Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

I am not as sure as you that Marasca/Bruno were trying to save the Italian system from judicial melt-down with contrary rulings.

But getting back to the plain meaning (in translation) of what Vixen refuses to deal with (I have never yet seen a guilter deal with it):

The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant....​

The meaning is this - and if Vixen disagrees, maybe Vixen can have a go at what she refuses so far - because putting together the:

1) evidence against Knox
2) evidence aganist Sollecito
3) the general musings/theories of the prosecution(s)​

....illustrates the contradictory nature of the evidence when taken as a whole. LondonJohn, this is a direct refutation of the Chieffi report from 2013 which says that Hellmann did not consider the evidence "osmotically." Well, says Bruno/Marasca, let's take it osmotically.

What one has when one does that is mass of objectively contradictory evidence.

Then it continues:

.... 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.​

Marasca/Bruno are saying they will conclude the report with an amalgam, a synopic presentation, of everything from both sides; including the "objectively contrary" evidence when Knox and Sollecito are considered separately. (In short, the Marasca/Bruno section took seriously Sollecito's separation strategy - "If you say that is damning evidence against Amanda, what does that have to do with me?"

Nothing shows the ludicrousness of this case more than combining, synoptically, the previous courts decisions/findings. One has the motive as Rudy's lust (Massei), another has the motive as an argument over rent-money (Nencini), one prosecutor said it was because of the pooh in the toilet (Crini), and Migmini/Comodi went through motives like candy at a kids' party.

I could go on, and probably will. Vixen - and the other **English-language** naysayers simply don't deal with this. When Marasca/Bruno write about allegtions of having blood are her hands, they've already said that that is simply part of the "objectively contradictory nature of the evidence". When considered synopticly.

How do we know that Italian-speakers and the Italian judiciary deal with this? Because no one in Italy, much less in the Italian courts, agree with what the English language slut-shamers are spewing.

For Pete's sake, Vixen couldn't resist taking a poke at Curt Knox above! Nothing shows Vixen's real intent than when she does that.

If Curt had paid his child support and not shut out Amanda and her sister from their bedroom at Cassandra's, causing Amanda to refuse to visit, maybe she would not have had all the rage issues causing her to go off the rails and attack her wholly innocent roommate.

Curt wasn't doing her any favours by persuading her to go on the innocence fraud road.

 

[Vixen]

If you go back there was a big story about how Edda marrying a guy just oler than Amanda had this huge impact and made a big deal about the broken home crap. I was just pointing out that the Kerchers were in a similar state.

Amanda didn't get on with stepfather, Chris Mellas. On his public FB page, he actually called Amanda and Deanna, "*********".

Charming, I'm sure. Did someone say it was a nice family?

 

[Vixen]

So in that case you have just proved that Amanda was not at the cottage at the time of the murder, at last.

When did Amanda confess to hearing a scream, let alone taking Patrick there for sex?

5th Nov 2007, before she was arrested.

 

[Vixen]

In her statement to the police on the 5th.

Ninja-ed.

 

[Mr Fied]

The photo of the clothes strewn on Amanda's bed was not released until the trial, by which time Quintavalle had made his witness statement. He could easily have simply described what she was wearing outside the cottage, if he didn't really know.

Was this when he was questioned by Inspector Volturno?

When everything was a recent memory and would have been fresh in his mind?

Or did he wait a year to give this detailed description of Amanda's clothes in court:

Question: So you recognize her?
Quintavalle: Yes, yes.
Question: How was she dressed?
Quintavalle: She was wearing jeans, and a pair of boots like Timberlands or something like that, and a sweater but I don’t remember the color, it seems like it was a cotton and wool sweater or something like that, but it seems to me that it had a collar, not a closed sweater in other words. It was very colorful, for sure, but I am not sure, because although it seems to me it was red or some color like that, I am not sure.

 

[Mr Fied]

Ninja-ed.

Did she confess to taking Patrick back to the cottage for sex?

 

[Bill Williams]

If Curt had paid his child support and not shut out Amanda and her sister from their bedroom at Cassandra's, causing Amanda to refuse to visit, maybe she would not have had all the rage issues causing her to go off the rails and attack her wholly innocent roommate.

Curt wasn't doing her any favours by persuading her to go on the innocence fraud road.

Well, you're nothing if not consistent.

"Rage issues"!? LOL! "Attack her roomate"? As the court found, none of these two things were true.

But it is noted that you refuse to deal with 9.2/9.3, even to provide your own interpretation of what it means.

Noted. You have nothing so need to descend to slurs. Maybe next you'll post a photo which proves the opposite of what you claim.

 

[Vixen]

**THE** Court? Which court?

Massei, Nencini. The fact -finders.

 

[Bill Williams]

Like a certain poster on this forum

I haven't a clue who you are talking about.

If it was Vixen you are thinking of, it's clear that she will slut-shame Amanda, and try to vilify all around her - including her father - with unsubstantiated slurs regardless of the charge!

It must be nice to take such a random approach to vilify/sluttify people.

 

[Vixen]

Well, you're nothing if not consistent.

"Rage issues"!? LOL! "Attack her roomate"? As the court found, none of these two things were true.

But it is noted that you refuse to deal with 9.2/9.3, even to provide your own interpretation of what it means.

Noted. You have nothing so need to descend to slurs. Maybe next you'll post a photo which proves the opposite of what you claim.

I will certainly come back about Bruno & Marasca.

 

[Desert Fox]

I haven't a clue who you are talking about.

If it was Vixen you are thinking of, it's clear that she will slut-shame Amanda, and try to vilify all around her - including her father - with unsubstantiated slurs regardless of the charge!

It must be nice to take such a random approach to vilify/sluttify people.

I wish I could randomly change the facts and make it an Italian woman on trial in a US Courts (lets avoid a state with the death penalty) and see how many of those whom spew hatred against the defendant would change their tune.

 

[Bill Williams]

How do we know there was a scream? It would be a normal reaction to being attacked but no credible witness said they heard a scream.

Massei, Nencini. The fact -finders.

Wowza - you actually referenced something.

Yet, allow me to ask - can you provide the citation from their motivation reports...

The reason why the Marasca/Bruno court annulled those courts was because it found none of it to make sense, "The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant...."

But finally you are addressing, through the back door, why Marasca/Massei annulled both Massei and Nencini.

Massei had **a** scream, probably way to late to have been connected with the crime, and Nencini simply left the T.O.D. open for a long enough period that any scream at any time could have been worked into his timeline.

In short, none of any of the scenarios made sense. Marasca/Bruno did not rule on facts - it is you claiming that they did - they are ruling on the logic of scenarios which could prove **anyone** guilty.

It would be better if you, yourself, read 9.2/9.3, instead of ignoring the implications of what it sets up for the report's closing.

Yes, it really would.

 

[Vixen]

I haven't a clue who you are talking about.

If it was Vixen you are thinking of, it's clear that she will slut-shame Amanda, and try to vilify all around her - including her father - with unsubstantiated slurs regardless of the charge!

It must be nice to take such a random approach to vilify/sluttify people.

I do not slut-shame. The issues come up within the context of Amanda's out-of-control behaviour being the cause of harm towards her wholly innocent roommate IMV.

The parents come into it as enquiring minds need to know what makes them tick. Amanda told Edda she knew Patrick was innocent and Edda failed spectacularly in her duty as a citizen and good mother to turn her daughter in, especially when she was told loud and clear by Amanda, "I cannot lie, I was there"

 

[Bill Williams]

I will certainly come back about Bruno & Marasca.

In other words, you do not understand it until you have a chance to consult with another guilter.

This way you can manufacture something to sustain your confirmation bias, instead of dealing with what 9.2/9.3 actually says.

Have it your way.

 

[Mike1711]

There was a defense attorney interviewed on Serial and one of her statements was that she hates innocent defendants in that they cannot do anything to help themselves. They are the hardest to defend.

I have heard similar sentiments from other defense lawyers as well.

The problem with defending innocent people is... "...anything you say may be used against you in court". This is dreadful but understandable onus. Innocent people tend to be too candidly open, simply because of their innocence. The assumption that others will see it too is a bad one.

 

[Grinder]

Yeah, but as Amanda didn't have a key, Raff would've had to get up and let her in, to tell police she was there next morning.

What is an SO?

Significant Other. She could have left the door unlocked or put something in between the door and the jam.

 

[Vixen]

Wowza - you actually referenced something.

Yet, allow me to ask - can you provide the citation from their motivation reports...

The reason why the Marasca/Bruno court annulled those courts was because it found none of it to make sense, "The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant...."

But finally you are addressing, through the back door, why Marasca/Massei annulled both Massei and Nencini.

Massei had **a** scream, probably way to late to have been connected with the crime, and Nencini simply left the T.O.D. open for a long enough period that any scream at any time could have been worked into his timeline.

In short, none of any of the scenarios made sense. Marasca/Bruno did not rule on facts - it is you claiming that they did - they are ruling on the logic of scenarios which could prove **anyone** guilty.

It would be better if you, yourself, read 9.2/9.3, instead of ignoring the implications of what it sets up for the report's closing.

Yes, it really would.

Massei and Nencini judged on the merits and those were the merits (=legal facts found).

 

[Vixen]

The problem with defending innocent people is... "...anything you say may be used against you in court". This is dreadful but understandable onus. Innocent people tend to be too candidly open, simply because of their innocence. The assumption that others will see it too is a bad one.

I have taken the scientific null hypothesis, and, like Massei and Nencini, the evidence was so strong, the null hypothesis (=the pair are innocent) had to be rejected.

That's what the merits courts (first instance courts) do.

 

[Vixen]

Significant Other. She could have left the door unlocked or put something in between the door and the jam.

And if the police asked you, you would just say so.

 

[Mr Fied]

In her statement to the police on the 5th.

5th Nov 2007, before she was arrested.

Sorry to be pedantic but the "statement" was made signed on 6th November 2007. This after entering the police station on the 5th.

If only we had the recordings of the questioning that led up to the statement, all of this could be cleared up.