Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Matthew Best]

FWIW I have no legal qualifications whatsoever.

faints

 

[Mike1711]

I probably knew Italian law differed from ours long before you. I have had to explain the difference a few times. There was a case in France long before the Kercher case which had a tedious rigmarole of investigating judges.

Your attempt to portray me as an ignoramus, highlights your own gaps of knowledge as it's clear you have only just got your info from google. On the other hand, I am conversant.

FWIW I have no legal qualifications whatsoever.

...and that's no maybe!

 

[Annella]

I probably knew Italian law differed from ours long before you. I have had to explain the difference a few times. There was a case in France long before the Kercher case which had a tedious rigmarole of investigating judges.

Your attempt to portray me as an ignoramus, highlights your own gaps of knowledge as it's clear you have only just got your info from google. On the other hand, I am conversant.

FWIW I have no legal qualifications whatsoever.

You don't need any help there Vixen. Own goal.

 

[Vixen]

Can i suggest you get info from google rather than making stuff up! Knowledge is good, it does not matter whether from a text book, lecture or the internet.

Google is great as a reference check, but as education? No, it is usually superficial. Read the wiki and forget its contents five minutes later.

That's not the same as attending seminars, writing essays, analysing issues, sitting exams.

It is very irritating to be corrected by someone who has no foundations in a topic but has merely spent five seconds googling and then feels qualified to challenge someone who is knowledgeable about the topic. Worse still, is when it is a transparent attempt to score cheap points.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you make comments like this? I sincerely doubt that this is true. It may or may not be true but I KNOW that you don't know it either. I'd bet most murders are in fact the result of anger in a moment as opposed to anything stealthy and pemeditated.
Another false statement, in fact it's not the most probable of the sequence of events and Massei's ruling is in fact runs counter to what clearly happened. And that is why the pair were exonerated.

You mean it is 100 percent inaccurate.

"Most murders are committed in anger". Do you have a citation for this quasi-fact?

 

[Vixen]

I see from a distance that the same pattern continues.
1. Science proved Knox was innocent from day one.
2. The victim's family are captured by the warm embrace of police and prosecutors.
3. They combine for decades to deny science in a manner which would be unacceptable and fatal in all other real world activities.
4. There is no abject apology from any party ever for the suffering they caused the kidnapped parties or their families.
5. No one drives for this here on this forum or anywhere, ever.
6. I don't understand you lot in the northerrn hemisphere, except it works exactly the same down under.

Well, I am in 51° N, 0° W - now saving hard to move at least 60' N, 20° E after the UK fell into the clutches of the far right on 23 June 2016 - yet I can't see that you are even on the same planet as me with your weird views that the Kerchers 'owe the kids an apology'.

What colour is the sky there?

 

[Vixen]

faints

...but I do have practical experience. (Cue: spasms.)

 

[Vixen]

You don't need any help there Vixen. Own goal.

Annella, how delightful!

I wish you well.

 

[Bill Williams]

Google is great as a reference check, but as education? No, it is usually superficial. Read the wiki and forget its contents five minutes later.

That's not the same as attending seminars, writing essays, analysing issues, sitting exams.

It is very irritating to be corrected by someone who has no foundations in a topic but has merely spent five seconds googling and then feels qualified to challenge someone who is knowledgeable about the topic. Worse still, is when it is a transparent attempt to score cheap points.

It doesn't seem to do you any good. You simply make stuff up. You, apparently, spent all that time "attending seminars, writing essays, analysing issues, sitting exams," and could not distinguish a Martin Niemöller quote from a Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote; despite your claim that the poster wa on your wall - and you wrongly pulled the citation from the Internet!!!!

At another point you said that Bongiorno's insistance that the semen-stain on the pillow be tested was her way of manipulating the process, while the very next post said that Sollecito did not want it tested - and then cited his book, wrongly, for the reason why.

Before that you posted a pic of the window below Filomena's saying that it proved there were no bars on it, when the bars were plainly visible.

You are the very definition of a, "transparent attempt to score cheap points." I would have kept track of your gaffes, except that since you arrived, traffic on this thread has gone down by 92%.

 

[Welshman]

No. I was raising the question as to whether Luca is a reliable witness as far as the pair are concerned, as he backed them up quite a few times.

Vixen seems to have problems in deciding what she is accusing Amanda of. Vixen's original post is in full below. She is implying in her post that Amanda had never cried or shown any emotion at all and and no evidence has ever emerged to indicate Amanda had shown emotion. Vixen made no mention of Luca in her original post. When I showed evidence in the form of witness testimony that witnesses had seen Amanda cry and show grief, Vixen changed the issue from Amanda not showing any remorse at all to the witness testimony of Amanda showing remorse being unreliable. Vixen does not say why she thinks the testimony of Luca is unreliable. Is she simply saying that because his testimony supported Amanda and Raffaele, it is automatically unreliable. She does not say in what way was the testimony of Luca unreliable. Did Luca lie about Amanda's actions and in what did he lie?

"Actually, I agree with you about how frightful the press can be: low standards, repetitions and 'copy and pastes' from 'press releases', outright plagiarism, even making stories up. Only a small handful actually go out and find stories. However, that is to miss the point.

What the press does give us is the knee jerk emotional temperature of the community we live in. So, whilst the lurid coverage of 'Foxy Knoxy' was ghastly, nonetheless it raises the interesting sociological issue: what came first, the public's demand for salacious stories, or the press feeding them to society?

A female rapist/murderer is so rare, of course there is going to be prurient press interest. However, that's not to say the interest is erroneous or false.

The Marasca supreme court definitively upheld that Amanda was certainly at the murder scene, and Raff, almost certainly. This is based on the solid evidence of the lower merits fact-finding courts, who evaluate the evidence in extraordinarily fine detail.

It is established as a fact, the burglary was staged after the murder and the perpetrator/s undressed and moved Mez' body after her death and desecrated her dignity and modesty. We know Rudy fled almost immediately afterwards and spent the rest of the night at a public disco. Only one person had access to the cottage that weekend, together with all the time in the world to stage the two scenes. In addition, Amanda and Raff were careful to make sure Rudy's crap remained unflushed, despite cleaning up (Rudy testified the hallway was covered in blood and he couldn't understand how Amanda could have slept there).

These people took the time to cover Mez with her own duvet, that her father had helped her to buy in London.

Amanda has shown zero remorse and shed no tears for her 'friend'. So for her to write that sentences for rapists should be as light as six months shows just what a cold-hearted psychopath she is.

Amanda by her own account, in her own writing, and under no pressure or demand for it, recounted how she took 'Patrick' (= meaning Rudy, as upheld by the Marasca supreme court) to the cottage for sex with Mez."

 

[Planigale]

Google is great as a reference check, but as education? No, it is usually superficial. Read the wiki and forget its contents five minutes later.

That's not the same as attending seminars, writing essays, analysing issues, sitting exams.

It is very irritating to be corrected by someone who has no foundations in a topic but has merely spent five seconds googling and then feels qualified to challenge someone who is knowledgeable about the topic. Worse still, is when it is a transparent attempt to score cheap points.

A bit like when an accountant confuses zero rating and VAT exempt! Still since VAT is an EU tax that will soon be moot (until one relocates into the EU).

My knowledge FWIW is based on having to test my Sister before her law exams, and having to listen to law talk. She now Solicits for a living, better pay than being a junior academic.

 

[Vixen]

It doesn't seem to do you any good. You simply make stuff up. You, apparently, spent all that time "attending seminars, writing essays, analysing issues, sitting exams," and could not distinguish a Martin Niemöller quote from a Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote; despite your claim that the poster wa on your wall - and you wrongly pulled the citation from the Internet!!!!

At another point you said that Bongiorno's insistance that the semen-stain on the pillow be tested was her way of manipulating the process, while the very next post said that Sollecito did not want it tested - and then cited his book, wrongly, for the reason why.

Before that you posted a pic of the window below Filomena's saying that it proved there were no bars on it, when the bars were plainly visible.

You are the very definition of a, "transparent attempt to score cheap points." I would have kept track of your gaffes, except that since you arrived, traffic on this thread has gone down by 92%.

Do study cause and effect.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen seems to have problems in deciding what she is accusing Amanda of. Vixen's original post is in full below. She is implying in her post that Amanda had never cried or shown any emotion at all and and no evidence has ever emerged to indicate Amanda had shown emotion. Vixen made no mention of Luca in her original post. When I showed evidence in the form of witness testimony that witnesses had seen Amanda cry and show grief, Vixen changed the issue from Amanda not showing any remorse at all to the witness testimony of Amanda showing remorse being unreliable. Vixen does not say why she thinks the testimony of Luca is unreliable. Is she simply saying that because his testimony supported Amanda and Raffaele, it is automatically unreliable. She does not say in what way was the testimony of Luca unreliable. Did Luca lie about Amanda's actions and in what did he lie?

"Actually, I agree with you about how frightful the press can be: low standards, repetitions and 'copy and pastes' from 'press releases', outright plagiarism, even making stories up. Only a small handful actually go out and find stories. However, that is to miss the point.

What the press does give us is the knee jerk emotional temperature of the community we live in. So, whilst the lurid coverage of 'Foxy Knoxy' was ghastly, nonetheless it raises the interesting sociological issue: what came first, the public's demand for salacious stories, or the press feeding them to society?

A female rapist/murderer is so rare, of course there is going to be prurient press interest. However, that's not to say the interest is erroneous or false.

The Marasca supreme court definitively upheld that Amanda was certainly at the murder scene, and Raff, almost certainly. This is based on the solid evidence of the lower merits fact-finding courts, who evaluate the evidence in extraordinarily fine detail.

It is established as a fact, the burglary was staged after the murder and the perpetrator/s undressed and moved Mez' body after her death and desecrated her dignity and modesty. We know Rudy fled almost immediately afterwards and spent the rest of the night at a public disco. Only one person had access to the cottage that weekend, together with all the time in the world to stage the two scenes. In addition, Amanda and Raff were careful to make sure Rudy's crap remained unflushed, despite cleaning up (Rudy testified the hallway was covered in blood and he couldn't understand how Amanda could have slept there).

These people took the time to cover Mez with her own duvet, that her father had helped her to buy in London.

Amanda has shown zero remorse and shed no tears for her 'friend'. So for her to write that sentences for rapists should be as light as six months shows just what a cold-hearted psychopath she is.

Amanda by her own account, in her own writing, and under no pressure or demand for it, recounted how she took 'Patrick' (= meaning Rudy, as upheld by the Marasca supreme court) to the cottage for sex with Mez."

Questions rose as to how Amanda would know, 'She had her <explict deleted> throat cut' at the questura and Luca claimed later he had told Raff in fluent Italian. (So now Amanda does understand Italian after all: tourist phrase: I cut throat/ you cut throat / he cut throat/ we cut throat /they cut throat'.)

Battistelli claims he never mentioned this fact, but Luca claims he made a cut throat gesture.

 

[Vixen]

A bit like when an accountant confuses zero rating and VAT exempt! Still since VAT is an EU tax that will soon be moot (until one relocates into the EU).

My knowledge FWIW is based on having to test my Sister before her law exams, and having to listen to law talk. She now Solicits for a living, better pay than being a junior academic.

Not confused at all. I have passed three professional tax exams, including one specifically in VAT.

FWIW not to belittle law, but most lawyers I know, did a two year conversion course in law to qualify, after their main degree (one was in Zoology). One or two have law degrees, sure. One did a barristers course yet had no idea how to calculate 10%.

 

[bagels]

Vixen what is the limit of your interest in this case? For reference, I think the last time I bothered thinking about the Casey Anthony case (an actual killer that got away with it)....several years ago?

When the ECHR comes down on Italy for the interrogation I'll pop back in to ask how much Strasbourg was bribed by Raff's mafia buddies to help his ex girlfriend of five days. But that will probably be it.

 

[js202]

Vixen what is the limit of your interest in this case? For reference, I think the last time I bothered thinking about the Casey Anthony case (an actual killer that got away with it)....several years ago?

When the ECHR comes down on Italy for the interrogation I'll pop back in to ask how much Strasbourg was bribed by Raff's mafia buddies to help his ex girlfriend of five days. But that will probably be it.

Meanwhile, you can pop in from time to time and "learn" preposterous crap like the IQ of the average accountant is above 150, presumably on something legitimate like the Stanford-Binet or Wechsler. At 147, I guess I'll need to lick my wounds that I'm not quite up to accountancy standards. You?

 

[acbytesla]

"Most murders are committed in anger". Do you have a citation for this quasi-fact?

But that was the point Vixen. You asserted a claim with ZERO information to back it up. You do not know for sure if most murders are stealthy and premeditated or are crimes of passion.

I don't know the answer and I never suggested that I do. You applied inductive reasoning and then asserted that it was factual. That is a classic example of poor critical thinking.

It's mportant to understand what you don't know and the limits of reason. This is a concept you continue to ignore.

Inductive reasoning is when you expand on a small piece of data. Which is fully valid when developing a hypothesis, but it is outright wrong to just accept it as fact.

FYI,, statistics in the US on this are hard to come by and probably would be misleading. Premeditated murders or Murders in the First degree make up a tiny fraction of homicide cases. But the statistics are flawed because of plea dealing and the simple difficulty to know what is in the mind of anyone else.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen what is the limit of your interest in this case? For reference, I think the last time I bothered thinking about the Casey Anthony case (an actual killer that got away with it)....several years ago?

When the ECHR comes down on Italy for the interrogation I'll pop back in to ask how much Strasbourg was bribed by Raff's mafia buddies to help his ex girlfriend of five days. But that will probably be it.

My interest will not lie until the perps are brought to justice.

 

[Planigale]

Not confused at all. I have passed three professional tax exams, including one specifically in VAT.

FWIW not to belittle law, but most lawyers I know, did a two year conversion course in law to qualify, after their main degree (one was in Zoology). One or two have law degrees, sure. One did a barristers course yet had no idea how to calculate 10%.

To become a chartered accountant you can expect to study 24/7 for at least three years - the average IIRC is five years -and then have to make up three year's relevant vocational experience and get it signed off by two fellow pros, as well as submitting a 20-page resume.

In an IQ scale accountants were deemed more intelligent than lawyers, average >150, with authors having the highest IQ's.

Slight exaggeration here I think!

One enters accountancy direct from university, they accept people with non accountancy degrees like psychology. You get a training contract with an accountancy organisation and take the exams whilst employed, yes it takes about four years. Solicitors if they have done an exempting law degree have to do a one year full time course (though may get sponsorship for this) before becoming a trainee solicitor for two years. If you are a graduate with a non exempting degree then you have two years before being able to take up a training contract. My friend from college did 3 years law degree, then a BCL, then one year at law school before becoming a trainee solicitor for two years. So 7 years of law training, 5 as a full time student to become a qualified solicitor.

 

[Vixen]

But that was the point Vixen. You asserted a claim with ZERO information to back it up. You do not know for sure if most murders are stealthy and premeditated or are crimes of passion.

I don't know the answer and I never suggested that I do. You applied inductive reasoning and then asserted that it was factual. That is a classic example of poor critical thinking.

It's mportant to understand what you don't know and the limits of reason. This is a concept you continue to ignore.

Inductive reasoning is when you expand on a small piece of data. Which is fully valid when developing a hypothesis, but it is outright wrong to just accept it as fact.

FYI,, statistics in the US on this are hard to come by and probably would be misleading. Premeditated murders or Murders in the First degree make up a tiny fraction of homicide cases. But the statistics are flawed because of plea dealing and the simple difficulty to know what is in the mind of anyone else.

To put it in the correct context, LJ and Mike were arguing how can a court possibly determine truth, when the facts they find may be very different from the 'truth', the truth of course being an absolute (except when you are Amanda, and then you can have a range of truths, from 'worse truth' to 'best truth' - all of which by definition are lies). I pointed out that as mmost murders and crimes are committed by stealth, the court had to find its facts by a process of fine-sifting evidence, which can be surprisingly accurate. For example, a fraudster might deny he did it, yet we can produce his faked signature and a sum transferred into his bank account which matches the amount stolen, etc.etc.

Even in crimes of passion - these are the rare murders, not the most common btw - the court has to be sure it's premeditated before applying the severest sentence. For example, if Ruth Ellis - who committed her crime in public - had not admitted to wanting to kill her lover when she took a loaded gun to him, the judge would not have pulled on his black cap.

If you go armed with a knife or gun, that probably points to premeditation.