Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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?

Grinder - Machiavelli has already covered this issue. Bypass the press and bypass everyone but him.....

Look at what this text says, see the binding rules why the meaning must be that.​

These "binding rules" of interpretation, syntax and Italian idiom, just happen to point to exactly what Machiavelli is claiming. The fact that it is ONLY Machiavelli pointing this way from Italy should not detain us.....

 

[Vixen]

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

They will soon start reporting it if the Kerchers decide to bring a civil suit.

 

[dropzone]

But this is Italy where it appears any coverage of legal matters can end up in court with some sort of defamation charge.

One thing I prefer in American law vs Italy or even the UK is that the truth is an absolute defense against libel.

"Your honor, he said I am a jerk."

"By your behavior here you have demonstrated that it's true. Case dismissed."

 

[Vixen]

He was granted a fast track trial after the judge agree to conditions he be able to call a limited number of witnesses.

It was part of the preliminary hearing for all three and not separate.

Do you have a cite for the "pact" part?

Just the fact that you know Raff and Amanda were considered hostile witnesses and their defense were not allowed to cross-examine Rudy, who exercised his right to silence, should inform you of this.

 

[Grinder]

One thing I prefer in American law vs Italy or even the UK is that the truth is an absolute defense against libel.

"Your honor, he said I am a jerk."

"By your behavior here you have demonstrated that it's true. Case dismissed."

Are you saying that it isn't a defense in Italy or England?

I'm under the impression in England the one accused of libel must prove it is true. It is not enough to say it was only an opinion. But if the statement is true it is always a defense.

 

[Grinder]

Just the fact that you know Raff and Amanda were considered hostile witnesses and their defense were not allowed to cross-examine Rudy, who exercised his right to silence, should inform you of this.

The cite is for the granting of the trial based on the "pact" theory.

 

[Machiavelli]

Grinder - Machiavelli has already covered this issue. Bypass the press and bypass everyone but him.....

If you are talking with me, you are talking with me. It means you choose to take this challenge. I will maintain all my points using my sources and information.

There are press reports that do maintain exactly what I say, but they are worthless as long as you don't understand the language they are written in, and you don't really decide to verify directly yourself that what I say is true, by checking what the language means.

There are sources that report paragraphs and summarize like this:

http://www.quotidiano.net/meredith-cassazione-errori-processo-1.1280354

«LA PRESENZA di Amanda nella casa che fu teatro dell’omicidio è dato conclamato, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni». I giudici credono al «memoriale» e al racconto di una Knox accovacciata in cucina mentre Mez viene violentata da Patrick Lumumba, dirà lei calunniandolo; e credono pure alle tracce miste di dna suo e della vittima. Non ha accusato Lumumba – scrivono – per «sottrarsi alla pressione psicologica», ma piuttosto l’americana potrebbe aver voluto «coprire Guede».

"The presence of Amanda Knox inside the house location of the murder is a proven fact, in accord with her own admissions". The judges believe to the "memoriale" and the story about Knox squatting in the kitchen whil Mez is raped by Patrick Lumumba, so she would say falsely accusing him. And they also believe the mixed DNA traces of her and of the victim's. She didn't accuse Lumumba - so they write - in order to "escape psychological pressure", but rather the American woman may have meant to "cover up for Guede".

Most papers are imprecise on many details, while the mainstream media was self-censored (you don't understand Italy). This paper (one of the "imprecise" ones) still reports, correctly, that the Cassazione judges did believe that the Knox's story she told about hearing the scream was the actually true story, that is they report that the SC judges pointed out that Knox indeed was in the house when Meredith was killed.
Some statements are reported in quotation marks, such as "dato conclamato" (proven fact), which doesn't require explanations for the reader.
Of course, the paper is badly written, like all Italian cheap papers, and on this point it does not elaborate much about the fact that in reality the murderer was not Patrick Lumumba but someone else. But they report that Knox lied in order to "cover up" for Guede.
Also says "they believe the mixed DNA traces", which summarizes the SC paragraphs explaining that Knox must have washed her hands from Meredith's blood.

 

[bagels]

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.

Multiple perpetrators is obvious to you because you need it for the theory you're obsessed with to be correct. It's not so obvious to anyone else why traces of one man, three stab wounds and an imprint consistent with the same weapon, add up to multiple perpetrators.

The coherency, simplicity, and obviousness of a Rudy burglary scenario contrasted with the incoherency of the socially, logistically, and temporally constrained student trio conspiracy is not the evidence itself. It's simply helpful in getting one stuck on an unsupported position to hopefully accept that perhaps the blood negative DNA negative luminol prints the police found a month later aren't related to the crime at all, unlike Rudy's bloody prints all over the cottage. Unfortunately it rarely seems to work against people who can tell by looking into Knox's evil eyes that she's guilty.

 

[Vixen]

Are you saying that it isn't a defense in Italy or England?

I'm under the impression in England the one accused of libel must prove it is true. It is not enough to say it was only an opinion. But if the statement is true it is always a defense.

In England, it can still be considered defamatory, even if true, from what I recall of a journalist course. For example, a well known person successfully sued a hack for describing her as being fat. (She was.) You need to be careful how you describe people here, but generally speaking, "the truth" is a defence, when referring to character.

The other defence is "fair comment" (opinion). You will need at least £50K to bring a libel suit and if you lose, expect massive costs. (See "plebgate".)

 

[Vixen]

The cite is for the granting of the trial based on the "pact" theory.

I read it the other day. Tryin' to remember where.

 

[acbytesla]

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

The only problem is that you get dumber the longer you hang out here.

 

[acbytesla]

They will soon start reporting it if the Kerchers decide to bring a civil suit.

Against whom, and in what jurisdiction?

Some rag may print that but it's not bloody likely.

 

[Vixen]

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

When the PIP's trot out this banal soundbite, I am minded of the epitaph on an ancient tomb*:


"And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully." 2 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)

Given Bruno-Marasca did not exonerate the kids, nor declare them "innocent", contemplate on why their victory is hollow, from the clue I have provided.

*Thorsten Stålhandske, brother of Elin.

 

[acbytesla]

If you are talking with me, you are talking with me. It means you choose to take this challenge. I will maintain all my points using my sources and information.

There are press reports that do maintain exactly what I say, but they are worthless as long as you don't understand the language they are written in, and you don't really decide to verify directly yourself that what I say is true, by checking what the language means.

There are sources that report paragraphs and summarize like this:

http://www.quotidiano.net/meredith-cassazione-errori-processo-1.1280354


Most papers are imprecise on many details, while the mainstream media was self-censored (you don't understand Italy). This paper (one of the "imprecise" ones) still reports, correctly, that the Cassazione judges did believe that the Knox's story she told about hearing the scream was the actually true story, that is they report that the SC judges pointed out that Knox indeed was in the house when Meredith was killed.
Some statements are reported in quotation marks, such as "dato conclamato" (proven fact), which doesn't require explanations for the reader.
Of course, the paper is badly written, like all Italian cheap papers, and on this point it does not elaborate much about the fact that in reality the murderer was not Patrick Lumumba but someone else. But they report that Knox lied in order to "cover up" for Guede.
Also says "they believe the mixed DNA traces", which summarizes the SC paragraphs explaining that Knox must have washed her hands from Meredith's blood.

Some people have really wild imaginations.

 

[Vixen]

Against whom, and in what jurisdiction?

Some rag may print that but it's not bloody likely.

Law is international these days. Of course you can take out a suit. For example, Lockerbie. You can claim unlawful death.

 

[Vixen]

Some people have really wild imaginations.

Logical fallacy #68: the non sequitur.

 

[Bill Williams]

The only problem is that you get dumber the longer you hang out here.

Look at me. Machiavelli accepts the challenge, finds a reference, but he says it's from one of the imprecise outlets. Yet he reverses field by saying it got one thing precise!

Is it too late to ask for a precise outlet? Surely there is one.

 

[acbytesla]

When the PIP's trot out this banal soundbite, I am minded of the epitaph on an ancient ancestor's tomb (Thorsten Stålhandske):

2 Timothy 2:5 King James Version (KJV)

5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

Given Bruno-Marasca did not exonerate the kids, nor declare them "innocent", contemplate on why their victory is hollow, from the clue I have provided.

Hollow? Certainly year jest. You must not undertstand the idiom. Raffaele would be in prison today and Amanda would be fighting extradition. Instead, both are free to live their lives. Amanda is prospering and Raffaele is succeeding greatly having written a second book and being paid a considerable amount of money to write a software app. In the meantime Mignini is being censured

Don't you get it Vixen? Everything after acquitted is as irrelevant as these posts.

 

[Machiavelli]

Multiple perpetrators is obvious to you because you need it for the theory you're obsessed with to be correct. It's not so obvious to anyone else why traces of one man, three stab wounds and an imprint consistent with the same weapon, add up to multiple perpetrators.

The coherency, simplicity, and obviousness of a Rudy burglary scenario contrasted with the incoherency of the socially, logistically, and temporally constrained student trio conspiracy is not the evidence itself. It's simply helpful in getting one stuck on an unsupported position to hopefully accept that perhaps the blood negative DNA negative luminol prints the police found a month later aren't related to the crime at all, unlike Rudy's bloody prints all over the cottage. Unfortunately it rarely seems to work against people who can tell by looking into Knox's evil eyes that she's guilty.

Pro-Knoxes often project on me their own circular thinking, or think that I am obsessed by a person's charachter (they have instead a charachter projection on Mignini and Stefanoni etc.).
But Amanda Knox's and Sollecito's lies are not charachters features, lies are just objective evidence. And so I don't look into anyone's "evil" eyes - I don't even believe "evil" beings exist. This is your projection on me, and you portraying what you imagine as a circular reasoning, because you fail to see the things that instead I see.
It is just correct: multiple perpetrators is not obvious to you. But it's because you don't see it. And thus, you imagine that I am motivated by something else.
The reason why you don't see it is that you don't look at it. You don't look at the evidence. Not in the way it should be looked at, that is, assume evidence is a piece of logical inference. The word "logical" here means developed from a concept of opposinge alternatives.
For example, pick your statement: you urge me to "accept that perhaps the blood negative DNA negative luminol prints ... aren't related to the crime at all". One of the problems with this statement - only one of them - is that "not related to the crime" is not a plausible alternative, it's not something, here there is only the negative hypothesys (not blood, not crime) but not the positive one (what is it? how was it produced?). Therefore the option is illogical, because it lacks the logical alternative; it is also implausible, because the alternatives (how do you produce isolated bare foot prints) would be intrinsically improbable scenarios.
It has to be rejected as weak also on many other grounds anyway, including reasons like the fact that it does not explain its capability of forming a system with other pieces of evidence, that is its analogies with bathmat prints etc.

The physical evidence that a scenario needs to respond to is not limited to luminol prints, there is a large number of physical elements of this kind that have implications between each other.
Try to lock a door without turning your feet towards the door for example; or look at the many drops on the pillow located underneath the body. The bath stains etc. Just examples. It's many physical details, they require some overall plausible dynamic. And the information related to the autopsy report, obviously.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hollow? Certainly year jest. You must not undertstand the idiom. Raffaele would be in prison today and Amanda would be fighting extradition. Instead, both are free to live their lives. Amanda is prospering and Raffaele is succeeding greatly having written a second book and being paid a considerable amount of money to write a software app. In the meantime Mignini is being censured

Don't you get it Vixen? Everything afte acquitted r is as irrelevant as these posts.

Almost forgot about Mignini. While Machiavelli is here he might tell us what he thinks of Mignini's censure. My bet is that he'll find another imprecise outlet..... perhaps even from Andrea Vogt.