The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

Well, except there was a doctor and nurses who were there to witness my birth. There's delivery room records showing my mother was there delivering me. Records for medications used during the delivery as well as records documenting my entry into the nursery. All of this represents EVIDENCE that proves when and where I was born.

The claims you're so fond of repeating ad nauseam don't have any such evidence. A claim without evidence is nothing more than conjecture. It isn't fact. And that is exactly what these claims are - conjecture.

So you realise a birth certificate is a legal fact, and not 'just hypothetical'. You do know the registrar of births is simply taking your parents' word for it?

How is that legal fact different from the legal facts declared by Marasca, and more recently by Martuscelli?

Don't tell me, you counted how many times Marasca used the term, 'it appears' or 'it seems' and these are now magically legal terms and not figures of speech.

 

[Bill Williams]

So you realise a birth certificate is a legal fact, and not 'just hypothetical'. You do know the registrar of births is simply taking your parents' word for it?

How is that legal fact different from the legal facts declared by Marasca, and more recently by Martuscelli?

Don't tell me, you counted how many times Marasca used the term, 'it appears' or 'it seems' and these are now magically legal terms and not figures of speech.

You're on to something - everytime the courts used the trems "Amanda Knox" and "Raffaele Sollecito" they were used only as figures of speech. It doesn't matter how many times those terms had been used, so don't bother to count them.

Indeed, with this reasoning, you might say they'd never even been charged.

 

[Vixen]

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.

'It seems to us', 'it appears', 'actually', supposedly', 'allegedly', 'presumably', 'we assume', 'we think', 'we suppose', 'you know', 'know what I mean?' 'Isn't it?' 'could be', 'would be' should be', 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'apparently', 'probably', 'possibly', 'likely', 'tellingly', 'hopefully', etc.

Just meaningless sentence fillers. Certainly not in the sense a scientist would use the word.


The acid test would be to insert any of the above empty phrases in place of 'ipotesi' and if it neither adds nor detracts from what the wig is saying, you know is is a meaningless figure of speech, like, um and ah.

 

[Vixen]

You're on to something - everytime the courts used the trems "Amanda Knox" and "Raffaele Sollecito" they were used only as figures of speech. It doesn't matter how many times those terms had been used, so don't bother to count them.

Indeed, with this reasoning, you might say they'd never even been charged.

A defendant's name would be an important legal fact that would need to be verified.

Like all legal facts. For example, the legal fact Amanda was indisputably and certainly present at the cottage during the murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

A defendant's name would be an important legal fact that would need to be verified.

Like all legal facts. For example, the legal fact Amanda was indisputably and certainly present at the cottage during the murder.

Repeating this does not make it true!

 

[Vixen]

Repeating this does not make it true!

It might not be true, but it is a legal fact. And that is what matters.

Grasped it, yet, BiWi?

The law states Amanda was present at the murder of Meredith Kercher and that she did cover up for Rudy.

When will this legal fact sink in?

I suspect you understand perfectly well, and are being merely stubborn.

 

[Methos]

Oh yes, we are talking about social media, because that single comment on that "The Stranger" comments section is the source for the "Ski mask/rape prank" or whatever you want to call it. There is not even a hint about it in the case documents, so "somenoone in Washington reported the incident to the investigators at an early stage."


Amanda Knox only mentioned it as an anwer to a comment on her own site on January 7th, 2014 more than six years after the original comment, so the above makes no sense...


For someone claiming that "gossip" is "nothing that interests me", you are coming up with gossip quite often it seems. No matter, your reasoning doesn't make sense either way. The "ferocity of the attack" (whatever that means) doesn't necessarily point to a "person enraged with jealousy and resentment" (one alternative would be a burglar who just realised that the woman he intended to rape has recognised him...). Neither does it make the story of "Amanda was getting revenge in being dumped in favour of this girl" more credible. That's just another good example for circular reasoning.



No, the short story does not "indisputably refer to the victim as having been 'pierced'". The sentence in question is:
"In quel momento non capii niente e soltanto quando fui fuori dalla casa ricordai che con te c’erano altre persone che fumavano, che si bucavano."

Do you speak Italian? Me neither, but I have friends who do. This is what my friend had to say about it:

"Si bucavano is colloquial for they injected themselves (with drugs)"
"It literally means they put holes in themselves. Which translates to taking drugs through injection."
"Well, anyone who translates "si bucavano" into anything related to stabbing, should be severely reprimanded!"

So itl looks like the story is not "about the victim being stabbed by several people" or "about a bunch of junkies all coming at the victim with their needles". It looks like "the victim" as you like to call her, was in the same smoke filled room with "bunch of junkies" who were "putting holes in themselves"...

Whatever. Pranking is not a very nice thing to do when it damages other people's property or causes them distress 'for a laugh'. So much for acbytesla's claim 'Amanda was a nice person'.


So she goes to parties where people inject themselves. Lovely.

That's all you have as response?

 

[Vixen]

That's all you have as response?

What more is there to say?

'Oh no it's not!'

'Oh yes it is!'

 

[Numbers]

'It seems to us', 'it appears', 'actually', supposedly', 'allegedly', 'presumably', 'we assume', 'we think', 'we suppose', 'you know', 'know what I mean?' 'Isn't it?' 'could be', 'would be' should be', 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'apparently', 'probably', 'possibly', 'likely', 'tellingly', 'hopefully', etc.

Just meaningless sentence fillers. Certainly not in the sense a scientist would use the word.


The acid test would be to insert any of the above empty phrases in place of 'ipotesi' and if it neither adds nor detracts from what the wig is saying, you know is is a meaningless figure of speech, like, um and ah.

LOL.

As an example of the absolute absurdity of your statement:

9.4. 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, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.

The word "hypothesis" or "hypothesised" has a definite meaning:

"to suggest (an idea or theory) : to make or suggest (a hypothesis)"
Source:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesize

"to give a possible but not yet proved explanation for something"
Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypothesize

So the meaning of "hypothesised" in the quoted paragraph is:

"...even if it is 'supposed without proof' that they were present ...."

So your absurd statement is clearly, um, shall we say, false.

 

[Bill Williams]

It might not be true, but it is a legal fact. And that is what matters.

Grasped it, yet, BiWi?

The law states Amanda was present at the murder of Meredith Kercher and that she did cover up for Rudy.

When will this legal fact sink in?

I suspect you understand perfectly well, and are being merely stubborn.

Wow - you're halfway there. Still, you are on a campaign of guilt, merely on a judicial fact where even you admit it might not be true.

Then again, M/B says this about those "judicial facts" which might not be true:

if all the above is accepted

a tutto concedere​

Only if all the above is accepted...... and your "judicial facts" which even you concede might not be true is part of "the above".

Maybe "if" is a figure of speech, too.

 

[Vixen]

LOL.

As an example of the absolute absurdity of your statement:

9.4. 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, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.

The word "hypothesis" or "hypothesised" has a definite meaning:

"to suggest (an idea or theory) : to make or suggest (a hypothesis)"
Source:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesize

"to give a possible but not yet proved explanation for something"
Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypothesize

So the meaning of "hypothesised" in the quoted paragraph is:

"...even if it is 'supposed without proof' that they were present ...."

So your absurd statement is clearly, um, shall we say, false.

Merriam-Webster is not a legal dictionary. Once again you are using vernacular and mistaking it for a legal term.

I looked up 'hypothesis' (and related variations) on the first six Legal Dictionaries that came up on Google search. None - [ETA] bar one which gives an example of its use in a trial court - define it as a legal term.

One gives a common dictionary definition of, 'Unproven theory'.

As a law court deals with facts - ipso facto proven - then it would be an oxymoron for a supreme court judge to promulgate 'unproven facts'.

Bearing in mind that a key function of a merits trial is to determine the facts. The Supreme Court is no longer at trial stage.

Its Section 9 are the facts, as set out by Marasca. Section 10 is a reiteration of the verdict, as set out at the start.

Where does that leave you and your Merriam-Webster dictionary?

 

[Bill Williams]

I looked up 'hypothesis' (and related variations) on the first six Legal Dictionaries that came up on Google search. None define it as a legal term.

One gives a common dictionary definition of, 'Unproven theory'.

Wait a minute, you said "none define it as a legal term," yet you quote one of them giving the definition of it as, "Unproven theory".

Let that settle in for a second......

 

[Vixen]

Wow - you're halfway there. Still, you are on a campaign of guilt, merely on a judicial fact where even you admit it might not be true.

Then again, M/B says this about those "judicial facts" which might not be true:

​

Only if all the above is accepted...... and your "judicial facts" which even you concede might not be true is part of "the above".

Maybe "if" is a figure of speech, too.

No, no, no, I did not say 'it might not be true', I said even if not true in purest reality, if a law court rules it to be a fact then the law court is sovereign.


It rules as a fact Amanda was at the murder scene, washed off Mez' blood (pause and think about this: imagine YOU were washing off the blood of someone just murdered, seriously? You are not going to report it? Why would that be? Oh, we see: you did it!) and covered up for Rudy, who by your own account is a low-life drifter, petty thief, burglar, rapist, murderer (What's that you say? You wouldn't cover up for someone like that? Why not? We see: he's your co-criminal!).

Anyone have any other explanation to offer, that doesn't involve 'student high jinks'?

 

[Vixen]

Wait a minute, you said "none define it as a legal term," yet you quote one of them giving the definition of it as, "Unproven theory".

Let that settle in for a second......

It comes from the Free Dictionary, which links up to all other dictionaries in an attempt to be helpful. (Rather like a wikipedia of dictionaries.)

It says:

Hypothesis
An assumption or theory.
During a criminal trial, a hypothesis is a theory set forth by either the prosecution or the defense for the purpose of explaining the facts in evidence. It also serves to set up a ground for an inference of guilt or innocence, or a showing of the most probable motive for a criminal offense.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
hypothesisnoun assertion, assignment of cause, assumption, conclusion drawn from accepted truths, conjecture, deduction, guess, inference, postulate, postulation, speculation, suggestion, supposal, surmise, tentative explanation, tentative law, theory, thesis, unproved theory
See also: assumption, basis, belief, conclusion, conjecture, deduction, generalization, idea, inference, opinion, postulate, presumption, prolepsis, proposition, speculation, supposition, theory, thesis
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

As you can see this all relates to pre-verdict, (i.e., the trial).

Marasca is not a trial court. The fact have been established, and it summarises them in Section 9 of its written reasons.

 

[Bill Williams]

Marasca is not a trial court. The fact have been established, and it summarises them in Section 9 of its written reasons.

Goalpost moving time. Of course Section 9 summarized them.

Your claim is different. You claim that summarizing them is the same as agreeing with them.

 

[acbytesla]

Wait a minute, you said "none define it as a legal term," yet you quote one of them giving the definition of it as, "Unproven theory".

Let that settle in for a second......

I see Vixen still is trying to redefine the words 'if' and 'hypothesis'. She's been trying this for about 18 months. In the meantime, the earth keeps spinning.

 

[Vixen]

Goalpost moving time. Of course Section 9 summarized them.

Your claim is different. You claim that summarizing them is the same as agreeing with them.

There is no compunction on a judge to personally agree with any of it. There are pretty rigid protocols.

It's one thing, your lolling about on here pontificating. Were you an Italian judge, you would be obliged to accept the facts found by a lower court.

You can only intervene, say, one of the parties appeals against it on a legal point.

Otherwise, accept it.

 

[Vixen]

I see Vixen still is trying to redefine the words 'if' and 'hypothesis'. She's been trying this for about 18 months. In the meantime, the earth keeps spinning.

OK. Have it your way. The Court's written reasons are just one big hypothesis, yet to be proven in a court of law.

Oh wait...D'oh!

 

[acbytesla]

OK. Have it your way. The Court's written reasons are just one big hypothesis, yet to be proven in a court of law.

Oh wait...D'oh!

Keep trying. Won't make a damn difference.

 

[Stacyhs]

So how come he didn't urge the police when he rang up to come quickly, he was worried about a locked door and he believed Mez lay hurt behind it?

Massei writes;



It's obvious he knew Mez was dead before Luca broke down the door. Some sceptics speculate he tried to break down the door because he realised they'd left Amanda's lamp on the floor. ;/

He did not "believe Meredith lay hurt behind it". All he knew is that the house had been broken into, there was a small amount of blood in the bathroom, feces in the toilet, and that they couldn't get ahold of Meredith by phone. If he knew she lay dead behind the door and what police would find, then common sense says they would have played up their concern for the police's benefit. They didn't.

Nor did he have to tell them to come quickly. He told them what he'd seen, his concerns and they said they would "send a patrol car now". They were coming quickly or do you think sirens blaring was required for a burglary?

If guilty and they realized they'd left Amanda's lamp in the room, he'd have definitely broken down the door before the police got there. They'd also have removed or washed the bath mat, washed the hallway of "bloody" footprints, and any blood in the bathroom if it could possibly have been theirs.