Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Interesting theory. Have you ever thought about writing a Cultural Anthropology essay?

*edidted to ask: was that the land were the braves' officers use teaser guns on pregnant women, kill unarmed black guys randomly and sentence 13 olds to life in jail?

It certainly not perfect. But when we discover IDIOCY and CORRUPT officials like that freak Mignini, we get rid of them.

 

[moije2]

No, read back.
It's me the one who states what's unnecessary.

It was Vecchiotti who stated that the raw data are unnecessary. Oh yes he did. This is wha she said.

Her work was searching for contamination, and she said she was not interested in raw data. Oh yes, that's what she said.



I'm rather sure I can see more than you do.



What do you mean by "that" comment? Did you read carefully what the Presidente states, as well?
Did you read "adesso abbiamo tutta la doumentazione"?
And have you read Hellmann pointing out to Ghirga that they have already answered "repeatedly" and stated "repeatedly" that the had obtained all they wanted?
And have you read those snippets (I did not quote them) where Vecchiotti praised how cooperative Stefanoni was, pointing out that she responded giving her "even more things" than what she had requested?



Legally speaking this is sheer delusion.

Please help me out with this. I can see how you state that she says "the raw data are unnecessary" - that is an interpretation by you. Is this another word parsing to give artificial meaning? Unnecessary for what? For her to arrive at a conclusion about the invalidity of the process? Or that, as you seem to want to imply, that she did not request the raw data? If so, where doe she say that?

I see her saying, "... ritengo che si possa anche esprimere una valutazione con quello che loro ci hanno fornito. questa e una mia valutazione." That is a far stretch from her saying she is uninterested in the raw data. That clearly says she is able to give an opinion with what was given.

You are using her statements to support your assertion that (?) the raw data are not of scientific interest, yet her statements - in spite of your strident assertions - do not say what you want them to.

This does in fact seem like a really strange group of comments by you.

PS: you give one quote but leave out the "praticamente". Would you care to help out Italian language studies and tell us what the importance of that word is in her statement, "praticamente adesso abbiamo tutta la documentazione"?

Has it no meaning, or does it somehow modify that "now we have all the documentation"? I think it possibly means something.

 

[Vixen]

She isn't considered a felon in the United States, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

But the IDIOTS in your country belive in double body swaps, masonic conspiracies, satanic rituals and regularly incarcerate innocent people. Thank god not all Italians are that stupid.

Jingoism is the last resort of a scoundrel ~ Anon

The land of the free? At the Oscar ceremonies, the choir from 'Selma' claimed unfair and inhumane levels of imprisonment of their ethnic group. Charity begins at home ~ Anon.

 

[acbytesla]

In England, a kid is a young goat.

You feel a special endearment towards Amanda and Raff. Would that be because you are a paid shill? Do you like your job? Enquiring minds need to know.

Man I wish I got paid for this. I've certainly put in the time. I just hate to see good people attacked by people who are intellectually and morally challenged.

 

[acbytesla]

Jingoism is the last resort of a scoundrel ~ Anon

The land of the free? At the Oscar ceremonies, the choir from 'Selma' claimed unfair and inhumane levels of imprisonment of their ethnic group. Charity begins at home ~ Anon.

It's from the Star Spangled banner. I don't think my countryor the people here are perfect. Far from it. I do think this wrongful prosecution was a farce of major proportions and the people that prosecuted Amanda and Raffaele are IDIOTS of major proportion.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rudy Guede left in the room:
2 DNA instances certainly attributable (one certainly LCN, and defined "minimum" by Stefanoni)
2 instances of Y-haplotype alone (compatible; thus, attribution by inference)
(two of the DNA traces were collected 46 days after the murder)

1 attributable fingerprint (belonging to a palm print)

a small number of shoeprints only compatible with one of a pair of shoes possessed by Guede's (therefore, attributed only by inference); the shoeprints are not around the room floor, nor close to spot where the wictim was stabbed, but only by the exit of the room, apparently only linked with the final exit trail. (shoeprints on pillow, not certainly attributed, can be considered basically all in one single spot; linkable with the exit trail as well, lead to contradiction if Guede alone scenario is drawn) I would call the magnitude such amount of phisical evidence, definitely comparable with the phisical evidence of various kinds attributable to the other two.

This is really important, in so far as supporting your point of view of guilt. I truly don't understand what you are saying here. Could you break this out one sentence at a time, and just go through it slowly with me, so I can understand it?

I see no comparison of any kind with the evidence against Rudy Guede, as compared with the absence of any evidence against Amanda and Raf.

 

[carbonjam72]

Knox & Sollecito's alibi ends at 8.40.
Nobody has proven the aliby took place between 9 and 10 (on the contrary, credible witnesses indicate a later time). Even Hellmann agrees stomach content is unable to determine a timing the was you say.



The fact that you deny it doesn't make it go away.



This is absolutely idiotic. The "worst evils" are committed by "people with absolutely no motive" (Hannah Arendt). You talk as if there was a motive for Rudy Guede to rape, torture and kill Meredith Kercher.
(a thought of the kind that I consider, frankly, of the worst unconscious prejudicie - you can read racist if you like)

.

It matches perfectly.
(it doesn't match only with your idea that one certein stain must be the one left by the handle)



Had they given many blows, possibly. But given that it's only one blow, your statement is hyperbole.



Have you seen the pictures of Knox's hands?
I have not.
I also made a disquieting discovery: I discovered they are not in the file.

I noted Rudy left zero DNA traces in the bathroom where he allegedly washed his hands with cuts, anyway.

The desperation here is tangible. This makes me think that the motivation report is to be released very very soon, imminently, like tomorrow.

Here's my confession: I do believe people can be empathically linked to events, not necessarily because they are right, just because they are. I think Mach is linked into this, not even consciously, but linked nonetheless.

Vixen also seems on the verge of desperation. It's like they've both gone simultaneously bonkers. I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

 

[carbonjam72]

...unless, of course, they had all night to clean up at leisure.

BTW Nobody has answered my question: Whatever did happen to Amanda's coat and the bag for clothes she took round, which both she and Raff mention?

Clean up their microscopic DNA while leaving Rudy's?

Clean up their fingerprints in wet blood, while leaving Rudy's?

Clean up their footprints in Kercher's wet blood, while leaving only Rudy's?

I hope you getting your jollies is worth the distress you cause the Kercher family by playing your word games for your own amusement.

 

[Desert Fox]

The desperation here is tangible. This makes me think that the motivation report is to be released very very soon, imminently, like tomorrow.

Here's my confession: I do believe people can be empathically linked to events, not necessarily because they are right, just because they are. I think Mach is linked into this, not even consciously, but linked nonetheless.

Vixen also seems on the verge of desperation. It's like they've both gone simultaneously bonkers. I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

When you read the federal court judge exonerating Derek Tice, it is short and discusses why the conviction is overturned. The Italian legal system needs to operate in the same manner. They should be short and stick to the legal matters involved, not flights of fantasy.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, she is a proven liar, who - among many other lies she told - also accused a few people of crimes, well knowing they were innocent. And she is a felon convicted of this (and under trial again).

The thing is, no one cares about that.

Mignini does/did. Mignini's followers/supporters do/did. Care about it, I mean.

In fact that's their whole case. Fundamentally even though the DNA evidence falls apart, the claim that Knox is a liar and now convicted of "calunnia" (which is something different than strictly "lying", Machiavelli keeps telling us) proves their involvement in the murder case.

It's the reason why they keep harping on about it - they have nothing else, and this is he last remaining rhetorical escape route.

In other words, no one cares about it. EXCEPT those who recognize the desperation of accusing them (AK and RS) of murder. As Raffaele kept repeating in his last appeals document, "they keep saying these thing about Amanda Knox. What, then, does any of his have to do with me?"

And then when the courts discover that Raffaele is innocent, as did the 2015 ISC, then by simple logic Amanda must be innocent too. It's no wonder the remaining guilters harp on about the calunnia conviction. It's part of their rhetorical escape when they get out argued on everything else.

No one cares, Machiavelli.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda managed to do all that while leaving a burglars DNA in the victims genitals after she was stripped, and the burglar's bloody shoeprints around the body, and the burglar's bloody hand print on the very same pillow case she was dragged onto and assaulted on. Wow! Amanda isn't a gentle soul, a metamorphosing monster is more like it.

No, she is a proven liar, who - among many other lies she told - also accused a few people of crimes, well knowing they were innocent. And she is a felon convicted of this (and under trial again).

Could the rhetorical bait and switch be any more apparent than here.

 

[Machiavelli]

Please help me out with this. I can see how you state that she says "the raw data are unnecessary" - that is an interpretation by you. Is this another word parsing to give artificial meaning? Unnecessary for what? For her to arrive at a conclusion about the invalidity of the process? Or that, as you seem to want to imply, that she did not request the raw data? If so, where doe she say that?

I see her saying, "... ritengo che si possa anche esprimere una valutazione con quello che loro ci hanno fornito. questa e una mia valutazione." That is a far stretch from her saying she is uninterested in the raw data. That clearly says she is able to give an opinion with what was given.

You are using her statements to support your assertion that (?) the raw data are not of scientific interest, yet her statements - in spite of your strident assertions - do not say what you want them to.

This does in fact seem like a really strange group of comments by you.

PS: you give one quote but leave out the "praticamente". Would you care to help out Italian language studies and tell us what the importance of that word is in her statement, "praticamente adesso abbiamo tutta la documentazione"?

Has it no meaning, or does it somehow modify that "now we have all the documentation"? I think it possibly means something.

"Praticamente" is an interjection. It is probably one of the most vague and weasel words used in colloqual speech, I think in particular by Romans, maybe by people from Center-Italy. The closest words in English are: "basically", or "well", "so", "you know". It is used, I would say to express the fact that the person is thinking about, pondering, or that intends to clarify somthing, to point out or start a little explanation.
It can have 100 "meanings" and has none; it is merely a colloqual word, it won't be allowed in a written statement. Its use is associated with people who talk imprecisely, ("basically", "well" , "so"...) sometimes I meet Romans who use a ton of "praticamente" without any necessity, and that doesn't sound particularly a good thing to me. This word occurred frequently also in some other testimonies by other witnesses and irritated one Italian translator from Rome, who pointed out that it was not a beautiful way of speaking.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have seen the video of Stefanoni holding, dropping, and then picking up the bra clasp with her dirty gloves, but this is the first time I have seen the two photographs (frames from the video) linked above. Look precisely at what part of the fabric clasp Stefanoni is holding between her dirty-gloved thumb and finger. It is the edge of the fabric clasp that contains the hook! She is precisely grabbing it by the hook with her fingers. Her hold is precisely on target. As a forensic collection and processing technician, Stefanoni is not ignorant of various edges of small objects - she must know what part she is grasping and is adept at manipulating small objects. I have to conclude that she knows she is grasping the hooks in her (not fresh) gloved thumb and finger.

Remembe how Machiavelli interpreted those photos, photos taken of Stefanoni handling the bra-hooks with obviously dirty gloves.

Machiavelli said he saw something else as being obvious. That the bra-hooks had contaminated the gloves, not the other way around.

Those sorts of statements are the domain of the rhetorically desperate!

 

[Machiavelli]

The desperation here is tangible. This makes me think that the motivation report is to be released very very soon, imminently, like tomorrow.

(...)

I fail to guess where you can "see" "desperation" (? and frankly I'm afraid I don't even understand what you mean with such term). And above all I fail to see a link between any alleged "desperation" and the motivation report (of unknown content by now).
I really don't understand why the folks' minds here are even remotely crossed with an idea of some kind of "desperation" on my part. It's something that I really don't understand and makes no sense to me. There must be something too far my viewpoint of the world.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Praticamente" is an interjection. It is probably one of the most vague and weasel words used in colloqual speech, I think in particular by Romans, maybe by people from Center-Italy. The closest words in English are: "basically", or "well", "so", "you know". It is used, I would say to express the fact that the person is thinking about, pondering, or that intends to clarify somthing, to point out or start a little explanation.
It can have 100 "meanings" and has none; it is merely a colloqual word, it won't be allowed in a written statement. Its use is associated with people who talk imprecisely, ("basically", "well" , "so"...) sometimes I meet Romans who use a ton of "praticamente" without any necessity, and that doesn't sound particularly a good thing to me. This word occurred frequently also in some other testimonies by other witnesses and irritated one Italian translator from Rome, who pointed out that it was not a beautiful way of speaking.

It turns out that it was an awkward lie on your part when you said that Vecchiotti said she didn't need the raw data and was satisfied with what Stefanoni handed over. The evidence you provided proved the exact opposite of what your were claiming.

Nice one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Remembe how Machiavelli interpreted those photos, photos taken of Stefanoni handling the bra-hooks with obviously dirty gloves.

Machiavelli said he saw something else as being obvious. That the bra-hooks had contaminated the gloves, not the other way around.

Those sorts of statements are the domain of the rhetorically desperate!

The gloves were put on inside the room. All dirt you see on the gloves is from inside the room.

 

[Machiavelli]

It turns out that it was an awkward lie on your part when you said that Vecchiotti said she didn't need the raw data and was satisfied with what Stefanoni handed over. The evidence you provided proved the exact opposite of what your were claiming.

Nice one.

It turns out what?
Vecchiotti stated she wasn't interested in raw data and was more than satisfied with what Stefanoni gave her.
What do you think the transcript says?

 

[Bill Williams]

It turns out what?
Vecchiotti stated she wasn't interested in raw data and was more than satisfied with what Stefanoni gave her.
What do you think the transcript says?

I've said it before. She was more than satisfied with what Stefanoni gave her, because even that proved that Stefanoni's conclusions were junk. Read the Conti & Vecchiotti report, and quit lying about what Vecchiotti said. You are engaging in pure spin. AKA lying.

At that point she was not interested in seeing the raw data, because the only thing the raw data was useful for was to confirm DNA results which showed guilt. To Vecchiotti they showed nothing.

 

[Bill Williams]

The gloves were put on inside the room. All dirt you see on the gloves is from inside the room.

You are nothing if not incredible, Machiavelli. Then we can safely say that up to 4 men were in that room at the time of the murder, given what Nencini said about the extra Y-material as par of 165B. Oh wait, there must have been 2 "amica".

So now you admit that the gloves were contaminated! Yo are getting your accounts very confused, and I would advise you to alter your story before you get caught in more lies.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are nothing if not incredible, Machiavelli. Then we can safely say that up to 4 men were in that room at the time of the murder, given what Nencini said about the extra Y-material as par of 165B. Oh wait, there must have been 2 "amica".

So now you admit that the gloves were contaminated! Yo are getting your accounts very confused, and I would advise you to alter your story before you get caught in more lies.

I have no story to tell. It makes no difference to say the gloves picked the dirt from the clasp or from the floor in the room, since the clasp got dirty itself from the floor, so dirt is from the floor anyway.
But this goes for DNA too. The gloves picked their dirt from inside the room. There us actually no reason to assume that the DNA was transferred on the metal hook from the gloves, such assumption would be itself not substantiated, but it doesn't change the picture, because that would indicate only son abundant presence of Sollecito's DNA in the room, which would be incriminating.