Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Not even ISC agrees with your opinion. You do know they have decreed:

• Amanda was there, at the murder scene.
• Amanda washed her friend's blood from her hands.
• Amanda did nothing to help her friend.
• Amanda preferred to cover up for Rudy.
• There were two other murderers besides Rudy.
• The burglary was staged.
• The murder was so vicious, it was unlikely the work of a burglar - unless he was a serial killer.
• Raff was almost certainly there with Amanda.
• Neither of them is exonerated.
• Amanda remains a convicted felon who voluntarily and freely knowingly accused an innocent man of the rape and murder of her friend.

I understand people are so gullible they'll believe any propaganda, or, alternatively, they get vicarious pleasure in supporting criminals (cf the Oregon shooter).

You are welcome to believe what you like, but please do understand what Bruno and Marasca actually decreed in law.

What do you make of Section 9.2 in the Marasca report, which says that what follows (namely, the points you raise) is a hypothetical "synopsis" of a combined prosecution/defence set of theories?

I make it to mean Marasca is saying that those points are ludicrous.

 

[Bill Williams]

9.2 reads.....

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

What you're stating as factual, Vixen, is stated by Marasca to be the demonstration of the "objectively contradictory nature" of the stuff his court had to consider.

 

[Strozzi]

Your saying the stain is semen, doesn't make it so, even if there are a hundred of you saying it a hundred times.

Bongiorno put in a late application to Nencini (the second instance court, the appeal court) when she must have been aware it would be dismissed.

Nencini dismissed the application, Massei assessed it as irrelevant.
The purported semen is pure conspiracy theory masquerading as fact, and this thread is awash with it as a consequence of PIP's clutching at any remote straw in their desperate search for "police corruption".

Vixen, you write about this thread being awash in conspiracy theories when many of us write that the purported semen stain should have been tested. Yet you expect us to believe your statements that Amanda's lamp being taken to Meredith's room is an indication that Amanda was there at the time if the crime. That is just more if the double standard. The police controlled both items of evidence and could have examined both. The police are a source of the conspiracy in this case.

 

[Vixen]

An independent witness literally saw her there in the evening.

Didn't see her there "all evening". Raff, too, denies Amanda was at his "all evening".

Just recently in this thread we got new translations of the wiretaps where she explains the police are constantly interviewing her and treating her like a criminal. This is before the arrest.



The person who told her this literally testified to it on the stand

Donnino suggested amnesia. However, it's obviously a logical fallacy for Amanda to claim this was the reason she suddenly started seeing Patrick do all those things. So her memory suddenly came back? She called them "flashbacks" so IMV there is a lot of authenticity in her account, albeit carefully protecting Rudy and herself from being implicated.

They did interrogate him. It also wasn't recorded.

I see. This made Raff see flashing blurry images of Amanda going out for the evening between 8:45 and 01:00.

"Patrick? I don't see you. But I'm sorry. I'm sorry because I didn't mean to do wrong to do you. I was very naïve and not courageous at all"



"I'm sorry I didn't remember before and I'm sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I can't know who was at the murder because I didn't return back to the house. " - AK Nov 7th.

What a load of BS. The last sentence is hilarious.

Scene: Class on Monday

Colleague: Did you have a nice weekend.

Amanda: Yes, thanks, I was at a murder.

Or rather, I confusedly imagined I was after suffering amnesia.

Not seeing it.

Not like you not to see it. As we say in Finland, "Haistaa ******". (= smell the, er, coffee).

 

[Vixen]

It wasn't on Stefanoni's DNA report. It lists samples from Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy and Meredith and that is it. Now, maybe I missed something...so best of my knowledge.

I definitely think the Defense would argue that it is huge. I do believe the prosecution would downplay it and I haven't a clue what judges like Massei or Nencini would do.

The list of samples was potential evidence at the scene.

Police taking witness fingerprints or DNA swabs would not be in that list.

 

[Vixen]

Not sure what numbers Truth was using but it is my understanding from the article that rape occurs .006 of the time, but there are large differences between regions and economic groups. However using the numbers in Seattle, that would equal out to 42 rapes occurring during a burglary.

For the whole year. That's hardly "62 every day".

 

[Vixen]

What do you make of Section 9.2 in the Marasca report, which says that what follows (namely, the points you raise) is a hypothetical "synopsis" of a combined prosecution/defence set of theories?

I make it to mean Marasca is saying that those points are ludicrous.

Not so, he makes clear it is res judicata. Nothing he can do about established facts.

 

[Vixen]

9.2 reads.....

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

What you're stating as factual, Vixen, is stated by Marasca to be the demonstration of the "objectively contradictory nature" of the stuff his court had to consider.

Pure sophistry, as all courts deal with contradictory stuff, that's why we have trials, so judges can determine who they believe the most.

They then go on to annul the case because of Bongiorno's rantings and Velladova's (_sp?) opportunistic claims of contamination, which was never proven. IOW they scapegoated the police, rather than declare your murderous idols innocent.

 

[Bill Williams]

Pure sophistry, as all courts deal with contradictory stuff, that's why we have trials, so judges can determine who they believe the most.

They then go on to annul the case because of Bongiorno's rantings and Velladova's (_sp?) opportunistic claims of contamination, which was never proven. IOW they scapegoated the police, rather than declare your murderous idols innocent.

You are entitled to your opinion. Yet 9.2 shows that the examples you cite upthread are not considered factual by Marasca, but as a contradictory 'synopsis" of the various prosecution and defence theories.

You cited those things as if Marasca was laying out a fact. Whether sophistry or not, 9.2 is what it is.

 

[Vixen]

You are entitled to your opinion. Yet 9.2 shows that the examples you cite upthread are not considered factual by Marasca, but as a contradictory 'synopsis" of the various prosecution and defence theories.

You cited those things as if Marasca was laying out a fact. Whether sophistry or not, 9.2 is what it is.

We are not talking 9.2 we are talking conclusions.

No wonder we had to wait six months for it. It was likely originally 500 pages and 52 is all that's left after Marasca blue pencilled it.

What a crock of ******

These top judges (mind you, Bruno and Marasca did not go the career path, they are merely politicians) were supposed to go through the appeal points of law on each side, and all we get is a schoolboy's treatise on Gallileo and the scientific method. Raff's appeal was 306 pages alone.

The Bruno -Marasca report is an exercise in laziness, poor reasoning, illogicality (so it's okay for Rudy's DNA to be kicked around for 46 days, but not Raff's), speciousness ("Amanda chose Patrick in case someone saw Rudy leave the cottage" [what?] and unmitigated drivel.

We are none the wiser.

 

[Bill Williams]

We are not talking 9.2 we are talking conclusions.

No wonder we had to wait six months for it. It was likely originally 500 pages and 52 is all that's left after Marasca blue pencilled it.

What a crock of ******

These top judges (mind you, Bruno and Marasca did not go the career path, they are merely politicians) were supposed to go through the appeal points of law on each side, and all we get is a schoolboy's treastise on Gallileo and the scientific method. Raff's appeal was 306 pages alone.

The Bruno -Marasca report is an exercise in laziness, poor reasoning, illogicality (so it's okay for Rudy's DNA to be kicked around for 46 days, but not Raff's), speciousness ("Amanda chose Patrick in case someone saw Rudy leave the cottage" [what?], unmitigated drivel.

We are none the wiser.

Yet after all that, you claim to be wiser by quoting Marasca's report! Hoots!

Also, those "conclusions" you quote are as defined by 9.2 - as hypothetical "conclusions" which one would arrive at if they, like Marasca did, tried to create a synopsis of the contradictory theories.

Level all the ad hominem you want at the report. Yet two things are clear. One is you want to have it both ways - claim that the report is garbage yet still containing "conclusions" which you misquote.

Two - everyone **in** Italy knows what the Marasca report means; namely that the two are innocent and that the last 7 1/2 years have been marked by police and judicial incompetence.

 

[analemma]

I see. This made Raff see flashing blurry images of Amanda going out for the evening between 8:45 and 01:00.
What a load of BS. The last sentence is hilarious.

Everyone knows the police used gestapo tactics to force them to say whatever the police "KNEW TO BE CORRECT": The ISC even said that the statements without a lawyer should be excluded.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[Mr Fied]

No, I think the problem was he thought they would fabricate even more. Like with the fake bra clasp evidence.

"He would say that, wouldn't he?" ~ Mandy Rice-Davies.

Yes he would say that.

Let's look at why he would say that.

They couldn't count the rings on a shoe sole.

They went back and "found" the bra clasp. They passed it around among the crack forensic team after it had been moved around a dirty room. Then they said they tested it and found DNA on it. They couldn't repeat the test and then they destroyed the evidence.

They stored the knife in a cardboard box, it was handled without gloves, it was tested and said to have Meredith's DNA on it. The test could not be repeated or verified. They didn't bother to take the handle apart to look for blood. It didn't match the wounds or the bloody outline.

They didn't test the possible semen stain found under a rape victim.

Why would Raff be worried about their competence and ability to lie or find things that weren't there?

 

[Grinder]

It would be <26 homicides, <128 rapes. Out of 7,102 burglaries, you don't need to be a mathematician to see it certainly is not "2.2% of burglaries result in rape or murder", or whatever crazy maths TruthCalls came out with.

I still complement compliment TC for digging and getting those stats. The linked stats provided didn't have a percentage that resulted in murder, which implies to me the number would be very low.

There is no way to make the Meredith murder a "normal" crime seen frequently. Rudi did not have anything in his background that would point to a violent character.

 

[Grinder]

Proper

Please provide the link to Seattle crimes you used?

 

[TruthCalls]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

This made Raff see flashing blurry images of Amanda going out for the evening between 8:45 and 01:00.

Raffaele did not claim to have any blurry images. Raffaele contradicted his claim that Amanda was with him all night on two occurrences.

(1) Having been confused on dates Raffaele spoke of an evening where they were in the center of town together until around 20:30, when Raffaele headed home alone and Amanda went out with friends.

(2) He is asked whether he could know Amanda is home when he is asleep and he naturally replies he could not.

The first is clearly not from the night of the murder since Amanda was witnessed twice at Raffaele's apartment, was confirmed there by Raffaele as he was talking to his father, and the courts affirmed Amelie was being played as both Amanda and Raffaele testified to.

The second is acknowledging a fact of life, not specifically testifying that Amanda left the apartment. He later clarified that she couldn't have left because he would have had to let her back in.

I'm curious what your motive is in making such comments. Do you really not understand what was said and what it meant?

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed further rule breach.

ETA ~ Agatha, my apologies but I genuinely believe it's very important to understand the intellectual dynamics of someone who would argue a particular interpretation to a set of facts when it is clearly established the interpretation is patently false. The two 'options' I offered are really the only two ways that I can think of characterizing it. I did not intend to turn it into a personal attack. Nevertheless, I will abide by your ruling and not go there again.

 

[Agatha]

Once again, some posts have had to be moved for rule 0 and rule 12 breaches.

I will repeat the salient points of the most recent modbox, and I hope that ALL participants to this thread will follow the instructions herein.

Whilst most participants in the thread do seem to be making an effort to improve their behaviour (and this is greatly appreciated by the entire moderation team), some of you are still not 'getting it'.

If you are talking 'to' each other, then be civil and polite lest you breach rule 0. If you are talking 'about' each other, then you may well be breaching rule 0, rule 11 and/or rule 12, so don't do it at all.

No matter how much you disagree with any particular poster's point of view, beliefs or inferred motivations, do not address anything other than their arguments.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[acbytesla]

The list of samples was potential evidence at the scene.

Police taking witness fingerprints or DNA swabs would not be in that list.

Really? You know this for a fact? Or are you speculating with no evidence?

 

[Grinder]

The Bruno -Marasca report is an exercise in laziness, poor reasoning, illogicality (so it's okay for Rudy's DNA to be kicked around for 46 days, but not Raff's), speciousness ("Amanda chose Patrick in case someone saw Rudy leave the cottage" [what?] and unmitigated drivel.

We are none the wiser.

Why does the argument that Rudi's shouldn't have counted even come up from the PGP? Rudi admitted being there during the murder, his palm print in Meredith's blood was found, DNA from the first collection was Rudi's and the shoe prints in Meredith's blood matched the shoes that came in the shoe box found at Rudi's.

So, fine, drop all the evidence collected on the 18th.

 

[Grinder]

Two - everyone **in** Italy knows what the Marasca report means; namely that the two are innocent and that the last 7 1/2 years have been marked by police and judicial incompetence.

The MB report found them not guilty paragraph two which to Italians means less than innocent. Cheli makes the point that the ruling leaves shadows.

Oh and by the way it was Amanda's attorney that said it was a pure innocent verdict when he called her, which as most people recognize it was less than that.