Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[katy_did]

One of the reasons I looked into the retranslation a bit, was that I wanted to understand whether it was a retranslation based on the context or whether it was a retranslation based on the actual meaning of the words. If it was a retranslation based on context it might have been done just to make the overall context be a little more consistent which might have masked some other kind of strangeness here. But if it was really correcting a translation error then I think it would be almost knowable that whatever was strange in the section you quoted was completely explained by the mistranslation.

This is obviously a very small issue, I just chose to try to understand it. Right now, it looks like it was probably just a routine minor mistranslation that hangs on a nuanced view of the difference between ritrovare and trovare. But that nuanced understanding is beyond what I could obtain from on-line dictionaries and translators. I hope somebody that does speak Italian might offer some insight into the difference between ritrovare and trovare and perhaps additionally on my overall understanding of the translation.

I had the same query as you on the retranslation, just because I hadn't encountered "ritrovare" to mean "to find something still" locked (or whatever) before. I'd have translated it as something like "I found the door locked" (ETA: or perhaps "I found that the door was locked"). I think the "still" is there from the context (because we know Amanda had locked the door) rather than anything in the meaning of the words.

The statement does read a bit oddly to me because it's almost like she "discovered" the door to be locked in the same way she discovered it to be open earlier. That makes me wonder whether they (or she) were still considering the possibility there was someone in the house when she was taking a shower, and therefore whether the door was locked or open when she returned was quite important. I'd guess the police asked her specifically whether the door was locked when she returned.

 

[Elagabalus]

One of the reasons I looked into the retranslation a bit, was that I wanted to understand whether it was a retranslation based on the context or whether it was a retranslation based on the actual meaning of the words. If it was a retranslation based on context it might have been done just to make the overall context be a little more consistent which might have masked some other kind of strangeness here. But if it was really correcting a translation error then I think it would be almost knowable that whatever was strange in the section you quoted was completely explained by the mistranslation.

This is obviously a very small issue, I just chose to try to understand it. Right now, it looks like it was probably just a routine minor mistranslation that hangs on a nuanced view of the difference between ritrovare and trovare. But that nuanced understanding is beyond what I could obtain from on-line dictionaries and translators. I hope somebody that does speak Italian might offer some insight into the difference between ritrovare and trovare and perhaps additionally on my overall understanding of the translation.

You pretty much nailed it above with "refound". Or perhaps you could say "rediscovered". When you re-find something it means it's "still" in the same state as the last time you "found" that particular thing to be in. I hope that makes sense.

 

[davefoc]

I had the same query as you on the retranslation, just because I hadn't encountered "ritrovare" to mean "to find something still" locked (or whatever) before. I'd have translated it as something like "I found the door locked" (ETA: or perhaps "I found that the door was locked"). I think the "still" is there from the context (because we know Amanda had locked the door) rather than anything in the meaning of the words.

The statement does read a bit oddly to me because it's almost like she "discovered" the door to be locked in the same way she discovered it to be open earlier. That makes me wonder whether they (or she) were still considering the possibility there was someone in the house when she was taking a shower, and therefore whether the door was locked or open when she returned was quite important. I'd guess the police asked her specifically whether the door was locked when she returned.

You pretty much nailed it above with "refound". Or perhaps you could say "rediscovered". When you re-find something it means it's "still" in the same state as the last time you "found" that particular thing to be in. I hope that makes sense.

Thank you both for responding to my post. My post were certainly in the area of hyper esoterica of this case. I was also interested in the problem of translating meaning from one language to another. This was an interesting example of the difficulties to me. In this case the more literal translation "that I found again was locked" created in English the idea that Knox hadn't expected the door to be locked but it was, and the less literal translation, "that I found still locked" probably provided a more accurate translation of the meaning. But judging by the two responses above, even that is not quite certain.

I guess this is just an example of the fact that at the boundaries exact duplication of meaning between an original and a translated text is not always possible and might require some subjective judgment from context to arrive at the most likely meaning of the original text.

Anyway, thanks again for your responses, they were interesting, at least to me.

 

[Grinder]

Thank you both for responding to my post. My post were certainly in the area of hyper esoterica of this case. I was also interested in the problem of translating meaning from one language to another. This was an interesting example of the difficulties to me. In this case the more literal translation "that I found again was locked" created in English the idea that Knox hadn't expected the door to be locked but it was, and the less literal translation, "that I found still locked" probably provided a more accurate translation of the meaning. But judging by the two responses above, even that is not quite certain.

I guess this is just an example of the fact that at the boundaries exact duplication of meaning between an original and a translated text is not always possible and might require some subjective judgment from context to arrive at the most likely meaning of the original text.

Anyway, thanks again for your responses, they were interesting, at least to me.

The police shouldn't write a confusing statement as they should have clarified it with Amanda. The translator should have made it clear with parenthetical remarks after she clarified.

 

[acbytesla]

Thank you both for responding to my post. My post were certainly in the area of hyper esoterica of this case. I was also interested in the problem of translating meaning from one language to another. This was an interesting example of the difficulties to me. In this case the more literal translation "that I found again was locked" created in English the idea that Knox hadn't expected the door to be locked but it was, and the less literal translation, "that I found still locked" probably provided a more accurate translation of the meaning. But judging by the two responses above, even that is not quite certain.

I guess this is just an example of the fact that at the boundaries exact duplication of meaning between an original and a translated text is not always possible and might require some subjective judgment from context to arrive at the most likely meaning of the original text.

Anyway, thanks again for your responses, they were interesting, at least to me.

This is just one of the reasons why I shake my head over the gutters parsing every word. Not only are there issues with most people's ability to recall events accurately, there are these issues with the different languages and the ability to really understand the questions and the answers.

 

[davefoc]

This is just one of the reasons why I shake my head over the gutters parsing every word. Not only are there issues with most people's ability to recall events accurately, there are these issues with the different languages and the ability to really understand the questions and the answers.

Exactly so, gutters are so willing to take a simple misspelling and make something completely unintended out of it.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen do you believe Rudi should have a retrial and if so he should somehow be forced to testify?

Biscotti could feasibly argue Rudy's conviction is unsafe, as he is named as an accessory rather than the actual killer.

 

[Vixen]

..... and, as you point out, neglected to put Meredith's clothes in the washer, the clothes Meredith was found in.

Add to this: Amanda's own clothes as found on her bed in the middle bedroom, the clothes Amanda wore on the night of Nov 1 at Raffaele's, and for which she returned to the cottage to change from, for the trip to Gubbio.

If those were the clothes Amanda wore, acc. to the fine-thinkers at TJMK, why then are they on Amanda's bed and not in the laundry?

Of course, as you say, there's the bathmat.... a clean to the molecular level, and Amanda leaves a visibly stained bathmat. At least the guilters/crazies are consistent - Amanda as Sherlock Holmes one minute, Inspector Clouseau the next.

Like the lamp - what exactly was the lamp used for!!!??? - what was the washing for if not to clean up the crime-scene, with all the forensics from the crime left in situ!

As we know, Amanda claimed to have never used the washing machine ONCE.

 

[Vixen]

LMAO. Peter Quennel has a brilliant mind? You can't be serious. The man is a MORON. Please tell us about his degrees in criminal forensics. You're hypnotized by that charlatan? Yet you ignore experts like Dr. Peter Gill, and FBI profiler John Douglass.

Dr.Gill prostituted himself for the Raf defense. Wasn't cross examined, never saw the evidence first hand. There's no accounting for negligent stupidity.

 

[acbytesla]

Biscotti could feasibly argue Rudy's conviction is unsafe, as he is named as an accessory rather than the actual killer.

Not going to happen. Rudy got a light sentence. But if his conviction was tossed and another trial was ordered, he would likely end up with a much longer sentence.

 

[Vixen]

This may just be the dumbest post I've ever read on this forum and that is saying a lot. (To the mods, I'm attacking the post and not the poster)

Why would the prosecution "airbrush" or remove the most incriminating evidence from their case? Sheessh..... The answer is they wouldnt. Isn't it far more likely that what is in the media reports were wrong in the first place?

FYI: Courts do not consider media accounts as evidence in a case. So why would you?

No, they should not. Most judges frown on it.

Tell me Mr Tesla, what is your opinion on Amanda paying a PR company to manipulate the evidence and public opinion. Clearly, she thought it was worth it.

 

[acbytesla]

Dr.Gill prostituted himself for the Raf defense. Wasn't cross examined, never saw the evidence first hand. There's no accounting for negligent stupidity.

That is your answer for all the LEGITIMATE experts that have spoken out against the poor forensic work performed. But what you absolutely fail to come to grips with is Gill's peers have not challenged his findings, but instead agree with him.

Now again, what are the moron Peter Quennell's advanced degrees in forensics? I'm waiting for his qualifications.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

DNA does not come with a time stamp. Moreover, DNA without an associated body fluid is just sub-source evidence. Please show a citation to a textbook or journal article that supports your position. I won't hold my breath; we both know you are talking through your hat. It has been explained to you several times (sometimes with citations) that mixed DNA does not mean mixed blood and that the depositions of DNA in a mixed profile need not be contemporaneous. For example:

"Abstract
DNA evidence frequently plays an important role in criminal investigations and in some cases may be the only means of convicting a suspect. The constant improvement of DNA analysis techniques affords the individualization of minute amounts of DNA, aggravating the risk of contamination artifacts.

In our study, we investigated the prevalence of DNA contamination in the autopsy facilities of the Institutes of Legal Medicine in Essen and Kiel (Germany). Using DNA-free swabs, we took samples from instruments used during autopsy and autopsy tables. Surfaces and instruments were routinely cleaned before sampling. Swabs were subjected to different PCRs to quantify the total amount of DNA and to amplify individual specific STR-markers. In most samples, alleles that could be linked to bodies that had been autopsied before were found. Furthermore, we could show that a DNA transfer from the autopsy table to a body was detectable in four out of six cases investigated. The interpretation of DNA typing results may thus be severely complicated. To avoid DNA contamination, we tried out different cleaning methods, of which only a bleach containing cleaner showed sufficient results." link

Please quote Amanda's testimony itself; you have made several...extrapolations...that diminish to zero my confidence that you are an accurate summarizer of what someone actually said.

Your assertion that I am a paid member of the defense team is totally false. I was never paid by anybody for anything related to this case. The fact that you have to make up some rubbish like this is evidence that your position has no merit. If your position had any merit whatsoever, you would be arguing those points.

If it really is a scientific truth that mixed DNA means diddly squat, then why did Amanda claim the blood must have come from her earrings? Presumably somebody wanted to know.

Why would you make claims that the DNA evidence against Rudy is sound, but rubbish for Amanda and Raf unless you compromised your standards.

Science should be objective, not based on, "It depends on whose DNA we are talking about".

 

[Bill Williams]

No, they should not. Most judges frown on it.

Tell me Mr Tesla, what is your opinion on Amanda paying a PR company to manipulate the evidence and public opinion. Clearly, she thought it was worth it.

Manipulate the evidence? Are you actually claiming that Italian justice is so corrupt, that a B-level PR-firm from Seattle can reach into the judiciary there?

This is the second dumbest post I've seen - please not, this is addressing the implied allegation, not the poster.

Do you also seriously believe that this B-level PR firm is also capable of manipulating public opinion? Which nations' "public opinion"? Italy's? You must have a very low opinion of Italians.

Anyway, welcome back Vixen. You've been missed.

 

[Vixen]

So you accept you are wrong to say ear lobes do not drip blood if cut.

Now show the evidence for mixed blood. I assert there is none. If there were visible blood drops typing would demonstrate mixed blood. This was never shown.

I did not say, "cut". You inserted that. You are reaching if you are postulating that pierced ears can suddenly spurt blood days later.

 

[Vixen]

So let us examine the source. Mostly you reference journalists quoting anonymous police sources. Police sources who should not be leaking to journalists. Presumably they are being paid to leak. The more sensational the leak the better the pay. Big conflict of interest. We do not even know if the sources were on the investigating team. Certainly we know that the investigation was preliminary and so we can not conclude anything coming out this early represents the final conclusions.

Maybe so. Still of historical interest AFAIAC.

 

[Bill Williams]

..... and, as you point out, neglected to put Meredith's clothes in the washer, the clothes Meredith was found in.

Add to this: Amanda's own clothes as found on her bed in the middle bedroom, the clothes Amanda wore on the night of Nov 1 at Raffaele's, and for which she returned to the cottage to change from, for the trip to Gubbio.

If those were the clothes Amanda wore, acc. to the fine-thinkers at TJMK, why then are they on Amanda's bed and not in the laundry?

As we know, Amanda claimed to have never used the washing machine ONCE.

So what, then, is the point of bringing up the washing machine? If Amanda/Raffaele or anyone else for that matter didn't use it in the wee-hours of Nov 2nd, then why is it even being brought up?

Even though I distrust your claim - given with no citation - you've just offered "evidence" against the argument you'd originally intended.

 

[Grinder]

Biscotti could feasibly argue Rudy's conviction is unsafe, as he is named as an accessory rather than the actual killer.

That's not what I asked. Do you think Rudi should get another trial?

 

[Vixen]

Not in France! (Certainly anywhere in Scandanavia or the Netherlands.) Anyway mostly a non sequitur, Knox did not have the embassy on speed dial The police concerned did not speak English, this is clearly documented as is the fact that Knox had only begun to learn Italian.

Raf spoke Italian! What stopped Raf?

 

[acbytesla]

No, they should not. Most judges frown on it.

Tell me Mr Tesla, what is your opinion on Amanda paying a PR company to manipulate the evidence and public opinion. Clearly, she thought it was worth it.

This goes to show how much you are willing to twist the facts. First off, I thought hiring a PR firm was a great idea. But they weren't hired for the reasons you fraudulently claim.

The evidence in this case is the evidence. No PR firm would ever be able to manipulate that. At best a PR firm would be able to do is present the accurate case to journalists, but the reporters and their editorial staff will be the ones deciding their own approach to the story.