Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

Words - how do they work pt 588

No, it's not complicated at all.

The key word in that bolded section in the appeal document is "exactly". In a better translation, this renders the sentence to be along the lines of "He does not remember with total certainty whether Knox went out of his apartment or not".

Which is, incidentally, exactly how I represented Sollecito's position when I wrote, in that same post:

Within this, Sollecito is correctly pointing out that he cannot be 100% certain that Knox didn't leave his apartment that night, since he was sleeping. But his position is that as far as he can be confident, Knox was with him all evening/night.


Perhaps it's because some people see only what they want to see that they choose to (incorrectly) interpret Sollecito's stance on this issue as him now claiming in any way that Knox wasn't with him in his apartment all night, or even him suggesting that she wasn't there. Instead, Sollecito is stating the obvious point that he cannot be 100% certain that Knox was there, since he was sleeping, but that all the evidence in front of him - the fact that she was lying next to him when he dozed off and when he woke up, and that her demeanour in no way suggested that she'd been out - points firmly towards her not having left the apartment. And Sollecito is then making the legal point that if the courts conclude that Knox did leave his apartment that night - as per her "confessions" - then this would speak to the exoneration of Sollecito in and of itself.

Perhaps the nuanced nature of the argument goes way over some people's heads. Perhaps it's just confirmation bias and a filtered lens. I don't know. Fortunately, it is hoped/assumed that the judges on the Supreme Court will have the brainpower and the objectivity to understand this argument for exactly what it is.

Nope

The key words, which I bolded, were.....

he claims he does not remember the details of that evening because he had smoked marijuana. He does not remember exactly if Knox went out of his flat or not.


They will.
ps You could save us both some time by claiming (now as opposed to later) that it’s UTTERLY IRRELEVANT

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, it's not complicated at all.

The key word in that bolded section in the appeal document is "exactly". In a better translation, this renders the sentence to be along the lines of "He does not remember with total certainty whether Knox went out of his apartment or not".

Which is, incidentally, exactly how I represented Sollecito's position when I wrote, in that same post:

Within this, Sollecito is correctly pointing out that he cannot be 100% certain that Knox didn't leave his apartment that night, since he was sleeping. But his position is that as far as he can be confident, Knox was with him all evening/night.


Perhaps it's because some people see only what they want to see that they choose to (incorrectly) interpret Sollecito's stance on this issue as him now claiming in any way that Knox wasn't with him in his apartment all night, or even him suggesting that she wasn't there. Instead, Sollecito is stating the obvious point that he cannot be 100% certain that Knox was there, since he was sleeping, but that all the evidence in front of him - the fact that she was lying next to him when he dozed off and when he woke up, and that her demeanour in no way suggested that she'd been out - points firmly towards her not having left the apartment. And Sollecito is then making the legal point that if the courts conclude that Knox did leave his apartment that night - as per her "confessions" - then this would speak to the exoneration of Sollecito in and of itself.

Perhaps the nuanced nature of the argument goes way over some people's heads. Perhaps it's just confirmation bias and a filtered lens. I don't know. Fortunately, it is hoped/assumed that the judges on the Supreme Court will have the brainpower and the objectivity to understand this argument for exactly what it is.

LJ, do you really believe for a moment that Sollecito was asleep between 9 and 10 pm that fateful night?

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, do you really believe for a moment that Sollecito was asleep between 9 and 10 pm that fateful night?

What time have the various convicting courts concluded that the murder took place? You might be getting confused here

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope

The key words, which I bolded, were.....

he claims he does not remember the details of that evening because he had smoked marijuana. He does not remember exactly if Knox went out of his flat or not.


They will.

Yes - this is the important word in all this bolded stuff - which you either cannot see or cannot understand. You also seem unable to understand that Sollecito has explicitly said - both in his appeal and in other communications - that he believes Knox was in his apartment all evening/night. Or do you think he's lying when he said that?

ps You could save us both some time by claiming (now as opposed to later) that it’s UTTERLY IRRELEVANT

Care to remind me what exactly I argued was "utterly irrelevant"? Quote the full passage where I used those words, perhaps?

No, thought not...........

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What time have the various convicting courts concluded that the murder took place? You might be getting confused here

What time does the brainstorming genius's on this board think the murder took place?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini misunderstood the cell phone evidence IIRC

LJ, do you really believe for a moment that Sollecito was asleep between 9 and 10 pm that fateful night?

Sherlock Holmes,

I am not sure why this is the right time frame to be discussing. I thought that Nencini was toying with the notion that Amanda was out roughly at 8:30. Nencini is wrong on this point, but again, if a court wants to say she was out, that doesn't mean that Raffaele was out.

 

[LondonJohn]

What time does the brainstorming genius's on this board think the murder took place?

Ah yes, you ARE confused. What's important as far as Sollecito's argument is concerned is the time the COURTS concluded that the murder took place (or took place within).

 

[Kauffer]

McCall just posted this:

"I have a request from major press organization for a friend of Meredith's they would like to interview. I was hoping maybe someone here could help. PM me."

If this happens it will provide a strong link between PMF and the Kerchers.

I don't see one of her friends talking to the press without the family's permission.

 

[Dougm]

Straw men. This is an exercise of downplaying, denying and twisting.

Btw a statement like "not supported by anyone who knows her" is intrinsically nonsense to the point... what else but a laugh? supported by someone sho knows her... Don't you see how ridiculous you sound? "support" here means information, not supporters...

It's not based on opinions of few college girls, it is not because "a few colleg girls found annoying". No. It's information about facts, partly reported by witnesses, and it's not only the college girls: it's information about facts, partly reported facts, and those reported facts come from a variety of witnesses. There's multiple sources, includes writings and diaries, witnesses' reports and more, in all this there is abundant evidence to draw opinions about aspects of a personality.

You should rather think about your comrades mouthing that Stefanoni doesn't have a PhD or lied or that Mignini is corrupt.
You have geniuses who deduce that Meredith's friends were only catty and vicious and not reliable witnesses.
Those in your company should not dare to object to the fact that I have an opinion about a human charachter, based on evident factual data.

Bull. Name one factual source that supports your point of view about Knox's personality. That is not another college girl, who didn't care for Amanda's singing or some other minor annoyance.

And your cherry picking of my use of the word " support" is ignorant.

 

[platonov]

Words - how do they work pt 589

Yes - this is the important word in all this bolded stuff - which you either cannot see or cannot understand. You also seem unable to understand that Sollecito has explicitly said - both in his appeal and in other communications - that he believes Knox was in his apartment all evening/night. Or do you think he's lying when he said that?






Care to remind me what exactly I argued was "utterly irrelevant"? Quote the full passage where I used those words, perhaps?

No, thought not...........

‘Believe’ has got nothing to do with it.
He has withdrawn the ‘Hellmann’ alibi.
I suspect we are getting very close to the argument, which will include lots of green smileys, that my posts are incomprehensible


Of course I can – it was your reaction when faced with the reality that RS’s Nov 5th statement contradicted your ‘wasn’t sure she slipped out when he was asleep’ trope which you had posted several hundred times. & Have now reverted to.

As if platonov could forget one of the most special of all the Cartwheel arguments

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ah yes, you ARE confused. What's important as far as Sollecito's argument is concerned is the time the COURTS concluded that the murder took place (or took place within).

Very well, tell me this then, last time we talked on here, a very long time ago, you told me you believed the two were guilty, but that the courts did not prove this. I guessing you have changed your position since then, am I correct, and if so, why?

 

[LondonJohn]

‘Believe’ has got nothing to do with it.
He has withdrawn the ‘Hellmann’ alibi.
I suspect we are getting very close to the argument, which will include lots of green smileys, that my posts are incomprehensible


Of course I can – it was your reaction when faced with the reality that RS’s Nov 5th statement contradicted your ‘wasn’t sure she slipped out when he was asleep’ trope which you had posted several hundred times. & Have now reverted to.

As if platonov could forget one of the most special of all the Cartwheel arguments

No, that's not good enough. You're lying about the context, aren't you

Quote me the whole paragraph where I used those words. Go on. You'll find it pretty easily won't you? That would settle the issue once and for all, wouldn't it

 

[Diocletus]

McCall just posted this:

"I have a request from major press organization for a friend of Meredith's they would like to interview. I was hoping maybe someone here could help. PM me."

If this happens it will provide a strong link between PMF and the Kerchers.

I don't see one of her friends talking to the press without the family's permission.

I would be a typical Kercher strategy: plant sympathetic pleas to coincide with trial proceedings, and thus (they hope) inflict maximum damage on the defense.

 

[LondonJohn]

Very well, tell me this then, last time we talked on here, a very long time ago, you told me you believed the two were guilty, but that the courts did not prove this. I guessing you have changed your position since then, am I correct, and if so, why?

When did I say that?

My trajectory on this case (as I've noted before) is that I heard the bare bones of the case and the verdict through the normal mainstream media. Then in April 2010 I happened to buy a book about the case: Darkness Descending (chiefly because it was in a "buy one, get one free" offer in WH Smiths ). Having read that book, I felt that Knox and Sollecito had to be guilty, but there were certain aspects that intrigued and concerned me. So I decided to see what information/debate there was online. I thus entered the hitherto (to me) murky and combative world of internet discussion forums. And as I learned more, I found that Darkness Descending had misrepresented several crucial facts - the ones that had led me to my initial belief in guilt. It didn't in fact take me long to conclude that in my opinion, there clearly was insufficient evidence to convict Knox or Sollecito.

Insofar as my holding any belief that Knox and Sollecito "were guilty, but that the courts did not prove this" goes, I don't think I've ever held that belief at all. As soon as I concluded that they should not be convicted of the murder, I concluded in parallel that there was also evidence pointing to their non-involvement. I would say that my belief in their factual innocence has strengthened over the past four and a half years or so, but I've always stated that I am not 100% convinced of their factual innocence: in the absence of an unimpeachable alibi, only Knox, Sollecito and Guede know the factual truth.

But alongside that, I've always stated that it's wholly unnecessary to be 100% convinced of their factual innocence. I've often cited a hypothetical example to illustrate what I mean: that of a murder that occurred about half a mile away from where I live, at around 3-4am. I happened to be asleep alone on the night of the murder. I therefore don't have any sort of alibi. But in order to charge me with murder, far less convict me of it, the authorities are required to prove that I committed the crime. And in law and ethics within a modern democracy, if the accusations cannot be proved, then the person must be considered innocent. In that hypothetical example, only I (and the real murderer) would know with 100% certainty whether I was factually innocent.

 

[carbonjam72]

McCall just posted this:

"I have a request from major press organization for a friend of Meredith's they would like to interview. I was hoping maybe someone here could help. PM me."

If this happens it will provide a strong link between PMF and the Kerchers.

I don't see one of her friends talking to the press without the family's permission.

I'm more interested in what "major press organization" would be relying on a dedicated hate nut, running a dedicated hate site? What professional journalist worth a can of paint would be talking to that kook?

On links to the Kercher family, I agree there's reason to believe this is true. Kercher's book actually cites TJMK, not sure about others. Kercher's book repeated, perhaps invented many of the classic guilter memes and distortions.

Cody takes a generous view of the Kerchers view and actions. Kauffer takes a tougher stance. I'm sympathetic for their loss. But not so far as to condone their continuing to hound 2 innocent people, while there has long been overwhelming evidence of their innocence. It may not be necessary to be angry with them for being wrong, but they have an obligation to make an effort to be right, and not rig a verdict or pursue a miscarriage whether fom grief, greed or both.

 

[carbonjam72]

I would be a typical Kercher strategy: plant sympathetic pleas to coincide with trial proceedings, and thus (they hope) inflict maximum damage on the defense.

Its lousy no matter how you cut it.

 

[Kauffer]

I'm more interested in what "major press organization" would be relying on a dedicated hate nut, running a dedicated hate site? What professional journalist worth a can of paint would be talking to that kook?

On links to the Kercher family, I agree there's reason to believe this is true. Kercher's book actually cites TJMK, not sure about others. Kercher's book repeated, perhaps invented many of the classic guilter memes and distortions.

Cody takes a generous view of the Kerchers view and actions. Kauffer takes a tougher stance. I'm sympathetic for their loss. But not so far as to condone their continuing to hound 2 innocent people, while there has long been overwhelming evidence of their innocence. It may not be necessary to be angry with them for being wrong, but they have an obligation to make an effort to be right, and not rig a verdict or pursue a miscarriage whether fom grief, greed or both.

McCall got himself interviewed by AP - his wiki is the draw and Vogt always pushes it. He likes attention and he doesn't mind how he gets it. The case is just a vehicle for him.

 

[Bill Williams]

CNN is saying that the ISC decision on this case will be Friday.

 

[RWVBWL]

Here's Machiavelli's latest tweet:

Machiavelli @Machiavelli_Aki
· 23m 23 minutes ago
Judge Bruno (like Zanetti) had said the trials had "not many certainties" beyond the girl's death and one definitely convicted.


Link:
https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki

 

[platonov]

Words - how do they work pt 590

No, that's not good enough. You're lying about the context, aren't you

Quote me the whole paragraph where I used those words. Go on. You'll find it pretty easily won't you? That would settle the issue once and for all, wouldn't it

I can do better than that - Here’s the link again and another more recent one.
The context is the previous few pages.


Knock yourself out but don’t forget the ‘alibi’ issue