The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[toto]

The first is absolutely true - have you not read the Marasca report?

Face it, Stacyhs is not bothered about innocence or guilt. She ignores all of the evidence and relies solely in the fact of her belonging to a peer group called Friends of Amanda Knox, which is the be-all and end-all.

It's too much cognitive dissonance to admit one has supported injustice and the release of the killers of a terribly nice innocent young woman.

The report states that AK was charged and originally found guilty as she " falsely accused DIYA LUMUMBA, known as “Patrick”, of the crime of homicide against the young MEREDITH KERCHER, knowing him innocent, all with the aim of obtaining impunity for all [involved] and in particular for RUDY HERMANN GUEDE, himself "in 2009.
But this wording is now problematic since AK and RS were found not guilty so the aim of the calunnia as stated is void.

Later Marasca writes:

It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these serious accusations. The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile, taking into account that the woman must have realised that, sooner or later, these accusations against her employer would have been disproved, considering that she certainly knew that Lumumba had no contact either with Kercher or with the house on via della Pergola. Moreover, the possibility of having an “iron-clad” alibi would then have led to Lumumba being freed and acquitted of the serious accusation.

Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to retaliatory accusations against her.​

"it is not understood","circumstantial evidence" and "could be considered" does not state the case as forthrightly as you assert, especially in the context of the theme of contradictory evidence that Marasca introduces in this motivation, as well as the fact that the legal fact is now that AK and RS did not commit the act of murder.
I would add that personally speaking the first paragraph makes no sense to me. Marasca here is also very much begging the question! Ak may well have talked about Lumumba because that was who the investigators at that point were interested in, and AK was so confused she, for a time believed what she was saying.
You were in any case begging the question because you were arguing from a premiss with which the poster with whom you were debating did not agree.
I won't bother discussing whether internet posters are interested in the truth or justice.

 

[Stacyhs]

The first is absolutely true - have you not read the Marasca report?

Face it, Stacyhs is not bothered about innocence or guilt. She ignores all of the evidence and relies solely in the fact of her belonging to a peer group called Friends of Amanda Knox, which is the be-all and end-all.

It's too much cognitive dissonance to admit one has supported injustice and the release of the killers of a terribly nice innocent young woman.

You've made some pretty outlandish claims before, but this one takes the cake for ..well...the word I want to use would break ISF rules. But I think most of us here can accurately figure it out.

The evidence is what changed my mind from probable guilt to innocence years ago. And I do not, and never have, belonged to FOA. Not that this fact means squat to you because facts seldom do.

It's too much cognitive dissonance to admit one has supported injustice and the persecution of a terribly nice innocent young woman and man.

 

[Bill Williams]

The first is absolutely true - have you not read the Marasca report?

The first is absolutely not true.

There. This is the level that argument has descended to on ISF. But the one thing that is true, is simply repeating the claim does not make it true!

 

[Stacyhs]

The first is absolutely not true.

There. This is the level that argument has descended to on ISF. But the one thing that is true, is simply repeating the claim does not make it true!

Wire-tapping comes to mind.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are living in cloud Koo-Koo land. There is plenty of evidence that places her there. Even the perverse Marasca court could not resist taking potshots at Amanda's lies.

It makes it crystal clear she was present at the murder scene, washed off Mez' blood and covered up for Rudy.You still haven't answered the question: 'Why did Amanda cover up for drifter/petty thief/burglar/ ne'ever do well rapist murderer Rudy?'


Answer the question.

How about you start answering questions put to you before demanding others answer yours?

Amanda trashed the room of some girl who slept with her boyfriend, so is capable of vengeful behaviour.

I asked you for evidence of this three days ago. You have not provided any.

I also asked you 3 days ago these questions which you have not answered:

"Exactly what scientific or witness account supports that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood?"

"Please provide a quote from the story where Amanda writes anyone was stabbed or "pierced".

 

[TruthCalls]

The first is absolutely not true.

There. This is the level that argument has descended to on ISF. But the one thing that is true, is simply repeating the claim does not make it true!

And, of course, Vixen STILL can't cite a shred of evidence that places Amanda at the cottage at the time of the murder, she STILL can't cite a shred of evidence that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands and she STILL can't cite evidence that there were multiple attackers. But as we all know, Vixen isn't interested in facts and evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

And, of course, Vixen STILL can't cite a shred of evidence that places Amanda at the cottage at the time of the murder, she STILL can't cite a shred of evidence that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands and she STILL can't cite evidence that there were multiple attackers. But as we all know, Vixen isn't interested in facts and evidence.

I've been mangling words for months in relation to Vixen's constant repetition..... mangled it, and then "Toto" puts it as succinctly as it should be:

"it is not understood","circumstantial evidence" and "could be considered" does not state the case as forthrightly as you (Vixen) assert, especially in the context of the theme of contradictory evidence that Marasca introduces in this motivation, as well as the fact that the legal fact is now that AK and RS did not commit the act of murder.​

I yield the field to toto.

 

[toto]

I've been mangling words for months in relation to Vixen's constant repetition..... mangled it, and then "Toto" puts it as succinctly as it should be:

​

I yield the field to toto.

No thanks! I just wanted to make a quick point!

 

[Vixen]

How about you start answering questions put to you before demanding others answer yours?



I asked you for evidence of this three days ago. You have not provided any.

I also asked you 3 days ago these questions which you have not answered:

"Exactly what scientific or witness account supports that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood?"

"Please provide a quote from the story where Amanda writes anyone was stabbed or "pierced".

I don't remember seeing this. It was reported to Perugia police at an early stage that Amanda had caused great distress to a 'friend' by staging a burglary and apparently intimidation by bursting in wearing ski-masks.

The 'piercing' is very clear in the Marie Pace pen name story which I believe was originally written in Italian.

 

[Vixen]

And, of course, Vixen STILL can't cite a shred of evidence that places Amanda at the cottage at the time of the murder, she STILL can't cite a shred of evidence that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands and she STILL can't cite evidence that there were multiple attackers. But as we all know, Vixen isn't interested in facts and evidence.

What do you mean there 'isn't a shred of evidence'? There obviously must be, for the Marasca court, and more recently the Martuscelli Florence court hearing Raff's case: that Amanda's presence at the cottage during the murder is certain and indisputable.

It is a legal fact.

What is it you are not getting?

 

[Bill Williams]

What do you mean there 'isn't a shred of evidence'? There obviously must be, for the Marasca court, and more recently the Martuscelli Florence court hearing Raff's case: that Amanda's presence at the cottage during the murder is certain and indisputable.

It is a legal fact.

What is it you are not getting?

Reread the part of the Marasca report where it covers the notion, that because a judge believes it to be true is no substitute for evidence demonstrating its truth.

 

[TruthCalls]

I don't remember seeing this. It was reported to Perugia police at an early stage that Amanda had caused great distress to a 'friend' by staging a burglary and apparently intimidation by bursting in wearing ski-masks.

The 'piercing' is very clear in the Marie Pace pen name story which I believe was originally written in Italian.

So Vixen, you claim;

Amanda trashed the room of some girl who slept with her boyfriend, so is capable of vengeful behaviour.

And your evidence of this is a GAG Amanda and other roommates pulled on someone back at UW? I can't tell if this is dishonesty, ignorance or desperation but it's not good whatever it is.

 

[Bill Williams]

California Innocence Project

This weekend something big happened, and we won't soon forget.

The Innocence Network Conference was a huge success- and CIP was thrilled to be there, joined together in common purpose with nearly 200 exonerees and hundreds of other wrongful conviction warriors, innocence advocates, criminal justice reform champions from all across the United States and beyond.

Our common purpose? To win the freedom of those who even at this very moment sit behind bars for crimes they did not commit.

We got together in common heart and mind. We heard the stories and wisdom of the exonerees themselves- their lives living testaments to the problems in the justice system. We learned from the vast knowledge and expertise of the best and brightest legal minds working in #Innocence today. We grew closer in community, and stronger in unity.

Thank you for being part of this mission. As was stated in the closing ceremony: there is still a lot of work ahead of us. So onward we go.

This is what we do.

#INconf2017 #XONR8 #StandUp4Innocence

 

[TruthCalls]

What do you mean there 'isn't a shred of evidence'? There obviously must be, for the Marasca court, and more recently the Martuscelli Florence court hearing Raff's case: that Amanda's presence at the cottage during the murder is certain and indisputable.

It is a legal fact.

What is it you are not getting?

What I am not getting is what evidence did the courts use to come to this conclusion. You say "there obviously must be" and yet I repeatedly ask you to tell me what it is and you can't do it. So here, let me help you;

o To consider Amanda was at the cottage the court is referencing her Calunia conviction, which utilized her interrogation statements. Those statements were ruled inadmissible for the criminal trial and Amanda retracted them almost immediately afterwards. If the ECHR rules in her favor there won't even be this left. There is absolutely no evidence of her presence at the cottage at the time of the murder.

o To consider Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands they reference the mixed DNA from the sink. But, of course, as everyone knows, DNA can not be dated and Amanda's DNA has to be considered latent since it was found on the sink she used daily. There is absolutely no evidence of her washing Meredith's blood from her hands.

o To consider multiple attackers they minimized the expert witness testimony which did not support this theory and instead concluded that a single female, with beginner karate skills, could not have been subdued by a lone, athletic male intruder. A rationale that is easily contradicted by tens of thousands of similar assaults that came before this one. So on this "conclusion", not only was there expert witness testimony that contradicts it, but the physical evidence also contradicts it (i.e., no court made any effort, beyond claiming an impossible clean-up, to explain how three people committed such a violent, bloody murder in a confined space and yet only one person left multiple forms of forensic evidence behind).

So here is your opportunity to correct me on what evidence the courts used that I am forgetting about.

And here's the thing, Vixen. Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted of the crime and the case, other than the ECHR review of the calunia charge, is over. If all you're going to do is write "well the judge said..." then honestly, I have no idea why you are still here. You're on the wrong side of the court's ruling. If, OTOH, you honestly believe a miscarriage of justice has been done and you would really like to see that corrected, then you need to start debating with reasoned logic supported by facts and evidence. Trust me, if anyone could prove Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage at the time of the murder then that would be a complete game changer for this case, even for the most ardent Amanda/Raffaele supporters. But I don't see any of few remaining PGP trying to do that. Instead, we hear about college pranks and short stories.

 

[Bill Williams]

And here's the thing, Vixen. Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted of the crime and the case, other than the ECHR review of the calunia charge, is over. If all you're going to do is write "well the judge said..." then honestly, I have no idea why you are still here.

If the choice was between:

1. Amanda was the nicest person alive, but obviously guilty of murder, or

2. Amanda was the vilest most disgusting egomaniac ever, but obviously innocent of this crime

There are some who choose #2 because it's fun to slag people they've never met. They remain simply to slag the character of someone who they've never met. It becomes secondary to actually investigate the case in question other than the constant repetition of guilt-sounding assertions.

And who the heck is Raffaele?

 

[abaddon]

I don't remember seeing this. It was reported to Perugia police at an early stage that Amanda had caused great distress to a 'friend' by staging a burglary and apparently intimidation by bursting in wearing ski-masks.

The 'piercing' is very clear in the Marie Pace pen name story which I believe was originally written in Italian.

Sigh. When I was a student, we regularly pulled mad stunts. Random kidnappings were common, for example. One would be walking along and a car would screech to a halt beside you, bag over head, bundled into car, abandoned somewhere remote.

Students pull mad pranks. There is nothing unusual about it.

 

[TruthCalls]

Sigh. When I was a student, we regularly pulled mad stunts. Random kidnappings were common, for example. One would be walking along and a car would screech to a halt beside you, bag over head, bundled into car, abandoned somewhere remote.

Students pull mad pranks. There is nothing unusual about it.

Exactly. Can you imagine the problems Amanda would have run into had she taken some video of herself drinking and laughing it up with friends or, heaven forbid, she ever hosted a party that got a bit too loud and wound up with a noise citation. Oh, wait....

 

[Bill Williams]

What do you mean there 'isn't a shred of evidence'? There obviously must be, for the Marasca court, and more recently the Martuscelli Florence court hearing Raff's case: that Amanda's presence at the cottage during the murder is certain and indisputable.

It is a legal fact.

What is it you are not getting?

You're not seriously saying that the Martuscelli court in Florence investigated this?

BTW - two years ago today.

 

[acbytesla]

Sigh. When I was a student, we regularly pulled mad stunts. Random kidnappings were common, for example. One would be walking along and a car would screech to a halt beside you, bag over head, bundled into car, abandoned somewhere remote.

Students pull mad pranks. There is nothing unusual about it.

We stole a professor's car and then reassembled it in his classroom. It took about 20 of us about 4 hours but it was worth it.

 

[Numbers]

You're not seriously saying that the Martuscelli court in Florence investigated this?

BTW - two years ago today.

The text in question in the Marasca CSC panel MR is:

L'anzidetta circostanza negativa fa da pendant al dato, già evidenziato, dell'assoluta impraticabilità dell'ipotesi di una postuma pulizia selettiva, capace di rimuovere determinate tracce biologiche lasciandone altre.

9.4.1. Tanto premesso, si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitamione, teatro dell'omicidio, è dato conclamato nel processo , alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che, trovandosi in cucina, dopo che la giovane inglese ed altra persona si erano appartati nella stanza della stessa Kercher per un rapporto sessuale, aveva sentito un urlo straziante dell'amica, al punto lacerante ed insostenibile da lasciarsi scivolare, accovacciata a terra, tenendo ben strette le mani alle orecchie per non sentire altro.

One issue for English-speakers in understanding the above text is the meaning of "è dato conclamato nel processo". On the amandaknoxcase website, this is translated as Knox's presence in the house at the time of the murder being "an acclaimed fact of the trial". A better translation, for meaning, would be: "an acknowledged fact of the Nencini court trial". And the wording appears in the section on hypotheses or previous court statements that the Marasca CSC panel is debunking.

I don't know whether the Martuscelli court "sincerely" misinterpreted this statement or instead "cynically" used this wording to justify their decision not to award compensation to Sollecito, and thus leave the decision on compensation to be evaluated on appeal by the CSC.

ETA: According to Google translate, "conclamato" can mean "blown", "acclaimed", or "overt". I think that "overt" in the sense of openly known or acknowledged makes more sense in context. And "precesso" means "trial" but is referring to the trial being reviewed by the CSC - that is, the Nencini court trial.