially if we consider that Sollecito testified he doesn't remember if Knox was out, and he only remembers they slept together.

In fact, in his police interrogation he testified that she had returned probably at about 1am:

 

[AmyStrange]

-

No Italian speaker would use the words "sera" and "notte" along with the above timings. In Italian the time called "evening" (sera) starts at 6-7 pm or when it starts to get dark if darkness comes later.
While notte is instead only the time when every routing activity has ceased and only sleep is left.

In astronomy or wether terms notte can also mean the dark part of the 24 hours or the dark sky. But when people talk about their activities and normal life, a time like 9pm or 10pm would be always called "sera" (or "serata") and never "notte".

-

I'm always suspicious of people who use absolutes in arguements, like "never".

What do they do? Throw people in jail if they use the word "notte" instead of "sera"?

Wait a minute... that might explain alot here. Ha ha,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

Testimony

It doesn't seem specific at all to me. I can't see how this must include a few hours before midnight, especially if we consider that Sollecito testified he doesn't remember if Knox was out, and he only remembers they slept together.

In fact, in his police interrogation he testified that she had returned probably at about 1am:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_434745477c2e304323.jpg[/qimg]

This testimony you write about. Was this admissible at trial?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

This testimony you write about. Was this admissible at trial?

-

Which brings up another question. Was Rudy's written letter (read in court), saying Amanda was there, a statement or testimony?

d

 

[Machiavelli]

Look. This isn't difficult - I am not seeking to argue with you about what you think Mr Sollecito's position is, (not at this point). I am simply pointing out to you that Nencini, following on from both Massei and Hellmann agrees with me that he does in fact alibi Ms Knox.

I don't know how you mean to define this "in fact" providing an alibi. From the point of view of Knox's defence, he is confirming her alibi. In fact, from his point of view and as for his position as a witness, he never testified in support of her alibi. He was never a witness in favour of Amanda Knox. And he made both previous and subsequent declarations against.

Furthermore, we must say that this matter of the alibis - provided by both for each other - has not been raised as an issue in any of the trial courts. At no point in the proceedings (and correct me if you think I am wrong) have any of the prosecutors or civil parties raised the matter of Mr Sollecito's support for Ms Knox's alibi. It is not an issue which has added to the weight of evidence against Ms Knox. In other words, it is not a substantive matter for the courts and has had and continues to have no bearing on the case at trial.

The lack of alibi is not an issue, but this is not an argument. It is obvious that his not testifying and not confirming her alibi is not an issue, there isn't any testimony from Sollecito that could work as an alibi for Knox, something that doesn't exist can't be an issue.
It is not a substantive matter for the accusation. It is merely a lack of substantive matter for the defence. If you don't testify in favor of Amanda Knox, you are not supporting or confirming her alibi. It may be quite incorrect to say that this had no consequence for the investigation and the trial. If Knox had provided a credible alibi for what she did that night and Sollecito confirmed the details of it, we may have not have had an egregious piece of circumstantial evidence or an egregious void from the first hours of investigation.

 

[Machiavelli]

-


-

Which brings up another question. Was Rudy's written letter (read in court), saying Amanda was there, a statement or testimony?

d

Neither of the two. The written letter was a document.

 

[Machiavelli]

This testimony you write about. Was this admissible at trial?

No.

No testimony of Sollecito was admissible at trial. There is no Sollecito's testimony in the trial.

They exist, though.

 

[Machiavelli]

-
(...)
I'm always suspicious of people who use absolutes in arguements, like "never".

What do they do? Throw people in jail if they use the word "notte" instead of "sera"?

Sollecito says he doesn't remember whether Knox went out during the sera. This is what he says and will be hard to get around this.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Neither of the two. The written letter was a document.

-

Than why was Rudy there at all?

d

-