Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Thank you for the effort. However, this was the post of mine which you said was filled with inaccuracies..... the issue in question was that you'd said that people like Nencini had evidence in front of them that is not in front of us.

It is strange to cite Nencini to make this point. In fact, both you and I HAVE seen as much of the evidence Nencini did. The only evidence in front of his court, really, were the three items decreed by the 2013 IC reversal of Hellmann's 2011 exonerations.

All three of those things went the defence's way. Other than those three things, Nencini did not see and hear the evidence - he joined the legions of people who just made stuff up, particularly about things they have not seen. Nencini had the option of putting stuff before his court - in fact, the defence made 19 motions to do exactly that. Nencini denied all by one of them.

In fact, Nencini had no evidence in front of him to convict - but he did anyway. Can you then wonder why the 2015 ISC completely exonerated the kids, without remand of issues to the Appeals' level again?

The kids haven't been exonerated.[/quot]

Acc. to Judge Marasca of the ISC, they have. They did not commit the act.

Amanda had carried kitchen knives around with her in Germany. (By her own account.)

Was there any evidence put to the Massei court that Amanda carried the kinfe in question on the night in question? None. In Germany, did Amanda carry around large kitchen knives? What does this have to do with Perugia?

Nencini DID review the DNA evidence exhibit 36i.

True. I said that above. 36I was Amanda's sample, proving nothing about the knife being involved in a murder. It proved that Amanda had cooked with the knife at Raffaele's, since it was not shown that the knife ever left Raffaele's.

It did not go V&C's way, for the defence; they claimed it was potato starch.

Once again, the issue at hand was what Nencini had in front of him in his court. Did Nencini or Crini have opportunity to question C&V? Did Crini show it was not potato starch? Please remember it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove things, not the defence.

It was Amanda's DNA on the knife hilt.

See above. Once again, Nencini did not have Stefanoni in his court to give evidence about this. That was the point of the exchange we were having.

There's five to be going on with.

Thank you for the effort.

 

[Bill Williams]

AIUI He was referring to the fact Raff's spontaneous statements were uncrossexaminable. It's all very well Raff waxing lyrical about his fairytale love story. If he wants the court to take him seriously, as he pleaded, get on the witness stand.

The question is: how would this have gone better for Raffaele, given that Nencini provisionally convicted them? How could it have gone BETTER for Raffaele if he'd testified and been cross examined?

 

[Kauffer]

All a judge has to demonstrate is that it is a fair enough view after seeing all the evidence.

Matteini was told all this stuff about Patrick by the prosecution, thanks to Amanda reporting he raped and murdered Mez, and she was a witness. Under those circumstances, it was a fair response to remand them and list the case for trial.
She wasn 't to know ATT Amanda framed Patrick.

What are you talking about? They weren't even charged.

 

[Dougm]

The reason I am one out of dozens is the mere fact all you guys belong to a homogenous pro advocacy group, hence you all toe the "innocent" party line, regardless of the transparent illogicality of some of your claims.

Hume said,“Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions”.

It's great you're passionate. However, the quasi-I'm confused stance is merely irritating to the reader, as is the pseudo stance adopted by others of faux superiority predicated on little more than sarcasm, sophistry and purple prose.

If you sincerely are confused, I apologise. If you struggle to understand something, just ask.

I really am confused. I don't have any interest in insulting you, I was just trying to figure out your logic flow, which is escaping me for the reasons I mentioned. I really don't have that much invested in your view of the case from a guilt or innocence perspective. It's over. They court said they are not guilty.

I agree it might seem like a fake or sarcastic stance, except that there is truly something to be perplexed by here. Others that have argued pro-guilt here, and elsewhere, have generally taken facts of the case, but have had a different interpretation of them. You, in contrast, keep putting forth facts that have been disproven, and are rarely if ever accepted, even by the most committed pro-guilt people.

There are several people who still argue for the woman's shoe print, for example, but you are the first I have ever seen that claims things like Raffaele's fingerprint was found inside Meredith's room, Amanda's fingerprint in blood on the light switch in the bathroom, etc. Not even Mignini ever argued those points.

Sorry if it seems sarcastic. I just see it as the equivalent of me arguing something like, "Amanda could not have committed the murder! She was at Lumumba's pub at that time". There is simply nothing to support that contention.

 

[Kauffer]

Nice piece of legerdemain.

No. You changed the discussion from fingerprints to shoes.

Do you now accept, having been shown the evidence that your source was wrong and that Raffaele's print was not on the inside of the door? If not, why not?

 

[Vixen]

Duh! Not as weapons of self defence - in their box, as purchased.

Yes they are exonerated - found guilty, now acquitted. That's an exoneration.

No. Under Italian law there are two broad types of acquittal, exoneration and insufficient evidence.

It has been established the latter was cited, albeit illegitimately.

 

[Vixen]

No. You changed the discussion from fingerprints to shoes.

Do you now accept, having been shown the evidence that your source was wrong and that Raffaele's print was not on the inside of the door? If not, why not?

If Giobbi said it matched, it matched. All else is spin.

 

[Bill Williams]

I really am confused. I don't have any interest in insulting you, I was just trying to figure out your logic flow, which is escaping me for the reasons I mentioned. I really don't have that much invested in your view of the case from a guilt or innocence perspective. It's over. They court said they are not guilty.

I agree it might seem like a fake or sarcastic stance, except that there is truly something to be perplexed by here. Others that have argued pro-guilt here, and elsewhere, have generally taken facts of the case, but have had a different interpretation of them. You, in contrast, keep putting forth facts that have been disproven, and are rarely if ever accepted, even by the most committed pro-guilt people.

There are several people who still argue for the woman's shoe print, for example, but you are the first I have ever seen that claims things like Raffaele's fingerprint was found inside Meredith's room, Amanda's fingerprint in blood on the light switch in the bathroom, etc. Not even Mignini ever argued those points.
Sorry if it seems sarcastic. I just see it as the equivalent of me arguing something like, "Amanda could not have committed the murder! She was at Lumumba's pub at that time". There is simply nothing to support that contention.

I am as confused as you. It is one thing to have differing interpretations of the same item of evidence, it is quite another to just make stuff up, and then accuse others of lying.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. Under Italian law there are two broad types of acquittal, exoneration and insufficient evidence.

It has been established the latter was cited, albeit illegitimately.

Where? Judge Marasca said that they did not do the act.

Fortunately the Motivations Report is due. Will you retract this when the M.R. is out? Or does Judge Marasca become part of the PR-advocacy group?

 

[Vixen]

I really am confused. I don't have any interest in insulting you, I was just trying to figure out your logic flow, which is escaping me for the reasons I mentioned. I really don't have that much invested in your view of the case from a guilt or innocence perspective. It's over. They court said they are not guilty.

I agree it might seem like a fake or sarcastic stance, except that there is truly something to be perplexed by here. Others that have argued pro-guilt here, and elsewhere, have generally taken facts of the case, but have had a different interpretation of them. You, in contrast, keep putting forth facts that have been disproven, and are rarely if ever accepted, even by the most committed pro-guilt people.

There are several people who still argue for the woman's shoe print, for example, but you are the first I have ever seen that claims things like Raffaele's fingerprint was found inside Meredith's room, Amanda's fingerprint in blood on the light switch in the bathroom, etc. Not even Mignini ever argued those points.

Sorry if it seems sarcastic. I just see it as the equivalent of me arguing something like, "Amanda could not have committed the murder! She was at Lumumba's pub at that time". There is simply nothing to support that contention.

You are clearly naive if you can't see that a case develops over time.

A bloody mark was found on the small bathroom light switch. Accept it.

 

[zotz]

All a judge has to demonstrate is that it is a fair enough view after seeing all the evidence.

Matteini was told all this stuff about Patrick by the prosecution, thanks to Amanda reporting he raped and murdered Mez, and she was a witness. Under those circumstances, it was a fair response to remand them and list the case for trial.

She wasn 't to know ATT Amanda framed Patrick.

You are always straining to point out that the behavior of the Perugia police and prosecutors was reasonable and fair. What if I went to Scotland Yard and told them that I had confused images in my mind of you committing a murder but that it was like a dream and I doubted that they were real? Do you think that would be sufficient cause to arrest you violently without even telling you the reason and then deny you access to a lawyer and then demand that you confess? Would your mistreatment be my fault or the police's fault?

Is this proper police procedure in your country?

 

[Kauffer]

No. Under Italian law there are two broad types of acquittal, exoneration and insufficient evidence.

It has been established the latter was cited, albeit illegitimately.

No. It's an exoneration. It doesn't matter how the court arrived at its decision to acquit. The point is, she is not legally culpable in the murder, having previously been found to be culpable.

 

[Vixen]

Where? Judge Marasca said that they did not do the act.

Fortunately the Motivations Report is due. Will you retract this when the M.R. is out? Or does Judge Marasca become part of the PR-advocacy group?

Your memory fails you. We have discussed Art. 530 para 2 thoroughly. Do you remember, this is what was cited.

 

[Kauffer]

If Giobbi said it matched, it matched. All else is spin.

That would mean there's no point in a trial. We just take as evidence what a police officer is reported to have said to the media? I'm not even sure Giobbi ever said it anyway, but the fact is, no such print exists, as the fingerprint expert confirms and as the court heard.

 

[Vixen]

No. It's an exoneration. It doesn't matter how the court arrived at its decision to acquit. The point is, she is not legally culpable in the murder, having previously been found to be culpable.

There is a fine distinction between exoneration and insufficient evidence. It is regrettable you struggle to grasp it. Is there anything I can do to help?

 

[Kauffer]

Your memory fails you. We have discussed Art. 530 para 2 thoroughly. Do you remember, this is what was cited.

There is some debate about the meaning of 530 (2) in this case, which we will resolve. Amanda's attorney is on record as to the meaning, however. Nonetheless, it does not affect her status as an exoneree. No court, including Italian courts, find defendants partially guilty.

 

[Vixen]

You are always straining to point out that the behavior of the Perugia police and prosecutors was reasonable and fair. What if I went to Scotland Yard and told them that I had confused images in my mind of you committing a murder but that it was like a dream and I doubted that they were real? Do you think that would be sufficient cause to arrest you violently without even telling you the reason and then deny you access to a lawyer and then demand that you confess? Would your mistreatment be my fault or the police's fault?

Is this proper police procedure in your country?

Anyone walking into a police station confessing murder will have their complaint treated seriously, especially if they lived in the abode the murder happened and claimed to have witnessed it.

It's unlikely the kiddiewinkies would have been granted an appeal here. They'd have got life, and been out on parole after nine years.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a fine distinction between exoneration and insufficient evidence. It is regrettable you struggle to grasp it. Is there anything I can do to help?

Yes. Explain how "did not commit the act" means "insufficient evidence".

To review - depending on the charge both kids were found either, perché il fatto non sussiste, because the action the defendant was alleged to have committed never took place; or, perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso, because the defendant did not commit the action he was alleged to have committed, but that action did take place.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyone walking into a police station confessing murder will have their complaint treated seriously, especially if they lived in the abode the murder happened and claimed to have witnessed it.

It's unlikely the kiddiewinkies would have been granted an appeal here. They'd have got life, and been out on parole after nine years.

The best thing in this thread is to limit oneself to describing what actually happened.

No one "walk(ed) into a police station confessing murder." Knox's intent in being there was not to be alone at Raffaele's while Raffaele was interrogated. Her intnt was to do homework, and talk with Filomena about where they were going to live. Then she was taken to interrogation by Ficarra, where it got out of control (by Anna Donnin's description of it) probably because of Knox's insufficient Italian and Ficara's non-existent English. In fact, after Anna Donnino's intervention as a "mediator", Knox wrongly assumed that her imaginings were somehow useful in solving this horrible crime.

I've asked this before and it remains unanswered. Mignini regarded Knox as a liar and as an actress. Yet his reason for arresting Lumumba was, "because Amanda accused him."

Can you reconcile those two beliefs of Giuliano Mignini?

 

[RoseMontague]

There is a fine distinction between exoneration and insufficient evidence. It is regrettable you struggle to grasp it. Is there anything I can do to help?

I don't really care which paragraph it is. It's over.