Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Sometimes I believe you have really lost it, dude. Do you really believe that because Knox is female means it is impossible to find her DNA on the victim's body?

Yes, I think so, because this is what Stefanoni explained in her testimony talking about machine settings.

Do you really believe that the evidence against Guede is the same as against Sollecito?

The DNA evidence, yes. Absolutely yes.

 

[bagels]

Nobody seem to consider that what "motivetes" me (which is what motivates Palestinians, too) may be truth.
The perception and knowledge of truth is a key factor at the origin of my interest in the case.

It's hard to believe PGP are on a quest for a truth, because they always feel satisfied that they have all the evidence they could ever need to know definitely and for all time what happened, and have always shown no interest in gaining new information or insight or re-examining the evidence. This is contrary to innocenti who are always interested in more evidence, more examinations, more knowledge.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, I think so, because this is what Stefanoni explained in her testimony talking about machine settings.

Yeah. Stefanoni set the machine at "kercher". Same as when she tested the knife blade.

 

[Mary_H]

This is quite an idiotic comment.

Inability to understand appears to be adamant. Your prejudice, ignorance and presumption appear to be an airtight system.
I recall when you theorised that the fact that the SC declared some statements not usable, this was a "proof" that they were taken illegally.
Let's always bear in mind that your reasoning functions at such level.

I probably said "evidence." I doubt I said "proof."

<snip>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.

Let me see if I can adamantly understand. You are saying that your hatred of the Mafia motivates you to believe Amanda is guilty. This is in keeping with the time you wrote that Amanda saying Raffaele had fish blood on his hands indicated her connection to the Mafia.

You might be surprised to learn how absolutely impossible it would be for even a pro-guilt American to entertain the improbabilities you take for granted. I'm sorry the Mafia is a reality in Italy, but you should accept that its influence is not felt in West Seattle.

Your conclusions are comparable to a hypothetical situation in which you come to Seattle and are held for the murder of a black person, which you didn't commit, but which the prosecution and their allies know you are guilty of, because your all-white clothing and crucifix indicate you are a member of the Italian Ku Klux Klan.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes it's plain idiotic.

It's the same of accusing the Palestinians of hating the Israeli Zionists because of an anti-Semitic prejudice.Indeed the Palestinians hate the Israeli Zionists.

But hatred is the effect of something, not the cause of it.

I guess very easilly that the pro-Knoxes will try to subvert the causal order of things: instead of admitting that someone hates them because they are thugs, they will state that someone sees them as thugs because they hate them.

It's a childish denial.

The reason why I see an enemy, is not because I am prejudiced. On the contrary. It's because I don't share yours.
Prejudice is ignorance. But the hatred of Palestinains does not originate from ignorance about the Zionists, it originate from the knowledge of Zionism.
Mary H just proves to build idiotic reasoning, based on ignorance, also elsewhere, as in the example that I have cited: for example where she states, adamantly, that interrogation must have been illegal because the SC declared them non usable.
This is a patent example of prejudicial thinking. And this is the model of Mary H thinking on this point too.

Mary H (and you) basically call "prejudice" the fact that I have a knowledge of facts from a point of view that you don't have and don't understand, and leads to a view of facts that is irreconciliable with yours.

I could guess you would pick up the word "hatred", this is why I added provocatively the line, saying if you like you can interpret it and call it that way. Because you don't understand the difference of ideology, of contexts and realities. People fail to understand why someone hates them, because they are shielded by their own ignorance they think hatred is a prejudice.
What "motivates" me is certainly more complex than what I expressed in forum lines. What I find curious, and what I note, is that a poster (analemma) was telling about her speculations of what "motivates" me and presented tortuous theories: wondering if I try to defend the "honor of the Judiciary", or if I'm a police officer defending some particular career, etc. That poster was only able to imagine "utilitaristic" motives, some rather disingenuous or cynical motivation.
In fact the object of my interest is narratives. Conflicting narratives, false narratives. Nobody seem to consider that what "motivetes" me (which is what motivates Palestinians, too) may be truth.The perception and knowledge of truth is a key factor at the origin of my interest in the case.

Just out of curiosity Mach, have you ever heard of, or read, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

Do you believe there is some sort of zionist conspiracy in the world, and is it in any way related to the masons?

Is this a reflection of the conflict you have described between the Church, the masons and the mafia?

If so, does this mean Amanda and Raf were acquitted as part of some sort of zionist plot?

I'm truly trying to grasp your narrative, and thought for a moment that I caught a whiff of something familiar.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

(...)

This was the point, and the question:

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 this; 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.

Did you notice you avoided to answer?

So let's repeat the question:

Would you accept that, if the SC report says what I report, your conclusion should be that the mainstream news are unreliable and not impartial? And so, that I am a more reliable, more impartial and more truthful source than the mainstream media?
Because this is what a honest and impartial person would have to conclude.

That I am more reliable and more impartial than the mainstream media you listened to at least about reporting the content of the SC report.

You try to escape implications like this Bill; you build your "questions" cutting them off. You want to "make up" innocence, by invoking "omissions" by press (also adding non existent "satifaction" and "finding out"), and you decide to skip what Cassazione says, cut off implications.

 

[Desert Fox]

I was listening to the case of Claus von Bülow and listening to Alan Dershowitz talk about the case. Many of the arguments he used for innocence could have been taken straight out of the Amanda Knox case and multiplied several fold.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The perception and knowledge of truth is a key factor at the origin of my interest in the case.

Likewise ours. But we live in separate realities. You cannot use an Italian reality to judge an American citizen.

 

[carbonjam72]

By the way, Mignini may no longer by the dumbest craziest prosecutor on earth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/n...iner-says-kayaker-was-victim-of-homicide.html

 

[Machiavelli]

Just out of curiosity Mach, have you ever heard of, or read, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

Yes.

Do you believe there is some sort of zionist conspiracy in the world, and is it in any way related to the masons?

No.

Is this a reflection of the conflict you have described between the Church, the masons and the mafia?

No.

If so, does this mean Amanda and Raf were acquitted as part of some sort of zionist plot?

No.

I'm truly trying to grasp your narrative, and thought for a moment that I caught a whiff of something familiar.

I'm afraid you are really not familiar.

There is no big masonic conspiracy nor zionist conspiracy in the world.

Just as clarification: Masonry can be meant not as one association/istitution but as a kind of association/institution. Itself Masonry is not something bad, neither good nor bad actually. Masonry is a "brotherhood"; it's a society that provides individiuals mutual help, a system, and a social structure.
There is no masonic conspiracy, however the powerful elites in Western societies have a masonic system within them, they partly rely on this social structure, in order to keep positions of power and privilege.
Churches and other institutions are not so different in that respect. However the masonic system is a relatively more effective structure for elites, because less visible. Masonry is an extremely articulated phenomenon in the world, there are really many realities under this umbrella, some have little to doe with each other. But some masonic structures more powerful than others exist, and usually have an international level.

Italy has its own peculiar context. There is a problem of highly organized corruption and informal powers within the Italian society. The problem is not "masonry", the problem is how informal powers structures interfer with democratic life and are cause of injustice and corruption. I look at the context that I know.

 

[Bill Williams]

Did you notice you avoided to answer?

No, I substituted a real issue, rather than deal with your insipid stupidity. You are the guy who believes that because Knox is female, her DNA cannot be detected on the victims body. You're the guy who said he was shot in Genoa without one shred of proof at all. Simply another lie on you part. (You would not believe who I've heard from re: this.)

You are the guy foisting interpretations on things that no one, repeat no one within Italy shares. If it were so you would point to them. Those are bombastic claims you are making, and not one paper in Italy is covering it. Not one. You've been tweeting Porta a Porta, and they, apparently, are ignoring you as some kind of nut! There is no press-buzz on these claims you are making....

.... you simply want to win an argument with me. Me! An english-language speaker with no power one way or another to influence anything.

Ok, say I agree with you. Say for a minute I agree that this is what it says and what it means in Italian.

So what!? Where I would go with that is this - this is now Motivations Report #5 in an 8 year legal odyssey which has provided proof of something with no evidence to support it. Knox wiping blood off of her hands? And they then acquit? That, then, is the equivalent of Nencini implying that women (amica) have y-haplotypes. None of this makes anyone in the English speaking world want to trust the adjudication of a murder of an innocent to the Italian legal system.

Massei in 2009 gives a great description of what a suspect-centric investigation is, and warns against them. THEN he agrees with the very investigators who conducted a suspect centric system. Nencini ignores from 3 to 5 Y-DNA presences on 35B, and then rules out contamination because the only thing for him was to find Raffaele there. That is the very definition of suspect-centric.

And fresh from LMAO about your gaffe about Knox's DNA not neing able to be found on Meredith because the two of them are female, is.....

..... well, not exactly encouraging me to "answer the question".

Dude, you are simply in another universe, dude. Let's say you and I agree and you can reach up and put a check mark beside what you've written on your wall, "I've now got Bill Williams to see reason."

Big deal. So what.

Why are you not doing this in Italy in Italian? Can you point to anyone who is saying what you are saying in Italy in Italian? While we are accusing each other of not answering questions, that's a question you are not dealing with adequately.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes it's plain idiotic.

It's the same of accusing the Palestinians of hating the Israeli Zionists because of an anti-Semitic prejudice.
Indeed the Palestinians hate the Israeli Zionists.

But hatred is the effect of something, not the cause of it.

I guess very easilly that the pro-Knoxes will try to subvert the causal order of things: instead of admitting that someone hates them because they are thugs, they will state that someone sees them as thugs because they hate them.

It's a childish denial.

The reason why I see an enemy, is not because I am prejudiced. On the contrary. It's because I don't share yours.
Prejudice is ignorance. But the hatred of Palestinains does not originate from ignorance about the Zionists, it originate from the knowledge of Zionism.

Mary H just proves to build idiotic reasoning, based on ignorance, also elsewhere, as in the example that I have cited: for example where she states, adamantly, that interrogation must have been illegal because the SC declared them non usable.
This is a patent example of prejudicial thinking. And this is the model of Mary H thinking on this point too.

Mary H (and you) basically call "prejudice" the fact that I have a knowledge of facts from a point of view that you don't have and don't understand, and leads to a view of facts that is irreconciliable with yours.

I could guess you would pick up the word "hatred", this is why I added provocatively the line, saying if you like you can interpret it and call it that way. Because you don't understand the difference of ideology, of contexts and realities. People fail to understand why someone hates them, because they are shielded by their own ignorance they think hatred is a prejudice.
What "motivates" me is certainly more complex than what I expressed in forum lines. What I find curious, and what I note, is that a poster (analemma) was telling about her speculations of what "motivates" me and presented tortuous theories: wondering if I try to defend the "honor of the Judiciary", or if I'm a police officer defending some particular career, etc. That poster was only able to imagine "utilitaristic" motives, some rather disingenuous or cynical motivation.
In fact the object of my interest is narratives. Conflicting narratives, false narratives. Nobody seem to consider that what "motivetes" me (which is what motivates Palestinians, too) may be truth.
The perception and knowledge of truth is a key factor at the origin of my interest in the case.

Seriously, you need to take a few days off. Because you steadfastly refuse to offer a narrative of this crime into which the evidence for guilt fits.

Instead, you think that because Knox is female, that's why her forensic presence is not in Meredith's room.

I just hope there are enough lurkers left to read what you have to say.

 

[Machiavelli]

Likewise ours. But we live in separate realities. You cannot use an Italian reality to judge an American citizen.

If the American citizen is a resident of Italy, he/she can only be judged by Italian institutions, rules and people. There is a principle of soverignity quite obvious, it's someone who lives in this reality, not in the US.

But maybe you mean something more subjective, rather than juristidction. You mean interpretation of behaviours, "through the eyes of", or "as if".

Now, the problem is twofold. First of all, it is correct to say that interpretation of things must be put in relation to a cultural context. But this does not equate to say that I cannot interpret things and can't judge a person from another culture in the absolute. Most inmates in Italy are foreigneers, they are very diverse and from very different cultures (chinese, african etc.). People are not put in jail because of cultural interpretaion of behaviours. You seem to incur in the mistake of believing - and I think that this was your belif from the origin - that Knox was suspected because of cultural behaviour. But telling inconsistent stories to the police is not a cultural behaviour of American women, nor knowing details of the victim's death that they shouldn't know, nor falsely accusing black men of raping and killing their roomate while covering their ears, and having a boyfriend who retracts their alibi may be also not that typical of a foreign culture.

But the second, most important problem is the following.
I can use my Italian reality to judge Mignini, Anna Donnino, Stefanoni. And also the fairness of a trial under the Italian system. While instead, based on your principle, an American citizen should not judge Mignini, Donnino or Stefanoni. Nor should ever dare to judge a witness within an Italian trial. or if a procedure is followed properly.

The hypocrisy of your position comes out as we just turn our attention to this second point.
The problem here, is what the US-based campaign and supporters like you are saying about people and things they are not supposed to be able to judge.

It's the presumption and the chuzpah in their intent to "judge" (and violently attack) a number of things beyond your knowledge. At the same time, you present me with a complaint that someone may judge Knox trhough non-American eyes. You can see the grotesque chuzpah, don't you.

 

[acbytesla]

What confuses me is why Machiavelli might believe that any of us would believe him about anything related to this case? Doesn't he understand that he has established a track record for not being fair or credible?

 

[Bill Williams]

If the American citizen is a resident of Italy, he/she can only be judged by Italian institutions, rules and people. There is a principle of soverignity quite obvious, it's someone who lives in this reality, not in the US.

But maybe you mean something more subjective, rather than juristidction. You mean interpretation of behaviours, "through the eyes of", or "as if".

Now, the problem is twofold. First of all, it is correct to say that interpretation of things must be put in relation to a cultural context. But this does not equate to say that I cannot interpret things and can't judge a person from another culture in the absolute. Most inmates in Italy are foreigneers, they are very diverse and from very different cultures (chinese, african etc.). People are not put in jail because of cultural interpretaion of behaviours. You seem to incur in the mistake of believing - and I think that this was your belif from the origin - that Knox was suspected because of cultural behaviour. But telling inconsistent stories to the police is not a cultural behaviour of American women, nor knowing details of the victim's death that they shouldn't know, nor falsely accusing black men of raping and killing their roomate while covering their ears, and having a boyfriend who retracts their alibi may be also not that typical of a foreign culture.

But the second, most important problem is the following.
I can use my Italian reality to judge Mignini, Anna Donnino, Stefanoni. And also the fairness of a trial under the Italian system. While instead, based on your principle, an American citizen should not judge Mignini, Donnino or Stefanoni. Nor should ever dare to judge a witness within an Italian trial. or if a procedure is followed properly.

The hypocrisy of your position comes out as we just turn our attention to this second point.
The problem here, is what the US-based campaign and supporters like you are saying about people and things they are not supposed to be able to judge.

It's the presumption and the chuzpah in their intent to "judge" (and violently attack) a number of things beyond your knowledge. At the same time, you present me with a complaint that someone may judge Knox trhough non-American eyes. You can see the grotesque chuzpah, don't you.

LOL!! Dude - it was your court system which acquitted them!!!!

LMAO. Women's DNA is not masked by other women, regardless of whether you're in Italy or the USA.

Seriously - the kindest thing one can say at this point is, "you're overthinking this."

 

[Bill Williams]

What confuses me is why Machiavelli might believe that any of us would believe him about anything related to this case? Doesn't he understand that he has established a track record for not being fair or credible?

What confuses me is why I respond! I literally spewed milk on my computer screen when I read he believes Stefanoni when she said (which I doubt she did) that the reason why Knox's DNA was not found in Meredith's room was because she was female.

 

[Mary_H]

If the American citizen is a resident of Italy, he/she can only be judged by Italian institutions, rules and people. There is a principle of soverignity quite obvious, it's someone who lives in this reality, not in the US.

Theoretically, that is true, except that Amanda and Raffaele did not break any Italian laws, so there was no reason to judge them.

But maybe you mean something more subjective, rather than juristidction. You mean interpretation of behaviours, "through the eyes of", or "as if".

Now, the problem is twofold. First of all, it is correct to say that interpretation of things must be put in relation to a cultural context. But this does not equate to say that I cannot interpret things and can't judge a person from another culture in the absolute. Most inmates in Italy are foreigneers, they are very diverse and from very different cultures (chinese, african etc.). People are not put in jail because of cultural interpretaion of behaviours.

Sociologists have demonstrated that quite obviously people are put into jail because of cultural interpretation of behaviors, or at least because of prejudice against their "foreignness."

You seem to incur in the mistake of believing - and I think that this was your belif from the origin - that Knox was suspected because of cultural behaviour.

I am not sure I have ever made that mistake. Some of my first posts on this forum were about the sexual attraction Mignini and his cohort felt to Amanda. The basis of my belief about the motivations of those who arrested Amanda has mostly been that a bunch of stupid people got excited and made some stupid mistakes.

But telling inconsistent stories to the police is not a cultural behaviour of American women, nor knowing details of the victim's death that they shouldn't know, nor falsely accusing black men of raping and killing their roomate while covering their ears, and having a boyfriend who retracts their alibi may be also not that typical of a foreign culture.

Most of these things didn't happen, but if they had, they are easily explained by the fact that two innocent people were taken into custody and terrorized, rendering everything they said and did out of their own control, by definition.

But the second, most important problem is the following.
I can use my Italian reality to judge Mignini, Anna Donnino, Stefanoni. And also the fairness of a trial under the Italian system. While instead, based on your principle, an American citizen should not judge Mignini, Donnino or Stefanoni. Nor should ever dare to judge a witness within an Italian trial. or if a procedure is followed properly.

You don't think there is a difference between judged for a crime versus being judged for doing one's job.

The hypocrisy of your position comes out as we just turn our attention to this second point.
The problem here, is what the US-based campaign and supporters like you are saying about people and things they are not supposed to be able to judge.

It's the presumption and the chuzpah in their intent to "judge" (and violently attack) a number of things beyond your knowledge. At the same time, you present me with a complaint that someone may judge Knox trhough non-American eyes. You can see the grotesque chuzpah, don't you.

I would like you to be explicit about your beliefs in Amanda's connection to the Mafia, and why you think the Mafia is involved in this case. You hint at a lot of things but don't often come right out and explain them clearly.

 

[Bill Williams]

But the second, most important problem is the following.
I can use my Italian reality to judge Mignini, Anna Donnino, Stefanoni. And also the fairness of a trial under the Italian system. While instead, based on your principle, an American citizen should not judge Mignini, Donnino or Stefanoni. Nor should ever dare to judge a witness within an Italian trial. or if a procedure is followed properly.

I'm confused. I thought Bruno and Marasca were Italians. It seems they used their own "Italian reality" to acquit the pair.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, I substituted a real issue, rather than deal with your insipid stupidity. You are the guy who believes that because Knox is female, her DNA cannot be detected on the victims body. You're the guy who said he was shot in Genoa without one shred of proof at all. Simply another lie on you part. (You would not believe who I've heard from re: this.)

You are the guy foisting interpretations on things that no one, repeat no one within Italy shares. If it were so you would point to them. Those are bombastic claims you are making, and not one paper in Italy is covering it. Not one. You've been tweeting Porta a Porta, and they, apparently, are ignoring you as some kind of nut! There is no press-buzz on these claims you are making....

.... you simply want to win an argument with me. Me! An english-language speaker with no power one way or another to influence anything.

Ok, say I agree with you. Say for a minute I agree that this is what it says and what it means in Italian.

So what!? Where I would go with that is this - this is now Motivations Report #5 in an 8 year legal odyssey which has provided proof of something with no evidence to support it. Knox wiping blood off of her hands? And they then acquit? That, then, is the equivalent of Nencini implying that women (amica) have y-haplotypes. None of this makes anyone in the English speaking world want to trust the adjudication of a murder of an innocent to the Italian legal system.

Massei in 2009 gives a great description of what a suspect-centric investigation is, and warns against them. THEN he agrees with the very investigators who conducted a suspect centric system. Nencini ignores from 3 to 5 Y-DNA presences on 35B, and then rules out contamination because the only thing for him was to find Raffaele there. That is the very definition of suspect-centric.

And fresh from LMAO about your gaffe about Knox's DNA not neing able to be found on Meredith because the two of them are female, is.....

..... well, not exactly encouraging me to "answer the question".
(...)

And yet you didn't answer.

Let's clarify again anyway: yes, it would be impossible to find Amanda's DNA on Meredith's body, or in any context where Meredith's DNA would be very abundant in comparison to a tiny amount of Knox's DNA, because they are both females.
It would have been impossible to find Knox's DNA inside the victim's vagina. It was posible to find a Y-haplotype compatible with Guede, because Guede has a Y-haplotype. But his X-haplotype could not be detected, probably because Meredith's DNA was just too much and the amplification process and machine settings required would make it impossible to detect an X profile on a much lower magnitude.

I have already proven that your claim that Nencini attributed Y haplotypes to females is false, it's made up. Your false claim is based upon a series of falsehoods made up by yourself, among them your wrong interpretation of what Nencini says about the Conti-Vecchiotti report. You maintain that Nencini stated that the Conti-Vecchiotti report is reliable under every aspect, and this is false. Also your claim about what the Conti-Vecchiotti report says is false.
You are most obstinate and obsessive about your misinterpreting and twisting of what others say.
Your claim about Nencini is a lie.

I am actually not willing to "win an argument", but I am ready to teach you things that you may not know. It appears you are telling me those things don't interest you.

You say again "my interpretation" of things. Yet it is not my interpretation. The text of the Cassazione report is quite clear while making points like Knox was certainly in via della Pergola house when the murder was committed, whashed her hands from Meredith's blood (despite its astonishing contradicting some them in some other page, and then re-stating them in a further page again, as if it was really written by a fool).
The SC report is also clear about the fact that Guede did not kill alone and that Knox was malicious. I repeat: these things are stated clearly, it's not my interpretation.

 

[Machiavelli]

What confuses me is why Machiavelli might believe that any of us would believe him about anything related to this case? Doesn't he understand that he has established a track record for not being fair or credible?

I have proven you wrong too many times?