Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ken:
I know of the screw up with cloning drives in this case but I believe that Planigale was referring to a completely independent case where they also hosed up cloning hard drives.
 
Ken:
I know of the screw up with cloning drives in this case but I believe that Planigale was referring to a completely independent case where they also hosed up cloning hard drives.


Hi,

Sorry, I didn't notice that there was a reference to another destroyed hard-drives case (but, I guess I shouldn't be surprised this was an ongoing pattern by the Postal Police):

No I do not. If there are systemic problems this affects many people. I think that many of the people criticised here, probably did what they usually did. They did not behave any worse in this case than others. Picking on individuals in one case will not prevent the same bad things happening again.

For instance, I previously referenced another case where the postal police wiped hard drives when trying to read them. In the Elisa Clasps case Pascali criticised Steffanoni for not following protocols. I suspect that Steffanoni was doing LCN testing without the facilities in that case also. It would be interesting to know what training judges underwent in the evaluation of genetic evidence so they can ask the right questions to ensure the testing was done appropriately. England has an external regulator and standard setter for forensic science.

So if one wants things to improve, focussing on individuals is not the answer, one needs a systems approach as happens in air safety. Individuals make errors, you put systems in place to reduce those. E.g. Record interrogations. Investigate allegations of police misbehaviour. Ensure laboratories have QA systems in place and external validation. Forensic errors should be reviewed - why were the shoe print rings miscounted, were the 'experts' doing this trained in analysing shoe prints. Did they have SOPs in place? Were measures done blind to the reference prints?
 
Ken:
I know of the screw up with cloning drives in this case but I believe that Planigale was referring to a completely independent case where they also hosed up cloning hard drives.

There's another recent case as well, I forget the guy's name, but he found his fiancee, and his alibi was in a computer, IIRC. Police then fried his computer.

He was twice tried and twice acquitted, before being annulled and then re-convicted at his next appeal hearing, which happened I think earlier this year.

Sounds like someone's country shouldn't be allowed to hold trials, IUAM. ECHR should have a mechanism for stepping in earlier.

Recent convictions of Sarah Misseri? Not sure if that's her name, but looks like another classic Italian witch hunt. Does saying this make me a racist?
 
There is this religious apologetics called presuppositionalist apologetics. Mach's arguments remind me very strongly of that, Basically you have to assume guilt and examin everything in light of that.
Fox,
Thanks for pointing this out, as I had never heard of it before.
Just reading the Wiki page is pretty freaky, like the definition; "that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought."
and presupposition is "a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence."
This is far out, man....definitely Weird Al territory.
This basis for reasoning does have an eerie similarity to the topic under discussion.
 
Fox,
Thanks for pointing this out, as I had never heard of it before.
Just reading the Wiki page is pretty freaky, like the definition; "that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought."
and presupposition is "a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence."
This is far out, man....definitely Weird Al territory.
This basis for reasoning does have an eerie similarity to the topic under discussion.

One of the caveats to all this is the alternative - something all of us on both sides claim to be doing.....

Namely, engaging in evidence-based inquiry. While infinitely preferable to "presuppositionalist apologetics", it is not without its flaws.

Consider the flaws in this case as it wended its way though Italian courts. Certainly the Chieffi ISC Section in 2013 could potentially argue it was returning the case to being more "evidence based," in over-turning/nullifying Hellmann's acquittals. It wanted Sample 36I tested, Hellmann had not ordered that. The larger issue was that the battleground was what should be included in the composition of "the corpus of evidence", and what weight each item should take within.

I may have it wrong, but Chieffi seemed to be arguing that everything is evidence, and should have at least equal weight in the osmotic consideration of guilt or innocence. Well, all except the presumed semen stain..... Chieffi apparently saw nothing wrong with the prosecution/police never testing it or entering its composition/owner into evidence. And this - even while trying to claim the most wide definition of what it was to be "evidence-based." (What Machiavelli misses when he criticizes Hellmann for not ordering the testing of the stain, is that even Chieffi - Mach's hero - saw nothing wrong with that.)

One just disregards evidence one does not like in assembling the osmosis, which is the first limit to the infallibility of evidence-based inquiry.

I would also suggest that in Italian law as well as traditional Western-style adversarial-criminal law, there is actually a very important item of "presuppositionalist apologetics" included that you folks are missing.

It's not how Machiavelli would describe it - but consider the role of "innocent until proven guilty BARD". That is presuppositionalist apologetics, in that it's a starting point and simply to be assumed.

When Zanetti began the 2011 appeals trial with, all we really know is that a woman is dead - most certainly the guilter complaint was that this was, in essence, "presuppositional". Guilters seem to imply that the Hellmann trial should have started with a presupposition of guilt, given that Massei had earlier convicted; that's why they find Zanetti's remarks prejudicial, rather than legitimately presuppositional.

Don't give up on "presuppositionalist apologetics" just yet. Of course evidence-based reasoning needs to be the coin of the realm from that point onward..... but at the very least get the presuppositional stuff right before you begin!
 
Last edited:
There is a difference. . . .

In science and in law we start with the argument that the burden of proof is on the side making the claim.

In presuppositional apologetics and the guilter side, the claim is different. The claim is that all evidence is always for their claim. Does not matter if the evidence is opposite of what they try to argue, they will reinterpret it to argue for their claim.
 
Whatever you say, pal...

It's all false. This forum only shows the extent of insanity of its members. The level of denial and inconsistency they are ready to host into their racist minds.
I have shown countless times how the pro-Knox are wrong and make up all of their statements and myths, I have shown you are factually wrong all the time and viciously false in so many things, yet all those details get mysteriously "forgotten".

Thus sprach Alì il Comico...
 
One thing you notice with the True Believer TM side is that they entertain no doubts at all. I do not believe that Amanda and Raff murdered Meredeth but I am not absolutely positive. There is evidence that would sway me, at least I think.
 
There is a difference. . . .

In science and in law we start with the argument that the burden of proof is on the side making the claim.

In presuppositional apologetics and the guilter side, the claim is different. The claim is that all evidence is always for their claim. Does not matter if the evidence is opposite of what they try to argue, they will reinterpret it to argue for their claim.

Is then the argument not just the way it plays out for each? Rather than the concept itself?

We all have unexamined non-negotiables.
 
Is then the argument not just the way it plays out for each? Rather than the concept itself?

We all have unexamined non-negotiables.

As a skeptic, we try not to do that. Granted, there are some things that there is so much evidence that it would be virtually impossible to prove. That is part of the Bayesian argument.
 
Bill Williams said:
Is then the argument not just the way it plays out for each? Rather than the concept itself?

We all have unexamined non-negotiables.

As a skeptic, we try not to do that. Granted, there are some things that there is so much evidence that it would be virtually impossible to prove. That is part of the Bayesian argument.

Absolutely. Yet the first person I distrust is someone who claims to be immune from "presuppositional apologetics". It's like trying to claim that one is immune from the culture around them in which they are steeped. It's like a fish who claims to be immune to the water around it.... and can rise above it.

It's good you used the word "try". That's what we all claim.
 
Absolutely. Yet the first person I distrust is someone who claims to be immune from "presuppositional apologetics". It's like trying to claim that one is immune from the culture around them in which they are steeped. It's like a fish who claims to be immune to the water around it.... and can rise above it.

It's good you used the word "try". That's what we all claim.

I don't think many in the pro guilt community even try to do that.
 
I don't think many in the pro guilt community even try to do that.

That's why we have Grinder.

I don't always agree with him (!!!) but there's a guy with a nose for ferreting out, "presuppositional apologetics"! :boxedin: Makes him both a worthy opponent, but also tremendously annoying!
 
That's why we have Grinder.

I don't always agree with him (!!!) but there's a guy with a nose for ferreting out, "presuppositional apologetics"! :boxedin: Makes him both a worthy opponent, but also tremendously annoying!

Opponent? :( Annoying :p

ETA - since you mentioned my name - the video of Stef saying that seminal fluids needed to be tested doesn't seem of any consequence. She is not talking about the stain under the pillow because it was discovered later by Vinci and was a fluid.
 
Last edited:
That's why we have Grinder.

I don't always agree with him (!!!) but there's a guy with a nose for ferreting out, "presuppositional apologetics"! :boxedin: Makes him both a worthy opponent, but also tremendously annoying!
Yes, keeping us out of Weird Al land is certainly worth the annoyance.
 
Bill Williams said:
That's why we have Grinder.

I don't always agree with him (!!!) but there's a guy with a nose for ferreting out, "presuppositional apologetics"! :boxedin: Makes him both a worthy opponent, but also tremendously annoying!

Opponent? :( Annoying :p

Seriously, dude: who's the "Grinder" on the other side of the fence? I can't think of one.
 
You crack me up. Racist minds? You have a bizarre mind Machiavelli. Criticism of your judicial system is not racist. It has nothing to do with race. America is a nation of immigrants including many Italians.

Yes, you think you have shown us to be wrong . But in fact you haven't. Note* the final judgement went against your position. You have blamed this not on the obvious weakness of the case. But instead on some imagined corruption of these judges A position that is not openly shared by your fellow countryman.

You really need to set all of this aside. You cannot win. History has been written. Amanda and Raffaele were falsely prosecuted. That is not only a judicial fact but a historical fact. Time will not only not change this, it will set it in stone.

Your positions not ours has become a hysterical rant. You yourself has said that there are not others saying the same things about the judges and CV.

Amanda Knox is under trial in Italy right now. You probably live on another planet.
It's not me, it's the Kercher, and the truth. Nothing of the kind you dream has even been "written", and you know that.
 
[ ]

At this late stage of the game, and since Raffaele clearly wasn't there during the murder, you'd need to be a total dipwad stupe to believe that Raffaele had left traces of himself in Meredith's bedroom, so there's nothing left to litigate.

Your Italian Supreme Ct mercifully pulled the plug since this debacle was getting embarrassing for most Italians of normal intelligence.

Clearly, you never got the memo, so you continue to thrash about like a 'Guilter' loon. Rather amusing, really.


Yes, right.

If you suggest that SC "pulled the plug" for political reasons, you are saying:
1) The SC decision was political (therefore, null).
2) The SC decision was manifestly contradictory.


RED HERRING since I NEVER said that the SC had "pulled the plug" for political reasons!

On March 27th your SC finally agreed with Hellmann that the prosecution of Amanda & Raffaele was a crock of B$, and that's why they pulled the plug, to mercifully end an embarrassing debacle.

If there were any politics involved in their March 27th decision I'm not aware of it, so I certainly would NOT claim it was a political decsion.


P.S. Any assumption that "clearly" Sollecito's wasn't there is beyond delusional, given that no court ever found in the merits anything like that, while the SC even pointed pout 530.2 (meaning that everything is all but "clear").

Of course, to you this is just a petitio principii, it's all circular: since your assumption is it was clear he wasen't there, than there is no need to search for possible evidence.


Raffaele clearly wasn't there on the night of the murder since there was ZERO credible evidence that he had left his apartment that night.

Not one security cam had caught Raffaele (nor Amanda) out and about that night. There was ZERO electronic evidence they had left Raffaele's apartment, and there was ZERO evidence that Amanda or Raffaele had any communications with Guede on the night of the murder, nor in the weeks before the murder.

Your only claimed evidence linking Raffaele with the murder is that Stefanoni (the LIAR) had detected DNA from a few cells of Raffaele's on Meredith's bra-clasp, when that bra-clasp was improperly collected 47 days AFTER the murder.

If you feel that is evidence of Raffaele's involvement, then it is YOU who is delusional!

You loose one argument after another, what you say is manifestly devoid of consistence, however somehow you "think" you said something intelligent. This is a very strange mental process to observe.


You have lost every argument here over the past few months, which was to be expected since you've been using childish (or crazy) logic.

That you feel everyone else is NUTZ, with you being the only sane person present here, that is indicative of your ongoing mental issues.


What bolsters your idea, is, in fact, an assuption of a racist type, that is: that all what comes from the entire Italian justice system can be dismissed from the roots, and all trials, verdicts, testimonies and and courts can be just denied altogether, as if they never existed.


In regards to Meredith's murder, I fully accept Hellmann's written opinion.

I likewise generally accept the recent March 27th decision to exonerate both Amanda & Raffaele, but I'll need to read it before I say how logical it is.

Massei's opinion was a total joke with numerous errors. Nencini's decision was so awful that even your SC was forced to dump it.

All what exists in your mind is that clearly "my" Supreme Court had to pull the plug in order to comply with the idea of what you think was "clear" already based on your opinion, denying and dismissing everything that had come from the Italian justice system.


As noted above, I don't dismiss everything from your Italian justice system.

In the dark years after Hellmann was overturned, and after Nencini had pooped all over everything, I was indeed concerned and worried that your Italian legal system would never arrive at a just end, but I was pleasantly surprised when they finally got it right.

As it now stands, I fully support the final decision of your legal system, while you vehemently oppose it, so why am I the Italian race-hater?
 
Absolutely. Yet the first person I distrust is someone who claims to be immune from "presuppositional apologetics". It's like trying to claim that one is immune from the culture around them in which they are steeped. It's like a fish who claims to be immune to the water around it.... and can rise above it.

It's good you used the word "try". That's what we all claim.

It's extremely hard to separate one's self from the people around us. I know that my opinion has been shaped by the environment I was brought up in. There are views that I developed during that period that will accompany me throughout my life.

That said, I think we always should scrutinze our thoughts and beliefs. I was a Christian. Attended church every week and even went to Bible camps in the summer. My entire family is very religious. But I said good bye to those beliefs since they didn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

In this case, I was inclined to believe Amanda and Raffaele were guilty because I saw no logical reason why the police would arrest and prosecute two kids like these from upstanding upoer middle class families without significant evidence. It was only aftera great deal of reading and asking questions did it become obvious that this whole thing was a farce.

Most of you have similar stories. If Machiavelli could present a compelling case I would certainly be a guilter. But he doesn't. There is NOTHING straightforward about his arguments.This alone makes me distrust the guilt argument. If your position is true, there is no need for complex explanations which is essential if you argue for their guilt.
 
Amanda Knox is under trial in Italy right now. You probably live on another planet.
It's not me, it's the Kercher, and the truth. Nothing of the kind you dream has even been "written", and you know that.

That trial is dead in the water. Nothing will come of it. And when the ECHR rules, the whole dirty, sorry, messy, stilted remains of the nasty poisonous callunia fascism will crumble into dust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom