Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[toto]

What I was (weakly) getting at was.....

..... why is this group of folk saying that the Marasca/Bruno report is crap (because it buttresses a view of innocence), except for the parts they can pull out of it which proves the pair guilty? Which is it: crap or incriminating? Well, it seems it all depends on the confirmation bias. They tried this with Raffaele's press conference - claiming that Raffaele had "pulled his alibi for Amanda", when no one else in the world saw it that way. And esp. when reading his appeal documents to Cassazione it was plain as day what he was saying - 1) don't use your flawed evidence against Amanda to convict me, 2) Amanda is innocent.

Raffaele, pre-acquittal, held a press conference where he outlined (in effect) the separation strategy. That strategy was to say, "Look you're claiming all this stuff which you say proves Amanda guilty. Well.... what's that stuff got to do with me?"

The strategy, apparently, worked. For them both. If Raffaele was not guilty, then Amanda has to be not guilty. That means both of them are not guilty. And this is aside from there not being any presence of them at the murder scene.

The logic of the illogical Mignini-persecution is that, really, you only have to prove one of them not-guilty, and then the other follows.

Mignini understood this. It's why he had to move heaven and earth against Raffaele once the Nike-tread evidence fell apart. No Raffaele, no Amanda. So 46 days later they had to go get......

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

It's as simple as that.

I agree the pro guilt people will take those bits that suit them, and it won't stop A and R from living their lives in total freedom, so to some extent it's academic.

 

[moije2]

Mad Hatter and March Hare

I agree the pro guilt people will take those bits that suit them, and it won't stop A and R from living their lives in total freedom, so to some extent it's academic.

There will be little surprise that the Motivation Report is not internally consistent. The courts have been if nothing else, largely consistent in their illogicity and factual errors. Including Hellmann with his contrived calunnia logic which we all know was an example of throwing a bone to maintain bella faccia. There will be plenty for the guilters to hang on to in terms of making them feel better about their obsession with Amanda. And perhaps Meredith, although I doubt that.

Remember the justices are obliged by Italian law and logic to reconcile the calunnia conviction with the acquittal. No small project. And as we have been informed:

A premise: I really don't think I have to "reconcile" things in a paper written by Mad Hatter and March Hare. The motivations is a joke, completely barmy and inconsistent, it cannot be reconciled with reality, law or with itself.

Until I have a chance to pour through the translation, I will assume that there is at least some truth to the post by M.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree the pro guilt people will take those bits that suit them, and it won't stop A and R from living their lives in total freedom, so to some extent it's academic.

But it won't stop their dietrological ways.

I mean, how many times do they say something about what Amanda, Raffaele, their families or supporters REALLY know? After their freedom in late 2011, how many times did we read read guilters say that despite family being relieved they'd been released, that family was REALLY concerned they would reoffend.

Or that family was REALLY concerned about what they'd wtite in their books. Or that Raffaele was REALLY withdrawing his alibi. Or that Marasca is REALLY saying that they were guilty.

Turns out dietrology is catching.

 

[moije2]

Rife with factual errors?

Check out the passage that Machiavelli quotes to support the guilter belief that Ms Knox was present "that night" in the house. Read a little further and the court can't help itself and describe that it is Ms Knox who is the first to offer the thought that there was a sexual component to the murder. Before anyone else, before results of autopsy etc.

For all of you looking to parse the words of this piece I offer that it will keep this blog going for the nth iteration with speculation about logic! The answer is, of course, pick your desired interpretation and go for it! Have at it!

Machiavelli likes the Alice in Wonderland comparison. It is certainly a carnival ride that has abused to no end innocent people. And the loose screws will go about their twisted way. There is no point to further serious analysis. Be happy that the present victims have been rescued from further sick torture.

Machiavelli, again I ask, it must be painful to exist under a judiciary that you interact with and have such disrespect for. Is that correct? Secondly, how is it that you can despise and condemn with allegations of Masonic conspiracies the justices, and find no "arguments" of "logical" errors by Mignini, Stefanoni, et al? I consider you an Advocate in that your "logic" bends to the agenda of conviction of the defendants. In particular, anything done wrong by Mignini and company is irrelevant to you because they are a means to an end.

I look forward to the full translation of the Motivation Report for humorous bedside reading. Knowing that AK and RS have been spared further embarrassment by the judiciary that you find so despicable.


PS: OBSERVATION: MACHIAVELLI QUOTE: "...this aspect of her: can't help telling little bitchy greasy lies, manipulating and using others or taking shots at this or that, all this is something she used to do at any turn..."

I couldn't help observe your use of this word. Interesting. When I hear that word I always think of the Italian American I knew that used that word as a racial slur against another Italian. Strange to see you try to pull Ms Knox into that orbit.

 

[Ken Dine]

‘we won’
Who is this ‘we’ and what did you win?

A very sharp set of steak knives.

As long as a single human remains unconvinced w.r.t. Amanda’s moral purity and personal hygiene not to mention her culpability in the rape/murder of a young woman the battle is not over.

There is still work to be done.
Don’t falter now that ultimate victory is in sight. Another 500k posts should do the trick.

Doubtful if even 5,000k more postings could ever change a 'Guilters' obsession with this case.

 

[Ken Dine]

That’s the spirit.

When can we expect AK to begin this legal onslaught now that she has been proven COMPLETELY INNOCENT?

Or failing that at least join ISF to have the protection of the MA as LJ suggested.

I doubt if Amanda has the aptitude to initiate libel suits at this time since she seems to just want to get on with her life (who can blame her).

Lawsuits are also very expensive, time consuming, and nerve-wracking, with no guarantee of success.

However, if she filed a lawsuit against a 'Guilter' by suing them as a "John Doe" to file the lawsuit, then that would give her the power to find out their real names, which may be enough since trolls abhor the sunlight.

Wouldn't it be nice to know what some of these guys look like after they're dragged out from under their dank bridges kicking and screaming? One can only dream.

What kind of man is Harry Rag? Is Vixen male or female?

Raffaele has threatened to sue people who persist in calling him a murderer, so he is more apt to do it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Check out the passage that Machiavelli quotes to support the guilter belief that Ms Knox was present "that night" in the house. Read a little further and the court can't help itself and describe that it is Ms Knox who is the first to offer the thought that there was a sexual component to the murder. Before anyone else, before results of autopsy etc.

For all of you looking to parse the words of this piece I offer that it will keep this blog going for the nth iteration with speculation about logic! The answer is, of course, pick your desired interpretation and go for it! Have at it!

Machiavelli likes the Alice in Wonderland comparison. It is certainly a carnival ride that has abused to no end innocent people. And the loose screws will go about their twisted way. There is no point to further serious analysis. Be happy that the present victims have been rescued from further sick torture.

Machiavelli, again I ask, it must be painful to exist under a judiciary that you interact with and have such disrespect for. Is that correct? Secondly, how is it that you can despise and condemn with allegations of Masonic conspiracies the justices, and find no "arguments" of "logical" errors by Mignini, Stefanoni, et al? I consider you an Advocate in that your "logic" bends to the agenda of conviction of the defendants. In particular, anything done wrong by Mignini and company is irrelevant to you because they are a means to an end.

I look forward to the full translation of the Motivation Report for humorous bedside reading. Knowing that AK and RS have been spared further embarrassment by the judiciary that you find so despicable.


PS: OBSERVATION: MACHIAVELLI QUOTE: "...this aspect of her: can't help telling little bitchy greasy lies, manipulating and using others or taking shots at this or that, all this is something she used to do at any turn..."

I couldn't help observe your use of this word. Interesting. When I hear that word I always think of the Italian American I knew that used that word as a racial slur against another Italian. Strange to see you try to pull Ms Knox into that orbit.

First, the greasy thing: I actually don't know if that word is usable the way I used it in English. The fact is that I intended to translate a couple of Italian word sto qualify Knox's stile, the words untuoso and the word viscido (slimy or so). These are charachter qualities, don't have anything to do with race or culture. Specifically here they describe the quality of Knox's lies.

I don't see relevant "logical" errors by Mignini and Stefanoni because probably there aren't any. But anyway, I have no zer-sum concept of a trial. If there were important mistakes to point out, of a kind that could effect the outcome of the investigation, I would point them out. I don't see them. The kinds of criticism from the pro-Knox side are specious, they are pretexts.

I might have had respect and hold as intellectually honest, albeit wrong, someone who says "I don't feel completely sure, still have some doubt about the suspect's guilt".
But nobody near to the realm of intellectual honesty could claim a belief that the suspects are innocent. There is no room for that within the scope of human rationality and honesty, there is no respect on my part for such people, those "believers" (or self-proclaimed belivers). They only deserve contempt, and their sick venomous prejudice just should be pointed out.

I am not "under a Judiciary", I am in Italy, a land torn apart by powerful forces. Just don't think the US is any better.

 

[bagels]

First, the greasy thing: I actually don't know if that word is usable the way I used it in English. The fact is that I intended to translate a couple of Italian word sto qualify Knox's stile, the words untuoso and the word viscido (slimy or so). These are charachter qualities, don't have anything to do with race or culture. Specifically here they describe the quality of Knox's lies.

I don't see relevant "logical" errors by Mignini and Stefanoni because probably there aren't any. But anyway, I have no zer-sum concept of a trial. If there were important mistakes to point out, of a kind that could effect the outcome of the investigation, I would point them out. I don't see them. The kinds of criticism from the pro-Knox side are specious, they are pretexts.

I might have had respect and hold as intellectually honest, albeit wrong, someone who says "I don't feel completely sure, still have some doubt about the suspect's guilt".
But nobody near to the realm of intellectual honesty could claim a belief that the suspects are innocent. There is no room for that within the scope of human rationality and honesty, there is no respect on my part for such people, those "believers" (or self-proclaimed belivers). They only deserve contempt, and their sick venomous prejudice just should be pointed out.

I am not "under a Judiciary", I am in Italy, a land torn apart by powerful forces. Just don't think the US is any better.

If Knox's innocence is an incomprehensible impossibility then it should at least be possible to give a brief description of the crime in a linear narrative that accounts for all three alleged perpetrators and loosely conforms to the known facts. Are we finally going to witness such a feat for the first time in this thread's 100,000 posts history? We're all ears (or eyes).

 

[Machiavelli]

What I was (weakly) getting at was.....

..... why is this group of folk saying that the Marasca/Bruno report is crap (because it buttresses a view of innocence), except for the parts they can pull out of it which proves the pair guilty? Which is it: crap or incriminating? (...)

Why not both? I don't understand why you see a dychotomy.
It is obviously crap, insofar as it is manifestly illogical, and reports things that are manifestly false by trial papers (like, it is fase that computer hard disks were destroyed).
It also states that it is a proven fact that Knox was at the murder scene when the murder was committed.
It also states that it is incontrovertible Guede did not act alone. And it states that Knox obviously lied maliciously, and that she washed her hands from Meredith's blood.

The report contradicts art. 628 of cpp and is obviously a travesty, it's not difficult to see it's the result of political pressure.

 

[Machiavelli]

If Knox's innocence is an incomprehensible impossibility then it should at least be possible to give a brief description of the crime in a linear narrative that accounts for all three alleged perpetrators and loosely conforms to the known facts. Are we finally going to witness such a feat for the first time in this thread's 100,000 posts history? We're all ears (or eyes).

Why should the narrative be "linear"? Why multiple parallel possibilities are not allowed? The fact that it is non-contradictory should be sufficient, I don't see why it should be "linear".

 

[Zephyrgeist]

Vixen, please stop your irrational Obsession with Amanda Knox. I'm afraid that you will NEVER get busy with her. Full stop.

But chin-up: I hear that there is a guy just getting out on work release...

 

[Bill Williams]

If Knox's innocence is an incomprehensible impossibility then it should at least be possible to give a brief description of the crime in a linear narrative that accounts for all three alleged perpetrators and loosely conforms to the known facts. Are we finally going to witness such a feat for the first time in this thread's 100,000 posts history? We're all ears (or eyes).

Why should the narrative be "linear"? Why multiple parallel possibilities are not allowed? The fact that it is non-contradictory should be sufficient, I don't see why it should be "linear".

What it means, Machiavelli, is that you cannot go off on inventive flights of fancy. You cannot take "what ifs", and "possible assertions" and weave them into a dietrology.

In short, you can show others what happened, and when it happened. It's exactly what you have resisted doing since 2010.

 

[bagels]

Why should the narrative be "linear"? Why multiple parallel possibilities are not allowed? The fact that it is non-contradictory should be sufficient, I don't see why it should be "linear".

How can it ever be non-contradictory? Amanda brings a kitchen knife to a murder she isn't planning. She invites an accomplice she can't know in advance is available. Meredith dies while computer activity engages on Raffaele's computer. Rudy Guede shows up on CCTV without his accomplices. The witness of extraordinary accuracy gives an account which offers an alibi for the duration of the crime. These are just a few of the insurmountable problems with constructing any sort of coherent guilt narrative.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why not both? I don't understand why you see a dychotomy.
It is obviously crap, insofar as it is manifestly illogical, and reports things that are manifestly false by trial papers (like, it is fase that computer hard disks were destroyed).
It also states that it is a proven fact that Knox was at the murder scene when the murder was committed.
It also states that it is incontrovertible Guede did not act alone. And it states that Knox obviously lied maliciously, and that she washed her hands from Meredith's blood.

The report contradicts art. 628 of cpp and is obviously a travesty, it's not difficult to see it's the result of political pressure.

Because then we are all then down the rabbit hole of dietrology; exactly where you want this because the bare facts of the case (now eight years old) do not support any of your assertions.

Yet you feel permission to simply keep asserting them.

But then again, I love the way you put things. It's not that Knox was mistaken, but that she lied. And further that she lied maliciously.

When you give up trying to salt-up the record, maybe someone will listen to you.

Of course, if you can point to some reputable Italian source, other than yourself, that posts things as you do, then that's another matter. There is no one, repeat no one, in Italy who thinks as you do. **Every** Italian source, other then you, has moved on satisfied that Marasca got it right. Apparently, they know your kind of dietrology when they see it!

So it is I will wait for a reputable English translation. You have already soiled your nest. Have a nice day.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting indeed.
I think this is very revealing about what motivates Mach
Moderators: Please note that I am NOT attempting to identify Mach, I am just proposing where his sympathies lie.

Until recently, I thought that Mach was simply a run of the mill guilter who was VERY knowledgeable about Italian law and was interested in protecting the "Honor of the Italian Court System" or some twisted "search for truth".
But the postings by Mach since the Motivation are clearly nonsensical and indicate such an over the top state that concerns about his welfare were raised by other contributors.
I have noticed that his arguments and logic always conform to the now familiar thinking and tactics of the Italian prosecutors.
And his outrageously insulting trashing of the most respected members of the Italian Judiciary points strongly toward the fact that Mach does not care one iota about the image of the Italian Judiciary and is ONLY interested in protecting the now discredited hallucinations of the Police and Prosecutors, which are, in light of the Motivation, as dead as any hallucination has ever been.
Since he/she does not respect the authority of the Italian Judiciary and continues to cling desperately to the corpse of the ridiculous "shoddy police work", it may be that Mach is either a member of the Italian Police and/or Prosecutors establishment or has an OBSESSION to protect or improve their now forever tarnished image of the Italian Police.

You are all wrong.

I don't care about anyone in particular. I'm not loyal to anyone. I don't care about any authority, nor the Judiciary nor the Italian Police. I have trashed the Italian Police on their involvement in the Aldrovandi case. I was arrested and shot by the Police in Genova 2001. I am no "friend" of any police in principle.
I am also not a friend of "magistrates" in general, not even loyal to certain specific magistrates.

The fact that you question "what" motivates me, actually reveals that you have probably just an utter ignorance about Italy. You fail to see the ideological faction and identify the part of society I belong to.
I am not motivated by any of the people you think I "defend".
I am motivated by my enemy. It's my ideology, my feeling of justice and truth what motivates me. The "enemy" is obviously not Amanda Knox, who is a "nobody" (Hannah Arendt); the enemy is a corrupt part of the society I live in, and the aggressive foreign vultures who take advantage of it. I am motivated by what motivates Roberto Saviano, Giulio Cavalli, Giuseppe Fava, Lirio Abbate, Federica Angeli.... You could equally say that I am motivated by hatred, and that could be a way to put it.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are all wrong.

I don't care about anyone in particular. I'm not loyal to anyone. I don't care about any authority, nor the Judiciary nor the Italian Police. I have trashed the Italian Police on their involvement in the Aldrovandi case. I was arrested and shot by the Police in Genova 2001. I am no "friend" of any police in principle.
I am also not a friend of "magistrates" in general, not even loyal to certain specific magistrates.

The fact that you question "what" motivates me, actually reveals that you have probably just an utter ignorance about Italy. You fail to see the ideological faction and identify the part of society I belong to.
I am not motivated by any of the people you think I "defend".
I am motivated by my enemy. It's my ideology, my feeling of justice and truth what motivates me. The "enemy" is obviously not Amanda Knox, who is a "nobody" (Hannah Arendt); the enemy is a corrupt part of the society I live in, and the aggressive foreign vultures who take advantage of it. I am motivated by what motivates Roberto Saviano, Giulio Cavalli, Giuseppe Fava, Lirio Abbate, Federica Angeli.... You could equally say that I am motivated by hatred, and that could be a way to put it.

LOL. What are we to believe? This assertion of yours or reading five years of your posts?

In five years not one even minor criticism of Mignini!

Sure Machiavelli sure.

 

[codyjuneau]

You are all wrong.

I don't care about anyone in particular. I'm not loyal to anyone. I don't care about any authority, nor the Judiciary nor the Italian Police. I have trashed the Italian Police on their involvement in the Aldrovandi case. I was arrested and shot by the Police in Genova 2001. I am no "friend" of any police in principle.
I am also not a friend of "magistrates" in general, not even loyal to certain specific magistrates.

The fact that you question "what" motivates me, actually reveals that you have probably just an utter ignorance about Italy. You fail to see the ideological faction and identify the part of society I belong to.
I am not motivated by any of the people you think I "defend".
I am motivated by my enemy. It's my ideology, my feeling of justice and truth what motivates me. The "enemy" is obviously not Amanda Knox, who is a "nobody" (Hannah Arendt); the enemy is a corrupt part of the society I live in, and the aggressive foreign vultures who take advantage of it. I am motivated by what motivates Roberto Saviano, Giulio Cavalli, Giuseppe Fava, Lirio Abbate, Federica Angeli.... You could equally say that I am motivated by hatred, and that could be a way to put it.

.
I think you are using Amanda Knox and Raffaele as scapegoats to defend YOUR status quo.

Cody
.

 

[Machiavelli]

Because then we are all then down the rabbit hole of dietrology; exactly where you want this because the bare facts of the case (now eight years old) do not support any of your assertions.

Yet you feel permission to simply keep asserting them.

But then again, I love the way you put things. It's not that Knox was mistaken, but that she lied. And further that she lied maliciously.

No. It's not the way I put things. I'm not talking about how I see things.

It's the way the Cassazione 5th section puts things (not differently from all other courts).

I state this, because this is a fact. It is a fact that Cassazione finalizes things this way. And it is a fact that it emphasizes the malice of Knox's lying, that means points out what they say it's evidence of the true purpose of Knox's lying.

When you give up trying to salt-up the record, maybe someone will listen to you.

No. You are not honest.

Of course, if you can point to some reputable Italian source, other than yourself, that posts things as you do, then that's another matter. There is no one, repeat no one, in Italy who thinks as you do. **Every** Italian source, other then you, has moved on satisfied that Marasca got it right. Apparently, they know your kind of dietrology when they see it!

I repeat this: it is not how I put it. It is how the Cassazione puts it.
Btw, it is not true that journalists appear "satisfied" (maybe some do) and it is not true that they express it saying that marasca "got right" something, or even that Cassazione "found out" any final truth.

But most important, what journalists and media say should be irrelevant to an intellectually honest person (which, it appears, you are not). Because a honest, impartial person would see it like the; let's frame it differently, how a logical an honest person would: assume that the news do not report what the SC report actually says, they don't tell that finds out that AK was certainly on the murderscene when the murder was committed, that it is certain that Guede did not kill alone, that Knox washed her hands from Meredith's blood, and that she lied maliciously out of any psychological coercion.
Would you accept that, if the SC report says what I report, your conclusion should be that the mainstream news are unreliable? And that I am a more reliable and more truthful source than the mainstream media?
Because this is what a honest and impartial person would have to conclude.

 

[carbonjam72]

...immediately running out of the room...

If Knox's innocence is an incomprehensible impossibility then it should at least be possible to give a brief description of the crime in a linear narrative that accounts for all three alleged perpetrators and loosely conforms to the known facts. Are we finally going to witness such a feat for the first time in this thread's 100,000 posts history? We're all ears (or eyes).

Why should the narrative be "linear"? Why multiple parallel possibilities are not allowed? The fact that it is non-contradictory should be sufficient, I don't see why it should be "linear".

You may have missed it bagels, but Mach has provided a wonderfully inventive time line for the actual act of murder itself.

It may take me a while to figure out how to fish it out from these threads, but Mach's version included Amanda and Raf stabbing Meredith, and then immediately running out of the room, so as not to step in any of the blood that spewed forth from her wounds.

Mach made a bold effort to account for data both real and imagined.

Oh alright, i give up; it was completely silly and childish, and made me feel bad for him. I felt guilty repeating it, except its so idiotic I can't resist, and I know its wrong, but I can't help myself.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. It's not the way I put things. I'm not talking about how I see things.

It's the way the Cassazione 5th section puts things (not differently from all other courts).

I state this, because this is a fact. It is a fact that Cassazione finalizes things this way. And it is a fact that it emphasizes the malice of Knox's lying, that means points out what they say it's evidence of the true purpose of Knox's lying.



No. You are not honest.



I repeat this: it is not how I put it. It is how the Cassazione puts it.
Btw, it is not true that journalists appear "satisfied" (maybe some do) and it is not true that they express it saying that marasca "got right" something, or even that Cassazione "found out" any final truth.

But most important, what journalists and media say should be irrelevant to an intellectually honest person (which, it appears, you are not). Because a honest, impartial person would see it like the; let's frame it differently, how a logical an honest person would: assume that the news do not report what the SC report actually says, they don't tell that finds out that AK was certainly on the murderscene when the murder was committed, that it is certain that Guede did not kill alone, that Knox washed her hands from Meredith's blood, and that she lied maliciously out of any psychological coercion.
Would you accept that, if the SC report says what I report, your conclusion should be that the mainstream news are unreliable? And that I am a more reliable and more truthful source than the mainstream media?
Because this is what a honest and impartial person would have to conclude.

Nice try, Mach. This is what i mean by you wishing to deal with this only at some level of dietrology where you get to pre-define what is and isn't intellectually honest.

Why not just admit it. It IS just you putting the spin on this that continues your agenda of casting doubt on innocence.

You. In itay, dude, it's just you.

Why then would I descend into your dietrological rabbit hole just to secure debating points?

They're innocent dude. You're obsessed with fantasies of their huilt. Good for you!