The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
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.
Click to expand...

AIUI Marasca was using ipozatta (_sp?) as a figure of speech, not as a legal term.
 
Vixen said:
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).
Click to expand...

No one ever came forward and said the April's Fool's joke was anything but a prank. Not one person involved or who had knowledge of the event said she "trashed the room of a girl who slept with Amanda's boyfriend". If it were the horrible "revenge" act that you claim it was, then it would have been pertinent to the case and the prosecution would have presented it in court. They didn't. Can you deduce why?

Here is the pertinent part of the Marie Pace story that you completely misrepresent:

" The smoke enveloped me and I thought of* drowning in that burnt stink then I saw you lying on the ground, without* a jacket and without shirt. At that moment I did not understand* anything and while I was out of the house I remembered that with you* there were other people who smoked, that were piercing. I didn’t* understand, you must believe me. I did not understand until I reach my* porch and just then I realized that you were unconscious."


Notice that it does NOT say that the victim was being "pierced". Replace "piercing" with "stabbing" and it makes no sense. He remembers that there were people there smoking and "stabbing" her? But he didn't understand? Really? Honestly, Vixen. Get real. Continuing to pursue such a ridiculous claim is, well, ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
AIUI Marasca was using ipozatta (_sp?) as a figure of speech, not as a legal term.
Click to expand...

LOL! Please don't say something like that when I have a mouthful of coffee!

"A figure of speech"............ right. That must be it.

All the terms which put the lie to your reading of the reports in this case are "figures of speech".

Except when the Nencini report states as a judicial fact that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife. You called that one "a typo".

At least we in this thread now know what we're dealing with.

ETA - is the "if" as in "if all the above is accepted," also a figure of speech?
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
No one ever came forward and said the April's Fool's joke was anything but a prank. Not one person involved or who had knowledge of the event said she "trashed the room of a girl who slept with Amanda's boyfriend". If it were the horrible "revenge" act that you claim it was, then it would have been pertinent to the case and the prosecution would have presented it in court. They didn't. Can you deduce why?

Here is the pertinent part of the Marie Pace story that you completely misrepresent:

" The smoke enveloped me and I thought of* drowning in that burnt stink then I saw you lying on the ground, without* a jacket and without shirt. At that moment I did not understand* anything and while I was out of the house I remembered that with you* there were other people who smoked, that were piercing. I didn’t* understand, you must believe me. I did not understand until I reach my* porch and just then I realized that you were unconscious."


Notice that it does NOT say that the victim was being "pierced". Replace "piercing" with "stabbing" and it makes no sense. He remembers that there were people there smoking and "stabbing" her? But he didn't understand? Really? Honestly, Vixen. Get real. Continuing to pursue such a ridiculous claim is, well, ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli on this very thread (in a former continuation) gave the reason why no one came forward.

The whole of Seattle tried to conceal the prank, using the Mafia technique of Omertà. Yes, that's it. That must be it. Everyone in Seattle. All 3,733,580 of them.
 
Bill Williams said:
Machiavelli on this very thread (in a former continuation) gave the reason why no one came forward.

The whole of Seattle tried to conceal the prank, using the Mafia technique of Omertà. Yes, that's it. That must be it. Everyone in Seattle. All 3,733,580 of them.
Click to expand...

The PGP can't believe the police would lie about their illegal interrogations that, if admitted, could land them in deep ***** or fired. However, they can believe that everyone who knew Amanda would cover for her, including the "victim" of the "you slept with my boyfriend" rumored (only by the PGP) stunt. Incroyable!
 
Bill Williams said:
LOL! Please don't say something like that when I have a mouthful of coffee!

"A figure of speech"............ right. That must be it.

All the terms which put the lie to your reading of the reports in this case are "figures of speech".

Except when the Nencini report states as a judicial fact that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife. You called that one "a typo".

At least we in this thread now know what we're dealing with.

ETA - is the "if" as in "if all the above is accepted," also a figure of speech?
Click to expand...

Since a "figure of speech" should have a meaning, one must determine what "ipotesi" (hypothesis) means in the Marasca CSC panel MR Italian text. This word is used 28 times in the Italian text, occurring one to four times on each of 19 pages (1 time on 13 pages, 2 times on 4 pages, 3 times on 1 page, and 4 times on 1 page).

Google translate gives the first English equivalent of "ipotesi" as "hypothesis", with alternatives including "speculation", "conjecture", "assumption", and "supposition". Google translate provides no mention of its use as a figure of speech.

So, in the real, non-alternative universe where "alternative facts" are recognized as BS by reasonable persons - skeptics - I suggest that only someone desperate to hide an error in logic or intent on forcing a biased interpretation would call the use of "ipotesi" a "figure of speech" rather than a word to be understood literally as part of a legal argument in the context of a motivation report.
 
Numbers said:
Since a "figure of speech" should have a meaning, one must determine what "ipotesi" (hypothesis) means in the Marasca CSC panel MR Italian text. This word is used 28 times in the Italian text, occurring one to four times on each of 19 pages (1 time on 13 pages, 2 times on 4 pages, 3 times on 1 page, and 4 times on 1 page).

Google translate gives the first English equivalent of "ipotesi" as "hypothesis", with alternatives including "speculation", "conjecture", "assumption", and "supposition". Google translate provides no mention of its use as a figure of speech.

So, in the real, non-alternative universe where "alternative facts" are recognized as BS by reasonable persons - skeptics - I suggest that only someone desperate to hide an error in logic or intent on forcing a biased interpretation would call the use of "ipotesi" a "figure of speech" rather than a word to be understood literally as part of a legal argument in the context of a motivation report.
Click to expand...

I'm with Vixen on this one. I cannot find any reason why someone would tell a bald-faced lie like that, so absent a reason, I choose to believe Vixen.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Baloney. The point was not about me at all. The point was that students get up to all manner of high jinx as a matter of course, a point which was supported by the experience of others in thread. Do you not realise that the most extreme of those tend to be seminarians? One could only believe otherwise if one spent ones life sequestered in some ivory tower.
 
Bill Williams said:
I'm with Vixen on this one. I cannot find any reason why someone would tell a bald-faced lie like that, so absent a reason, I choose to believe Vixen.
Click to expand...

Right - and you are willing and able to supply the meaning of "ipotasi" as a figure of speech.:)

Figures of speech can be complex little critters:

"an expression that uses words to mean something different from their ordinary meaning" Source: dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/figure-of-speech

"A figure of speech or rhetorical figure is figurative language in the form of a single word or phrase. It can be a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words. ....During the Renaissance, scholars meticulously enumerated and classified figures of speech. Henry Peacham, for example, in his The Garden of Eloquence (1577), enumerated 184 different figures of speech. Professor Robert DiYanni, in his book 'Literature – Reading Fiction, Poetry, Drama and the Essay' wrote: 'Rhetoricians have catalogued more than 250 different figures of speech, expressions or ways of using words in a nonliteral sense.' " Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech
 
Numbers said:
Right - and you are willing and able to supply the meaning of "ipotasi" as a figure of speech.:)
Click to expand...
No no no no no no no.

Ipotasi does not mean "figure of speech", I'm agreeing with Vixen that ipotasi is used as one.

Why? Because it's clear that judges in Italy seek the most fuzzy and convoluted reasonings possible, esp. in horrible murder cases.

It's either that or accuse the poster of telling giant whoppers! I'd never do that, so the only course of action allowed on a skeptic's site is to agree with her.

As Chuck Berry said, with no particular place to go.
 
Bill Williams said:
No no no no no no no.

Ipotasi does not mean "figure of speech", I'm agreeing with Vixen that ipotasi is used as one.

Why? Because it's clear that judges in Italy seek the most fuzzy and convoluted reasonings possible, esp. in horrible murder cases.

It's either that or accuse the poster of telling giant whoppers! I'd never do that, so the only course of action allowed on a skeptic's site is to agree with her.

As Chuck Berry said, with no particular place to go.
Click to expand...
 
Methos said:
On the highlight:

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... ;)
Click to expand...

One of the interesting things is the issue of subtle use of language. Knox who had just started learning Italian, is expected to know subtle differences in Italian. One can easily understand that someone learning a language might use a less common term, or one with a different nuance from a native speaker. another example is the discussion over whether Knox said a door was locked or closed, a verb with a one letter difference, easy for a learner under stress to confuse. Then given pronunciation probably easy to mis hear. I am only surprised that we did not have an issue how she misused a tense.
 
Numbers said:
Right - and you are willing and able to supply the meaning of "ipotasi" as a figure of speech.:)

Figures of speech can be complex little critters:

"an expression that uses words to mean something different from their ordinary meaning" Source: dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/figure-of-speech

"A figure of speech or rhetorical figure is figurative language in the form of a single word or phrase. It can be a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words. ....During the Renaissance, scholars meticulously enumerated and classified figures of speech. Henry Peacham, for example, in his The Garden of Eloquence (1577), enumerated 184 different figures of speech. Professor Robert DiYanni, in his book 'Literature – Reading Fiction, Poetry, Drama and the Essay' wrote: 'Rhetoricians have catalogued more than 250 different figures of speech, expressions or ways of using words in a nonliteral sense.' " Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech
Click to expand...

You have been told by a highly educated Italian speaker (Machiavelli) what the judges meant.
 
abaddon said:
Baloney. The point was not about me at all. The point was that students get up to all manner of high jinx as a matter of course, a point which was supported by the experience of others in thread. Do you not realise that the most extreme of those tend to be seminarians? One could only believe otherwise if one spent ones life sequestered in some ivory tower.
Click to expand...

Oh riiiight. The murder of Meredith Kercher was 'just a prank'. Okaaaaaay.


Incidentally, I have never 'pranked' anybody in my life.
 
Planigale said:
One of the interesting things is the issue of subtle use of language. Knox who had just started learning Italian, is expected to know subtle differences in Italian. One can easily understand that someone learning a language might use a less common term, or one with a different nuance from a native speaker. another example is the discussion over whether Knox said a door was locked or closed, a verb with a one letter difference, easy for a learner under stress to confuse. Then given pronunciation probably easy to mis hear. I am only surprised that we did not have an issue how she misused a tense.
Click to expand...

In her email home, written during the early hours of the Saturday- Sunday morning of the days after the murder, Amanda claimed she was frantic and in a great panic, banging on Mez' door.

So how come the postale police Battistelli reported she was calm and laid back, and even tried to reassure them it was not unusual for the door to be locked.

None of her housemates took that view. As soon as Filomena arrived, she got Luca to smash the door down.

So no, not 'just a language problem'.

So you admit Amanda was lying her head off in her email to everybody in her address book (even though police asked her to keep everything confidiential).
 
Vixen said:
You have been told by a highly educated Italian speaker (Machiavelli) what the judges meant.
Click to expand...

Vixen, since you claim that the word "ipotesi" (correct spelling; first English translation is "hypothesis" according to Google translate and Collins reverso) is used as a figure of speech in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, where it occurs 28 times, please explain its meaning for each occurrence.

Thanks in advance for you kind cooperation.
 
Vixen said:
In her email home, written during the early hours of the Saturday- Sunday morning of the days after the murder, Amanda claimed she was frantic and in a great panic, banging on Mez' door.

So how come the postale police Battistelli reported she was calm and laid back, and even tried to reassure them it was not unusual for the door to be locked.
Click to expand...
Battistelli reported no such thing. Why do you make up stuff?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom