Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

It's just hilarious to have Americans (of all people) lecture other countries about police brutality and accountability.

Here is an extreme example of a false confession, and what can ensue.

"Hugjiltu's family tried for years to prove the teenager's innocence, and he was finally exonerated in December, clearing the way for Zhao to face trial.

The case has highlighted the shortcomings in China's Communist Party-controlled legal system, where acquittals are extremely rare -- 99.93 percent of defendants in criminal cases were found guilty in 2013, according to official statistics.

The use of force to extract confessions remains widespread in the country and defendants often do not have effective defence in criminal trials, leading to regular miscarriages of justice."

Link: https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world...s-death-years-after-teens-wrongful-execution/

It is important to note any coercion or violence is wrong.

Vibio, I am convinced by Amanda's testimony, Lumumba's original claims, the group silence of the interviewers, and Amanda's preparedness to continually make the claim, that she was struck on the head from behind, and did not see the two blows coming.
Are you?

 

[Strozzi]

Indeed, the accusation always was that (cf. highlighted text) Stefanoni engaged in suspect-centred forensics.

There did not seem to be any controls, I mean, did Stefanoni even compare anything with her own DNA profile? Maybe it was hers which was one of the "amica" profiles found on the clasp, who really knows?

Suspect-centred investigations have a habit of finding what they're looking for, and ignoring everything else found. Which forced Judge Nencini to engage in rank evidenceless-speculation, while de facto conceding that Conti-Vecchiotti got it right with the extra-profiles on the clasp.

This also applies to trials where a judge is mandated by the Supreme Court to justify finding defendants guilty. The judge conducts a suspect-is-guilty examination to find the suspect is guilty. He accepts slanted evidence to supporting guilt, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. He then has to write a contorted motivation to justify his guilty verdict.

 

[Vibio]

... after repeatedly saying that she didn't do it

He doesn't say that now.

He says he thinks she's innocent, only because he does not have evidence that she did it. She may have been out that night. He doesn't know.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

your country does it, too

It's just hilarious to have Americans (of all people) lecture other countries about police brutality and accountability.

Your response is a classic tu quoque fallacy. However, many of those commenting here are just as critical of our respective home nations when we see failings in our criminal justice systems.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - you are issue surfing.

I realize you meant that bit about a forensic expert being unable to not test something was meant as a "gothca" against Vecchiotti, but you are issue surfing around a bunch of themes here.

Judge Massei discusses why Stefanoni chose not to test the putative semen stain. Massei records that on Dec 4th, 2009, his court had to deal with Sollecito's request to have the stain tested....... putting the lie to what you've just said above.

And where you say that experts can only act on orders, Massei says different. Massei talks about the various decisions Stefanoni herself made on what to, and what not to test.

​

Rather than deal with what Stefanoni was or wasn't ordered to do, Massei (on page 382.) simply defends her decision not to test it, with the, "spermatic DNA cannot be date stamped." argument.

So, this started because I said that Raffaele has said that Knox is 100% innocent. You said that this was false, that Raffaele did not say those exact words in the Porta a Porta .

Bill, you brought up what Stefanoni was or wasn't ordered to. I tend to be a precise guy when I discuss factual data, and I see your twisting so I have to set it straight. I did not say "experts can only act on orders"; I said experts cannot refuse to obey orders. I worded that in that way on purpose.
This sets things clear as for the fact that we could well say Stefanoni didn't test the putative semen stain because she was not ordered to do so.

The person who was ordered and did not accomplish the ordnance and violated it on a decision of her own was Vecchiotti, let's not forget it she we talk about personal credibility and honesty.

 

[Strozzi]

Here is an extreme example of a false confession, and what can ensue.

"Hugjiltu's family tried for years to prove the teenager's innocence, and he was finally exonerated in December, clearing the way for Zhao to face trial.

The case has highlighted the shortcomings in China's Communist Party-controlled legal system, where acquittals are extremely rare -- 99.93 percent of defendants in criminal cases were found guilty in 2013, according to official statistics.

The use of force to extract confessions remains widespread in the country and defendants often do not have effective defence in criminal trials, leading to regular miscarriages of justice."

Link: https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world...s-death-years-after-teens-wrongful-execution/

It is important to note any coercion or violence is wrong.

Vibio, I am convinced by Amanda's tewstimony, Lumumba's original claims, the group silence of the interviewers, and Amanda's preparedness to continually make the claim, that she was struck on the head from behind, and did not see the two blows coming.
Are you?

You omitted Mignini's investigation of Amanda's claim that she was struck by a policewoman from behind in police interrogation. Mignini asked the officer if she struck Amanda. 'Oh, no". Case closed, determined Mignini.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure. 15 years after the fact, after repeatedly saying that she didn't do it, he's going to suddenly accuse her. Ridiculous.

It's a fantasy of warped, vindictive and biased minds to misinterpret Sollecito's position as him preparing to (in the hideously trite vernacular of da yoof) "throw Knox under the bus".

What he is in fact very obviously and clearly doing is defending himself. He cannot defend Knox with 100% certainty since a) he is not Knox, and b) it's still at least possible in theory that Knox might have participated in the murder that night without his (Sollecito's) knowledge (since he was asleep).

From Sollecito's point of view, whether Knox did or did not go out that night while he was sleeping is irrelevant to his defence. All he can say is that he did not go out that night. And of course he can state this with 100% certainty, even though he admits to being stoned and tired on the night in question (indeed, being stoned and tired is even more reason not to have gone out....). On the other hand, he can say that he doesn't believe Knox did go out that night, since he believes (with some justification) that he would have noticed Knox's movements/absence either during or after the event. But it's for Knox to take personal responsibility for her own actions and movements that night. She's done so by stating that she was in Sollecito's apartment all night, and Sollecito is saying he believes her.

Look, I stayed over at my mother's house over Christmas. On Christmas night I probably said goodnight to her at around 11pm, then I went to my room and she went to hers, I slept from around midnight to 8am and I didn't see her again until around 8.30 the following morning. If a murder had occurred close to my mother's house on Christmas night at around 3am, I would only be able to say that I had definitely been asleep at my mother's house at that time. However, I wouldn't be able to say with total certainty that my mother had also been asleep in her house. It's possible in theory that she could have got up at 2.30am, crept out of the house without waking me, committed a murder, then crept back into the house and acted totally normally at breakfast the next morning. Therefore I could tell the police that from my point of view, I strongly believed my mother had nothing to do with the murder, but I couldn't be 100% sure.

It's really not difficult to get one's head around. Unless, that is, one is either not very bright or one has a particular agenda.....

 

[platonov]

I have no idea.

But if I had to speculate? It's a prelude to accusing her. He's laying the ground work.

Fair enough. Nor do I, hence the Q.

But the groundwork has long been laid. Nov 5/6, the 2008 Cassation application*, the refusal to alibi before Massei, & the request to Nencini to split the defence etc.
If he is going to accuse, which he probably will sometime after the cell door closes [assuming that happens], why further groundwork now.

*This meant that legally his tenuous Nov8 alibi was withdrawn.

 

[LondonJohn]

He doesn't say that now.

He says he thinks she's innocent, only because he does not have evidence that she did it. She may have been out that night. He doesn't know.

You really don't/can't understand Sollecito's position? (See my post above this one - it might possibly make things clearer....).

Oh and why is it important whether I speak Italian and read the Italian press again? Thanks in advance.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your response is a classic tu quoque fallacy. However, many of those commenting here are just as critical of our respective home nations when we see failings in our criminal justice systems.

The Italians posting here are also.

Maybe there is a little further note: we don't believe you are critical about all issues in the same way. And we can see how little evidence you need to find Rudy Guede guilty of actions there is no evidence; or how little evidence you need against Stefanoni, Mignini, witnesses, judges, doctors, Supreme Court, people and institutions of every kind.

 

[platonov]

Reflections on the revolution of the big hand

It's a fantasy of warped, vindictive and biased minds to misinterpret Sollecito's position as him preparing to (in the hideously trite vernacular of da yoof) "throw Knox under the bus".

What he is in fact very obviously and clearly doing is defending himself. He cannot defend Knox with 100% certainty since a) he is not Knox, and b) it's still at least possible in theory that Knox might have participated in the murder that night without his (Sollecito's) knowledge (since he was asleep).

From Sollecito's point of view, whether Knox did or did not go out that night while he was sleeping is irrelevant to his defence. All he can say is that he did not go out that night. And of course he can state this with 100% certainty, even though he admits to being stoned and tired on the night in question (indeed, being stoned and tired is even more reason not to have gone out....). On the other hand, he can say that he doesn't believe Knox did go out that night, since he believes (with some justification) that he would have noticed Knox's movements/absence either during or after the event. But it's for Knox to take personal responsibility for her own actions and movements that night. She's done so by stating that she was in Sollecito's apartment all night, and Sollecito is saying he believes her.

Look, I stayed over at my mother's house over Christmas. On Christmas night I probably said goodnight to her at around 11pm, then I went to my room and she went to hers, I slept from around midnight to 8am and I didn't see her again until around 8.30 the following morning. If a murder had occurred close to my mother's house on Christmas night at around 3am, I would only be able to say that I had definitely been asleep at my mother's house at that time. However, I wouldn't be able to say with total certainty that my mother had also been asleep in her house. It's possible in theory that she could have got up at 2.30am, crept out of the house without waking me, committed a murder, then crept back into the house and acted totally normally at breakfast the next morning. Therefore I could tell the police that from my point of view, I strongly believed my mother had nothing to do with the murder, but I couldn't be 100% sure.

It's really not difficult to get one's head around. Unless, that is, one is either not very bright or one has a particular agenda.....

........ Or, w.r.t. the case under discussion, one can read a watch/tell the time

 

[LondonJohn]

........ Or, w.r.t. the case under discussion, one can read a watch/tell the time

Please explain

 

[Machiavelli]

It's a fantasy of warped, vindictive and biased minds to misinterpret Sollecito's position as him preparing to (in the hideously trite vernacular of da yoof) "throw Knox under the bus".

What he is in fact very obviously and clearly doing is defending himself. He cannot defend Knox with 100% certainty since a) he is not Knox, and b) it's still at least possible in theory that Knox might have participated in the murder tha(..)(...)

Let's make clear that my personal interpretation is not that Sollecito is preparing to throw Knox under the bus. This about "preparation" not my belief.
In fact, what I think is, in a way he already did so; he threw already Amanda under the bus, in the sense that he withdrew from the confirmation of her alibi; and to be more precise we could say he threw his book narrative under the bus. He confirmed her alibi in his book, while he doesn't confirm it within his current position.
Yes you may well justify, rationalize or explain his current position by your arguments, however what has - let's say a 'political' effect, if you pass the analogy - is the change of position, the withdrawal from the book's and other statements' narrative. He used to confirm, now doesn't confirm. That sorts some effect, reveals and implies something.
Now, in fact he does not accuse Knox, he says he believes she is innocent. But he doesn't defend her. He used to back her alibi, now he doesn't. And while some may think this is a minor change in his position, the fact is that this is going to be the true main point of his legal strategy at the Cassazione recourse.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, you brought up what Stefanoni was or wasn't ordered to. I tend to be a precise guy when I discuss factual data, and I see your twisting so I have to set it straight. I did not say "experts can only act on orders"; I said experts cannot refuse to obey orders. I worded that in that way on purpose.
This sets things clear as for the fact that we could well say Stefanoni didn't test the putative semen stain because she was not ordered to do so.

The person who was ordered and did not accomplish the ordnance and violated it on a decision of her own was Vecchiotti, let's not forget it she we talk about personal credibility and honesty.

In all honesty, M., the problem I have with your rhetorical style, is that it is (in my opinion) fundamentally dishonest. You insist on the tightest level of precision from your opponents, or else they are malicious liars. Yet you allow the greatest flexibility of meaning for your confederates, and at that make conclusions of fact based on mere compatibilities.... etc. Where's the precision then?

Then again, this is only my opinion and I'm sure you disagree.

Case in point. I said, "Raffaele said Amanda was 100% innocent." Your complaint about that, where you accused me of a falsehood, was in the use of the term "100%." There is no meaningful difference if the "100%" was there or not, but dialoging with you drags to a halt while you argue trivialities.

No matter. I post the section from Massei upthread where Stefanoni chose on her own to not test the putative semen stain, and Massei defends that choice of hers. It is completely irrelevant if she was ordered to or not, she chose not to do it, and Massei gives a nonsensical rationale for that choice. Regardless of the internal permission giving, it still boggles the mind a judge would defend Stefanoni for that decision.

On such things two people are facing a 1/4 century in jail. I can just hear you say in return, "You are lying. They have already served 4 years, so it will only be 21 and 24 years respectively. You are spreading falsehoods by calling it 1/4 century."

My view, and I could be wrong so forgive me, is that you use your ersatz-precision as a rhetorical escape route more than anything else. But then I've said that.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Italians posting here are also.

Maybe there is a little further note: we don't believe you are critical about all issues in the same way. And we can see how little evidence you need to find Rudy Guede guilty of actions there is no evidence; or how little evidence you need against Stefanoni, Mignini, witnesses, judges, doctors, Supreme Court, people and institutions of every kind.

See, this is what makes us doubt your integrity. . . . There was just a discussion on this very issue and why it is seen as different. You completely ignore that discussion however.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's make clear that my personal interpretation is not that Sollecito is preparing to throw Knox under the bus. This about "preparation" not my belief.
In fact, what I think is, in a way he already did so; he threw already Amanda under the bus, in the sense that he withdrew from the confirmation of her alibi; and to be more precise we could say he threw his book narrative under the bus. He confirmed her alibi in his book, while he doesn't confirm it within his current position.Yes you may well justify, rationalize or explain his current position by your arguments, however what has - let's say a 'political' effect, if you pass the analogy - is the change of position, the withdrawal from the book's and other statements' narrative. He used to confirm, now doesn't confirm. That sorts some effect, reveals and implies something.
Now, in fact he does not accuse Knox, he says he believes she is innocent. But he doesn't defend her. He used to back her alibi, now he doesn't. And while some may think this is a minor change in his position, the fact is that this is going to be the true main point of his legal strategy at the Cassazione recourse.

Machiavelli - you simply have to read Raffaele's book. There is no meaningful difference between what Honor Bound writes, and what is in Raffaele's appeals document. The only difference is a point you refuse to acknowledge, but which the appeals document makes plain - Raffaele is saying that if YOU say she went out, "what does this have to do with me or my case?"

It's why we ask you if you think Raffaele is guilty or not.

Raffaele, in the book, said that while he was in solitary confinement he had to discover for himself a reason for believing Amanda had not gone out. He discovered it - she'd have had to ring to get back in.

Now, I know you consider him a liar on that point. But he has never retracted that!

But no matter. Your post above starts out conceding that Raffaele has never thrown her under a bus, then the rest of the post is your rationale for saying he has!!! (Or is at least preparing to.)

Sheesh.

 

[js202]

It's why we ask you if you think Raffaele is guilty or not.

It takes either someone completely victimized by their confirmation bias - or seriously stuck on stupid - not to see the double-bind inherent in this. One cannot have it both ways, just to pillory and burn the witch.

 

[carbonjam72]

Vibio. If I can drag you away from cartwheel world & into the real world for a moment I have a Q/comment.

What was the point of RS’s TV appearance? Who was the message meant for? Ignore for a moment that he came across badly.
There is nothing AK can do for him now – too late for unsubtly coded threats. Money ?
Cassation* won’t buy it? Technically they can’t even consider it & if he wanted to ‘split’ (from AK) it’s too late now.

So what was the point – he wants to be a media star?

*Given the various attempts ‘to pervert the course of justice’ as the English phrase it they would hardly be receptive in any case.

Mach also - any thoughts?

I know you addressed this to Vibio, but I'd like to try to answer if you don't mind.

Raffaele's appearance in TV reminds people that he is a human being, and not a sick twisted false caricature invented by an amoral media seeking only profits by ginning up a false controversy at the expense of innocent people's lives.

His presence on TV, just as he is, shows people he is an honest, gentle, intelligent and accomplished person, unfairly maligned by fools and knaves.

That indeed, his ability to simply be polite and articulate, to respond on point to questions and demonstrate the foolishness of his attackers, can help swing public opinion yet more in his favor.

I'd be very surprised if less than 70% of the Italian public believes he had anything to do with the Kercher murder. But VIBIO would know better if there were any up-to-date polls on the matter of Italian public opinion.

And let's be straight here for a minute: scientists did not get convicted for failing to predict an earthquake because the Italian judiciary is immune to public opinion.

When enough people know and believe Amanda and Raf are innocent, conviction is no longer an option. So have courage, faith and patience, and exoneration is just around the corner. Don't be too sad when it happens, its only right.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, you brought up what Stefanoni was or wasn't ordered to. I tend to be a precise guy when I discuss factual data, and I see your twisting so I have to set it straight.

Is this, then, why you say:

"I have never been really that interested in motivations reports (even less in narratives)."?​

 

[Desert Fox]

I know you addressed this to Vibio, but I'd like to try to answer if you don't mind.

Raffaele's appearance in TV reminds people that he is a human being, and not a sick twisted false caricature invented by an amoral media seeking only profits by ginning up a false controversy at the expense of innocent people's lives.
His presence on TV, just as he is, shows people he is an honest, gentle, intelligent and accomplished person, unfairly maligned by fools and knaves.

That indeed, his ability to simply be polite and articulate, to respond on point to questions and demonstrate the foolishness of his attackers, can help swing public opinion yet more in his favor.

I'd be very surprised if less than 70% of the Italian public believes he had anything to do with the Kercher murder. But VIBIO would know better if there were any up-to-date polls on the matter of Italian public opinion.

And let's be straight here for a minute: scientists did not get convicted for failing to predict an earthquake because the Italian judiciary is immune to public opinion.

When enough people know and believe Amanda and Raf are innocent, conviction is no longer an option. So have courage, faith and patience, and exoneration is just around the corner. Don't be too sad when it happens, its only right.

Hannah Overton is way to religious for my tastes but still her appearances make her human to me.