The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[bagels]

If you believe all the fake news and paid-for PR, you are the one who relies on blind faith and knee-jerk bigotry. FOX News is your oracle.

None of the courts agree with you, apart from the one that was rudely denounced.

As for your 'theist' jibe, you make the elementary error of mistaking cynicism for scepticism.

There are more things in heaven and earth, acbytesla,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

The only court that really matters with regards to the PGP position is Hellmann. Yes the Supreme Court disagreed with his interpretation of the evidence - but the Italian system allows their Supreme Court to substitute in their own interpretation for no other reason than they prefer it. The Supreme Court did not find any legal, procedural, or factual flaws with Hellmann's verdict, they simply disagreed with it. What that amounts to is two different courts forming two different opinions on the same evidence, which is just another way of saying the evidence is at best ambiguous, which by default completely invalidates the PGP position (that the evidence is incontrovertible). The PGP try to resolve this cognitive dissonance by inventing a mafia conspiracy (based on nothing) or by saying the Chieffi Supreme Court overturned Hellmann for reasons other than having a different opinion on the evidence (in direct contradiction to Chieffi's own words in his report) but the end result is the same -> their (your) position collapsed years ago and never recovered.

IMO there's nothing much to argue about anymore. We got to the root of the issues between the two sides.

 

[acbytesla]

If you believe all the fake news and paid-for PR, you are the one who relies on blind faith and knee-jerk bigotry. FOX News is your oracle.

Wrong again.
I don't watch FOX except for the laughs. Kind of like your posts. And I don't know what you're talking about when you say I believe in blind faith or knee-jerk bigotry. I believe in evidence, not the crap you make up on virtually every single post.

None of the courts agree with you, apart from the one that was rudely denounced.

Except of course the Hellman court and the final Marasca court. You keep pretending that they dont count. But the proof is self evident. Rudy is in prison for killing Meredith and Amanda and Raffaele were found NOT GUILTY. Oooops I win, you lose.

As for your 'theist' jibe, you make the elementary error of mistaking cynicism for scepticism.

There are more things in heaven and earth, acbytesla,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

That's right. There is the Loch Ness monster, Sasquach, fairies and leprechauns.

 

[Bill Williams]

The courts don't see it that way. the way they see it is (Florence 10 Feb 2017):



Stop clinging on to feet of clay.

The "courts"!? LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

That's right. There is the Loch Ness monster, Sasquach, fairies and leprechauns.

Hey! Leave the Sasquatch alone!

 

[Numbers]

Wrong again.
I don't watch FOX except for the laughs. Kind of like your posts. And I don't know what you're talking about when you say I believe in blind faith or knee-jerk bigotry. I believe in evidence, not the crap you make up on virtually every single post.

Except of course the Hellman court and the final Marasca court. You keep pretending that they dont count. But the proof is self evident. Rudy is in prison for killing Meredith and Amanda and Raffaele were found NOT GUILTY. Oooops I win, you lose.

That's right. There is the Loch Ness monster, Sasquach, fairies and leprechauns.

In light of the apparently never-ending "alternative facts" presented in many PGP posts, even when confronted by real-universe facts, here is a thought:

From the beginning of this case, the posts of the guilters have shown contempt for or ignorance of judicial due process and defense rights as recognized under Italian law and the European Convention of Human Rights, while they have abstained from fundamental logical reasoning and fact-based debate.

It is futile to expect any change in the positions or specious arguments of the guilters, because those positions and arguments are founded on bias.

 

[acbytesla]

Hey! Leave the Sasquatch alone!

I love Squatch. He was the mascot on the NBA SuperSonics.

Also, did you see the Sasquatch movie Harry and the Hendersons Bill starring John Lithgow? Parts of it was filmed in front of my best friends house and a a girl (Peggy Platt) I knew pretty well had a role in the movie.

 

[Vixen]

In light of the apparently never-ending "alternative facts" presented in many PGP posts, even when confronted by real-universe facts, here is a thought:

From the beginning of this case, the posts of the guilters have shown contempt for or ignorance of judicial due process and defense rights as recognized under Italian law and the European Convention of Human Rights, while they have abstained from fundamental logical reasoning and fact-based debate.

It is futile to expect any change in the positions or specious arguments of the guilters, because those positions and arguments are founded on bias.

Here we go with the juvenile Justin Bieber-fan-type insults.

 

[Stacyhs]

From Florence:



Not even Raff could give her an alibi.

Still not a quote from what you stated.

 

[acbytesla]

Here we go with the juvenile Justin Bieber-fan-type insults.

Them's not insults. Just the facts mam.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, you have still not answered my questions:

1. So you stand by your statements that "Battistelli reported she was calm and laid back" and that it took them "TWENTY MINUTES to walk the five minutes to the cottage" despite the facts that :
1)you could provide no testimony from Battistelli saying such and
2) the telephone calls prove that they were back at the cottage within 13 minutes on the outside?

(By the way, the Marasca report estimated the time to walk between Sollecito's and Amanda's at TEN minutes, not five.)

It's a pity Amanda contacted NO-ONE. She was present at the murder scene yet it took Filomena's friend to break down the door, over twelve hours later.

And then Amanda had the nerve to write to all the world, with the subject header:

'how i found my roommate murdered'.

Exactly what part of your first post above was a "quote" from the court? Making stuff up again, are ya?

 

[TruthCalls]

It's a pity Amanda contacted NO-ONE. She was present at the murder scene yet it took Filomena's friend to break down the door, over twelve hours later.

And then Amanda had the nerve to write to all the world, with the subject header:

'how i found my roommate murdered'.

This entire post makes no sense.

"It's a pity Amanda contacted NO-ONE"??? You mean, other than Raffaele (who then contacted his sister), Filomena and her mother.

"She was present at the murder scene yet it took Filomena's friend to break down the door..." Um, it wasn't a murder scene and Raffaele had already tried to break through the door.

"...over twelve hours later." Amanda returned to the cottage around 10:00 and Meredith was discovered at 13:00, so where is this twelve hours coming from?

 

[LondonJohn]

This entire post makes no sense.

"It's a pity Amanda contacted NO-ONE"??? You mean, other than Raffaele (who then contacted his sister), Filomena and her mother.

"She was present at the murder scene yet it took Filomena's friend to break down the door..." Um, it wasn't a murder scene and Raffaele had already tried to break through the door.

"...over twelve hours later." Amanda returned to the cottage around 10:00 and Meredith was discovered at 13:00, so where is this twelve hours coming from?

Ah no...... Vixen's starting from the (fatuous) assumption that Knox was present at the cottage at the actual time of the murder*, and thus knew that Kercher was lying dead behind that door from the time of the murder on the evening of 1st November onwards. So when, for example, Vixen says Knox "contacted no-one", she's implying that Knox contacted nobody at any point following the murder (of which, in Vixen's world, Knox had first-hand knowledge), and so on. In Vixen's world, Knox was carrying around the knowledge that Kercher was lying dead behind her bedroom door all through the night of 1st/2nd November and the entire morning of 2nd November, and her acts on the morning of 2nd November were just a charade based on the pretence that she (Knox) didn't know what had happened to Kercher.


* Of course Vixen probably bases this phoney assumption on the fact that the Marasca SC ruling (and, in turn, the ruling in the Sollecito compensation hearing) took note of the settled ruling made by the courts in Knox's criminal slander conviction, which ludicrously concluded that since Knox had, in those statements from 5th/6th November, stated that she was at the cottage at the time of the murder, this constituted some sort of proof that she really was at the cottage at the time of the murder.

Because the courts couldn't conceive of any plausible reason why Knox would have said it if it wasn't factually true.

Because the courts couldn't conceive that, just perhaps, the police interrogators had virtually instructed Knox to tell them that she had met Lumumba and gone to the cottage with him (including threats of severe consequences if she didn't tell them this "truth", and promises of far better outcomes if she did tell them this "truth").... and when Knox told them she couldn't remember any of that having happened, they told her she had probably suffered from traumatic amnesia (replete with a handy illustrative anecdote from interpreter additional interrogator Donnino).

The courts' bone-headed "reasoning" on this point reminds me, once again, of Massei's extraordinarily inept "reasoning" on the Nara Capezzali earwitness testimony - that the "scream of death" must factually have occurred just as Capezzali recounted in her testimony, otherwise why would/should she be saying she'd heard it in this way....?

 

[Vixen]

Ah no...... Vixen's starting from the (fatuous) assumption that Knox was present at the cottage at the actual time of the murder*, and thus knew that Kercher was lying dead behind that door from the time of the murder on the evening of 1st November onwards. So when, for example, Vixen says Knox "contacted no-one", she's implying that Knox contacted nobody at any point following the murder (of which, in Vixen's world, Knox had first-hand knowledge), and so on. In Vixen's world, Knox was carrying around the knowledge that Kercher was lying dead behind her bedroom door all through the night of 1st/2nd November and the entire morning of 2nd November, and her acts on the morning of 2nd November were just a charade based on the pretence that she (Knox) didn't know what had happened to Kercher.


* Of course Vixen probably bases this phoney assumption on the fact that the Marasca SC ruling (and, in turn, the ruling in the Sollecito compensation hearing) took note of the settled ruling made by the courts in Knox's criminal slander conviction, which ludicrously concluded that since Knox had, in those statements from 5th/6th November, stated that she was at the cottage at the time of the murder, this constituted some sort of proof that she really was at the cottage at the time of the murder. Because the courts couldn't conceive of any plausible reason why Knox would have said it if it wasn't factually true.
Because the courts couldn't conceive that, just perhaps, the police interrogators had virtually instructed Knox to tell them that she had met Lumumba and gone to the cottage with him (including threats of severe consequences if she didn't tell them this "truth", and promises of far better outcomes if she did tell them this "truth").... and when Knox told them she couldn't remember any of that having happened, they told her she had probably suffered from traumatic amnesia (replete with a handy illustrative anecdote from interpreter additional interrogator Donnino).

The courts' bone-headed "reasoning" on this point reminds me, once again, of Massei's extraordinarily inept "reasoning" on the Nara Capezzali earwitness testimony - that the "scream of death" must factually have occurred just as Capezzali recounted in her testimony, otherwise why would/should she be saying she'd heard it in this way....?

...and backed up with other evidence: phone logs, luminol footprints, mixed DNA, and the myriad of lies.

 

[Numbers]

Ah no...... Vixen's starting from the (fatuous) assumption that Knox was present at the cottage at the actual time of the murder*, and thus knew that Kercher was lying dead behind that door from the time of the murder on the evening of 1st November onwards. So when, for example, Vixen says Knox "contacted no-one", she's implying that Knox contacted nobody at any point following the murder (of which, in Vixen's world, Knox had first-hand knowledge), and so on. In Vixen's world, Knox was carrying around the knowledge that Kercher was lying dead behind her bedroom door all through the night of 1st/2nd November and the entire morning of 2nd November, and her acts on the morning of 2nd November were just a charade based on the pretence that she (Knox) didn't know what had happened to Kercher.


* Of course Vixen probably bases this phoney assumption on the fact that the Marasca SC ruling (and, in turn, the ruling in the Sollecito compensation hearing) took note of the settled ruling made by the courts in Knox's criminal slander conviction, which ludicrously concluded that since Knox had, in those statements from 5th/6th November, stated that she was at the cottage at the time of the murder, this constituted some sort of proof that she really was at the cottage at the time of the murder.
Because the courts couldn't conceive of any plausible reason why Knox would have said it if it wasn't factually true.

Because the courts couldn't conceive that, just perhaps, the police interrogators had virtually instructed Knox to tell them that she had met Lumumba and gone to the cottage with him (including threats of severe consequences if she didn't tell them this "truth", and promises of far better outcomes if she did tell them this "truth").... and when Knox told them she couldn't remember any of that having happened, they told her she had probably suffered from traumatic amnesia (replete with a handy illustrative anecdote from interpreter additional interrogator Donnino).

The courts' bone-headed "reasoning" on this point reminds me, once again, of Massei's extraordinarily inept "reasoning" on the Nara Capezzali earwitness testimony - that the "scream of death" must factually have occurred just as Capezzali recounted in her testimony, otherwise why would/should she be saying she'd heard it in this way....?

As I have posted before, I think this statement is overly broad. It is the Nencini court motivation report reasoning that the Marasca CSC panel is commenting upon in the relevant section of their motivation report, and not that of the Hellmann court, which was the court which convicted Knox of calunnia. The relevant wording of Section 9.4.1 of the Marasca CSC panel MR is:

"On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard] is certainly acceptable concerning this part of the accused’s account, ...."

In other words, the Marasca CSC panel does not take issue with the Nencini court MR on its conclusion that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder based on Nencini's reconstruction - based on the (objectively questionable) evidence from Knox's (coerced) statements. The Marasca CSC panel goes on to state, however, that even if that presence were to be accepted, it is not a proof that Knox had participated in the murder/rape of Kercher, as they had pointed out in Section 9.3 that there were no biological traces of Knox in the murder room. However, the Marasca MR does not reason that Knox's presence in the cottage at the time of the murder is a certainty, but because it avoids a discussion of illegal behavior by the police, it does not critically examine the events of the interrogation or the Hellmann court reasoning on calunnia.

The Marasca CSC panel rejected and annulled the Nencini court verdict of aggravated calunnia, showing very clearly that they did not accept the opinion of Nencini that Knox had named Lumumba in an attempt to protect Rudy Guede or herself from responsibility or blame in the crime. Marasca instead reinstated the Hellmann court judgment and sentence of "simple" calunnia. This indicates that the Marasca CSC panel did not conclude that Knox had any motive to advance her material interests or that of anyone else in naming Lumumba; a conclusion that such a motive existed on her part would have justified a judgment of "aggravating circumstances".

 

[Bill Williams]

...and backed up with other evidence: phone logs, luminol footprints, mixed DNA, and the myriad of lies.

.... which when assessed in total reveals the result of an amnesiac investigation and suspect-centred lower-judicial renderings, meaning that courts like Nencini's should have acquitted.

So concluded the Marasca/Bruno panel of the ISC.

Two years ago.

 

[Wilson85]

Amanda leaves the house after she finds the front door open (door had a defect), the blood stains in the bathroom and the feces in the toilet.
She then ask Filomena and Rafaele for advise. She try to call Meredith but call to both phones is unanswered.

Then she should have immediately called the police.

To report some blood drops in the bathroom sink, an unflushed toilet and that the defective door was open?

 

[acbytesla]

This entire post makes no sense.

"It's a pity Amanda contacted NO-ONE"??? You mean, other than Raffaele (who then contacted his sister), Filomena and her mother.

"She was present at the murder scene yet it took Filomena's friend to break down the door..." Um, it wasn't a murder scene and Raffaele had already tried to break through the door.

"...over twelve hours later." Amanda returned to the cottage around 10:00 and Meredith was discovered at 13:00, so where is this twelve hours coming from?

It really is pitiful and ridiculous that Vixen keeps repeating this obviously absurd falsehood. Oooops, my bad, that is all Vixen does.

 

[Bill Williams]

As I have posted before, I think this statement is overly broad. It is the Nencini court motivation report reasoning that the Marasca CSC panel is commenting upon in the relevant section of their motivation report, and not that of the Hellmann court, which was the court which convicted Knox of calunnia. The relevant wording of Section 9.4.1 of the Marasca CSC panel MR is:

"On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard] is certainly acceptable concerning this part of the accused’s account, ...."

In other words, the Marasca CSC panel does not take issue with the Nencini court MR on its conclusion that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder based on Nencini's reconstruction - based on the (objectively questionable) evidence from Knox's (coerced) statements. The Marasca CSC panel goes on to state, however, that even if that presence were to be accepted, it is not a proof that Knox had participated in the murder/rape of Kercher, as they had pointed out in Section 9.3 that there were no biological traces of Knox in the murder room. However, the Marasca MR does not reason that Knox's presence in the cottage at the time of the murder is a certainty, but because it avoids a discussion of illegal behavior by the police, it does not critically examine the events of the interrogation or the Hellmann court reasoning on calunnia.

The Marasca CSC panel rejected and annulled the Nencini court verdict of aggravated calunnia, showing very clearly that they did not accept the opinion of Nencini that Knox had named Lumumba in an attempt to protect Rudy Guede or herself from responsibility or blame in the crime. Marasca instead reinstated the Hellmann court judgment and sentence of "simple" calunnia. This indicates that the Marasca CSC panel did not conclude that Knox had any motive to advance her material interests or that of anyone else in naming Lumumba; a conclusion that such a motive existed on her part would have justified a judgment of "aggravating circumstances".

Not entirely.

The thesis of the Marasca/Bruno report is that at the end of the day there is the insurmountable barrier to built posed by **the fact** that there is no sign of either RS or AK inside the murderroom itself.

Once that is stated, M/B them summarize the "facts" which Nencini believed he had before his court. M/B go through them all, with a sub-conclusion:

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.​

"(I)f all the above is accepted". M/B is saying that if Nencini really did believe that Knox sluffed blood from her hands, this still doesn't put her in the murderrom.

And further it would also put her in the cottage "after the crime" had been committed, with no timeframe entertained by M/B just-when this "after" was.

Most certainly Knox was in the cottage from 10:30 am (following) on Nov 2nd.

I agree with London John here. Far from that section of Marasca being an agreement with the so-called "damning" evidence, it is further proof that no one knows, esp. "knows to the point of convicting someone (other than Rudy Guede) of a crime.

 

[Numbers]

Not entirely.

The thesis of the Marasca/Bruno report is that at the end of the day there is the insurmountable barrier to built posed by **the fact** that there is no sign of either RS or AK inside the murderroom itself.

Once that is stated, M/B them summarize the "facts" which Nencini believed he had before his court. M/B go through them all, with a sub-conclusion:

​

"(I)f all the above is accepted". M/B is saying that if Nencini really did believe that Knox sluffed blood from her hands, this still doesn't put her in the murderrom.

And further it would also put her in the cottage "after the crime" had been committed, with no timeframe entertained by M/B just-when this "after" was.

Most certainly Knox was in the cottage from 10:30 am (following) on Nov 2nd.

I agree with London John here. Far from that section of Marasca being an agreement with the so-called "damning" evidence, it is further proof that no one knows, esp. "knows to the point of convicting someone (other than Rudy Guede) of a crime.

You may have missed this clause in my post:

"the Marasca MR does not reason that Knox's presence in the cottage at the time of the murder is a certainty"

and in fact, the Marasca MR is absolutely certain that Knox was not in the murder room, and furthermore was neither protecting Guede nor herself by her (coerced) statements against Lumumba. They are not in agreement with Nencini, but don't dispute that Nencini's conclusion from Knox's statements during the (coercive) interrogation that she was in the cottage at the time of the murder. I believe that the Marasca MR does not agree that she had contact with Kercher's blood. What the Marasca MR does not discuss is the possibility that Knox's statements during the interrogation were indeed coerced, as she maintained throughout the trials. The point is that the Italian courts tend to protect officials such as the police who have committed, or are alleged to have committed, official misconduct.

 

[acbytesla]

In other words, the Marasca CSC panel does not take issue with the Nencini court MR on its conclusion that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder based on Nencini's reconstruction - based on the (objectively questionable) evidence from Knox's (coerced) statements. The Marasca CSC panel goes on to state, however, that even if that presence were to be accepted, it is not a proof that Knox had participated in the murder/rape of Kercher, as they had pointed out in Section 9.3 that there were no biological traces of Knox in the murder room.

I'm sorry, it all comes down to the words 'even if'. Marasca is not confirming or rejecting the idea that Knox was there during the murder (which I dont believe for a second that court believes). It's a sidestep and like Italy did in rejecting Raffaele's financial claim it is the refusal of the system to be accountable. Marasca says Nencini is justified in arguing that Amanda was there because Amanda in her interrogation said she was there. Never mind that a previous CSC court ruled that the interrgation wasn't proper. How convenient. But that is VERY DIFFERENT then saying Amanda was there.

My father probably said to me a hundred times that ' If' is a word contrary to fact. You might as well ignore everything that follows those words.