Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Read all this again and then figure out where you went wrong. As a handy hint, it starts where you mistake my having written "...has been lots of rain" for "Having lots of rain". As a further hint (I'm being too generous to you with the pointers!), "has been" is the perfect indicative tense of "is", and has no relationship whatsoever with the verb "to have" (meaning "to possess") in any tense (and the verb "to have", in turn, has nothing per se to do with the genitive (which is noun declension indicating possession which doesn't even take a form in modern English).

Good luck!

Hello? We were not talking about tense, so stop trying to wriggle out of it.

When you have a plural such as 'lots' or 'many' the correct verb is the plural 'are' or 'were' not 'is' or 'was'. That fact it is a common error doesn't make it correct.

Of course one can 'have lots' or 'have many'. Please point us to where anyone said you can't?

You are incapable of apologising for pointing out my typo yet employing at least two grammatical errors yourself. Far from it. You try to pretend the matter is about the possessive, 'to have'. ROFL.

Incidentally, you might say, 'There has been lots of rain', but it should strictly speaking be, 'There has been a lot of rain'. And this from someone who delights in pointing out 'sloppiness' in others' posts!

Good luck to you, too, with brass knobs on!

BTW I'm out and will not be discussing this further.

 

[LondonJohn]

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/01/amanda-knox-kelsey-kay-raffaele-sollecito-mean-words/


There you go.

Ahh I see why you don't realise the problem here. I'll try to explain clearly.

What I was asking for - and what would generally be required in such circumstances - was reliable evidence of the words Sollecito had written to that woman. I made that explicitly clear.

What you have provided here is a Radar Online ( = credibility/reliability issue immediately) "report" which mentions a report in The Star (= even less credibility/reliability) in which (allegedly) "Sollecito told Kay Knox was “a selfish, mean, cruel girl,” and an “evil bitch.”"

What you have NOT provided is what I was asking for and what is generally required in such circumstances. What would have counted would have been primary source documentation in the form of either a screen shot or print-out of a verifiably-reliable text message from Sollecito to this woman, or Sollecito's written words, or (at a push) a sworn affidavit from the woman concerned.

Instead, you seem to think that it's acceptable to "support" your claim with a report from a trash website which itself is quoting a report from a trash tabloid, which in turn is quoting nothing more than a verbal accusation from an unreliable woman who obviously has the potential to have a vested interest in smearing Sollecito - both in return for him terminating their relationship and/or potentially in return for money from The Star.

I'm afraid this little example speaks volumes about your research ideology, your tendency to accept certain "evidence" (particularly, it would appear, when it is disparaging to Knox and/or Sollecito.....) without any reliable verification, and your apparent disregard for honesty and sincerity in debate. So be it.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Hello? We were not talking about tense, so stop trying to wriggle out of it.

When you have a plural such as 'lots' or 'many' the correct verb is the plural 'are' or 'were' not 'is' or 'was'. That fact it is a common error doesn't make it correct.

Of course one can 'have lots' or 'have many'. Please point us to where anyone said you can't?

You are incapable of apologising for pointing out my typo yet employing at least two grammatical errors yourself. Far from it. You try to pretend the matter is about the possessive, 'to have'. ROFL.

Incidentally, you might say, 'There has been lots of rain', but it should strictly speaking be, 'There has been a lot of rain'. And this from someone who delights in pointing out 'sloppiness' in others' posts!

Good luck to you, too, with brass knobs on!

BTW I'm out and will not be discussing this further.

Hopefully these little diversions won't be necessary in the future. Despite their amusement value and their illustration of wider aspects of the debate. Our loss is the British Library's gain

 

[LondonJohn]

Anyway, moving (thankfully) back to the primary topic here, please can you (Vixen) expand upon your apparent belief that the Massei and Nencini courts had more legitimacy than the Italian Supreme Court in the Knox/Sollecito trial process. I'm sure that anyone with an interest in jurisprudence and political systems, not to mention the Italian Supreme Court, would also be very interested to read your elaboration on this subject. Thanks!

 

[Bill Williams]

The police simply collate the evidence surrounding the case. As of the time the body is found, zero information is known, so in effect, it is a constantly developing situation, until such time there is enough to pass the dossier over to the prosecutor's office, and it is this office that assesses whether there is adequate cause to bring a prosecution.

It is for the court to decide motive - although the prosecutor is expected to provide a probable scenario - and Massei decided it was 'futile motive' and that the pair 'made a choice for evil'.

People do evil nasty things for no reason, especially sociopaths and those with anti-social behaviour disorders.

At no point in this post do you address Welshman's view of the fact of the prosecutions' ever changing motives. You do however show astounding ignorance in Italian procedure in not being aware that Mignini as public minister directed the investigation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyway, moving (thankfully) back to the primary topic here, please can you (Vixen) expand upon your apparent belief that the Massei and Nencini courts had more legitimacy than the Italian Supreme Court in the Knox/Sollecito trial process. I'm sure that anyone with an interest in jurisprudence and political systems, not to mention the Italian Supreme Court, would also be very interested to read your elaboration on this subject. Thanks!

The lower courts are fact finding courts which issue verdicts of guilt or non-guilt, or such things as "the crime did not exist". Two lower courts convicted and one acquitted.

It is the Supreme Court's role to rule if that set of facts as assembled justify the verdicts rendered. The Marasca/Bruno panel of ISIS acquitted the pair because it said that Nencini convicted the pair on a hunch, rather than on the evidence in front of it.

 

[LondonJohn]

The lower courts are fact finding courts which issue verdicts of guilt or non-guilt, or such things as "the crime did not exist". Two lower courts convicted and one acquitted.

It is the Supreme Court's role to rule if that set of facts as assembled justify the verdicts rendered. The Marasca/Bruno panel of ISIS acquitted the pair because it said that Nencini convicted the pair on a hunch, rather than on the evidence in front of it.

Indeed. And it's rather an embarrassing indictment of those lower courts (Massei and Nencini) that the Supreme Court not only reversed and annulled their verdicts on the murder-related charges, but also effectively stated that no court should have ever - or could ever in the future - safely convict Knox or Sollecito based on the (ineptly-gathered, incompetently analysed and unreliable) evidence set in the case.

What also I find almost amusing is the apparent belief held by Vixen (and many other pro-guilt commentators, it would seem) that the Supreme Court only spent a few days looking at this case, and that only the "courts of merit" where the evidence was first presented and the testimony first heard can there ever be a "proper" evaluation of the case conducted. In fact, the Supreme Court (as with appeals courts and supreme courts in the UK or US) would have read the whole case file and the transcripts of the lower courts' trials, as well as the motivations reports of course in the case of Italy. Supreme Courts - even in Italy - do not arrive at verdicts on a whim, especially when those verdicts reverse those of the lower courts.

Fortunately for Knox and Sollecito, any competent SC panel looking at the outcomes of the Massei and Nencini trials, especially when set against the Hellmann appeal trial and the Conti/Vecchiotti Report (and the way that report was effectively ignored by the Nencini court), could easily see that these convictions were fundamentally and unequivocally unsafe. When you have courts issuing verdicts supported by such arrant nonsense as (to paraphrase): "if the ear witness says she heard a "scream of death" then that scream must have in fact occurred, since if it hadn't occurred she wouldn't be saying she heard it" (Massei on Capezzali), and the way in which the grotesque failings of the forensic physical evidence were essentially ignored, alarm bells start ringing in the heads of decent judges and jurists.

 

[Vixen]

Ahh I see why you don't realise the problem here. I'll try to explain clearly.

What I was asking for - and what would generally be required in such circumstances - was reliable evidence of the words Sollecito had written to that woman. I made that explicitly clear.

What you have provided here is a Radar Online ( = credibility/reliability issue immediately) "report" which mentions a report in The Star (= even less credibility/reliability) in which (allegedly) "Sollecito told Kay Knox was “a selfish, mean, cruel girl,” and an “evil bitch.”"

What you have NOT provided is what I was asking for and what is generally required in such circumstances. What would have counted would have been primary source documentation in the form of either a screen shot or print-out of a verifiably-reliable text message from Sollecito to this woman, or Sollecito's written words, or (at a push) a sworn affidavit from the woman concerned.

Instead, you seem to think that it's acceptable to "support" your claim with a report from a trash website which itself is quoting a report from a trash tabloid, which in turn is quoting nothing more than a verbal accusation from an unreliable woman who obviously has the potential to have a vested interest in smearing Sollecito - both in return for him terminating their relationship and/or potentially in return for money from The Star.

I'm afraid this little example speaks volumes about your research ideology, your tendency to accept certain "evidence" (particularly, it would appear, when it is disparaging to Knox and/or Sollecito.....) without any reliable verification, and your apparent disregard for honesty and sincerity in debate. So be it.......

The copy texts have been provided here before.

 

[Vixen]

Anyway, moving (thankfully) back to the primary topic here, please can you (Vixen) expand upon your apparent belief that the Massei and Nencini courts had more legitimacy than the Italian Supreme Court in the Knox/Sollecito trial process. I'm sure that anyone with an interest in jurisprudence and political systems, not to mention the Italian Supreme Court, would also be very interested to read your elaboration on this subject. Thanks!

The merits courts look at all the evidence presented and establish the facts. In Italy, they also establish the motive. Massei and Nencini differed in the latter, although both agreed it was a 'futile motive' (sex game/fight).

The appeals court (also in Nencini's remit) looks at whether the law and due process has been applied correctly. Whilst they might change the verdict, the only way they can legitimately argue against the facts found, is to remit it back to a merits/appeal court to reassess the facts/evidence again with directions as to how they should do it.

Marasca-Bruno acquitted on political non-legal reasons. It is defective and corrupt and sets a precedent in the Supreme Court interfering with the facts, and errs in substituting their own verdict without sending the case back down, as it should have done, under the penal code 620 relating to serious crime. It didn't have the power to acquit without sending it back down, given two merits courts had found the pair guilty as charged.

 

[Vixen]

At no point in this post do you address Welshman's view of the fact of the prosecutions' ever changing motives. You do however show astounding ignorance in Italian procedure in not being aware that Mignini as public minister directed the investigation.

The motives did not 'change'; as new evidence came to light, the theories developed, as is usual in a complex crime.

Mignini still had to go to a preliminary magistrate to put forward just cause for trial.

 

[bagels]

Vixen have you considered directing your efforts to cases that are still open? Might I recommend the Jonbenet Ramsey case?

It's an interesting case because it's like a reverse Knox case. They have matching traces of LCN DNA on two parts of her underwear including in blood that don't match the family. So for people who reject an intruder did it theory, they have to discount the LCN DNA as contamination. I always wanted to get someone who is both Knox PGP and Ramsey PGP and explain why the LCN DNA convicts Knox but doesn't exonerate the Ramseys lol

For the record I have no firm opinion on that case, there's workable theories either way. You could probably really spend a lot of time on that one!

 

[Bill Williams]

The motives did not 'change'; as new evidence came to light, the theories developed, as is usual in a complex crime.

Mignini still had to go to a preliminary magistrate to put forward just cause for trial.

LOL!

The various motives the prosecutors and courts offered did not change, but they "developed". Do you ever listen to what you post?

There is actually now no point in engaging you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Marasca-Bruno acquitted on political non-legal reasons. It is defective and corrupt and sets a precedent in the Supreme Court interfering with the facts, and errs in substituting their own verdict without sending the case back down, as it should have done, under the penal code 620 relating to serious crime. It didn't have the power to acquit without sending it back down, given two merits courts had found the pair guilty as charged.

Fortunately the M/B court set out quite well the **legal** reasons why Nencini should never have convicted based on the evidence in front of his court. M/B said a court is not allowed to convict when all it does is substitute a hunch for what the evidence means.

As for the rest, other courts which make reference to the M/B decision disagree with you. For instance the later Boninsegna court said that M/B rendered a clear exoneration.

That you continue to substitute your own opinions for what Italian jurists are saying about it is, frankly, laughable - and exposes your agenda and confirmation bias.

 

[Mike1711]

In her earliest statement to the police Amanda gave a precise time of eating : 23:00 or thereabouts. She spoke of blood on Raff's hand and the leak. Perhaps she wasn't aware Papa Raff claimed that when he called his boy 20:42 he was told the meal and the leak had already happened by then.

In WTBH Amanda changes the time to 21:15, at the trial she said it was 22:30.

She just can't stop lying, eh?

Vixen. My wife and I ate dinner last night. I'm trying to establish what time it was. I think it was around 18:00. So I asked my wife - she says around 19:30.
Please can you tell me this?
Is my wife lying?
Am I lying?
Are we both lying?
Where is the body?
If I call the police will I look more or less guilty?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen have you considered directing your efforts to cases that are still open? Might I recommend the Jonbenet Ramsey case?

It's an interesting case because it's like a reverse Knox case. They have matching traces of LCN DNA on two parts of her underwear including in blood that don't match the family. So for people who reject an intruder did it theory, they have to discount the LCN DNA as contamination. I always wanted to get someone who is both Knox PGP and Ramsey PGP and explain why the LCN DNA convicts Knox but doesn't exonerate the Ramseys lol

For the record I have no firm opinion on that case, there's workable theories either way. You could probably really spend a lot of time on that one!

I am familiar with the Jonbenet Ramsey case from the news, and I gather the parents ended up being prime suspect.

I think you are mixed up. Finding someone's DNA at a murder scene, low copy or not, doesn't make them the kidnapper/killer, or even a suspect. Possibly, 'a person of interest'.

I have no opinion on this case as to whodunnit.

 

[Vixen]

LOL!

The various motives the prosecutors and courts offered did not change, but they "developed". Do you ever listen to what you post?

There is actually now no point in engaging you.

Of course an investigation develops. At Munich the police originally believed it was a so-called IS attack with three gunmen, now they believe it was a neo-nazi German Columbine/Breivik Christian fundamentalist/crusader worshipper (albeit of Iranian descent).

Police initially believed Patrick was the rapist/murderer because Amanda told them he was and they had no reason to disbelieve her. Sociopaths can be very plausible (look at Rudy with his benign veneer).

Once it dawned on them he had a solid alibi elsewhere, their theory had to develop in other directions, such as 'why is Amanda so keen to divert the investigation elsewhere?'

 

[Vixen]

Fortunately the M/B court set out quite well the **legal** reasons why Nencini should never have convicted based on the evidence in front of his court. M/B said a court is not allowed to convict when all it does is substitute a hunch for what the evidence means.

As for the rest, other courts which make reference to the M/B decision disagree with you. For instance the later Boninsegna court said that M/B rendered a clear exoneration.

That you continue to substitute your own opinions for what Italian jurists are saying about it is, frankly, laughable - and exposes your agenda and confirmation bias.

Excellent attempt at the Argentine tango. However, the reasons given by the Bruno-Marasca court were NOT legal reasons. The reasons were 'flawed police investigation' and 'press influence'. The former was found by two merits courts to be sound, contamination was rejected by Nencini, there was no legal point on which to appeal against this. In Italy there is no press restriction or sub judice laws as there are in England & Wales, where a newspaper can be gagged and hauled before a wig for contempt of court for breaching it. In addition, the press interference was 99% Curt Knox' Gogerty-Marriot PR agency with whom he invested >US$2m, Nina Burleigh's disinformation and the Friends of Amanda Knox misinformation service. The lack of any jurisdiction over press reporting means it cannot be a legal point against which to appeal.

A legal point refers to statute. Italy has no statute about the press. As an example, Italy does have a statute about an underage girl being allowed to have lawful sex if she is 'in love'. Thus a man in his 60's successfully won an appeal on these grounds as the merits court failed to let him plead that his 14 year old girlfriend came under this category. This led to Friends of Amanda expressing faux outrage about 'Italy's justice system' because they didn't understand how law works, clearly believing the guy should have been immediately hanged, drawn and quartered before disembowellment. However, he wasn't acquitted, the case was sent down to try it with the correct charges and pleadings.

Boninsegna was merely following the tradition of an irate judge giving a misconceived case a slap on the wrist. His words about the Supreme Court have no authority over it or meaning in respect of the Supreme Court's verdict. He could say the Bruno-Marasca verdict "takes the cake", but it has no relevance, except as a handy soundbite for the tabloids. IOW Bonsegna's comments about the Supreme Court were a complete non sequitur.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen. My wife and I ate dinner last night. I'm trying to establish what time it was. I think it was around 18:00. So I asked my wife - she says around 19:30.
Please can you tell me this?
Is my wife lying?
Am I lying?
Are we both lying?
Where is the body?
If I call the police will I look more or less guilty?

The time to worry would be if you said it was about 18:00 and she said it was after 21:00. One of you is a liar.

 

[Bill Williams]

Excellent attempt at the Argentine tango. However, the reasons given by the Bruno-Marasca court were NOT legal reasons. The reasons were 'flawed police investigation' and 'press influence'. The former was found by two merits courts to be sound, contamination was rejected by Nencini, there was no legal point on which to appeal against this. In Italy there is no press restriction or sub judice laws as there are in England & Wales, where a newspaper can be gagged and hauled before a wig for contempt of court for breaching it. In addition, the press interference was 99% Curt Knox' Gogerty-Marriot PR agency with whom he invested >US$2m, Nina Burleigh's disinformation and the Friends of Amanda Knox misinformation service. The lack of any jurisdiction over press reporting means it cannot be a legal point against which to appeal.

A legal point refers to statute. Italy has no statute about the press. As an example, Italy does have a statute about an underage girl being allowed to have lawful sex if she is 'in love'. Thus a man in his 60's successfully won an appeal on these grounds as the merits court failed to let him plead that his 14 year old girlfriend came under this category. This led to Friends of Amanda expressing faux outrage about 'Italy's justice system' because they didn't understand how law works, clearly believing the guy should have been immediately hanged, drawn and quartered before disembowellment. However, he wasn't acquitted, the case was sent down to try it with the correct charges and pleadings.

Boninsegna was merely following the tradition of an irate judge giving a misconceived case a slap on the wrist. His words about the Supreme Court have no authority over it or meaning in respect of the Supreme Court's verdict. He could say the Bruno-Marasca verdict "takes the cake", but it has no relevance, except as a handy soundbite for the tabloids. IOW Bonsegna's comments about the Supreme Court were a complete non sequitur.

《Snore》


That you continue to substitute your own opinions for what Italian jurists are saying about it is, frankly, laughable - and exposes your agenda and confirmation bias

 

[Mike1711]

The time to worry would be if you said it was about 18:00 and she said it was after 21:00. One of you is a liar.

The rules according to Vixen.

I remember as a student I had a particularly good party one night. When I awoke I had to look in the rubbish bin to see if I had eaten anything. An empty pizza carton proved to me that I had. I sat there trying to remember when I ate it. I simply couldn't remember buying it or eating it.

Didn't AK and RS smoke a joint or three??