And why was only Guede's DNA (and of course Meredith's) found in her vagina?
Or on her jacket or purse? And only his shoe prints in her blood?
Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
- Status
And why was only Guede's DNA (and of course Meredith's) found in her vagina?
Or on her jacket or purse? And only his shoe prints in her blood?
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Probably not.
But IMO, when you consider the whole ball of wax--the selectively-timed editorials, public drama, the book praising a hate site and taking pot shots at the defendant, the antics of their sleazy lawyer and experts (in particular the efforts to shut-down fact-finding), and overall efforts to effect the outcome of the trial--we're talking about one or more people who have lost touch with reality and propriety. I find their behavior to be obsessively vindictive. There are many examples of victim families who have behaved in a much more balanced and sensible way in the context of similar proceedings.
There was a claim by Machiavelli that Meredith scratched Amanda's neck.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
This is the opinion of Halkides and of the pro-Knix crowd. It is not the opinion of courts and law, since they have all rejected the defence instances on the point. The procedure provides for appropriate legal options to pursue their access to the material and processes that build the evidence, and the defence chose not to follow those available paths on several points. It was their steategic choice. Even posters like Diocletus have admitted that the "late discovery" complain was a pretext.
Because they were requested to do so. There was a written request for raw data deposited at the time of their appointment.
Also Stefanoni allows access to raw data when she was requested: Novelli was allowed access to the raw data files directly at the laboratory computers. This happened when the evidence discussion phase was formally re-opened by the Hellmann court on this piece of evidence. The defence did not make thus request; they chose to wait for Vecchiotti's work (this obviously suggests that they knew they were corrupt).
I do not defend any specific disclosure nor lack thereof, I only defend procedure principles, since I believe there are principles of law involved. In all directions. Specifically, I am against the use of "lack of discovery" on this case as an artificial pretext meant to serve as a defence ploy (and often also as a propaganda ploy outside the courtroom).
Maybe it would be better on some aspects to have much more details about pieces of evidence available to the parties and to the public from the beginning of a trial, better only under some aspects, not all. But it is not in the nature of a trial to have that, nor to re- open discussion on the formation of pieces of evidence ad infinitum. There is a matter of principle of this that you really seem to not understand. A trial is not a scientific investigation, it is a process of decision -making; discussion cannot be refined or reopened freely. This principle is valid for all justice system, not just for the Italian one.
Evidence is something that is "formed" or shaped in an adversarial process, by which parties are supposed to have equal possibility to access information. But once it's formed, it's shaped. It has that shape, it was made through that process and contains that information, it may not be possible nor fair, procedurally, to re-assess original material and process through which it was formed.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
The claim (testimony) is that Amanda Knox had a scratch (the information is not about what Meredith did).
I have no interest in playing your little games.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,574
Vienna
The problem is that everyone in Vienna is a lunatic. Freud and Schnitzler described them quite well IMO. More seriously, there are other families which have held onto a notion of guilt of a particular person even when that person is obviously innocent. The Eric Volz case comes to mind in that regard, in that he was hours away from the place where the murder of his former girlfriend took place. I don't think that the members of the Kercher family are lunatics, and I don't think it is necessary to invoke the monetary penalties to explain their behavior. I do think that their descriptions of the evidence (in John Kercher's book) and their evaluation of their own role in the case (that they have stayed mostly silent) are erroneous.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Machiavelli said:
Arguing with Machiavelli is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
There is no reason for Machiavelli to even bring up the well worn out factoid of the phantom scratch on Amanda's neck, if NOT for the implied allegation that Meredith had scratched her at the attack.
However, reading Machiavelli is a master's level study on rhetorical escape routes.
My favourite is when he accuses Knox of trading sex for drugs, particularly with Rudy Guede. How does he know this? Because he claims that there's the name of a known drug dealer in the call-list of her mobile. And that guy has a name, which, apparently, can only be said in "air quotes".
He then relates this to three others who a couple of years later were busted for drugs. Still, what does this have to do with the murder?
Well, first Machiavelli says nothing. All he's trying to do, he claims, is to establish that Guede and Knox are the same "kind" of person.
Then..... and one can envision him mischievously looking around checking to see that the rhetorical escape routes are all covered.... he risks it, because there is no reason to even be going down this rhetorical route if NOT for some connection to the murder:
"Oh, and by the way, this then leads credence to the theory of a drug-fueled sex party which led to the murder." A'hem.
Another - regardless of whether or not Mr. Kercher and Barbie Nadeau are factually correct about a "controversial" Satanic-rite theory being advanced by Mignini.... the fact is that both of them write about it. Yet, even mentioning that, one gets accused of using them as "human shields".
WTF? Is Machiavelli then using Laura as a "human shield" because he now finds it factual that Knox has a scratch on her neck, because Laura once said that!? (I'm going mental. I actually used real "air quotes" before typing "human shield"!)
It is a master's level course in on-line rhetoric trying to keep up with Machiavelli's latest.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Worth remembering that John Kercher made express reference to TJMK in his book but no reference to either of the 'Perugia Murder File'/'Placing Meredith First' sites (the one title ridiculously pretentious and the other cloying and mawkish). I always find it amusing to recall how discussion of the book stopped immediately at dot org once Peggy realised her happy band of weirdos didn't rate a mention by 'Meredith's' father (despite all the pictures of her and placing her first and everything - call that gratitude?).
Where was I? Oh yes. I hope they all go to jail in Italy but on condition they retain internet access so we can read about their experiences. Michael won't notice any difference to his basement, I suspect.
He'll have more time to look for the bleach receipt he promised was on his harddrive. That is unless the cops trash his harddrive when they come get him.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
The reason is that we asked the lawyers. (as individuals, not as PMF).
Maybe you see it as an online debate. I see it as a pro-murderers propaganda campaign. Not to forget how the currently suspected and provisionally convicted parties have taken advantage financially from the murder through book deals, how they try to de-legitimize the court findings through defamatory campaigns, and how the Kercher legal representatives were supporting the guilty scenario and the public prosecutions. It is obvious that we ate considered friends of the Kerchers, while the pro-Knox are not.
Last edited:
Thanks for this post Bill Williams, you make very good points. I wanted to write the highlighted bit but I didn't have the energy.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
What? I'm not about to say whether or not the request for data was a "pretext" ("pretext" for what?). The bottom line is that they were entitled to the data, it was ordered to be provided, and it wasn't. As it turns out, it would have been very useful for the defense, because we now know about all of Stefanoni's data suppression.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
I'm a rather precise person, I don't play "little games".
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Well, yes, of course. It's a hallmark of a corrupt prosecution to selectively conceal exculpatory information so that only those friendly to the prosecution can see it. See how it works: violate courts order to provide evidence to defendants; yet, honor mere request from civil party "expert" to review data.
Well, there's also the fact that I think Stefanoni may be blowing Novelli.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
There are also plenty who abstain from interfering with the pretrial and trial processes, e.g., Yara Gambriso's family.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Where are the photos of Knox's scalp where the police whooped her?
Did Laura say in her testimony that it was just a scratch or a "rather deep" scratch"?
Even Machiavelli should be able to explain this one to you. By the way, specifically, what is the evidence supporting your belief that "Guede held Meredith and Amanda stabbed her?" References to "judicial facts" and similar nonsense will not fly very far here.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
Hellmann didn't think so: he rejected the instance. It was a pretext to request the annulment of Stefanoni's testimony. This is something you admitted.
I don't think the 2009 request and defence behavior was enough to maintain raw data were requested or that defence wanted them, and I don't think the courts behavior allows to maintain that an order was refused. If the drfence wanted raw data they could have submitted instances to the Supreme Court and other instances before and subsequently. And even if they were refused, it would be not enough to change the outcome of the trial or to annul it.
It is a defence's burden, at that stage, to explain the specific purpose why they need certain information, how they want to use it for, why it is necessary, why they couldn't ask for it before, and it's their task to convince the judge and to pursue their interest through other legal channels if not satisfied completely.
Nothing alike ever "turned out", what turned out is that Prof.Halkides and Prof. Zupancic decided to start a delusional media campaign, showing how desperate the Foas are.
As always, you flatter yourself. You make otiose, nonsensical little arguments, which buttress your own preposterous views, and those of obsessive online lunatics. It's been amply pointed out to you here that not even the likes of Massei was willing to tread down the overgrown, wacko paths you pioneer, rhetorical machete flailing high overhead.
- Status