The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Methos]

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".

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.

On the highlight:
No, it wan't "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."

Someone made a comment (#15) in the comments section of a blog entry written by Charles Mudede.

Somehow PMF got hold of that poster and "verified" his story:

'Joh' was contacted by PMF Administrator Skeptical Bystander over a year ago and he confirmed the incident. The story came from a friend of his who lived in the student house in Seattle with Amanda Knox, the same student house incidentally where the infamous 'rock throwing party' for which Knox was fined took place. However, neither Joh or his friend wanted to come forward to the authorities with their story or go on official record, so it is a case of make of it what you will. It therefore does not form any of the official evidence against the suspects in the ILE file and will not be heard in trial or appeals. For these reasons, this information has been filed down the Rabbit Hole, instead of one of the main data threads.

The "some girl who slept with her boyfriend" part was only made up recently, by someone on PMF or TJMK who connected some "I read somewhere, that the guy who was first on Amanda Knox's "list of lovers" was unfaithful or only was out for another notch on his bedpost" or something like that to that story. That, of course is IIRC. (I'm beginning to love this excuse for not doing my homework )

'Stabbing' translates from Italian to English as 'piercing'. She was talking of stabbings not drug injections or ear piercing or navel piercing or tongue piercing.

If you try google on this matter "Stabbing" translates to Italian as:
- pugnalare
- accoltellare
- trafiggere
only "trafiggere" re-translates on google as "pierce".

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

Do you have the "original(ly written in) Italian" text handy?
I found a reference, but I can't find the above three in it...

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

The "themurderofmeredithkercher" wiki translates it as "proven fact in the trial", which leave it unclear whether or not Marasca/Bruno intends this as a proven fact, or merely something the observe about the trial whose verdict they are overturning.

The Amandaknoxcase webpage translates it as: "was considered an established fact during the trial". Again the trial M/B is referencing in this translation is, again, the Nencini one, the verdict of which is being overturned.

To fully understand what M/B means with this section - one needs to back up two steps.

1) the first step to back up to is the way Section 9.4.1 begins - it begins with, "with this premise" (AKC website) or, "Given this" on the TMOMK Wiki. The "this" is the same in both, it refers to the way Section 9.4 concludes.

2) So the second step to back up to is the conclusion to the previous section which observes:

the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis, removing some biological traces while leaving others.

No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would have been the case if they had participated in the murder

It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder

So, given the premise of their material innocence in relation to the murder, M/B say that they can now observe that Nencini thought it factual that they'd been at the cottage nonetheless, by virtue of Knox's memorale.

M/B say - much to innocentisi's chagrin - that Nencini is floating a completely plausible hypothesis.

What all of us miss, is M/B's subsequent, "on the other hand", and what follows.

So this is what M/B is saying - Nencini had been floating a completely plausible hypothesis that Knox had been at the cottage at the time of the murder, but on the other hand "the calumnious statements regarding Lumumba" had Knox confessing to being there.

Nencini, M/B continues, also floated a plausible hypothesis with regard to the mixed DNA in the "small bathroom".

But what all of us are missing is the conclusion to THIS line of argument from M/B, which began with the two back-steps above, to repeat:

1) the first step to back up to is the way Section 9.4.1 begins - it begins with, "with this premise" (AKC website) or, "Given this" on the TMOMK Wiki. The "this" is the same in both, it refers to the way Section 9.4 concludes.

2) So the second step to back up to is the conclusion to the previous section which observes:

the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis, removing some biological traces while leaving others.

No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would have been the case if they had participated in the murder

It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder

And the grand conclusion to Section 9.4.1 is exactly the same as to Section 9.4:

Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

Note -if all the above is accepted. Why do people miss this. M/B specifically say that even if all the above is accepted, there STILL is no proof of them in the murder room.

TMOMK Wiki puts it a little differently, but you can see t even in their translation:

so it follows – if we concede everything – that her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house.​

Even in TMOMK translation M/B continues their "what if", and nowhere do they say that they actually do concede everything.

The point throughout Section 9.4ff is the nature of the what-ifs - that even if conceded do not prove anything.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It is a legal fact she was there at the murder scene, just as surely as your birth certificate is a legal fact.

You may or may not have been born on the date it says, and your parents may be faking your birth, but fact is, it is a legal fact, and you are stuck with its details, until such time you take it to a higher court, and good luck with that. All they can do is amend it, with the original details still showing.

 

[Vixen]

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.

You are changing the context. The context is, someone - IIRC, acbytesla - said, 'there is always something there in a criminal's background, and there is nothing in Raff's and Amanda's, therefore they cannot have committed a criminal offence which included elements of psychopathy'.

Your escapades as a student is a non sequitur as this thread is not about you.

 

[Numbers]

....

The Amandaknoxcase webpage translates it as: "was considered an established fact during the trial". Again the trial M/B is referencing in this translation is, again, the Nencini one, the verdict of which is being overturned.

....

I agree with your analysis.

What I don't understand is that you apparently are seeing a slightly different English text after 9.4.1. I would agree that "established fact" is roughly equivalent to "acknowledged fact". The Nenicini court "reasoning", in provisionally convicting Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape of Kercher, and provisionally convicting Knox of aggravated calunnia, did place both in the cottage at the relevant time.

The Marasca CSC panel annulled all of the Nencini's court's verdicts and definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape and definitively acquitted Knox of the aggravated calunnia.

 

[Vixen]

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....

Context.

 

[Vixen]

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

BTW - two years ago today.

So will you be having a party, BiWi?

 

[Vixen]

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.

...And the point you are making is...?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Martuscelli mentions it more than once, for the avoidance of doubt.

 

[Methos]

It is a legal fact she was there at the murder scene, just as surely as your birth certificate is a legal fact.

You may or may not have been born on the date it says, and your parents may be faking your birth, but fact is, it is a legal fact, and you are stuck with its details, until such time you take it to a higher court, and good luck with that. All they can do is amend it, with the original details still showing.

"Legal facts" or "judicial truths" lose a lot of their appeal, whe the real facts are available online. Have you ever spent a thought on evaluating "the evidence" yourself?

 

[Vixen]

On the highlight:
No, it wan't "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."

Someone made a comment (#15) in the comments section of a blog entry written by Charles Mudede.

Somehow PMF got hold of that poster and "verified" his story:

The "some girl who slept with her boyfriend" part was only made up recently, by someone on PMF or TJMK who connected some "I read somewhere, that the guy who was first on Amanda Knox's "list of lovers" was unfaithful or only was out for another notch on his bedpost" or something like that to that story. That, of course is IIRC. (I'm beginning to love this excuse for not doing my homework )


If you try google on this matter "Stabbing" translates to Italian as:
- pugnalare
- accoltellare
- trafiggere
only "trafiggere" re-translates on google as "pierce".

Do you have the "original(ly written in) Italian" text handy?
I found a reference, but I can't find the above three in it...

No, we are not talking about social media someone in Washington reported the incident to the investigators at an early stage.

Amanda herself only mentioned it to preclude public astonishment when it came out, as it was bound to. She tried to make out 'it was just a prank'.

As for the story, Amanda was getting revenge in being dumped in favour of this girl, yes, that's gossip - not something that interests me, except within the context of the Kercher crime that hints of a person enraged with jealousy and resentment, given the ferocity of the attack. (Cue a cute story from acbytesla and abaddon about how they once taught an unfaithful ex a lesson, and so what.)

As for the short story, it indisputably refers to the victim as having been 'pierced', a most peculiar verb to use, until one realises it is translated from Italian and actually means 'stabbed' (the story is about the victim being stabbed by several people - don't tell me, it's about a bunch of junkies all coming at the victim with their needles).

 

[Bill Williams]

So will you be having a party, BiWi?

Looks like it's just you and me. I'll buy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Martuscelli mentions it more than once, for the avoidance of doubt.

Nobody doubts that it was an acknowledged fact of the Nencini court trial. No one. As per above, even if Marasca/Bruno conceded that this was true, Nencini should have acquitted.

 

[Vixen]

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

Do you think this is an accurate sign Amanda is holding up?

As a guideline in answering the question, ask yourself, 'Is it true she was exonerated of four years jail, or is it a fact, one year was on remand and the other three remains the sentence for a crime she remains convicted of.'

If your answer is no, then it is surely innocence fraud.

https://twitter.com/CA_Innocence/status/846174473350983680

 

[Vixen]

Looks like it's just you and me. I'll buy.

Mine's a hot chocolate, please.

 

[Vixen]

The "themurderofmeredithkercher" wiki translates it as "proven fact in the trial", which leave it unclear whether or not Marasca/Bruno intends this as a proven fact, or merely something the observe about the trial whose verdict they are overturning.

The Amandaknoxcase webpage translates it as: "was considered an established fact during the trial". Again the trial M/B is referencing in this translation is, again, the Nencini one, the verdict of which is being overturned.

To fully understand what M/B means with this section - one needs to back up two steps.

1) the first step to back up to is the way Section 9.4.1 begins - it begins with, "with this premise" (AKC website) or, "Given this" on the TMOMK Wiki. The "this" is the same in both, it refers to the way Section 9.4 concludes.

2) So the second step to back up to is the conclusion to the previous section which observes:



​

So, given the premise of their material innocence in relation to the murder, M/B say that they can now observe that Nencini thought it factual that they'd been at the cottage nonetheless, by virtue of Knox's memorale.

M/B say - much to innocentisi's chagrin - that Nencini is floating a completely plausible hypothesis.

What all of us miss, is M/B's subsequent, "on the other hand", and what follows.

So this is what M/B is saying - Nencini had been floating a completely plausible hypothesis that Knox had been at the cottage at the time of the murder, but on the other hand "the calumnious statements regarding Lumumba" had Knox confessing to being there.

Nencini, M/B continues, also floated a plausible hypothesis with regard to the mixed DNA in the "small bathroom".

But what all of us are missing is the conclusion to THIS line of argument from M/B, which began with the two back-steps above, to repeat:

1) the first step to back up to is the way Section 9.4.1 begins - it begins with, "with this premise" (AKC website) or, "Given this" on the TMOMK Wiki. The "this" is the same in both, it refers to the way Section 9.4 concludes.

2) So the second step to back up to is the conclusion to the previous section which observes:



​

And the grand conclusion to Section 9.4.1 is exactly the same as to Section 9.4:

​

Note -if all the above is accepted. Why do people miss this. M/B specifically say that even if all the above is accepted, there STILL is no proof of them in the murder room.

TMOMK Wiki puts it a little differently, but you can see t even in their translation:

​

Even in TMOMK translation M/B continues their "what if", and nowhere do they say that they actually do concede everything.

The point throughout Section 9.4ff is the nature of the what-ifs - that even if conceded do not prove anything.

Oh, and some pretzels, please. I can suddenly visualise them before my eyes, reading the above contortionist thinking

 

[Bill Williams]

Mine's a hot chocolate, please.

Coming right up.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh, and some pretzels, please. I can suddenly visualise them before my eyes, reading the above contortionist thinking

And your take on "if all the above is accepted" is......?

 

[Vixen]

And your take on "if all the above is accepted" is......?

Thanks for the hot choccy. <sfx slurps> Doesn't work.


Imagine say a man is charged with bigamy and he is brought before a court. The first thing the court will demand is a copy of each marriage certificate. The court having ruled that the guy is married to the first wife and again married to the second, can establish this as a fact.

It could well be the first marriage certificate is a fake, or void, because she was already married to someone else, or the witnesses forgot to sign it.

However, to all intents and purposes, when he takes his conviction for bigamy to appeal, it will be thrown out because it is a legal fact he is twice married. Why? Because that was a judge's decision in a court of law.

All decisions by a judge can be appealed. However, there is a time limit. In addition, he should have raised his objection at the trial, or cited 'new evidence'.

Marasca ruled as a legal fact that Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder and thus, it is an actual fact.

I have introduced the idea of a certificate, as something concrete and tangible might be easier for you to grasp, than an abstract notion of 'judicial truth' which you and Numbers appear to have confused with a 'hypothesis'.

 

[Bill Williams]

And your take on "if all the above is accepted" is......?

Marasca ruled as a legal fact that Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder and thus, it is an actual fact.

No. The item you believe he ruled as a legal fact, is covered by M/B's "if". "If all the above is accepted," does not sound like M/B is ruling that it is a fact.

All this added to the number of times on the M/B report it speaks of their presence at the cottage as "alleged" or "hypothesized".

- The Sollecito defence is.... in the form of an inquiry aimed at ascertaining the possibility of his alleged presence in the house on via della Pergola at the time of the murder.

- it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt.

- The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling

- However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola​

It's in that context that the M/B court itself hypothesises that even "if all the above is accepted", and we concede that Necini's hypothesis was right - that Knox was there and that she scrubbed blood off of her hands, that still does not mean Nencini should have convicted.

Nowhere was M/B write that they, themselves, believe this outside of summarizing Nencini's lower-court hypothesis which should not have been used to convict.