Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Ken Dine]

Maybe I could have worded it better: there was a smear of Mez' blood on the light switch. (Put there by Amanda's finger on balance of probabilties.)

That's hysterical, you go from claiming they found a bloody fingerprint of Amanda on the switch, to now claiming a "balance of probabilities" that it was Amanda's bloody smudged mark?

We know Guede left many other bloody marks around, so how would Guede fit into your "balance of probabilities" test?

The issue about the lightswitch and day time is part of the prosecution's (Mignini) closing submissions at the preliminary hearing (likely similar to the main, not transcribed). He makes an issu that the finger mark depresses the light switch, so was done in darkness hours.

Despite Mignini's superior deductive prowess, my bathroom has a south-facing window with natural light, and I still flick on my light when going in there, no matter the time of day.

In any event, Guede clearly had used that bathroom while it was dark outside, so how you feel that blood smudged on that bathroom switch implicates Amanda in any way, amazes me?

 

[Vixen]

IIUC, the civil parties who were suing in the same proceedings as the criminal case cannot now again sue due to the final acquittal. That would be true for insufficient evidence as well as "did not commit the act". Had the civil parties not participated in the criminal case, perhaps they would be able to sue now, although I am unsure of this.

Here is my view on "insufficient evidence": Suppose X wants to buy something, for example a car, which costs $10,000. However, X only has $1000 total resources. X has insufficient resources to buy the car. What if X has NO resources. Then X still has insufficient resources. In other words, to me, "insufficient evidence" is a general term that means the evidence was so lacking or defective that it never reached the level of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is actually no reliable evidence at all, that is a particular case of "insufficient evidence".

The correct analogy is that X buys a car from Y for $10,000. X pays $1,000. Y sues for default. Y cannot find the paperwork. The judge rules in favour of X on the basis there is insufficient proof of a contractual agreement between X and Y.

It does not mean X is exonerated.

In fact, X remains a crook who got off due to sheer good luck.

 

[acbytesla]

It came in a dream. After fasting and prayers to keep the devil and his Masons away.

It goes to show you that it requires a dream or a fantasy or a a wild imagination to arrive at a guilty conclusion. This is a perfect example. Vixen first posts that they found Amsnda's fingerprint in Meredith's blood on the switch. Then confronted with the FACT that no this was definitely NOT true, does she reevaluate her position that the evidence IS NOT incriminating in any way? Nope, she clings to it as it is canonical to this fantastic belief that she has closely held for years.

The position for guilt has NEVER been based on the evidence and facts, but on mythology. The earth is 6000 years old, the sun revolves around the moon. For Vixen to accept the actual evidence, she would have to deny a belief. Just as people deny evolution, her posts deny that there is no fingerprint of Amanda's in Meredith's blood. That no one could climb that wall, that Amanda and Raffaele are equipped with special vision that allows them to discern and clean their own DNA while leaving others.

The world is quickly accepting the fact that this was a farce and wrong. When will the guilters? I know, it's too hard for them to accept reality...so probably never.

 

[Vixen]

Out of curiosity Vixen, how do you assign those probabilities?

The police and prosecution submitted it to the court as one of the many reasons to indict.

 

[acbytesla]

The correct analogy is that X buys a car from Y for $10,000. X pays $1,000. Y sues for default. Y cannot find the paperwork. The judge rules in favour of X on the basis there is insufficient proof of a contractual agreement between X and Y.

It does not mean X is exonerated.

In fact, X remains a crook who got off due to sheer good luck.

What a wild fantasy. Give it up. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not acquitted because of good luck, but because there was no credible case against them. The fact that you have to make up evidence in your posts and rely on the tabloid stories instead of court documents is proof of that.

 

[Vixen]

Funny how you inadvertently use the term "balance of probabilities", when that is below the level of proof in a criminal trial. In any case, it is utter nonsense. You want it to be Amanda, so it's Amanda. Before, you said it was her print which had been identified.

But the whole bathroom blood issue brings us right back to the the question of cleaning. It would have taken someone ten minutes to wipe down the visible samples in the bathroom and collect the mat. Since Amanda phoned Filomena on the morning of the second after her first visit to the cottage, we know she was aware of the evidence there. So why didn't she clean it, if she was guilty? Why would someone, according to you, go to great lengths to bleach clean the apartment in high detail, but leave what she could only have concluded was identifying evidence of herself in the bathroom?

Who knows why perps leave their calling card behind. We only know they do, hence the usefulness of forensic squads.

 

[Vixen]

Because a guilty person trying to appear innocent would leave some evidence and point it out to others so they could then use your exact argument. "If I was guilty, wouldn't I have cleaned that up?!?". Mastermind. (yes, this post is sarcasm)

Many a true word...

 

[Wattson]

The correct analogy is that X buys a car from Y for $10,000. X pays $1,000. Y sues for default. Y cannot find the paperwork. The judge rules in favour of X on the basis there is insufficient proof of a contractual agreement between X and Y.

It does not mean X is exonerated.

In fact, X remains a crook who got off due to sheer good luck.

Would the missing paperwork be the "lost" bleach receipts perhaps? Unbelievable.

 

[acbytesla]

The police and prosecution submitted it to the court as one of the many reasons to indict.

That is confirmation bias. It is also reversing the burden of proof. You're basically arguing that one only needs to be accused by the authorities of a crime to be viewed as guilty.

Can't you see how morally wrong and intellectually dishonest this approach is?

 

[Vixen]

That's hysterical, you go from claiming they found a bloody fingerprint of Amanda on the switch, to now claiming a "balance of probabilities" that it was Amanda's bloody smudged mark?

We know Guede left many other bloody marks around, so how would Guede fit into your "balance of probabilities" test?



Despite Mignini's superior deductive prowess, my bathroom has a south-facing window with natural light, and I still flick on my light when going in there, no matter the time of day.

In any event, Guede clearly had used that bathroom while it was dark outside, so how you feel that blood smudged on that bathroom switch implicates Amanda in any way, amazes me?

Logical fallacy: anecdotal story purporting to debunk theory. I expect you know someone who smoked 200 cigarettes a day and lived to be 124.

Guede let rip his kebab in a totally different bathroom. Another logical fallacy.

 

[Kauffer]

Logical fallacy anecdotal story purporting to debunk theory. I expect you know someone who smoked 200 cigarettes a day and lived to be 124.

Guede let rip his kebab in a totally different bathroom. Another logical fallacy.

Guede admits he was in the small bathroom.

 

[Vixen]

That is confirmation bias. It is also reversing the burden of proof. You're basically arguing that one only needs to be accused by the authorities of a crime to be viewed as guilty.

Can't you see how morally wrong and intellectually dishonest this approach is?

What part of "police and prosecution" is obscure?

Let me explain how it works.

Crime happens.

Police arrest suspect. Prosecutors review evidence as to whether strong enough to bring a case. If approved, hearing is listed. The magistrate listens to submissions from the prosecution and the defense. A full merits hearing is listed if magistrate agrees there is a case to answer.

The blood on the light switch was one of Mignini's submissions.

Clear now?

 

[MDDVS]

Logical fallacy anecdotal story purporting to debunk theory. I expect you know someone who smoked 200 cigarettes a day and lived to be 124.

Guede let rip his kebab in a totally different bathroom. Another logical fallacy.

No, there's nobody smoking 200 cigarretes a day and living to 124. I'm not sure it is even possible to smake that many cigarretes in a day as you would need to smoke one every 5 minutes non-stop.

I must also add that I often switch on my bathroom lights regardless of time of day and my bathroom receives plenty of natural light, certainly much more than the cottage's one.

 

[Vixen]

No, there's nobody smoking 200 cigarretes a day and living to 124. I'm not sure it is even possible to smake that many cigarretes in a day as you would need to smoke one every 5 minutes non-stop.

I must also add that I often switch on my bathroom lights regardless of time of day and my bathroom receives plenty of natural light, certainly much more than the cottage's one.

Perhaps you should apply to be a detective? Tell them where they are going wrong in their deductions.

 

[MDDVS]

Perhaps you should apply to be a detective? Tell them where they are going wrong in their deductions.

How do you know I'm not a detective? What is your argument anyway? Detectives are never wrong?

It is wrong to deduce time of the day from use of a light switch.

 

[Kauffer]

What part of "police and prosecution" is obscure?

Let me explain how it works.

Crime happens.

Police arrest suspect. Prosecutors review evidence as to whether strong enough to bring a case. If approved, hearing is listed. The magistrate listens to submissions from the prosecution and the defense. A full merits hearing is listed if magistrate agrees there is a case to answer.

The blood on the light switch was one of Mignini's submissions.

Clear now?

It's always been clear - and now the Supreme Court has ruled what we already knew to be true; Mignini's claims and submissions were nonsense.

 

[Kauffer]

Perhaps you should apply to be a detective? Tell them where they are going wrong in their deductions.

Perhaps you should. You appear to forgotten the final verdict.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Someone needs to "apply" to be a prosecutor. Tell them prosecutors about all the Daily Mail evidence that they forgot to bring up in court.

 

[Vixen]

How do you know I'm not a detective? What is your argument anyway? Detectives are never wrong?

It is wrong to deduce time of the day from use of a light switch.

OK, so it's all right to argue Amanda wouldn't notice her lamp was missing as there was enough natural daylight in her room to not spot the empty space on her desk.

But it's not all right to suggest most people do not turn on a light if not needed, and the fact the light switch in the small bathroom showed a smear in the depressed position suggested this action took place whilst dark.

Some people make good detectives, others do not. Mignini is a successful one.

 

[acbytesla]

What part of "police and prosecution" is obscure?

Let me explain how it works.

Crime happens.

Police arrest suspect. Prosecutors review evidence as to whether strong enough to bring a case. If approved, hearing is listed. The magistrate listens to submissions from the prosecution and the defense. A full merits hearing is listed if magistrate agrees there is a case to answer.

The blood on the light switch was one of Mignini's submissions.

Clear now?

Clearly YOU DON'T understand how it works. It is the prosecution's responsibility to prove to a jury the case that the defendants are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

They are also required to present actual evidence, not just claim it existence. The burden of proof is theirs, not the defense. To evaluate the case from a juror's perspective that the evidence is whatever the prosecution says, is eliminating that burden.

There is no proof that Amanda smudged Meredith's blood on that switch and to suggest that she did is dishonest. Mignini's dishonesty and now yours.