Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Massei also decided that a knife with no blood could contain DNA and that a witness was wrong about time because of known facts about buses that turned out to be wrong. Massei's thinking was a muddled as a PQ.

While I'm not convinced Rudi was a solo second story man, he was caught with loot stolen from a burglary committed on a second story with a large rock. My best guess is Rudi did that job with an accomplice that knew how to disarm the alarm.

Since the kids would have no idea of that burglary, what would the PGP attribute their using a technique almost identical?

What if Rudi did have an arrangement to meet Meredith and something went horribly wrong and he worried she had mentioned the meet up and so he needed someone else to break in and staged the burglary very similarly to the lawyers' caper.

The front door didn't work properly why didn't the kids just leave it ajar? The balcony, that the PGP erroneously believe was more visible, could have had it's door left unlocked and Amanda could have freaked out that she must have left it unlocked.

Or they could have locked the front door and thrown the keys below F's window and it would be clear someone had been let in by Meredith as the police originally thought.

Massei acted as a tool for the prosecution. He accepted blobs as footprints even though they tested negative for blood but refused to test a stain because it couldn't be dated. Of course the footprints weren't dated either.

All the judges in this case demonstrated bizarre conclusions. Even Hellmann had Rudi losing his shoe during the murder rather than assuming he just didn't step in the blood with one shoe.

 

[Mike1711]

The (deliberate) inability of guilters to understand the concept of a "judicial fact" is frustrating.

If an Italian Court rules that little green committed the crime it is not proof that little green men exist. It simply means the Italian court has ruled something into existence as a judicial fact. A legal definition. The "fact" exists within the confines of the legal system only.

Judicial facts are not scientific (empirical) facts. They are "facts" by definition only and can quite easily be, and often are, wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

The (deliberate) inability of guilters to understand the concept of a "judicial fact" is frustrating.

If an Italian Court rules that little green committed the crime it is not proof that little green men exist. It simply means the Italian court has ruled something into existence as a judicial fact. A legal definition. The "fact" exists within the confines of the legal system only.

Judicial facts are not scientific (empirical) facts. They are "facts" by definition only and can quite easily be, and often are, wrong.

Want another frustration? Claiming a document says things, then also offering the overall assessment that the document is contradictory and muddled.

Calling something contradictory and muddled is more often used to throw the thing into the trash, and start again. Indeed, M/B called the lower courts contradictory and muddled, based on flawed investigations and amnesiac judicial renderings.

Upon saying that, the M/B panel had to consider, "Is it worth it at this point to start again?" The answer to that was "no".

Therefore a definitive acquittal with no remand. Definitive acquittal with no remand.

Enter the reasoning that all civilized countries use to ascertain or reject guilt of those accused. Someone can only be convicted on positive and proven assertions, not negative and simply asserted assertions.

Move that reasoning to the days following the release of the Marasca/Bruno report. Whereas M/B said there is no positive (not in the sense of "for sure", but in the sense of, "consisting in or characterized by the presence or possession of features or qualities rather than their absence") indication of their guilt.......

..... detractors do not get to use negative proof (in the sense of, "consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features") to prove guilt.

To claim that M/B should also be put into the dust-bin (except for proof-texts clipped out for convenience) simply puts things back at square one - it does not prove anything.

Which, after all, was M/B's point. In the meantime there are some who will skate between judicially generated facts and actual facts as need be. It's strange - M/B also had a section where they actually did toss all those facts together - judicially created and otherwise - and that still did not meet BARD.

And here we are a year later. Months turn into years. Maybe three voices in Italy are left claiming guilt and conspiracy - well, at least three vocal voices.

 

[Vixen]

Massei also decided that a knife with no blood could contain DNA and that a witness was wrong about time because of known facts about buses that turned out to be wrong. Massei's thinking was a muddled as a PQ.

While I'm not convinced Rudi was a solo second story man, he was caught with loot stolen from a burglary committed on a second story with a large rock. My best guess is Rudi did that job with an accomplice that knew how to disarm the alarm.

Since the kids would have no idea of that burglary, what would the PGP attribute their using a technique almost identical?

What if Rudi did have an arrangement to meet Meredith and something went horribly wrong and he worried she had mentioned the meet up and so he needed someone else to break in and staged the burglary very similarly to the lawyers' caper.

The front door didn't work properly why didn't the kids just leave it ajar? The balcony, that the PGP erroneously believe was more visible, could have had it's door left unlocked and Amanda could have freaked out that she must have left it unlocked.

Or they could have locked the front door and thrown the keys below F's window and it would be clear someone had been let in by Meredith as the police originally thought.

Massei acted as a tool for the prosecution. He accepted blobs as footprints even though they tested negative for blood but refused to test a stain because it couldn't be dated. Of course the footprints weren't dated either.

All the judges in this case demonstrated bizarre conclusions. Even Hellmann had Rudi losing his shoe during the murder rather than assuming he just didn't step in the blood with one shoe.

You are looking at it piece meal. The courts looked at it from every angle - including the defense's - and its conclusions were inescapable. Even were you to disregard the luminol, DNA and the bath mat footprint, the incriminating evidence against all three of them is overwhelming.

You and bagels can "What-if?" all day long. However, in the real world, the courts deal with hard evidence and not idle pontification.

Mez had been up all night the day before and was expecting to go to college next day (Friday). It is beyond absurd to imagine she'd be game for a late night date with a horny 20-year old who'd likely be "at it" all night long.

And if she was, there was no need to kill her, as it would have been consensual.

PS Hellmann was utterly bent and his report voided, so why do the PIP keep going on about him. It's as if the only way the kids could be innocent is by some bent reasoning.

ETA The lawyers' burglary has little similarity. The burglars went straight for confidential information and carted off IT equipment. At Filomena's it was amateur hour with drawers left shut and valuables unsearched for. Three laptops were ignored completely.

 

[acbytesla]

...and your reasoned logical rationale is...?

Rudy alone killed Meredith and fled to Germany. His statements, his DNA, the CCTV footage and his shoe and palm prints point to his involvement in the murder. Rudy's statements about having a date with Meredith were not confirmed by anyone.

Furthermore, his explanation that someone entered the home and murdered Meredith while he was on the toilet is not believable. His recent arrest in Milan only days before and the condition of Filomena's bedroom lead to the likelihood that Rudy was interrupted during the commission of a burglary.

There are no other bloody shoe prints. So multiple attackers is highly unlikely. There is no credible evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the involvement of anyone else.
Case closed.

 

[Vixen]

Want another frustration? Claiming a document says things, then also offering the overall assessment that the document is contradictory and muddled.

Calling something contradictory and muddled is more often used to throw the thing into the trash, and start again. Indeed, M/B called the lower courts contradictory and muddled, based on flawed investigations and amnesiac judicial renderings.

Upon saying that, the M/B panel had to consider, "Is it worth it at this point to start again?" The answer to that was "no".

Therefore a definitive acquittal with no remand. Definitive acquittal with no remand.

Enter the reasoning that all civilized countries use to ascertain or reject guilt of those accused. Someone can only be convicted on positive and proven assertions, not negative and simply asserted assertions.

Move that reasoning to the days following the release of the Marasca/Bruno report. Whereas M/B said there is no positive (not in the sense of "for sure", but in the sense of, "consisting in or characterized by the presence or possession of features or qualities rather than their absence") indication of their guilt.......

..... detractors do not get to use negative proof (in the sense of, "consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features") to prove guilt.

To claim that M/B should also be put into the dust-bin (except for proof-texts clipped out for convenience) simply puts things back at square one - it does not prove anything.

Which, after all, was M/B's point. In the meantime there are some who will skate between judicially generated facts and actual facts as need be. It's strange - M/B also had a section where they actually did toss all those facts together - judicially created and otherwise - and that still did not meet BARD.

And here we are a year later. Months turn into years. Maybe three voices in Italy are left claiming guilt and conspiracy - well, at least three vocal voices.

Your way with words, Bill is...magical "Judicially created" is the new black for "synoptic". Do you know, you nearly convinced me - blind'em with science - except my ******** detector started clicking loudly.

 

[bagels]

Vixen the reason a PGP view doesn't work for me isn't just because the individual items of evidence are bad and range from utterly inconclusive (at best) to pure unstrained garbage (most of it). It is precisely because the case looked at from any angle and altogether doesn't resemble any coherent pattern of guilt for the students, at all, and in fact the crime is explained and fits the evidence by several orders of magnitude more with a burglar gone bad murder followed by a rushed investigation leading to three wrongful arrests which turned into a desperate investigation to salvage their wrongful arrests and turn them into wrongful convictions.

In fact if you accept the premise that the students were involved you end up with an incomprehensible scenario not just in terms of the crime, but every aspect that follows it from the morning of the discovery to the investigation.

Just one example from that angle: the police early on believe the break-in was staged and Meredith was killed by a man she knew. They conclude this because the window was high off the ground and all the struggle occurring in her room suggested to them that she was comfortable with whomever was in the house (that she might not know someone was in the house with her - and that her keys and phones would be in her room if she needed them was a clue too far for them). They see the only roommate without a strong alibi (to stage the break-in) called an African immigrant just before the time of the murder, and this guy pinged near the cottage. She is being alibied by her Italian boyfriend so they have to come down hard on him to admit it's possible she slipped out while he was sleeping or something. And then they make their arrests. Later it's discovered that none of it happened. Patrick was never near the cottage they read the cell phone data wrong. Amanda's text with him was in regards to not going into work. Patrick was serving multiple customers all night.

But by amazing coincidence...2 of the 3 people they arrested for a totally bogus crime scenario that never happened - happened to be guilty of a completely different crime scenario that they were able to put together when they went back for more "evidence" and were able to swap Patrick with some other random guy who in actuality was a burglar with a history of rock throwing high climbing break-ins (just like at the cottage), had never met Raffaele, and only knew Amanda via being in her general proximity once or twice through a mutual acquaintance. Wow lucky them! This isn't just bad evidence, it's telling a clear story of wrongful arrests turned into desperate attempts to salvage their mistakes.

 

[Vixen]

If a judge makes a ruling, it doesn't matter how crap his reasoning, if he or she says, say, you are now divorced, or bankrupt, then - tough titty - that's now a legal fact.

If he is legally wrong, go appeal on the legal point. Otherwise accept it. Sure, it'll never be hard science like chemistry or physics, but is just as powerful in terms of settling matters.

Bruno-Marasca acquitted the kids for reasons other than facts found, being "flawed investigation" and "too much media attention". They did not find the pair "innocent" nor "exonerated", they simply dropped the charges, using a lower court toolkit of Section 530 para 2, of "insufficient evidence". There is no statute of limitations on murder, so the kids can be tried again if new evidence comes to light.

Bruno-Marasca decreed the pair's connection to the crime is "strongly suspicious".

Legal fact.

 

[bagels]

they simply dropped the charges, using a lower court toolkit of Section 530 para 2, of "insufficient evidence". There is no statute of limitations on murder, so the kids can be tried again if new evidence comes to light.

In PGP dreamland. In reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcCfpI6-Q4

 

[Vixen]

Vixen the reason a PGP view doesn't work for me isn't just because the individual items of evidence are bad and range from utterly inconclusive (at best) to pure unstrained garbage (most of it). It is precisely because the case looked at from any angle and altogether doesn't resemble any coherent pattern of guilt for the students, at all, and in fact the crime is explained and fits the evidence by several orders of magnitude more with a burglar gone bad murder followed by a rushed investigation leading to three wrongful arrests which turned into a desperate investigation to salvage their wrongful arrests and turn them into wrongful convictions.

In fact if you accept the premise that the students were involved you end up with an incomprehensible scenario not just in terms of the crime, but every aspect that follows it from the morning of the discovery to the investigation.

Just one example from that angle: the police early on believe the break-in was staged and Meredith was killed by a man she knew. They conclude this because the window was high off the ground and all the struggle occurring in her room suggested to them that she was comfortable with whomever was in the house (that she might not know someone was in the house with her - and that her keys and phones would be in her room if she needed them was a clue too far for them). They see the only roommate without a strong alibi (to stage the break-in) called an African immigrant just before the time of the murder, and this guy pinged near the cottage. She is being alibied by her Italian boyfriend so they have to come down hard on him to admit it's possible she slipped out while he was sleeping or something. And then they make their arrests. Later it's discovered that none of it happened. Patrick was never near the cottage they read the cell phone data wrong. Amanda's text with him was in regards to not going into work. Patrick was serving multiple customers all night.

But by amazing coincidence...2 of the 3 people they arrested for a totally bogus crime scenario that never happened - happened to be guilty of a completely different crime scenario that they were able to put together when they went back for more "evidence" and were able to swap Patrick with some other random guy who in actuality was a burglar with a history of rock throwing high climbing break-ins (just like at the cottage), had never met Raffaele, and only knew Amanda via being in her general proximity once or twice through a mutual acquaintance. Wow lucky them! This isn't just bad evidence, it's telling a clear story of wrongful arrests turned into desperate attempts to salvage their mistakes.

How credible is it that the police having decided they are going to arrest someone based on sheer bloody-mindedness -who cares about catching the real murderer/s - let Congolese-born Patrick go, didn't arrest Moroccan Hicham Khiri, who had a non-Roman Catholic Muslim name, who was at the cottage vicinity at midnight, let go an Albanian alcoholic cocaine smuggler gangster, also in the vicinity that night, just so they could pin it on some woman of European Slavic descent (square face short stature) and an Alpine European of Italian descent for some vague racialist reasons, if the FOA racist creed is to be believed.


Or perhaps one of them was a war veteran of decent upright morals whom "we have to bring home", rather than some druggie who consorts with low-life criminal drug smugglers and dealers, who has the urge to "write a song" about her "friend's" murder.


What a dreadful breach of human rights. Bloody bastards!

 

[bagels]

How credible is it that the police having decided they are going to arrest someone based on sheer bloody-mindedness -who cares about catching the real murderer/s - let Congolese-born Patrick go, didn't arrest Moroccan Hicham Khiri, who had a non-Roman Catholic Muslim name, who was at the cottage vicinity at midnight, let go an Albanian alcoholic cocaine smuggler gangster, also in the vicinity that night, just so they could pin it on some woman of European Slavic descent (square face short stature) and an Alpine European of Italian descent for some vague racialist reasons, if the FOA racist creed is to be believed.


Or perhaps one of them was a war veteran of decent upright morals whom "we have to bring home", rather than so druggie who consorts with low-life criminal drug smugglers and dealers, who has the urge to "write a song" about her "friend's" murder.


What a dreadful breach of human rights. Bloody bastards!

Remember when the Italian police punched and kicked Patrick, called him a "dirty black" and that it's too bad this isn't America where he would "get the electric chair."

lol

 

[acbytesla]

If a judge makes a ruling, it doesn't matter how crap his reasoning, if he or she says, say, you are now divorced, or bankrupt, then - tough titty - that's now a legal fact.

If he is legally wrong, go appeal on the legal point. Otherwise accept it. Sure, it'll never be hard science like chemistry or physics, but is just as powerful in terms of settling matters.

Bruno-Marasca acquitted the kids for reasons other than facts found, being "flawed investigation" and "too much media attention". They did not find the pair "innocent" nor "exonerated", they simply dropped the charges, using a lower court toolkit of Section 530 para 2, of "insufficient evidence". There is no statute of limitations on murder, so the kids can be tried again if new evidence comes to light.

Bruno-Marasca decreed the pair's connection to the crime is "strongly suspicious".

Legal fact.

What bizarre twisted nonsense. Judges are not Gods. They are fallible....clearly. And legal facts are not actual facts. Live with it. You CAN'T appeal the decision. It is FINAL.

This is Loser talk. Whining about the decision suggesting you should protest the loss. It's not fair. Waaaaahhh. Game over...move on.

 

[Mike1711]

If a judge makes a ruling, it doesn't matter how crap his reasoning, if he or she says, say, you are now divorced, or bankrupt, then - tough titty - that's now a legal fact.

If he is legally wrong, go appeal on the legal point. Otherwise accept it. Sure, it'll never be hard science like chemistry or physics, but is just as powerful in terms of settling matters.

Bruno-Marasca acquitted the kids for reasons other than facts found, being "flawed investigation" and "too much media attention". They did not find the pair "innocent" nor "exonerated", they simply dropped the charges, using a lower court toolkit of Section 530 para 2, of "insufficient evidence". There is no statute of limitations on murder, so the kids can be tried again if new evidence comes to light.

Bruno-Marasca decreed the pair's connection to the crime is "strongly suspicious".

Legal fact.

Oh please. This is drivel.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your way with words, Bill is...magical "Judicially created" is the new black for "synoptic". Do you know, you nearly convinced me - blind'em with science - except my ******** detector started clicking loudly.

It's charming that you single me out for this praise - have you read Mike1711's or acbytesla's posts? They essentially ("synoptically" if you so wish!) say the same thing. Go ahead, mock the poster. My grade 3 teacher told us that mocking the poster was a sign of not having an argument.

No matter. Have a listen to Mike1711 if you don't want to respond seriously to me. No sweat here. We'll all be done with this soon because there is very little remaining as the months merge into years and it's only you (and perhaps Machiavelli) left trying to get Rudy off the hook. Go for it.

 

[Mike1711]

Want another frustration? Claiming a document says things, then also offering the overall assessment that the document is contradictory and muddled.

Calling something contradictory and muddled is more often used to throw the thing into the trash, and start again. Indeed, M/B called the lower courts contradictory and muddled, based on flawed investigations and amnesiac judicial renderings.

Upon saying that, the M/B panel had to consider, "Is it worth it at this point to start again?" The answer to that was "no".

Therefore a definitive acquittal with no remand. Definitive acquittal with no remand.

Enter the reasoning that all civilized countries use to ascertain or reject guilt of those accused. Someone can only be convicted on positive and proven assertions, not negative and simply asserted assertions.

Move that reasoning to the days following the release of the Marasca/Bruno report. Whereas M/B said there is no positive (not in the sense of "for sure", but in the sense of, "consisting in or characterized by the presence or possession of features or qualities rather than their absence") indication of their guilt.......

..... detractors do not get to use negative proof (in the sense of, "consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features") to prove guilt.

To claim that M/B should also be put into the dust-bin (except for proof-texts clipped out for convenience) simply puts things back at square one - it does not prove anything.

Which, after all, was M/B's point. In the meantime there are some who will skate between judicially generated facts and actual facts as need be. It's strange - M/B also had a section where they actually did toss all those facts together - judicially created and otherwise - and that still did not meet BARD.

And here we are a year later. Months turn into years. Maybe three voices in Italy are left claiming guilt and conspiracy - well, at least three vocal voices.

It's bizarre.

It's like getting trashed at chess and then claiming your whole game was fraught with errors but for your single good opening move which somehow becomes the focus...and the foundation for a claimed victory.

"Yeah, you won but did you see my opening move? A real masterpiece!!!" No, no, no,.....you lost you idiot! Your first move, your second move, and all the others mean nothing. ZERO.

BS at its best.

 

[Diocletus]

But the fact that Guede did not hold the murder weapon was also established by the Borsini-Belardi appeals' court, where the prosecution defendants were made of different people,

There, fixed that for you.

and anyway the lack of reprsentation would be a moot point: the fact that Knox and Sollecito are not parties represented in a trial doesn't make a finding become illegitimate or invalid. That Guede was not holding the murder weapon is a definitive finding universally valid.

Um, yeah, actually it does make the findings unusable against the unrepresented people. That is, if you are in a system where defendants are guaranteed a fair trial, access to counsel, confrontation of witness, opportunity to understand and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to appeal.

 

[acbytesla]

It's bizarre.

It's like getting trashed at chess and then claiming your whole game was fraught with errors but for your single good opening move which somehow becomes the focus...and the foundation for a claimed victory.

"Yeah, you won but did you see my opening move? A real masterpiece!!!" No, no, no,.....you lost you idiot! Your first move, your second move, and all the others mean nothing. ZERO.

BS at its best.

But E4 was such a brilliant move!

 

[Bill Williams]

It's bizarre.

It's like getting trashed at chess and then claiming your whole game was fraught with errors but for your single good opening move which somehow becomes the focus...and the foundation for a claimed victory.

"Yeah, you won but did you see my opening move? A real masterpiece!!!" No, no, no,.....you lost you idiot! Your first move, your second move, and all the others mean nothing. ZERO.

BS at its best.

Maybe to have one last crack at that "even-if" stuff, as in, "even if the prosecution facts were true, they'd still be innocent," stuff.....

It's like saying that in mid-game, that I had managed to control the centre of the board and had your Queen pinned. Yet you managed a skillful sacrifice of a rook, and the next thing I knew you had promoted a pawn to another Queen and three moves later my King was begging for mercy.....

The "motivation report" written by post-game prognosticators would be something like, "even though he'd proven himself skillful by mid-game with a strong and patient attack, a fatal flaw in the player's reasoning allowed his opponent to come back. The mid-game-position which seemed secure and unassailable, was in fact a house of cards once the sacrifice was made."

Me, I'd still claim it was genius to get you in the faux-stranglehold at mid-game. Like PGP commentators here, I'd avoid like the plague mentioning that I'd lost.

 

[Vixen]

Rudy alone killed Meredith and fled to Germany. His statements, his DNA, the CCTV footage and his shoe and palm prints point to his involvement in the murder. Rudy's statements about having a date with Meredith were not confirmed by anyone.

Furthermore, his explanation that someone entered the home and murdered Meredith while he was on the toilet is not believable. His recent arrest in Milan only days before and the condition of Filomena's bedroom lead to the likelihood that Rudy was interrupted during the commission of a burglary.

There are no other bloody shoe prints. So multiple attackers is highly unlikely. There is no credible evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the involvement of anyone else.
Case closed.

There is zero evidence, and indeed, evidence to the contrary, that Rudy did kill "alone". The fact you posit a glaringly untrue assertion shows that in your heart you know it's empty rhetoric.

None of the courts believed he had a date, nor that he was on the toilet when the murder happened.

Rudy was questioned for trespass not burglary and was freed without charge. The scene in Filomena's room does not point to burglary, it points to someone throwing a few of her clothes around for theatrical effect.

There is a ladies sized 37 footprint in blood in the murder room.

You have carefully omitted a whole body of evidence that points to the presence of Amanda and Raff.

So not an impartial view then.

 

[Mike1711]

There is zero evidence, and indeed, evidence to the contrary, that Rudy did kill "alone". The fact you posit a glaringly untrue assertion shows that in your heart you know it's empty rhetoric.

None of the courts believed he had a date, nor that he was on the toilet when the murder happened.

Rudy was questioned for trespass not burglary and was freed without charge. The scene in Filomena's room does not point to burglary, it points to someone throwing a few of her clothes around for theatrical effect.

There is a ladies sized 37 footprint in blood in the murder room.
You have carefully omitted a whole body of evidence that points to the presence of Amanda and Raff.

So not an impartial view then.

What part of "there is NO evidence of AK and RS in the murder room" as per the B/M report are you struggling with?