Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

Do you believe Raffaele is guilty or innocent? You are breaking ranks with both Vibio and Machiavelli in saying that Raffaele has already thrown Knox under a bus. Except, Machiavelli has actually said both things.

Please include a rationale as to why Raffaele still believes Knox to be innocent.

Bill, please stop. I cant take any more.

 

[Machiavelli]

One wonders why a man who notes how precise he is, seems to be very selective in applying that renowned precision.

Why wouldn't an innocent-Raffaele throw Amanda under a bus - especially if, as guilters imply, she went out and he knows it? For what reason would an innocent-Raffaele protect a person he knows to be guilty (or very well could be guilty), when he's facing conviction?

What is the rationale these over-precise guilters give for that?

Come on, nobody is being over-precise.

Just maybe someone has been over-stating.

Similarly, why wouldn't a guilty-Raffaele also throw Amanda under a bus - esp. if he could get some reduction in sentence to, say, what Rudy got?
(...)

The rationale is: because he can't.

It is a very false belief that one of some innocentisti who think Guede got his reduction because he allegedly "cooperated". First this is objectively and manifestly not true based on the legal events, the truth is Rudy Guede didn't receive any treatment of favour, even though carbonjam refuses to believe it. Guede got his reductions because the other two acccomplices had obtained generic mitigation and because he was on fast track trial.
Second, Rudy Guede did not cooperate.

The truth is Italian justice system has basically nothing to offer to Raffaele Sollecito, no incentive in exchange for his "cooperation". If he confesses now he may have only disadvantages.

 

[Bill Williams]

Come on, nobody is being over-precise.

Just maybe someone has been over-stating.



The rationale is: because he can't.

It is a very false belief that one of some innocentisti who think Guede got his reduction because he allegedly "cooperated". First this is objectively and manifestly not true based on the legal events, the truth is Rudy Guede didn't receive any treatment of favour, even though carbonjam refuses to believe it. Guede got his reductions because the other two acccomplices had obtained generic mitigation and because he was on fast track trial.
Second, Rudy Guede did not cooperate.

The truth is Italian justice system has basically nothing to offer to Raffaele Sollecito, no incentive in exchange for his "cooperation". If he confesses now he may have only disadvantages.

Sigh.

I now wish for the over-precise person.

No one was talking about Raffaele confessing at this point. What you were talking about was Raffaele trying to leverage some advantage by throwing Knox under a bus at this point. In fact you said he already had.

My question to you was not about Raffaele confessing. It was about why..... why would a guilty-Raffaele do that at this point?

You say, "because he can't," meaning he can't expect any mitigation for doing it.

Yet you are saying this is exactly what he is trying.

I now wish for the over-precise Machiavelli. Where'd he go?

 

[js202]

One wonders why a man who notes how precise he is, seems to be very selective in applying that renowned precision.

Why wouldn't an innocent-Raffaele throw Amanda under a bus - especially if, as guilters imply, she went out and he knows it? For what reason would an innocent-Raffaele protect a person he knows to be guilty (or very well could be guilty), when he's facing conviction?

What is the rationale these over-precise guilters give for that?

Similarly, why wouldn't a guilty-Raffaele also throw Amanda under a bus - esp. if he could get some reduction in sentence to, say, what Rudy got?

What's the rationale? I now know why some guilters are not interested in narratives. The allegation will suffice, regardless that it doesn't fit any scenario.

Of course, the real problem with Raffaele putting the finger on Amanda - with him staying home, and thus innocent of direct involvement in any putative crime - is that these vindictive losers will be suddenly bereft of the fun of referring to him as "knife boy."

 

[Dougm]

Bill was faster, Doug.

He was paying more attention than I was!

Hey, at least I understand this one! Thanks for the clarity!

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, you have said this about motivations reports. My view is that with Judge Massei's and Judge Nencini's you pretty well have to say this, because as attempted "narratives of the crime", they fail miserably. Nencini, particularly, simply makes things up and changes the facts people provide to suit him.

Nencini is actually the only motivations reports who offers a consistent narrative of events, and also a very detailed motive (motive of killing is the assailant's terror, and their need to prevent Meredith from talking about the assault they committed; the assalut itself was a consequence of the abuse of drugs and alcohol by the three participants, and from the presence of Rudy Guede in the house which triggered an argument, which run out of control because Rudy was on alcohol and the other two were not reactive because of other substances; as a consequence of the escalation, the need to kill the victim in order to silence her).

Chieffi, a judge who is not supposed to be redoing the facts of the case, simply gets them wrong nonetheless.... one (of many) is as mentioned above above.....

- Chieffi says that Maria Dramis heard a scream unlike any she had heard before. Yet her testimony was that these sorts of screams were common to that area. On what basis does Chieffi just re-invent facts like this​

No wonder motivations reports do not interest you and your precise mind.

Exactly. The motivations reports are always incomplete summaries, with holes, inaccuracies and imperfections. Not that they don't interest me at all, but not so much. The other documents are much more interesting.

 

[Machiavelli]

Please, Machiavelli, read Sollecito's appeals document. Raffaele is not saying this at all. As per the appeals document he is addressing Knox's accusers: "If that's what YOU believe about Knox, what does this have to do with me."

Why drop your renowned precision for confirmation-biased guessing games?

The fact is I have also listened to the arguments of Bongiorno and Maori in Florence. I have also read the appeals documents, but I can also anticipate what parts of the reasons for appeal will be found inadmissible, and add my educated guess that the attorneys expect so.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nencini is actually the only motivations reports who offers a consistent narrative of events, and also a very detailed motive (motive of killing is the assailant's terror, and their need to prevent Meredith from talking about the assault they committed; the assalut itself was a consequence of the abuse of drugs and alcohol by the three participants, and from the presence of Rudy Guede in the house which triggered an argument, which run out of control because Rudy was on alcohol and the other two were not reactive because of other substances; as a consequence of the escalation, the need to kill the victim in order to silence her).

LOL! Please forgive me Machiavelli - for months you have been saying that motive is not important, and not essential for the crime. You caught me off guard by now saying that this was the strength of Nencini's. Also inexplicably you become interested in a narrative! Pardon me for spurting my coffee on the computer screen when I read that!

Please read the following link. It details the inconsistencies and outright fabrications of Nencini's report.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/knox-and-sollecito-dissection-of-a-conviction/

It details the complete boners that Nencini has inexplicably pulled from thin air. However, it is good that you, at least, make an exception with Nencini's report. My fear was that you had given up on it, anticipating what Cassazione will do in 6 weeks. You are now the old Machiavelli that I know and love.

Exactly. The motivations reports are always incomplete summaries, with holes, inaccuracies and imperfections. Not that they don't interest me at all, but not so much. The other documents are much more interesting.

This is quite the statement, Machiavelli. I will remember it. You, of course, will accuse me of misrepresenting you when I re-quote you.

 

[platonov]

He was paying more attention than I was!

Hey, at least I understand this one! Thanks for the clarity!

Unfortunately that is not a gift I can bestow.
My powers, like that of all humans, are limited in that regard.
If the board had a 'shoulder shrug' smiley I would use it here.

 

[Samson]

Nencini is actually the only motivations reports who offers a consistent narrative of events, and also a very detailed motive (motive of killing is the assailant's terror, and their need to prevent Meredith from talking about the assault they committed; the assalut itself was a consequence of the abuse of drugs and alcohol by the three participants, and from the presence of Rudy Guede in the house which triggered an argument, which run out of control because Rudy was on alcohol and the other two were not reactive because of other substances; as a consequence of the escalation, the need to kill the victim in order to silence her).



Exactly. The motivations reports are always incomplete summaries, with holes, inaccuracies and imperfections. Not that they don't interest me at all, but not so much. The other documents are much more interesting.

I am pleased to be able to picture your narrative, and how you fill the gaps for the first time. There are flaws, but at least you link the components in a feasible manner. One thing is still odd, if there was no premeditation, why was the knife transported to the cottage and then back to the apartment? Is this explained by premeditated hazing? Or is there an alternative theory?

 

[Bill Williams]

The fact is I have also listened to the arguments of Bongiorno and Maori in Florence. I have also read the appeals documents, but I can also anticipate what parts of the reasons for appeal will be found inadmissible, and add my educated guess that the attorneys expect so.

I know you did. You also are of a mind to put the worst face on to it, and the most favourable Mignini-spin on to it. You are saying things which are part of a guilter narrative, which I presume is a Mignini-narrative, and is not part of anyone's else's way of putting it.

I do not doubt for a second that you claim you are correct.

ETA - the only people who agree with Stefanoni's DNA analysis are guilters... no independent DNA expert in the world shares Stefanoni's conclusions. I have no doubt that you would listen to Stefanoni and simply assume that everything she said was correct.

 

[christianahannah]

I know you did. You also are of a mind to put the worst face on to it, and the most favourable Mignini-spin on to it. You are saying things which are part of a guilter narrative, which I presume is a Mignini-narrative, and is not part of anyone's else's way of putting it.

I do not doubt for a second that you claim you are correct.

ETA - the only people who agree with Stefanoni's DNA analysis are guilters... no independent DNA expert in the world shares Stefanoni's conclusions. I have no doubt that you would listen to Stefanoni and simply assume that everything she said was correct.

But Mignini didn't have anything to do with the appeal in Florence nor has he anything to do with the hearing before the SC.

As for Stefanoni I'm not sure your conclusions are correct. Can you explain what you mean by an independent expert?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

(...)

No Bill, it is relevant. It is of the utmost relevance, and in fact this difference, this disobeying an ordnance of the judge, is exactly what the Cassazione points out when they call Vecchiotti "intellectually dishonest" (they say no honest perito would do that).

The complaint about "over-precision" is a bogus game on your part: you are not imprecise, you are, in a way, extremely precise, but you are precise in act of drawing the border line in the wrong place. You are like a neighbour that complains about over precision, but always mistakes setting the fence two meters into the other property, and never th other way around. Your "mistakes" are designed precisely, and they are always in one direction. Always placing the red line slightly into the neighbours' garden, never in yours.

Raffaele says "Amanda is 100% innocent" is an overstatement, if one wants to be generous. In fact, he is careful not to get to that point.

It is also obviously retracting from what he told in his book, since in his book he recalls details about the whole evening and all things they have done together, and he is sure she never left his apartment.
He is absolutely not sure of that in his interview. He also only talking about himself at home in the evening, never says "we were at home" like he says in his book.

Now back to the point of border lines. That Stefanoni was not ordered to do something, and did not violate an ordnance, while Vecchiotti was ordered instead and did violate an ordnance, is exactly the relevant thing. Because the principles of law says that this is the relevant thing (and the Cassazione confirms).

This is exactly where the border line crosses. Your respnse to that is to try push the red line a bit forward, shift it some meters into the neighbour's garden, in a place that you chose in a precise fashion, and you chose it in order to sketch a category so that the actions of Stefanoni and Vecchiotti would fall both on the same side of the fence inside that category.

You are not acting imprecisely: you are looking for very precise places where to shift your borders, you intend to be 'imprecise' only as long as you shift the borders in order to shape a pattern of categories that fits your narrative.

But the red line will remain still there, your categories don't exist, real categories have a different shape.

 

[MDDVS]

But Mignini didn't have anything to do with the appeal in Florence nor has he anything to do with the hearing before the SC.

As for Stefanoni I'm not sure your conclusions are correct. Can you explain what you mean by an independent expert?

In this case, any expert except Stefanoni.

 

[Desert Fox]

In this case, any expert except Stefanoni.

Doesn't Stefanoni's boss sign off on it?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

ETA - the only people who agree with Stefanoni's DNA analysis are guilters... no independent DNA expert in the world shares Stefanoni's conclusions. I have no doubt that you would listen to Stefanoni and simply assume that everything she said was correct.

About creating strange imaginary categories out of thin air (the fantasy category of "independent experts of the world" who "share conclusions") .

The truth is, that all kind of experts in the trial were called, and none of them was able to offer convincing arguments to dismiss Stefanoni's conclusions.
And the innocentisti have nothing but their same arguments.
Another truth is that experts in a trial are never 'independent' and don't need to be independent, they only need to be convincing.

A further truth is that DNA findings account only for a minority share in the evidence, and the defendants would be convicted without them. They play a solo part in the defensive narrative, not in the real case.

 

[Bill Williams]

About creating strange imaginary categories out of thin air (the fantasy category of "independent experts of the world" who "share conclusions") .

The truth is, that all kind of experts in the trial were called, and none of them was able to offer convincing arguments to dismiss Stefanoni's conclusions.And the innocentisti have nothing but their same arguments.
Another truth is that experts in a trial are never 'independent' and don't need to be independent, they only need to be convincing.

A further truth is that DNA findings account only for a minority share in the evidence, and the defendants would be convicted without them. They play a solo part in the defensive narrative, not in the real case.

Circular rhetoric.

none of them was able to offer convincing arguments to dismiss Stefanoni's conclusions.​

Convincing to whom? Dismissed by whom? Obviously this is what you believe. So much for precision, though: the statement still stands, no DNA expert who is independent of the Italian court system believes as Stefanoni does. Indeed, you cannot name one, which is why you engage in circular rhetoric.

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele says "Amanda is 100% innocent" is an overstatement, if one wants to be generous. In fact, he is careful not to get to that point.

It is also obviously retracting from what he told in his book, since in his book he recalls details about the whole evening and all things they have done together, and he is sure she never left his apartment.He is absolutely not sure of that in his interview. He also only talking about himself at home in the evening, never says "we were at home" like he says in his book.

Sheesh.

There you go again. You misrepresent Raffaele. You misrepresent what he said in his book.

He said he became unsure about whether or not Amanda had left, because the cops kept telling him she did. But he worked it out on his own - in solitary confinement.

Regardless of what the cops told him, she could not have gone out. Read his book, rather than assuming you know what it says, because you wish to say something "guilt-sounding", in a non-narrative.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am pleased to be able to picture your narrative, and how you fill the gaps for the first time. There are flaws, but at least you link the components in a feasible manner. One thing is still odd, if there was no premeditation, why was the knife transported to the cottage and then back to the apartment? Is this explained by premeditated hazing? Or is there an alternative theory?

There are basically two possibilities.
The first, is that the knife was at the cottage or in Raffaele's car together with cooking items (fish, foot, coutelry) for innocent reasons.
What makes me inclined to think so is that Raffaele talks in his book about cooking elaborate meals at Meredith's while testimonies say that they never did so. Also, Sollecito talks about using a similar knife at the cottage and even of pricking Meredith on her hand with the point. On the other hand, at the beginning Sollecito talked about being at a little party that night. Amanda Knox talks about Sollecito cooking an elaborate fish meal that evening. Based on those hints there is a good chance to place the knife at the cottage or inside Sollecito's car (parked there) just as a cooking tool.

The second option is that someone fetched the knife at some point during the evening in order to carry out some questionable plot (a prank or a hazing). This is not impossible if we take in account Knox's precedents, that include a terrifying burglary prank on her housemate in Seattle.
It is possible also because Meredith's housedoor and Sollecito's apartment are only 400 meters apart, therefore you would need about 7-8 minutes to go fetch the knife and come back.
Even in this event however there wouldn't be premediatation as for jurisprudence. Premeditation is a charge that requires a plan of a specific crime and a significant time lapse, it must be planned in some context and situation that is clearly different from the circumstance of the crime.

So in conclusion there is no evidence of premeditation, and there is no information as for why the knife was carried at the cottage.

 

[MDDVS]

Doesn't Stefanoni's boss sign off on it?

Yes, I think so. I don't think that the concept of an independent expert is diificult to understand though.