Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Witholding evidence in order to deceive is lying.

The mop was positive to TMB? Is this the mop that was so correctly stored in wrapping paper?

I wouldn't say this woman was crooked, but if she swallowed a six inch nail she would pass a corkscrew.

You change arguments again all the time.
You were wrong. Stefanoni did not lie about TBM, and did not deceive about TMB.
However, someone lied about this point, and it's the Knox supporters who falsely accuse Stefanoni of deceiving about TMB tests on luminol prints.

The truth is Stefanoni said they did several tests beyond kuminol on the luminol prints. She said that in 2008.
Thus, she didn't withhold anything.
If you want to claim she withhold evidence only because TMB test wasn't written in the report, then you also have to claim she withhold incriminating evidence, since she didn't tell about the TMB positive mop either.

 

[Machiavelli]

Lol. "Knox's mop". The one that she didn't use for the non cleanup. The one with the suppressed dna profiles.

The Knox supporters like to make up that things that never existed were withhold and suppressed.

 

[Machiavelli]

The case is dead in the water.

A civil matter involving a British citizen suing a US citizen for an action in Italy is complex international law. The multiple borders will involve legal offices in three countries (maybe more - The Hague?). It will take a very brave (or stupid) person with plenty of money to pursue this, especially against a patently innocent Amanda Knox.

The Kercher's have a better chance recovering costs from Mignini for leading them up the garden path. If Maresca wants payment this would be my advice to him, slim as the chances of success might be.

No, it's an extremely simple case by Italian law. It's already won. It's only a bit slow.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have come to doubt every word of Machiavelli's posts. I have thought he had some expertise in Italian law. Now, I think his posts are a lot of hot air. A smart man admits what he does not know. And yet I never read any confessions of ignorance, just puffery and silly rants. This affair is over and done with. We all know it, even Machiavelli knows this, yet he goes on and on about there are more silly cases for Amanda to deal with.

I can't imagine it to be true, but I could never imagine the silly circus that engulfed these two INNOCENT young people for almost 8 years.

Still, I think not. The forum is tired of this play. The characters have worn thin on the audience. No more encores, the run is over. Time to take a bow and for a new show to take the stage.

There are no "innocents".
Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, the judicial truth and legal landscape is still that Knox is a criminal, she is a convicted felon and has never been found factually innocent not even of murder, legs landscape overall not favorable to Knox. Moreover, in addition to that road for other cases towards a judicial truth virtually open.
Rants on your part will be met by rants on my part whenever I feel like.
Have to say, what US public opinion think has never been something I care or know about, Italians don't know what Americans "think", judicial system of Italy is not supposed to care nor Italian citizens are, my interest is focused on Italy.

 

[Diocletus]

The Knox supporters like to make up that things that never existed were withhold and suppressed.

Uh huh. So you agree that it would be very bad if those profiles did exist somewhere, but stefanoni suppressed them, don't you?

 

[Diocletus]

There are no "innocents".
Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, the judicial truth and legal landscape is still that Knox is a criminal, she is a convicted felon and has never been found factually innocent not even of murder, legs landscape overall not favorable to Knox. Moreover, in addition to that road for other cases towards a judicial truth virtually open.
Rants on your part will be met by rants on my part whenever I feel like.
Have to say, what US public opinion think has never been something I care or know about, Italians don't know what Americans "think", judicial system of Italy is not supposed to care nor Italian citizens are, my interest is focused on Italy.

Innocent until proven guilty, and she can't be proven guilty so she's innocent.

And no one cares about your stupid Calunnia conviction.

 

[Diocletus]

No, it's an extremely simple case by Italian law. It's already won. It's only a bit slow.

And I'm the pope.

 

[Kauffer]

You change arguments again all the time.
You were wrong. Stefanoni did not lie about TBM, and did not deceive about TMB.
However, someone lied about this point, and it's the Knox supporters who falsely accuse Stefanoni of deceiving about TMB tests on luminol prints.

The truth is Stefanoni said they did several tests beyond kuminol on the luminol prints. She said that in 2008.
Thus, she didn't withhold anything. If you want to claim she withhold evidence only because TMB test wasn't written in the report, then you also have to claim she withhold incriminating evidence, since she didn't tell about the TMB positive mop either.

She did, if she wasn't specific. And she wasn't. A TMB negative test result is probative. For Stefanoni it proved the luminol hits were not blood. She said they were not blood. But she left the result out of her report.

 

[acbytesla]

The case is dead in the water.

A civil matter involving a British citizen suing a US citizen for an action in Italy is complex international law. The multiple borders will involve legal offices in three countries (maybe more - The Hague?). It will take a very brave (or stupid) person with plenty of money to pursue this, especially against a patently innocent Amanda Knox.

The Kercher's have a better chance recovering costs from Mignini for leading them up the garden path. If Maresca wants payment this would be my advice to him, slim as the chances of success might be.

I'm sure you are right about all of it. Actually, I am not "sure". Still I cannot imagine that this affair could get any more bizarre. The guilters like to compare it to the OJ case, but we all know that was a very different case. Not only was the case against OJ in the civil case much stronger. There were shoe prints of OJ's size of expensive Bruno Magli shoes all over the crime scene. The shoes were never found only receipts at the store OJ purchased them presented In the criminal trial. OJ
that he never owned those "ugly ass shoes". But in the civil trial a photographer uncovered hundreds of photos of OJ wearing the shoes.

But there were other differences as well including the venue. The first trial was held in LA instead of where he lived. That difference was huge as the jury was almost entirely black and the Defense managed to make the case about race. The civil case was held in Santa Monica (IIRC) And the jury was predominantly white and the case was about the evidence.

Imagine a civil trial against Amanda in Seattle. It would have no chance.

 

[Machiavelli]

When the law supports the defence, he argues "logic". When logic supports the defence, he argues "the law".

Sometimes he just plan makes things up. Like a silhouette on a balcony not being suspicious.... even if one could see clearly from across the road that this silhouette had **climbed** onto the balcony. Such witnesses could see if from the safety of their abodes across the street. Walkers past the cottage near Filomena's windows would leave audible footfalls for a burglar stealthily hidden below....

From 100 meters away?
Audible footsteps? Someone coming in and out from the parking lot?
Please. A burglar wouldn't have five seconds even if he heard people voices. Or does he like the thrill?
And what proof do you have Guede would do an entry and climb in 30 seconds?
The rule is simple: illogical point of entry is an indicator. I am not going to call Douglass because of his authority, but if Knox supporters are consistent in believing Douglass, they may acknowledge he pointed out this simple factual rule.
An indicator is not a proof.
Though here we have a whole number if indicators piling up pointing to a staging. The choice of entry point is only one. It's the usual principle of osmotic reasoning: meaning of a piece - already existing as indicator - is shown by other pieces.
On the other hand there is no evidence Guede committed a burglary. The only evidence you can invoke is DNA on the purse, but this is insufficient, because there was certainly a fight with Guede and DNA could be left because if a fight and not because of a burglary. In addition there is a detail, that has to do with the other side consistency: if pro Knox want to dismiss the bra clasp because picked up days later with dirty gloves, they should equally dismiss the purse DNA, that was also picked 46 days later in same context. So from the point of view of the pro-Knoxes there should be absolutely nothing against Guede.

.... or did Nara hear footfalls or not?

!!!!!

After a blood curdling scream. Someone running on gravel.
Yet didn't Paul Ciolino show that sneakers on road pavement are inaudible?
(and even if audible, how much time have you got? And what about recognizing faces? And what about distance, and distance from lamp lights? And what about statistics? And what about other true burglaries at the cottage? And what about Douglas' "red flags"? And what about all other indicators?)

 

[Machiavelli]

She did, if she wasn't specific. And she wasn't. A TMB negative test result is probative. For Stefanoni it proved the luminol hits were not blood. She said they were not blood. But she left the result out of her report.

Oh, it isn't. It isn't probative at all. Scientific literature was referred to multiple times, yet you fail to accept it.
And if it were probative as negative for the luminol stains,it would be probative in positive for the mop. So what kind of evidence was Stefanoni meaning to hide?
And also, when she mentioned multiple tests and said they were negative, if she was not specific enough, why didn't the defence ask to specify better? What do you think a cross questioning is for?
Yet, despite such absolute nothing, you accuse Stefanoni of lying. And you even state TMB negative is probative despite scientific evidence of the contrary (even scientific papers recently claiming that no presumptive test should follow luminol), and well knowing there wouldn't be any alternative substance that doesn't react to TMB. Is it possible that you can't see how biased you are?

 

[acbytesla]

There are no "innocents".
Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, the judicial truth and legal landscape is still that Knox is a criminal, she is a convicted felon and has never been found factually innocent not even of murder, legs landscape overall not favorable to Knox. Moreover, in addition to that road for other cases towards a judicial truth virtually open.
Rants on your part will be met by rants on my part whenever I feel like.
Have to say, what US public opinion think has never been something I care or know about, Italians don't know what Americans "think", judicial system of Italy is not supposed to care nor Italian citizens are, my interest is focused on Italy.

You are so funny. Not to mention DELUDED! Knox is not considered a felon in the United States. She is considered innocent in the US since she was acquitted of murder And since the US does NOT have an equivalent crime to calunnia it means nothing. This will not harm her prospects in the US (where she lives) in any way.

Your argument means nothing. The judicial truth is that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of involvement in Metedith's murder.PERIOD But you can rant and rave. And the rest of us will just smile, because we have our friend and neighbor safe at home out of the clutches of the Italian mad men.

Can I have an "Amen"?

 

[acbytesla]

From 100 meters away?
Audible footsteps? Someone coming in and out from the parking lot?
Please. A burglar wouldn't have five seconds even if he heard people voices. Or does he like the thrill?
And what proof do you have Guede would do an entry and climb in 30 seconds?
The rule is simple: illogical point of entry is an indicator. I am not going to call Douglass because of his authority, but if Knox supporters are consistent in believing Douglass, they may acknowledge he pointed out this simple factual rule.
An indicator is not a proof.
Though here we have a whole number if indicators piling up pointing to a staging. The choice of entry point is only one. It's the usual principle of osmotic reasoning: meaning of a piece - already existing as indicator - is shown by other pieces.
On the other hand there is no evidence Guede committed a burglary. The only evidence you can invoke is DNA on the purse, but this is insufficient, because there was certainly a fight with Guede and DNA could be left because if a fight and not because of a burglary. In addition there is a detail, that has to do with the other side consistency: if pro Knox want to dismiss the bra clasp because picked up days later with dirty gloves, they should equally dismiss the purse DNA, that was also picked 46 days later in same context. So from the point of view of the pro-Knoxes there should be absolutely nothing against Guede.

After a blood curdling scream. Someone running on gravel.
Yet didn't Paul Ciolino show that sneakers on road pavement are inaudible?
(and even if audible, how much time have you got? And what about recognizing faces? And what about distance, and distance from lamp lights? And what about statistics? And what about other true burglaries at the cottage? And what about Douglas' "red flags"? And what about all other indicators?)[/QUOTE]

Through double pane windows?! What Mach refuses to acknowledge was the CBS special "Dateline" did audio tests from the apartment next to Nara's through the same kind of double pane windows and no one could hear what Nara claims she heard. In fact, theyou said it was hard to hear anything including the cars on the road.

 

[RWVBWL]

After a blood curdling scream. Someone running on gravel.
Yet didn't Paul Ciolino show that sneakers on road pavement are inaudible?
(and even if audible, how much time have you got? And what about recognizing faces? And what about distance, and distance from lamp lights? And what about statistics? And what about other true burglaries at the cottage? And what about Douglas' "red flags"? And what about all other indicators?)

Through double pane windows?! What Mach refuses to acknowledge was the CBS special "Dateline" did audio tests from the apartment next to Nara's through the same kind of double pane windows and no one could hear what Nara claims she heard. In fact, theyou said it was hard to hear anything including the cars on the road.

Here's the video from The Un-Scientific Sound Test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo

I wish that Paul Ciolino was asked if it were possible to hear someone running in the dry leaves of Meredith's driveway area also..

 

[RWVBWL]

Yesterday I posted a personal experience that's happenin' to my sister and her husband.
A probable annoyed upstairs neighbor has been crawling underneath her truck early in the darkest hours
+ using an ice pick to prick the tires on both their pick-up trucks. He has vandalized their trucks 5 times now.

2 of JP's tires,
14 of my sisters tires.
That is not a typo.

The guy is very stealthy...

It's odd that yesterday morning as I followed a guy at about 4:33am who went running me on the nearby sidewalk, I can recall barely hearing the sound of his footprints. It was dead quiet, both of my trucks windows were rolled down. My sister said he's a jogger. He always wears the same sneakers in the CCTV video of him under her GMC truck. I noticed him because of the movement, not the sound of his foots steps.

How can Nara have heard someone running in sneakers down below her apartment
with her windows closed? Or in the dry leaves across the street and in Meredith's driveway area?

Oh, by the way,
my sis called me today right after I finished a fun surf session
riding many waves in boardshorts in water that's about 72°,
warm + toasty!

The police arrested the guy upstairs!

It seems that because I saw the guy running, called her and she called the police + then she waited near his condo door and saw him trying to come back home wearing the same outfit as seen on CCTV just minutes ago and in prior video captures, plus all the other earlier CCTV footage and some good detective work, the cops had good enough cause to arrest him!

He's gonna have some fun now.
Court, lawyers, maybe some prison time,
definitely a Civil Trial coming also for this neighbor from hell condominium owner!
We're stoked!

 

[acbytesla]

Here's the video from The Un-Scientific Sound Test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo

I wish that Paul Ciolino was asked if it were possible to hear someone running in the dry leaves of Meredith's driveway area also..

Reading Mach's posts is truly bizarre. Watching someone over and over again denying the obvious just baffles me. What does one say when your opponent claims that water is not wet and that snow is not cold and 2+2 does not equal 4?

I do know however that everyone else knows these things and just shakes their head.

While I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that the Kerchers wouldn't attempt to pursue a civil trial against Amanda, I'm fairly sure. One only need watch Meredith's poor mother to see an individual that is tired of it all.

 

[Anode]

Yesterday I posted a personal experience that's happenin' to my sister and her husband.
A probable annoyed upstairs neighbor has been crawling underneath her truck early in the darkest hours
+ using an ice pick to prick the tires on both their pick-up trucks. He has vandalized their trucks 5 times now.

2 of JP's tires,
14 of my sisters tires.
That is not a typo.

The guy is very stealthy...

It's odd that yesterday morning as I followed a guy at about 4:33am who went running me on the nearby sidewalk, I can recall barely hearing the sound of his footprints. It was dead quiet, both of my trucks windows were rolled down. My sister said he's a jogger. He always wears the same sneakers in the CCTV video of him under her GMC truck. I noticed him because of the movement, not the sound of his foots steps.

How can Nara have heard someone running in sneakers down below her apartment
with her windows closed? Or in the dry leaves across the street and in Meredith's driveway area?

Oh, by the way,
my sis called me today right after I finished a fun surf session
riding many waves in boardshorts in water that's about 72°,
warm + toasty!

The police arrested the guy upstairs!

It seems that because I saw the guy running, called her and she called the police + then she waited near his condo door and saw him trying to come back home wearing the same outfit as seen on CCTV just minutes ago and in prior video captures, plus all the other earlier CCTV footage and some good detective work, the cops had good enough cause to arrest him!

He's gonna have some fun now.
Court, lawyers, maybe some prison time,
definitely a Civil Trial coming also for this neighbor from hell condominium owner!
We're stoked!

That's awesome Randy!

 

[Bill Williams]

When the law supports the defence, he argues "logic". When logic supports the defence, he argues "the law".

Sometimes he just plan makes things up. Like a silhouette on a balcony not being suspicious.... even if one could see clearly from across the road that this silhouette had **climbed** onto the balcony. Such witnesses could see if from the safety of their abodes across the street. Walkers past the cottage near Filomena's windows would leave audible footfalls for a burglar stealthily hidden below....

From 100 meters away?
Audible footsteps? Someone coming in and out from the parking lot?
Please. A burglar wouldn't have five seconds even if he heard people voices. Or does he like the thrill?
And what proof do you have Guede would do an entry and climb in 30 seconds?
The rule is simple: illogical point of entry is an indicator. I am not going to call Douglass because of his authority, but if Knox supporters are consistent in believing Douglass, they may acknowledge he pointed out this simple factual rule.
An indicator is not a proof.
Though here we have a whole number if indicators piling up pointing to a staging.

Mach - you said that walkers near Filomena's window on the road would see Rudy because he's so close to them - this is your own "indicator" (whatever THAT is), not mine, that Rudy would not have chosen that side of the cottage to break-in. That a "logical" burglar would have chosen the balcony.

First - it was you who said that a silhouette would not have been deemed suspicious if spied from one of the many apartments with direct line of sight to the balcony; even as it is lit by a street-light. But that same silhouette would/could be seen **climbing** which **would** be suspicious. Such a burglar could not see those people staring across.... (Remember, you admitted that a silhouette would be visible - I think more than that, but let's go with silhouette for a second!)

Second - The footfall issue belongs to what Rudy would have heard under Filomena's window - it is that Rudy would be nicely and stealthily hidden on the lower level, unseen in the darkness; but still able to hear clearly those footfalls of the pedestrians **you** say are so close. Why wouldn't he? It's you who says Nara **could** hear footfalls at much greater distance and through the glass of her window.

Give it up. This case is over. Your retribution fantasy is going nowhere - indeed, proof of that is that you have to post on an English language site. By your own admission, you're not even aware of Italian-language forums such as this, discussing what you claim is a calamitous judicial decision on March 27 which has devastated your country. Your conspiracy is silly.

 

[davefoc]

...
While I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that the Kerchers wouldn't attempt to pursue a civil trial against Amanda, I'm fairly sure. One only need watch Meredith's poor mother to see an individual that is tired of it all.

It is hard to imagine that Italian law would allow a civil case to be tried concurrently with a criminal and then allow the plaintiff to bring the same civil case again this time in a civil trial only.

Presumably the adults in charge of the Italian justice system would prevent this regardless of what somebody might argue the law allows.

Is Machiavelli arguing that this is common in Italy? Plaintiffs that have brought suit against somebody that has committed a crime against them get two bites at the apple? Once, during the criminal trial and again in a civil trial? Are the lawyers of plaintiffs allowed to call the defendant a demonic, satanic, diabolical she-devil and introduce evidence that has been excluded from the criminal trial? Nice.

Or is Machiavelli arguing that it is unusual but possible? Perhaps he could post an example of where it has happened before?

ETA: I suspect that what Machiavelli doesn't understand here, is that regardless of whether the law might allow something like this a lot of people in the system are aware that AK/RS are innocent and that the shenanigans that were used to convict them won't work all that well again and any sort of a trial that shines light on what has gone on here will scare a lot of people in a position to prevent another civil trial so the Kerchers will not be allowed to go forward with another civil suit against AK/RS regardless of what the law allows and what they may desire.

 

[zotz]

Mach - you said that walkers near Filomena's window on the road would see Rugy becausehe's so close to them - we're talking about your "indicator (whatever THAT is) that Rudy would not have chosen that side of the cottage to break-in. That a "logical" burglar would have chosen the balcony.

First - it was you who said that a silhouette would not have been deemed suspicious if spied from one of the many apartments with direct line of sight to the balcony; even as it is lit by a street-light. That same silhouette would/could be seen **climbing** which **would** be suspicious. Such a burglar could not see those people staring across....

The footfall issue is that Rudy would be nicely and stealthily hidden on the lower level, unseen in the darkness; able to hear those footfalls of the pedestrians **you** say are so close. Why wouldn't he? It's you who says Nara **could** hear footfalls at much greater distance and through the glass of her window.

Give it up. This case is over. Your retribution fantasy is going nowhere - indeed, proof of that is that you have to post on an English language site. By your own admission, you're not even aware of Italian-language forums such as this, discussing what you claim is a calamitous judicial decision on March 27 which has devastated your country. Your conspiracy is silly.

Mach is using the "Red Herring" technique. He likes to bring up trivial and/or irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with reality. If we take the bait then he has the advantage. A person could write a book on all his different sophism techniques. It seems ridiculous now but at least five Italian courts bought these arguments. Mach hates Hellmann because Hellmann dismissed all this stuff. Hellmann had a great word for it. He called it "sciocchezze" meaning rubbish or nonsense.

Mach has written tens of thousands of words of sciocchezze. This is what this thread has been reduced to. It's like we are wading through garbage.