Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

This question should be for you. You are the one who presents a point saying you're interested in that topic, then few posts after you state the topic is irrelevant.

I'm not interested in the topic. I was just making a few observations. I suppose it would be a good thing for the Italian people that there are judicial reforms but as it applies to the future of the 2 protagonists it is irrelevant. The results for them have been cast in stone. And nothing will change tbat.

 

[Machiavelli]

Come on you're better than this Vixen - the section preceding reads as follows and changes the meaning of 9.41

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the
absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be
dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead
numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.
It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not
have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the
room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f:
76).
No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim
was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would
have been the case if they had participated in the murder (instead, traces of Guede
were found on a sleeve of the aforementioned sweater: ff, 179-180).
This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already
highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis,
removing some biological traces while leaving others.
9.4.1. With this premise, ...

"even if it is hypothesised" what do you think those words mean?

Ok, this is a good topic to discuss, to start.
Let's talk about this. Whad does the Bruno/Marasca verdict say?

Grinder, you are wrong. Here, the text does not change the meaning of what it says in 9.4.1, and repeats it at page 49.
In a strict meaning, the Italian wording of the paragraph you quote does not even contradict pages 45 & 49 explicitly, albeit it is not tightly consistent with their tone. Because the words "even if it is hypothesised" in the Italian version do not imply that the option is unreal.
However, this is not the point.

The actual problem is that the meaning of statements in pages 45 & 49 cannot be changed. There is zero wriggle room for interpretation.
In fact, the bruno/Marasca text simply contradicts itself. I mean glaringly, absurdly: like saying page 47 flatly contradicts pages 45 & 49.
Besides contradicting itself, the text contradicts on several points the procedure law (like on art. 628) and jurisprudence even on elementary principles, and contradicts res judicata by Chieffi, and without having any power to cancel it or overturn it so that it is still final.

The text considered together is simply nonsense.

I point out again the language point that I am saying: the 9.4.1 statements and paragraphs (pages 45 & 49) are unequivocal, they don't allow any possible doubt on the fact that Knox was certainly inside Meredith's house when she was killed (just think about Bruno/Marasca say they believe she actually heared the scream).

It also leaves no doubt that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood, or that they believe the calunnia was malicious and motivated by covering up for Guede.
The report also contains a series of other contradictions not just those ones.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm not interested in the topic. I was just making a few observations. (...)

No you made a question, not an observation. You said you were interested in what I think about a specific topic.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok, this is a good topic to discuss, to start.
Let's talk about this. Whad does the Bruno/Marasca verdict say?

Grinder, you are wrong. Here, the text does not change the meaning of what it says in 9.4.1, and repeats it at page 49.
In a strict meaning, the Italian wording of the paragraph you quote does not even contradict pages 45 & 49 explicitly, albeit it is not tightly consistent with their tone. Because the words "even if it is hypothesised" in the Italian version do not imply that the option is unreal.
However, this is not the point.

The actual problem is that the meaning of statements in pages 45 & 49 cannot be changed. There is zero wriggle room for interpretation.
In fact, the bruno/Marasca text simply contradicts itself. I mean glaringly, absurdly: like saying page 47 flatly contradicts pages 45 & 49.
Besides contradicting itself, the text contradicts on several points the procedure law (like on art. 628) and jurisprudence even on elementary principles, and contradicts res judicata by Chieffi, and without having any power to cancel it or overturn it so that it is still final.

The text considered together is simply nonsense.

I point out again the language point that I am saying: the 9.4.1 statements and paragraphs (pages 45 & 49) are unequivocal, they don't allow any possible doubt on the fact that Knox was certainly inside Meredith's house when she was killed (just think about Bruno/Marasca say they believe she actually heared the scream).

It also leaves no doubt that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood, or that they believe the calunnia was malicious and motivated by covering up for Guede.
The report also contains a series of other contradictions not just those ones.

Can you point to any other source in Italy, other than yourself, that reads things this way in the original Italian?

 

[Machiavelli]

If there was a way to turn blood and DNA negative stains and sink DNA into a coherent theory with the two students and the burglar, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, my interest in this case would have ceased years ago.

No sorry, just to start you don't have a "burglar", Guede was never found guilty of burglary. If one means to be prejudicial could call Knox the girl friend of Perugian drug dealers, organizes rock throwing parties and rape/burglary pranks on her flatmates, Sollecito the guy who uses "extensive drugs" (as Knox says), collects knives, poses as a supporter of the Monster of Foligno, watches violent porn, has depression issues (Knox says), illegaly carries a knife even at the police HQ, etc.

When you say "two students and the burglar", if you talk like that, you only show how you mean to be prejudicial, you fail to see even obvious things from different points of view.

Then you mention the need of a "coherent theory", and I guss my problem with this approach is that seems what you mean is you are looking for a human narrative, rather than a theory.
However, my problem is that there isn't any reasonable theory to explain the array of physical evidence through a lone-perpetrator scenario. All physical evidence actually points to multiple MO and multiple perpetrators in a way that is glaring obvious, and no reasonable alternative scenario is possible.

The human and social interaction part of the theory, like the whereabouts, timeline and meetings of the persons involved, their relations and roles, is something totally secondary to me.
What matters, is the capability of the huge amount of evidence of forming a system, all pointng towards this unequivocal scenario, and the impossibility and illogicality of building a lone-perpetrator scenario.

 

[acbytesla]

No you made a question, not an observation. You said you were interested in what I think about a specific topic.

Actually I didn't ask a question. See below.

#2023
Machiavelli
Philosopher

Machiavelli's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,344
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is just one example of the many things wrong with Italian jurisprudence. Judicial truths rise above actual truth. Oh well, that's no longer my concern. But let's also not forget that the Marasca court ruled that there was no proof that any of those attackers were either Amanda or Raffaele.

It's over my friend

 

[Machiavelli]

Can you point to any other source in Italy, other than yourself, that reads things this way in the original Italian?

As far as I know, the few detailed press articles only report it (quote the text directly) rather than "read" it, since there is no need to explain those paragraphs to an Italian reader.

But of course I can point out sources, my sources are dictionaries (I mean a quality dictionary), gramamrs rules and semanticts (for which there is a lot of sources). It can be easilly shown that "dato conclamato" is a legal jargon for "proven fact" and it is absolutely unequivocal. Also the rules of grammar don't leave any room for other alternative interpretations. We may look each single statement and I'll explain you where to find all language sources you need, if you want.

You better stop trying to play this game of "what someone says about what someone else says... " that I know you love so much. You always get it wrong, as you skim on essential details. I suggest you do something new, quit that approach and start looking at something directly. Look at what this text says, see the binding rules why the meaning must be that.

 

[Machiavelli]

Actually I didn't ask a question. See below.

You did.
You started talking to me asking a question.

Then you stated the topic was irrelevant.

I get that from an Italian legal point. But my question to you this case aside, is that really the right approach? Chieffi is defending the ISC ruling in denying Rudy's appeal. But the truth is there is no reasonable way that Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers can investigate and refute the arguments in Rudy's fast track trial as they can in their own trial. It seems to me to consider elements that cannot hardly be fairly investigated and argued in comparison to how they are in a full trial as unfair.

What do you think?

The great news about Machiavelli's posts is that in the final analysis his opinions are not shared in the final ruling. Any preliminary rulings that adversely effected the young couple are now moot. I now find a lightness in the discussion as it is now really irrelevant.

Not just one time. It's what you do, this is your child game.

 

[acbytesla]

You did.
You started talking to me asking a question.
.

You addressed my questions in previous posts which I found to be the same old tiresome nonsense. My mistake is believing you might have the capacity to step back and reevaluate those questions.

I guess I was wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

As far as I know, the few detailed press articles only report it (quote the text directly) rather than "read" it, since there is no need to explain those paragraphs to an Italian reader.

But of course I can point out sources, my sources are dictionaries (I mean a quality dictionary), gramamrs rules and semanticts (for which there is a lot of sources). It can be easilly shown that "dato conclamato" is a legal jargon for "proven fact" and it is absolutely unequivocal. Also the rules of grammar don't leave any room for other alternative interpretations. We may look each single statement and I'll explain you where to find all language sources you need, if you want.

You better stop trying to play this game of "what someone says about what someone else says... " that I know you love so much. You always get it wrong, as you skim on essential details. I suggest you do something new, quit that approach and start looking at something directly. Look at what this text says, see the binding rules why the meaning must be that.

It's a fair question, and dodging it with a response like the above does you no good.

Is there any other Italian language source that shares your point of view?

The reason I ask is because every Italian language source I can find says something akin to this (albeit in machine-translation):

http://www.giurisprudenzapenale.com/2015/09/08/processo-meredith-depositate-le-motivazioni-della-corte-di-cassazione-cass-pen-360802015/

Judges rule out " their material interest to the murder, while the assumption of their presence in the house on Via della Pergola "and stressed the" absolute lack of biological traces in their related "murder in the room or on the body of Meredith.

According to the judges, then, they do not have " certainly helped the search for truth , "the" media hype "of the murder and the" international repercussions "that the story had, which caused a" sudden acceleration "investigations" in the frantic search " guilty of " to be delivered to international public opinion . "

In " troubled path and inherently contradictory "the Kercher murder trial is a" just because of irrefutable certainty: the guilt of Amanda Knox in order to slanderous accusations against Patrick Lumumba . " The judgment notes that the libel was confirmed by the same Knox in an environment " free from abnormal psychological pressure . " For this " a possible ruling by the European Court of Justice in favor of "the appeal in which Knox denounced" an unorthodox treatment of the investigators against him "could not" in any way tarnish "the final step in the court decision of guilt for slander, " not even in view of possible revision of the judgment, considering that the slanderous accusations that the same defendant turned to Lumumba as a result of the alleged coercion, were also confirmed by her before the PM, during the interrogation, therefore a context institutionally immune to abnormal psychological pressure . "​

Here's an English language report of the motivations:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/amanda-knox/55260/amanda-knox-not-guilty-of-meredith-kerchers-murder

It says essentially the same thing, and mysteriously omits any of the criticisms you say come from a plain meaning of the text.

The court said there were "blameworthy omissions in the investigation", including "a complete lack of biological traces" connecting Knox or Sollecito to the victim's body or the room where the murder took place.

It also blamed the high level of media interest for putting pressure on investigators, reports the Seattle Times. "The international spotlight on the case in fact resulted in the investigation undergoing a sudden acceleration, that, in the frantic search for one or more guilty parties to consign to international public opinion, certainly didn't help the search for substantial truth," wrote the panel of five judges.​

 

[Grinder]

Ok, this is a good topic to discuss, to start.
Let's talk about this. Whad does the Bruno/Marasca verdict say?

Grinder, you are wrong. Here, the text does not change the meaning of what it says in 9.4.1, and repeats it at page 49.
In a strict meaning, the Italian wording of the paragraph you quote does not even contradict pages 45 & 49 explicitly, albeit it is not tightly consistent with their tone. Because the words "even if it is hypothesised" in the Italian version do not imply that the option is unreal.
However, this is not the point.

Well in English in this use it doesn't mean the option is unreal, it means even if something is assumed real (it may or may not be) it still doesn't mean the conclusion must be involvement.

The actual problem is that the meaning of statements in pages 45 & 49 cannot be changed. There is zero wriggle room for interpretation.
In fact, the bruno/Marasca text simply contradicts itself. I mean glaringly, absurdly: like saying page 47 flatly contradicts pages 45 & 49.
Besides contradicting itself, the text contradicts on several points the procedure law (like on art. 628) and jurisprudence even on elementary principles, and contradicts res judicata by Chieffi, and without having any power to cancel it or overturn it so that it is still final.

Notwithstanding the law, what do you say they are saying. Don't they also lay out the defense points?

The text considered together is simply nonsense.

I point out again the language point that I am saying: the 9.4.1 statements and paragraphs (pages 45 & 49) are unequivocal, they don't allow any possible doubt on the fact that Knox was certainly inside Meredith's house when she was killed (just think about Bruno/Marasca say they believe she actually heared the scream).

It also leaves no doubt that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood, or that they believe the calunnia was malicious and motivated by covering up for Guede.
The report also contains a series of other contradictions not just those ones.

Have you already written your own version of the meaning in English?

 

[Bill Williams]

As far as I know, the few detailed press articles only report it (quote the text directly) rather than "read" it, since there is no need to explain those paragraphs to an Italian reader.

But of course I can point out sources, my sources are dictionaries (I mean a quality dictionary), gramamrs rules and semanticts (for which there is a lot of sources). It can be easilly shown that "dato conclamato" is a legal jargon for "proven fact" and it is absolutely unequivocal. Also the rules of grammar don't leave any room for other alternative interpretations. We may look each single statement and I'll explain you where to find all language sources you need, if you want.

You better stop trying to play this game of "what someone says about what someone else says... " that I know you love so much. You always get it wrong, as you skim on essential details. I suggest you do something new, quit that approach and start looking at something directly. Look at what this text says, see the binding rules why the meaning must be that.

It is wearying playing this game, I will admit. Apparently there are no sources, really, in Italy who agree with you. Most disappointingly not even Andrea Vogt agrees with you; your answer to that is to say you don't wish to talk about Andrea Vogt. I can understand why.

 

[Vixen]

It's a fair question, and dodging it with a response like the above does you no good.

Is there any other Italian language source that shares your point of view?

The reason I ask is because every Italian language source I can find says something akin to this (albeit in machine-translation):

http://www.giurisprudenzapenale.com/2015/09/08/processo-meredith-depositate-le-motivazioni-della-corte-di-cassazione-cass-pen-360802015/

​

Here's an English language report of the motivations:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/amanda-knox/55260/amanda-knox-not-guilty-of-meredith-kerchers-murder

It says essentially the same thing, and mysteriously omits any of the criticisms you say come from a plain meaning of the text.

​

Quote:

The court said there were "blameworthy omissions in the investigation", including "a complete lack of biological traces" connecting Knox or Sollecito to the victim's body or the room where the murder took place.

It also blamed the high level of media interest for putting pressure on investigators, reports the Seattle Times. "The international spotlight on the case in fact resulted in the investigation undergoing a sudden acceleration, that, in the frantic search for one or more guilty parties to consign to international public opinion, certainly didn't help the search for substantial truth," wrote the panel of five judges.

This is simply a lazy hack's regurgitation of the Reuters/AP press release. You will note the BBC web site uses the same wording.

"Bill" you really need to be able to discern factual reporting from the type of informed opinion you are hungry for.

Mainstream newspapers will not contradict a legal ruling as they would go bankrupt overnight for libel or have to pay damages in "apologies". They say whatever the state wants them to say.

That is how it works.

ETA Stasi tried to apply the Knox Sollecito legal precedent to his case and you saw the newspapers had much discussion about the implications of this, leading up to, and after the ruling.

Bruno-Marasca is a disaster because as a new rule, it just cannot work. All accused murderers in Italy would walk scot free.

 

[LondonJohn]

As far as I know, the few detailed press articles only report it (quote the text directly) rather than "read" it, since there is no need to explain those paragraphs to an Italian reader.

But of course I can point out sources, my sources are dictionaries (I mean a quality dictionary), gramamrs rules and semanticts (for which there is a lot of sources). It can be easilly shown that "dato conclamato" is a legal jargon for "proven fact" and it is absolutely unequivocal. Also the rules of grammar don't leave any room for other alternative interpretations. We may look each single statement and I'll explain you where to find all language sources you need, if you want.

You better stop trying to play this game of "what someone says about what someone else says... " that I know you love so much. You always get it wrong, as you skim on essential details. I suggest you do something new, quit that approach and start looking at something directly. Look at what this text says, see the binding rules why the meaning must be that.

Well golly gosh! You'd have thought that if the Marasca report really had stated its opinion* that Knox was definitely present in the cottage at the time of the murder, while at the same time acquitting Knox (and Sollecito) of any involvement in the murder, the Italian media would have been over it like a rash!

Wouldn't we have seen headlines in the Italian national media screaming things like "Marasca places Knox at murder scene but acquits her anyway!"? And wouldn't we have also seen - whether via the picking up of the Italian media stories or via their own journalism - other media outlets across the world also picking up on this remarkable and sensational story?!

Instead we have............. TJMK, TMOMK.com and Machiavelli. None of whom can be treated as objective, trusted sources of opinion or commentary. Oops!!


*i.e. the opinion of the Marasca SC panel, rather than the necessary noting of findings of fact from other courts

 

[LondonJohn]

This is simply a lazy hack's regurgitation of the Reuters/AP press release. You will note the BBC web site uses the same wording.

"Bill" you really need to be able to discern factual reporting from the type of informed opinion you are hungry for.

Mainstream newspapers will not contradict a legal ruling as they would go bankrupt overnight for libel or have to pay damages in "apologies". They say whatever the state wants them to say.

That is how it works.

ETA Stasi tried to apply the Knox Sollecito legal precedent to his case and you saw the newspapers had much discussion about the implications of this, leading up to, and after the ruling.

Bruno-Marasca is a disaster because as a new rule, it just cannot work. All accused murderers in Italy would walk scot free.

What a load of unalloyed nonsense. Mainstream journalists (and the publications/broadcasters they work for) challenge legal rulings frequently and vociferously, if they feel there is evidence to support their position. In the UK alone, and simply off the top of my head, major national newspapers and broadcasters have challenged the then-prevailing judicial position on the Barry George conviction, the Steven Lawrence case, and aspects of the Joanna Yates case - and that's just off the top of my head in the past several years. There are many, many, many more examples.

And why do you write "Bill" in quotation marks? It's distracting, unnecessary and without any logical rationale. Isn't it, "Vixen"?

 

[LondonJohn]

It is wearying playing this game, I will admit. Apparently there are no sources, really, in Italy who agree with you. Most disappointingly not even Andrea Vogt agrees with you; your answer to that is to say you don't wish to talk about Andrea Vogt. I can understand why.

To be entirely fair, I don't think that either Vogt or Nadeau have ever possessed the requisite investigative-journalism talents or general intelligence to be able to analyse this case sufficiently to write about it for publication. But the overarching point still stands.

 

[acbytesla]

Well golly gosh! You'd have thought that if the Marasca report really had stated its opinion* that Knox was definitely present in the cottage at the time of the murder, while at the same time acquitting Knox (and Sollecito) of any involvement in the murder, the Italian media would have been over it like a rash!
Wouldn't we have seen headlines in the Italian national media screaming things like "Marasca places Knox at murder scene but acquits her anyway!"? And wouldn't we have also seen - whether via the picking up of the Italian media stories or via their own journalism - other media outlets across the world also picking up on this remarkable and sensational story?! Instead we have............. TJMK, TMOMK.com and Machiavelli. None of whom can be treated as objective, trusted sources of opinion or commentary. Oops!!


*i.e. the opinion of the Marasca SC panel, rather than the necessary noting of findings of fact from other courts

I'd a thunk it.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is simply a lazy hack's regurgitation of the Reuters/AP press release. You will note the BBC web site uses the same wording.

"Bill" you really need to be able to discern factual reporting from the type of informed opinion you are hungry for.

Ok..... I've done my bit. Where's the "un-hack" reports? If your point of view is the mainstream one in Italy, there must be ONE source you can cite?

Maybe not. Anfrea Vogt reports on one armchair detective from the "guilt side" who tried to get some Florence-court time in exposing what he believed was the same kind of judicial malfeasance you claim.

Is there a factual news report about that, other than Vogt who dismisses it?

 

[dropzone]

Speak for yourself.

No, no, acbytesla speaks for me too.

I'm as dumb as a rock, but I am heartened that I'm not the dumbest person in this thread.

 

[Grinder]

Wouldn't we have seen headlines in the Italian national media screaming things like "Marasca places Knox at murder scene but acquits her anyway!"? And wouldn't we have also seen - whether via the picking up of the Italian media stories or via their own journalism - other media outlets across the world also picking up on this remarkable and sensational story?!

If as V and M say the language is clear, at least to a native speaker, one would certainly expect at least some coverage asking what they then thought happened. But this is Italy where it appears any coverage of legal matters can end up in court with some sort of defamation charge.

I certainly would expect at least a little coverage.

Mach is it possible you could provide links to two or three accounts that at least report that the court has A&R at the scene during the murder?