• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
One correction - they didn't "preface" that with "even if", they used the if at the concluding summary of what they'd assembled, saying that even if one concedes the above is all true, none of it convicts the pair, and as such Nencini erred judicially with his verdict.
Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference.
 
Bill Williams said:
Of course the Florence court said that. What you're purposely conflating is the claim that the acquitting court agrees.

In the M/B report you continually skip over their use of "hypothesis" and "if".

But nice try to move the goalposts like that. It's a mystery why you think no one will notice.
Click to expand...

The quote is not from Marasca, it is from Martuscelli and Masi from February this year.

Face it Bill.
 
Stacyhs said:
Vixen said:
Stacyhs said:
Stacyhs said:
Vixen said:
Umm..no. ALL the courts, accepted that Raff had called 112 BEFORE the postal police arrived. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

Massei used a scream that could not be established as coming from Meredith or even the cottage. He ignored the contradictory evidence in order to fit the TOD to the scream.

Yep. So that Amanda would not be called into work of things picked up. Sheesh.

When Amanda and Raff found the broken window, they were a little bit busy looking through the house, trying to break down the door and calling the police. Calling Filomena was not top priority.

No, you cannot see the broken window through the outside wooden shutter that was partially closed and concealed the broken glass.

When you look at something through guilt colored glasses, that's all you see.





That was my response to your false statement regarding the arrival of the postal police.

Nah, not California either.
Click to expand...

Clearly somewhere hot where you need three showers a day, like Amanda did - although by all accounts she was good at dodging the bath at all other times, apart from the murder night.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hellmann was not "drummed out". He states that he received hostility from certain reactionary colleagues within the judiciary, and chose to retire at that point (and he was at retirement age). So, y'know......

(and AICPA is an organisation, not a qualification. CPA is a qualification. But that's reserved for proper accountants....)
 
Bill Williams said:
One correction - they didn't "preface" that with "even if", they used the if at the concluding summary of what they'd assembled, saying that even if one concedes the above is all true, none of it convicts the pair, and as such Nencini erred judicially with his verdict.
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation. By your own account they annulled it because of a 'flawed investigation' (even though the lower courts made no such finding) and explained this as being because Nencini accidently wrote it was Raff's DNA on the murder weapon, when any fule kno' it was Amanda's.
 
Vixen said:
My degree in psychology came before my chartered accountancy designation (for LJ, this includes AICPA).

The study you quote is not like for like. These are stimuli presented to subjects, the topic being short-term memory.

However, we are not talking about short-term noises, words, conversations, random beeps. We are talking about a 'harrowing scream'.

Can you see the difference in impact and proportionality. The aural part of the brain is one of the oldest, right at the back (from memory), which indicates it is a deeply instinctive survival mechanism. A scream from a human, has the same effect as a baying animal or squawking bird warning of the presence of a predator. The autonomous nervous system reaction is one of fear, fight or flight. Ms Capezelli felt the scream through her whole being, as did Amanda, who claims she was reduced to crouching in the kitchen, as did Rudy, who came running out of the bathroom (he claims) with his trousers around his ankles.

Conversely, witnesses do not claim to have heard a 'harrowing scream' unless they did.
Click to expand...

What a load of horse apples.. what a drama queen. Heartrending, harrowing scream felt through her whole being. It would all be rather impressive if not for the fact that it was scientifically proven that from her apartment, with the windows closed, it is almost impossible to hear a scream from the cottage - and that would be with good hearing; Nara was hard of hearing. The scream was so harrowing, so heartrending that she didn't even bother to mention it for almost a month. And then she testifies she heard it on Halloween. When questioned she first affirmed it was Halloween and then said she actually wasn't sure what day it was.

We probably shouldn't get into the testimony of the other people just outside the cottage during this time frame who said they didn't hear a scream.

I noticed you still haven't admitted you used the wrong symbol for minutes.

I noticed you still haven't mentioned what the point is about blood drying in 30 minutes.
 
Vixen said:
Few people go to the police when they hear a scream (at least not in Seattle, according to acbytesla). I've heard loud screams from a neighbour (which btw I still recall today) when I lived in built-up Notting Hill, which concerned me, and then I decided it must be someone having a baby, or something.

Going to the police is cultural.
Click to expand...

You're wildly speculating again. You're also putting words in my mouth. I challenge you to find where I wrote anything even remotely similar to that.

What I don't do is pretend that I know something when I don't. I have absolutely no idea what people in Seattle report to the police and never suggested in any way that I did. I also don't know what the citizens of Perugia do in such circumstances.

But I do know this for a fact Vixen. You don't have a damn clue either. This is more crap out of your backside. Either back up your statements with proof or stop pretending to be a know it all.
 
Vixen said:
That's your interpretation. By your own account they annulled it because of a 'flawed investigation' (even though the lower courts made no such finding) and explained this as being because Nencini accidently wrote it was Raff's DNA on the murder weapon, when any fule kno' it was Amanda's.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that you believe filling a post with strawman claims is persuasive.

The lower "courts" did make such findings. Hellmann's court comes to mind.

You've defended Nencini before calling his gaff a typo. Great. You defend typos in legal documents where people's liberty is on the line.

We now know who we're dealing with. Add this to you believing you're defending the Kercher's dignity by making slutty comments about preteens.
 
Vixen said:
John Kercher wrote a moving book about his dear beautiful much missed daughter, who was snatched away by reckless pigs.
Click to expand...

Mr Kercher's book was a touching memorial. He loved his daughter very much.

But he promoted evidence that simply did not exist.
 
Bill Williams said:
It's amazing that you believe filling a post with strawman claims is persuasive.

The lower "courts" did make such findings. Hellmann's court comes to mind.

You've defended Nencini before calling his gaff a typo. Great. You defend typos in legal documents where people's liberty is on the line.

We now know who we're dealing with. Add this to you believing you're defending the Kercher's dignity by making slutty comments about preteens.
Click to expand...

That's untrue. Citation, please.

Once again you are confabulating Stacyhs' quotes with mine.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hellmann was not "drummed out". He states that he received hostility from certain reactionary colleagues within the judiciary, and chose to retire at that point (and he was at retirement age). So, y'know......

(and AICPA is an organisation, not a qualification. CPA is a qualification. But that's reserved for proper accountants....)
Click to expand...

He was pensioned off.

(it really sticks in your craw, eh?)
 
Vixen said:
That's untrue. Citation, please.

Once again you are confabulating Stacyhs' quotes with mine.
Click to expand...

You criticized them for skimpy clothing. You know what you said. Imagine the Kercher's horror when someone does that while claiming to defend their dignity.
 
Bill Williams said:
Of course the Florence court said that. What you're purposely conflating is the claim that the acquitting court agrees.

In the M/B report you continually skip over their use of "hypothesis" and "if".

But nice try to move the goalposts like that. It's a mystery why you think no one will notice.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the rather important point that, in the case of the alleged presence of Knox in the cottage at the time of the murder, the ONLY reason this ever found its way into judicial rulings in respect of Knox's (and Sollecito's) trial on the murder charges is because of other rulings in respect of Knox's criminal slander charges, which were (unlawfully*) imported into the trying of the murder-related charges.

And, in turn, the ONLY evidence underpinning the "reasoning" in Knox's criminal slander trial verdicts that she was present in the apartment at the time of the murder is because this is what Knox stated in her first two statements. And leaving aside for a moment the inability of the courts that tried the criminal slander charge to see how it could come to be that Knox might have made that statement without actually having been present at the cottage, the additional layer of illogicality here is this: the entire premise of Knox's criminal slander conviction was that she had lied about Lumumba being involved in the murder. And the settled verdict on "why" she lied (which will soon be addressed in excoriating terms by the ECHR....) is that she thought that naming him would "take the pressure" off her, and enable the interrogation to end. So on the one hand, the court deems that Knox told a deliberate lie (about Lumumba's participation in the murder) to end the interrogation pressure, but at the same time she was telling the truth about her own presence in the cottage at the time of the murder!

One final point on this: it was never the job of the courts trying the criminal slander charge to make any judgement on Knox's presence (let alone participation) in the murder. Rather, their sole remit was to determine whether there was evidence to prove BARD that Knox had, in the interrogation and subsequent statements, intentionally falsely accused Lumumba of participation in the murder. But yet again, the courts apparently could not help themselves from going beyond their remit in this "determination of the truth" fetish. Of course, this was horribly (and unlawfully) compounded by the shocking decision to try the criminal slander charge alongside the murder-related charges, in the same courts and in front of the very same triers of fact. Hideous.


* And, as many have pointed out here, it was - and remains - wholly unlawful for any judge to use verdicts and motivations related to Knox's criminal slander charge in the trying of Knox's murder-related charges, since the criminal slander trial used evidence that was judicially excluded from trying the murder-related charges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom