Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Not accurate. Quintavalle when interviewed by Volturno stated "I do not recall seeing either of them, but if I had seen the girl she would have been wearing the clothes found on her bed the morning of the body's discovery or whatever clothes would be best for the case"

I stand corrected. But it means that Zephyrgeist is even more screwed. Imagine the shocked look on Zephyrgeist's face when Quintavalle shows up at his trial......

 

[Grinder]

I stand corrected. But it means that Zephyrgeist is even more screwed. Imagine the shocked look on Zephyrgeist's face when Quintavalle shows up at his trial......

Since our Mr. Ghost never met him it will only be when the testimony is given. He will be more shocked when his kitchen knife that tested negative for blood has the DNA of the victim and shockingly his prints on his knife.

 

[sept79]

This is all scary stuff! It's certainly reassuring that nothing like this could ever happen in a modern system of justice.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is all scary stuff! It's certainly reassuring that nothing like this could ever happen in a modern system of justice.

Since our Mr. Ghost never met him it will only be when the testimony is given. He will be more shocked when his kitchen knife that tested negative for blood has the DNA of the victim and shockingly his prints on his knife.

You people are very cynical this morning. Then again, using the standards of proof that plagued this case before Marasca/Bruno told all the kiddies get out of the pool.....

.... meant that one could prove that a beachball was actually corned-beef on rye. Apparently all one needs is to get a prosecutor to assert it, and according to the Chieffi panel is it now up to the defence to prove it isn't. And given that corned-beef on rye is loaded with carbon atoms, then simply finding one trace of carbon (at the atomic level) on the beachball would be seen to have vindicated the prosecutor's assertion.

It's a good thing that Patrizia Stefanoni was a Ph.D., because being a peer-reviewed scientist would prevent those sorts of mistakes.

In short, Zephergeist is screwed.

 

[Samzilla]

Vixen - the Italian (for all to see) is "l'ipotizzata presenza". The presumed presence, the alleged presence, the supposed presence..

You can add "the assumed presence" to that list. Both Google Translate and WorldLingo translate it as such (those were the first two online translators I tried).

Yet another translation that isn't saying they were definitively there.

Vixen is getting her view of these cases from a South African cut-and-paste true crime writer.

She's also being led by the English-language hate-sites. Of note is that there's not a single citation to any Italian-language sources (of repute) which sustain notions of Marasca/Bruno being disciplined for their March 2015 acquittals. All of that sort of talk is an English-language hater-fantasy.

Still waiting for the "illegal acquittal" to be overturned and Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito to be thrown back in jail. Remember when that was the "rumoured" cause of the motivations report delay?

 

[Ken Dine]

Fixed it for ya:

It's worse than that Zephyrgeist - a heroin dealer saw you outside the murder house [THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MURDER], and [a SENILE HEARING-IMPAIRED ELDERLY] woman heard a scream. [UNDER ITALIAN LAW] You're toast.

 

[Bill Williams]

You can add "the assumed presence" to that list. Both Google Translate and WorldLingo translate it as such (those were the first two online translators I tried).

Yet another translation that isn't saying they were definitively there.



Still waiting for the "illegal acquittal" to be overturned and Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito to be thrown back in jail. Remember when that was the "rumoured" cause of the motivations report delay?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that theory-of-the-delay appear only on the three English-language hate sites? Did not they use the services of an Italian with impeccable English, who Andrea Vogt (a guilter journalist in fact) called an arm-chair detective who was only prolonging the Kercher's pain?

Other than that there is nothing from Italy. Except the fallout from the Marasca/Bruno report that called the previous 7 1/2 years a flawed investigation and even worse judicial finding.

How do the English-language websites deal with it? They quote the Marasca report as if it started at Section 9.4.

All for Meredith.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm glad I took a vacation from JREF as I probably would have lost it and been kicked out.

While catching up with the thread I noticed posts from a certain guilter who tried to lecture the forum about cellular communications and how it relates to the case. What was clear is she was totally clueless about the subject. This of course being my one area of expertise, I'm sure I would have ended up mocking her and banned permanently.

You all did a good job of correcting her mistakes. But as usual, she just moved on to another piece of misinformation. Somethings never change.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm glad I took a vacation from JREF as I probably would have lost it and been kicked out.

While catching up with the thread I noticed posts from a certain guilter who tried to lecture the forum about cellular communications and how it relates to the case. What was clear is she was totally clueless about the subject. This of course being my one area of expertise, I'm sure I would have ended up mocking her and banned permanently.

You all did a good job of correcting her mistakes. But as usual, she just moved on to another piece of misinformation. Somethings never change.

This sounds like a critique of us! For what it's worth, Grinder and I have been getting along.

 

[acbytesla]

This sounds like a critique of us! For what it's worth, Grinder and I have been getting along.

I wouldn't call it a critique. Just an acknowledgement that the forum does just fine without me. As for you and Grinder, I'm sure that is just temporary.

 

[Bill Williams]

I wouldn't call it a critique. Just an acknowledgement that the forum does just fine without me. As for you and Grinder, I'm sure that is just temporary.

Well, I'm not so sure about the former, but as for the latter, I have three dozen Latin terms on a hotkey ready to piss off Grinder if need be.

As for revisiting the former - there really isn't much left. The hullabaloo that guilters promise from what they regard as an illegal Marasca/Bruno decision has yet to arise. These days the only coverage this case gets in Italy is about Sollecito's latest book and his plans for moving on.

Vixen chucks in the odd van-der-Leek factoid just to keep the juices going. She claimed there were no bars on the lower window (below Filomena's window), then posted a pic to show that there were, in fact, bars on the window.

That's about it.

 

[Vixen]

Huh? Marasca/Bruno implied it was too late by acquitting without referral back to the Appeals' level. Other than that, I have no idea whatsoever what you're referring to with the, "parameters of the Italian legal system".

Just chucking into the thread legalistic sounding phrases does no good.

Then again you have a track record of providing cites that actually refute the allegation you are making. Are you ready to apologize for the photo of the bars on the lower window?

However - the Chieffi ISC in 2013 referred three items to the Florence appeals' court. All three of those items went the defence's way.

What would have been referred in 2015? Esp. by a court which said: "the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt"? Why do you find this difficult to understand?
It is obvious you do not find it difficult to ignore.

Time has nothing to do with it. The lower courts were given the police evidence to look at at the time of the trial and the defense's refutations, explanations and challenges of it. All the higher courts are doing is looking at the legal reasoning behind the (a) verdict of the First court and (b) the appeal finding of the Second appeals court. That can never be "too late" within the time limits of the Italian legal system. The clock starts ticking as of the date of the judgment. As long as the appeal is lodged on time, how is it out of date for Marasca/Bruno to send it back to the lower court?

Nencini did not up hold the defense appeal of the three issues remitted back by Chiefi (himself a Supreme Court judge and thus cannot be overruled by Marasca/Bruno on the other legally settled issues*).

*Thus, it is not '"allegedly" present', as you claim.

 

[Vixen]

Even with the second appeals trial, they should have just said "We did not find any DNA on the knife, case closed."

What? Vecchiotti and Conti falsely claimed sample 36(i) was not testable as it was (i) LCN and (ii) anyway, a piece of starch. What riled the court was that they had been ordered to test it and showed contempt of the court in not making an application to the court for a pass in not testing it. This is why Chieffi ordered it to be tested. It was LCN, but the Rome lab had no problems identifying it and replicating the test. V&C lied about it being rye starch as it was scientifically found to be that of Amanda Knox. This DNA was located at the hilt of the knife, so of course Mez' DNA is not going to be there (indeed, a near full profile of Mez was found on the blade).

It is entirely compatible with Amanda wielding the knife on Mez. You note it was not Raff's DNA, nor even Rudy's.

So, it is incorrect to claim "we found no DNA on the knife".

 

[Vixen]

"Have" "it" "your" "way". "For" "heaven's" "sake", "even" "the" "PMF" "partial" "translation" "has" "it" "as", "presumed presence".

"Wishful thinking translation"! "Hoots"!

Presumed is not synomym of "alleged". I would suggest "imputed" is the better translation.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - the Italian (for all to see) is "l'ipotizzata presenza". The presumed presence, the alleged presence, the supposed presence.

Even if the evidence which Marasca/Bruno discusses following 9.2/9.3 is presumed to be true - none of it proves their guilt.

You can listen to the haters if you want. You and cast aspersions at me if you want. You can accuse Marasca/Bruno of being fired if you want. You can post photos of a barred window and claim it shows that the window is not barred if you want.

What you cannot escape - except by ignoring it (which you've done successfully so far) - is the meaning of "synopsis" or "l'ipotizzata presenza" in the text.

It's clear why you ignore it - because you can only say what you claim by ignoring it.

Run it through an Italian/English dictionary. "Hypothesized presence" is mentioned. You simply refuse to deal with this, substituting all sorts of non sequitor reasons.

Short of a cctv video at the scene their presence can only ever be presumed.

BTW synopsis has an entirely different meaning to synoptic.

 

[Bill Williams]

Presumed is not synomym of "alleged". I would suggest "imputed" is the better translation.

Suggest away. But careful, Vixen, you're actually starting to deal with the import of 9.2/9.3 in the Marasca/Bruno report! Trust me on this one - with your point of view, it would be best to ignore it.

But good on you for giving it a go. As a matter of point, we're not looking for a synonym for "alleged", which even the PMF'ers ssia should be rendered as "presumed". We're looking for a faithful translation of the underlying Italian word.

 

[Bill Williams]

Short of a cctv video at the scene their presence can only ever be presumed.

BTW synopsis has an entirely different meaning to synoptic.

............. and? But I'd suggest you move into dealing with 9.2/9.3 gently. It sets up the part of the Marasca/Bruno report which guilters quote as if anything prior to 9.3 did not exist.

Step gently, because you're going to have to do some fancy sashaying to duck the plain-text meaning of it.

So - what for you is the difference between synopsis and synoptic? Then and only then deal with that what follows is an amalgam of the various theories, pro and con..... but you know the drill.

 

[Vixen]

Hello? Nencini was rescinded, rejected, revoked. Like the dead parrot, it is no more. Nencini's report is as dead as a dodo. Zippo. Nencini being nullified is the absolute end, no recourse. Sorry Charlie.

Qué? Nencini was never annulled. It was never remitted back to the appeal court, as it should have been if Marasca Bruno want to argue DNA contamination, as neither Massei nor Nencini found any evidence of this. Where was Marasca's evidence? If he wants to bring in the cardboard box - he should have sent it back to the fact-finding courts for cross-examination of experts on all sides about the material or probable likelihood of this.

How can two civil law judges, appointed as politicians, with no experience in murder cases, sit on their well-padded backsides and claim the box the knife was stored in was "contaminated", as was Raff's DNA on the bra clasp, and yet, astonishingly, Rudy's DNA on the sweater was sound?

 

[Vixen]

As a leader in ECHR violations Italy stands alone among western European countries and the number one violation is length of trial.

Agreed. It's unfair to defendant and murder victim's family alike. In the UK, the case would have been effectively over after an Old Bailey trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

Time has nothing to do with it. The lower courts were given the police evidence to look at at the time of the trial and the defense's refutations, explanations and challenges of it. All the higher courts are doing is looking at the legal reasoning behind the (a) verdict of the First court and (b) the appeal finding of the Second appeals court. That can never be "too late" within the time limits of the Italian legal system. The clock starts ticking as of the date of the judgment. As long as the appeal is lodged on time, how is it out of date for Marasca/Bruno to send it back to the lower court?

Nencini did not up hold the defense appeal of the three issues remitted back by Chiefi (himself a Supreme Court judge and thus cannot be overruled by Marasca/Bruno on the other legally settled issues*).

*Thus, it is not '"allegedly" present', as you claim.

Marasca/Bruno did not say it was too late for legal reasons, they said it was too late for practical reasons. All the evidence that is ever going to be collected has been collected and it still did not indicate guilt - using the legal standards of Italy.

I do not know what your point is by assuming that either me or Marasca were talking about some legal reason why - in theory - it could not have been referred for a third appeals trial.

You are perhaps correct about what Nencini ruled about the three, and only three issues referred to him by the 2013 ISC. But when one looks at the evidence which the witnesses themselves brought about those three items, all three went the defence's way.

And then you wonder why Marasca/Bruno annulled Nencini!?!??!!???

Read the first 8 sections of the Marasca/Bruno report and you will see why. Read 9.2/9.3 and you will see how Marasca/Bruno set up a synpotic amalgam of the various bits of evidence and theories and motives which made a huge mess of the 7 1/2 years - in terms of the investigative incompetence and the judicial amnesia.

Sections 9.4ff plainly say, "even if" all of what follows is true, there is still not enough to change the phrase, "their presumed presence" to "their presence".

But I do admit that if one simply reads 9.4ff then they might come to the conclusions you have come to.