Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

You are lying. I used a different wording, which did not contain the word "never". You only need to scroll up a few posts upthread.

Then why did you answer with a non sequitor about the reason why Nencini denied this request? I think you're making this up as you go, and insisting upon strict meanings of implied words when it suits you.

 

[Bill Williams]

And that conclusion was that the two were innocent. What the heck are you trying to argue?

Let's remind everyone that there is no factual finding of "innocence".

Let's remind everyone that you are only arguing all this in the English language, and cannot name a single Italian language webservice where there is a similar discussion.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then why did you answer with a non sequitor about the reason why Nencini denied this request? I think you're making this up as you go, and insisting upon strict meanings of implied words when it suits you.

You were the one who is caught lying. And that was an extremely silly, and childish lie.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let's remind everyone that you are only arguing all this in the English language, and cannot name a single Italian language webservice where there is a similar discussion.

There has never been a Meredith Kercher discussion forum in Italian to my knowledge. And there has never been a pro-Knox supporter discussing in Italian.

The funny thing is that you seem to try take upon yourself those who are silent, as if they were in agreement with you.

 

[Machiavelli]

This was your post, Machiavelli - the one where you say you do not cherry-pick evidence.

Apparently you do. You want the defences request to the Nencini court for a testing of the presumed semen-stain to be ignored because, well.... lessee.... ah, er, Sollecito was a convicted person at that time.
(...)

Of course. It's correct. It's quite different. Because the trial was over at that point.

 

[Bill Williams]

There has never been a Meredith Kercher discussion forum in Italian to my knowledge. And there has never been a pro-Knox supporter discussing in Italian.

The funny thing is that you seem to try take upon yourself those who are silent, as if they were in agreement with you.

Huh!? Since when did I say or even imply that? I said that a brief survey of Italian websites and news services seems to indicate that the whole issue has dropped off the map.

Please don't just make things up when it suits you.

It is also interesting that you say, "pro-Knox supporter" discussing this in Italian. Bongiorno, Sollecito, Girlanda, Porta a Porta.... the list goes on, because this is a case about TWO innocents, not one.

You have a conspiracy of De Nunzio, Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca and Bruno. You are the ONLY one in the Italian language anywhere discussing that - and you do it only in English on non-Italian webservices.

Calm down. That's all I was saying. Where, then, is the hue and cry in Italy if this is such a giant miscarriage?

 

[Bill Williams]

This was your post, Machiavelli - the one where you say you do not cherry-pick evidence.

Apparently you do. You want the defences request to the Nencini court for a testing of the presumed semen-stain to be ignored because, well.... lessee.... ah, er, Sollecito was a convicted person at that time.
(...)

Of course. It's correct. It's quite different. Because the trial was over at that point.

Now you are making clumsy errors. I cannot accuse you of lying when it is simply an error and a clumsy one at that.

These requests were made to Nencini at the beginning of the Florence trial. In his motivations report, Nencini says that, including his (bogus) reasons for denying the request.

One non-lie. Just a clumsy mistake.

 

[Bill Williams]

Then why did you answer with a non sequitor about the reason why Nencini denied this request? I think you're making this up as you go, and insisting upon strict meanings of implied words when it suits you.

You were the one who is caught lying. And that was an extremely silly, and childish lie.

I can only repeat, M., because you failed to address it.... why then the non sequitor about Sollecito being guilty as your reason to (wrongly) divert from answering your claim that the Sollecito defence had "never" asked for a test of the semen stain?

At the first half dozen trials/appearances before judges - the prosecution had the job to NOT CHERRY-PICK EVIDENCE - esp. evidence of semen at a sexual assault. Why WOULD the defence request it tested if the prosecution would not?

(I can now hear you come back with, "there was no evidence of a sexual assault," which of course is the result of the police not doing their job to begin with.)

Sheesh.

 

[Machiavelli]

I can only repeat, M., because you failed to address it.... why then the non sequitor about Sollecito being guilty as your reason to (wrongly) divert from answering your claim that the Sollecito defence had "never" asked for a test of the semen stain?
(...)

Drop it, I can only say your strange attack looks stupid, childish and embarassing.

I did not use the word "never", and provided true information.

I also did not use a non-sequitur; you interpreted that as a non-sequitur, it wasn't.
By the way it was not about "his being guilty", but about the Nencini trial being an appeal, therefore it was no longer the venue for searching better evidence. Sollecito had the opportunity to enter the evidence at the time when Vinci examined the pillowcase during the evidence discussion phase, in 2009. They chose not to do so.
I don't think such observation can be called a non-sequitur.

As for "why would the defence request to test it?", well if they don't want it to be tested, then they shall not complain about it. It means it was not a defensive request.

 

[Machiavelli]

Now you are making clumsy errors. I cannot accuse you of lying when it is simply an error and a clumsy one at that.

These requests were made to Nencini at the beginning of the Florence trial. In his motivations report, Nencini says that, including his (bogus) reasons for denying the request.

One non-lie. Just a clumsy mistake.

It's you who don't udnerstand. By "trial" I mean Massei. The Florence was the appeal. An appeal is not exactly the same thing of a trial.
This is what I mean by saying "the trial was over".
An appeal rarely re-opens evidentiary discussion phase, when it's done it's only about some limited instances, and only about the reasons for appeal.

 

[Bill Williams]

Drop it, I can only say your strange attack looks stupid, childish and embarassing.

I did not use the word "never", and provided true information.

I also did not use a non-sequitur; you interpreted that as a non-sequitur, it wasn't.
By the way it was not about "his being guilty", but about the Nencini trial being an appeal, therefore it was no longer the venue for searching better evidence. Sollecito had the opportunity to enter the evidence at the time when Vinci examined the pillowcase during the evidence discussion phase, in 2009. They chose not to do so.
I don't think such observation can be called a non-sequitur.

As for "why would the defence request to test it?", well if they don't want it to be tested, then they shall not complain about it. It means it was not a defensive request.

When did the defence ever "complain"? I've long since dropped this. Why don't you?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's you who don't udnerstand. By "trial" I mean Massei. The Florence was the appeal. An appeal is not exactly the same thing of a trial.
This is what I mean by saying "the trial was over".
An appeal rarely re-opens evidentiary discussion phase, when it's done it's only about some limited instances, and only about the reasons for appeal.

If this is true, mores' the need for reform in Italy. Fact remains - Sollecito requested 19 items to be reopened at appeal. 18 were denied by Nencini, including the defence request to examine the semen stain.

There is no logical reason for Nencini to deny this, nor for the prosecution to resist it. (Or not request it themselves.)

That it's taken until the pairs' acquittals to have it argued about on an English webservice, when no one in Italy seems to care any more..... well, I've made that point. And you've distorted that one too.

Fine. There are only two people in Italy willing to argue guilt for AK and RS, months' after their complete acquittals. You and Guede. At least Guede does it in Italian for Italians.

 

[Bill Williams]

Second grade trials are not billed as you claim, Machiavelli.... this from Wikipedia:

The Corte d'Assise d'Appello has the same composition of judges and lay judges as the Corte d'Assise, but the Giudici Togati are senior relative to the judges in the first court. The Corte d'Assise d'Appello must also publish written explanations of its decisions. This appeal includes a complete review of the evidence – in effect a retrial.

Esp. in matters where a Judge/panel reinterprets evidence, the sense of full answer should allow the defence at least to present rebuttal evidence. Apparently not.

 

[carbonjam72]

Nice!
I hope that you get what you dream of,
girl!

If ya ever get to L.A.
drop me a note.
If ya know how to swim, just put on a cute lil' bikini
+ I'll take ya surfin' and push you into some waves here in the waters off Hollywood...

But with that said,
I gotta wonder what was Antonio Curatolo dreamin',
err thinkin' about on the night of Nov. 1st, 2007,
while high on heroin???

Maybe wishin' he was on the beach,
wearin' board shorts as I do daily + checkin' out the babes
and dreamin' of some of our warm California sunshine
as he spent a cold Fall night outside on a park bench?

Gosh,
I hope the old geezer stayed warm that night.

Heck,
I've read that Vixen,
well you'se be a bettin' kinda woman,
ain't that right?

I'd betcha that ol' Toto,
high on heroin that night,
saw and heard the commotion when the black dude
bumped into Alessandra Formica's guy pal around 10:30pm that night on those nearby steps.

He just did not wanna tell the Massei Court this.

I also betcha that ol' "Toto" heard and saw the tow truck driver workin' on the broken down car around 11:00pm.

He just did not wanna tell the Massei Court this.

And I betcha ol' "Toto" did hear that loud blood curdling' scream that made some ol' lady's skin crawl
from behind the safety of her double paned windows. And he did hear them dry leaves a rustlin' too...

He just did not wanna tell the Massei Court this.

Odd how ol' "Toto" did not apparently hear
whatever it was that caused many normal folks to look towards Meredith's apartment on that chilly November night:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=10009[/qimg]

I betcha that whatever it was that caused these folks to look towards Meredith's apartment on a holiday evening was related to her rape + murder. Whatdoya think,Vixen?

Yes, I think so too. The timing is really interesting as well. The clock appears to read 9:44pm (so is that really 9:55pm, because the clocks were slow?).

If the black man ran into the couple on the steps around 10:30, and if that were Rudy, then that would allow Rudy to have gone downstairs as well after the murder to think things over, clean-up, change clothes, whatever. Turn on the light switch to leave the human DNA and blood on it. (Except the phone calls made at Lana's around 10:15 to Meredith's bank, so maybe the couple on the steps had their time slightly off as well).

There's definitely some time shifting and fuzz to this theory, but its not a bad fit, IUAM.

John Douglas, in his chapter in the book, Rudy Guede, The Forgotten Killer, I believe said he placed the time of Meredith's death at 10pm. That time of death caught a lot of flack from these boards when it came up. But if these images were actually people reacting to Meredith's screaming for her life, then Douglas's TOD estimate was right on the money. And, Rudy's estimate of 9:20 was a bit off the mark. Unless, Rudy tried to negotiate with Meredith for 25 minutes or so, before the encounter escalated to a mortal assault.

The timing on these pictures are great Randy. Is this from the Oggi article? Is there a link to the source.

Great find here.

 

[Strozzi]

Ol'Frank took a bit of a shine to Amanda, did he not? Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't Frank booted out of the US rather unceremoniously?

Vixen's statement above is her response to a lengthy comment another poster made regarding Stefanoni's DNA work.

 

[carbonjam72]

Nice!
I hope that you get what you dream of,
girl!

If ya ever get to L.A.
drop me a note.
If ya know how to swim, just put on a cute lil' bikini
+ I'll take ya surfin' and push you into some waves here in the waters off Hollywood...

But with that said,
I gotta wonder what was Antonio Curatolo dreamin',
err thinkin' about on the night of Nov. 1st, 2007,
while high on heroin???

Maybe wishin' he was on the beach,
wearin' board shorts as I do daily + checkin' out the babes
and dreamin' of some of our warm California sunshine
as he spent a cold Fall night outside on a park bench?

Gosh,
I hope the old geezer stayed warm that night.

Heck,
I've read that Vixen,
well you'se be a bettin' kinda woman,
ain't that right?

I'd betcha that ol' Toto,
high on heroin that night,
saw and heard the commotion when the black dude
bumped into Alessandra Formica's guy pal around 10:30pm that night on those nearby steps.

He just did not wanna tell the Massei Court this.

I also betcha that ol' "Toto" heard and saw the tow truck driver workin' on the broken down car around 11:00pm.

He just did not wanna tell the Massei Court this.

And I betcha ol' "Toto" did hear that loud blood curdling' scream that made some ol' lady's skin crawl
from behind the safety of her double paned windows. And he did hear them dry leaves a rustlin' too...

He just did not wanna tell the Massei Court this.

Odd how ol' "Toto" did not apparently hear
whatever it was that caused many normal folks to look towards Meredith's apartment on that chilly November night:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=10009[/qimg]

I betcha that whatever it was that caused these folks
to look towards Meredith's apartment on a holiday evening
was related to her rape + murder.

Whatdoya think,
Vixen?

By the way, who are these people, who unlike Nara, clearly did hear something that night? Why haven't they been located and asked to testify to what drew their attention?

It's ok, I think I know why.

 

[acbytesla]

I've had it with Machavelli. He says we are lying and being childish when we don't buy into his own dishonesty. Time and time again I see others post indisputable evidence and still he disputes it. Science and court testimony is meaningless to him. The whole world knows that fire burns and water is wet but he will argue the opposite.

This is beyond childish. The rest of you can entertain yourself with his obfuscation and dietrology...but reading his posts makes me want to scream. I debate politics with people who I disagree with vehemently, but we almost always are able to agree on the facts.

I don't understand this nonsense, These posts are both eloquent and totally dishonest at the same time. Vixen's posts on the other hand are just silly. She thinks they are clever and pithy, but in truth they are neither. They are easy to dismiss.Mach's posts are deep thoughtful but totally devoid of any honest approach.

 

[Strozzi]

By the way, who are these people, who unlike Nara, clearly did hear something that night? Why haven't they been located and asked to testify to what drew their attention?

It's ok, I think I know why.

There is no evidence that whatever drew the attention of people in the parking garage is related to the murder, which could have occurred close to 9:20 pm. Whateverdrew people's attention at around 10 pm (video clock adjusted to correct time) could have been anything. It could have been several different sounds or sights.

1. someone trying to start a car?
2. a stray dog moving in the garage?
3. several people talking or laughing near a parked car?
4. a homeless person hanging out in the garage seeking a little warmth on a chilly evening.
5. a bird fluttering in the garage?

 

[Bill Williams]

I've had it with Machavelli. He says we are lying and being childish when we don't buy into his own dishonesty. Time and time again I see others post indisputable evidence and still he disputes it. Science and court testimony is meaningless to him. The whole world knows that fire burns and water is wet but he will argue the opposite.

This is beyond childish. The rest of you can entertain yourself with his obfuscation and dietrology...but reading his posts makes me want to scream. I debate politics with people who I disagree with vehemently, but we almost always are able to agree on the facts.

I don't understand this nonsense, These posts are both eloquent and totally dishonest at the same time. Vixen's posts on the other hand are just silly. She thinks they are clever and pithy, but in truth they are neither. They are easy to dismiss.Mach's posts are deep thoughtful but totally devoid of any honest approach.

Machiavelli has long since lost the plot. He's still claiming such inanities like the defence "didn't want the semen stain tested."

The defence. "Didn't want it tested". Even when they petitioned the nencini court to test it. When it was on the first day the job of the cops and prosecution to find the truth about his horrible murder. As Raffaele said in his book, after the cops/prosecution had pulled a random knife as the murder weapon and had invented DNA evidence about it and the bra-clasp..... gee, why would the defence WANT the pillow stain tested so that Stefanoni could forge that test, too!?

I've had it with Machiavelli. I've spent some time looking for something, anything presently from Italy which even remotely echoes his conspiracy-silliness. There's nothing. No news reports of an impending Supreme Court crisis, no blog with Italian-version guilters (esp. in the Italian language). Even Francesco Maresca says this is over - and hopefully has mercifully advised the Kerchers to get on with life as best they can.

What do you suppose all this means!?

 

[zotz]

What do you suppose all this means!?

He writes English very well. I rarely see language mistakes. Are you 100% sure that he is living in Italy?