The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

Yes, I am familiar, and I am also familiar with the real properties of presumptive tests and with the actual evidence of the case.

Then provide the test that showed the footprints were in blood. I've provided the test that proved they were not.

This is the crux of your problem, Mach. You can't because it doesn't exist.

 

[bagels]

We had a historical picture of what happened indeed: there is crushing evidence from an array of multiple sources that Knox, Sollecito and Guede all three together killed Meredith Kercher. There is evidence of every kind and that has nothing to do with cops nor with alleged "bad conclusions".
ANot the cops but the courts of merits, that is those that assessed evidence, found the three guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And Knox is still definitively guilty of voluntarily obstructing justice.

Whenever you talk about the case your bias is transparent, in that you are exactly the type of person who ignores evidence and scenario, and instead points at find a guilty party based on an alleged "profile".

I don't have a bias. I have a simple observation of a bunch of facts and evidence and a straight forward and very simple conclusion. A burglar broke into cottage, Meredith came home and surprised him, he murdered and sexually assaulted her. The police had a bad initial hunch and compounded that into wrongful arrests and eventually convictions. But it was corrected and now it's over.

You have a bias. A need for the American girl to be guilty. A need I don't have. So you try and try to make it work, but in your (and others) thousands and thousands of posts on this case you've never connected Knox with Guede, you've never put together a coherent basic narrative of what happened. I don't blame you, it's not possible.

This is indeed a racist offence.

Don't take it personally, nobody's perfect. Look at our current president lol

 

[bagels]

As you can se, the whole of your reasoning is based on your own assessment of Hellmann's verdict as "sensible" (while instead, btw, it is absolute garbage, from multiple points of view, legal, factual and logical).

Some of these things might be falsifiable. For example, we could find a completely neutral observer that couldn't care less about the case and give them some choice passages from the Hellmann report. If they think it is garbage reasoning, you may be onto something. I doubt it though, I've never know anyone to flip out over Hellmann except dyed in the wool PGP. Now passages from Massei, or worse, Nencini on the other hand...lol

Just think that even on a very simplified macro-level, Hellmann is a verdict that convicted Knox of a crime which requires a malicious intent.

Hellmann's reasoning for convicting Knox of calunnia is bad yes, he wasn't perfect. IIRC he may have mentioned something about regretting that conviction, especially if he knew what was going to happen at cassation, but I don't remember. Maybe you know.

On the rest, it is manifest that you can't mend your own egregious contradiction. You have a theory that says that one decision was the politically convenient one, and that the opposite decision was the politically convenient one too.

I don't really have a theory. I have an excuse. Maybe Chieffi is just an idiot?

 

[Numbers]

One possible reason for a delay in the ECHR concluding a judgment after a case is communicated to a respondent State is that the ECHR Registry attempts to broker a "friendly settlement" between the applicant and the State, and this can take considerable time and, of course, is often not successful.

In a friendly settlement, the State admits to having violated the applicant's Convention rights and offers compensation ("just satisfaction") of an amount that the applicant agrees acceptable, and the ECHR agrees that the admission of a violation of rights by the State and its offer of just satisfaction satisfies the protection of human rights.

The ECHR case of Knox v. Italy may or may not be at the stage where the potential of a friendly settlement is being discussed. It is interesting that Italy has agreed to a number of friendly settlements over the past 3 years, according to ECHR statistics. This information on Italy's approach to friendly settlements differs from a post on ISF (in 2014, IIRC) by a pro-guilt poster claiming that Italy never agrees to friendly settlements.

Here's some statistics on friendly settlements, with Italy compared to other western European democracies* of about the same size population or larger:

Friendly settlements before the ECHR by:

Year......2014....2015....2016

Italy.........9.........9.......279

France......4.........1..........2

Germany...2.........0..........4

UK..........12.........1..........0

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=
Link: PDF {ECHR} Analysis of Statistics 2016

*Some other countries had a large number of friendly settlements in 2016: Turkey 103; Greece 146; Romania 352; Russia 354; and Ukraine 456.

 

[Vixen]

One possible reason for a delay in the ECHR concluding a judgment after a case is communicated to a respondent State is that the ECHR Registry attempts to broker a "friendly settlement" between the applicant and the State, and this can take considerable time and, of course, is often not successful.

In a friendly settlement, the State admits to having violated the applicant's Convention rights and offers compensation ("just satisfaction") of an amount that the applicant agrees acceptable, and the ECHR agrees that the admission of a violation of rights by the State and its offer of just satisfaction satisfies the protection of human rights.

The ECHR case of Knox v. Italy may or may not be at the stage where the potential of a friendly settlement is being discussed. It is interesting that Italy has agreed to a number of friendly settlements over the past 3 years, according to ECHR statistics. This information on Italy's approach to friendly settlements differs from a post on ISF (in 2014, IIRC) by a pro-guilt poster claiming that Italy never agrees to friendly settlements.

Here's some statistics on friendly settlements, with Italy compared to other western European democracies* of about the same size population or larger:

Friendly settlements before the ECHR by:

Year......2014....2015....2016

Italy.........9.........9.......279

France......4.........1..........2

Germany...2.........0..........4

UK..........12.........1..........0

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=
Link: PDF {ECHR} Analysis of Statistics 2016

*Some other countries had a large number of friendly settlements in 2016: Turkey 103; Greece 146; Romania 352; Russia 354; and Ukraine 456.

I looked this up and the average settlement is just €3,500.

Knox will have been told this by her lawyers. The whole aim of ECHR in her case is as a publicity stunt, and not the money.

 

[Stacyhs]

I looked this up and the average settlement is just €3,500.

Knox will have been told this by her lawyers. The whole aim of ECHR in her case is as a publicity stunt, and not the money.

Vixen, another personal opinion unsupported by any evidence is irrelevant. Stating things as fact when they are no such thing is a waste of time.


But I do agree it's not about the money.

Once again, please cite where Knox and Sollecito stated they "slept soundly from 10-ish to 11-ish" the night of Nov 1/Nov 2.

 

[Vixen]

I see you cannot even admit the similarities. No surprise there.But it is what happened regarding what I pointed out.

AK and RS did not claim to have lost their memory of what happened on Nov 1 except while under interrogation on Nov 5/6. They succumbed to the same tactics as the Norfolk Four did.

"Then, confused by police theories and interrogations, Dick started to believe in is own guilt. He implicated another sailor, Eric Wilson..."

Amanda:

"The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real."

Dick: Ford is saying I'm lying. He's starting to get ticked off. He's raising his voice. He keeps coming back with: We know you were there. We can prove you were there."

AK and RS never said they "slept solidly from 11:00-ish to 10:00-ish next morning." You made that up. Something you claim you never do.

AK testimony:



From Raffaele's statement to police on Nov 6:



Notice he said "we woke up". That does not mean he didn't wake up earlier and then go back to sleep the too.

In his book, RS also states:



In his book he also mentions having woken up several times during the night and even listening to music and checking his emails.

Please quote and cite where either of them claimed to have "slept solidly between 11-ish and 10-ish". Either that or admit you made it up.

You have no grasp of chronology. The books were written in retrospect AFTER evidence was produced in court that adrenaline-fueled grunge was played at 5:30 am and Raff's phone switched on to receive message around the same time.

Of course their books will offer the unwary reader an 'explanation' along the lines of 'would, could, should, not quite sure, I can't remember now, but...'


Given the damning evidence they deliberately lied to police about their movements.

They did indeed claim to have forgotten what they did on the night of the murder, with Knox claiming she only got her memory back in jail, after seeing a nun. (No indication as to her age or state of her eyes.)

This led to an obsession with the song, 'Let it be'. In court she was asked about her amnesia problem, and had to be asked more than once, as presumably, she immediately forgot what the question was.

Raff also had a faulty memory. Florence Court, Feb 2017, writes:

On 6 November 2007 Sollecito was placed under arrest by the PM [Prosecutor], and on 8
November 2007 at the interrogation by the GIP of the Perugia Court regarding preventive
detention, he changed yet again his version of his and Knox’ movements on the evening
and night of 1-2 November 2007, saying he had stayed with her, in her house, until 18:00,
he had gone with her into the city centre until 20:00-20:30, after which they had both gone
to his house where they had eaten together, even though he didn't recall in detail, and
then she “as it was Thursday had to go to work at Le Chic...I remember that she told me
later that Le Chic was closed but I seem to remember that she went out anyway”, but after
the judge asked him to remember more accurately the rest of the evening added “I don't
remember...and because anyway that evening I had smoked quite a lot of cannabis, other
evenings, from the 31st onwards the evenings I had passed in much the same way, I did
more or less the same things” and even, when asked if Knox had gone out, replied “I'm
not sure...given that the evening before she had gone out and other evenings I don't
remember exactly”. He then went on to recount details of a broken sink pipe, to have been
helped by Knox to mop up the spill, and then they had both gone to bed, but he didn't
remember at what time. He said that “For sure I worked on the computer” but when
asked what he had been working at he said “I really can't remember because everyday I
am on the computer. I don't remember what I did that day”.

The pair tried to blame their lies on smoking a joint.

 

[Vixen]

Is there anyone on planet earth that would believe Amanda Knox heard Meredith scream, but that she is also innocent of murder?

Only a PIP. And even they don't really believe it.

 

[Vixen]

Why then does M/B use the words "hypothetical" and "alleged" so much? These have been listed before in this thread. You choose to ignore them.

It really doesn't matter. It will be a figure of speech, as the role of a court is not to 'make hypotheses' but to ascertain the facts.

The merits trial is a fact-finding court and those facts found cannot be disputed, except on a point of law.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why then does M/B use the words "hypothetical" and "alleged" so much? These have been listed before in this thread. You choose to ignore them.

M/B uses the word ipotizzato, which does not mean "hypothetical". The word ipotizzato is another word that doesn't exist in common language. It's legalese, it's technical jargon.
It is a neutral word, in the sense that it does not express any position on the part of the judge or lawyer within the statement in which it is used. An accusation, a charge or the evidence of a crime, if it refers to a crime which has been identified as specific or to a specific person, is called ipotesi di reato. Judges never talk about crimes, they always talk about hypotheses of crime. Like it or not, this is the talk. It does not mean that the judge agrees with the hypotheses, nor that he disagrees with it, neither that he thinks that the crime or evidence is certain, nor that he thinks that it is uncertain. It does not put any distance between the judge and the hypothesis reported. A kind of politically correct of judiciaries which is actually meant as technically correct. It is in fact meant to express the absolute neutrality of the judge within a specific phrase, his being external to it, in the sense that it expresses the point that that when a judiciary uses the terms ipotizzato or ipotesi di reato, within that phrase he is reporting something while not mentioning his own position at all. I mean, no position at all can be inferred from the word ipotizzato. Not a judge's belief, and not a doubt either. We don't know if he agrees, or if he disagrees. It is a technical word designed to avoid any possibility of inference from it regarding the person who reports. It has become a normal reporting jargon.

The use of the word ipotizzato is normal in all sentences, both guilty and non guilty ones. Obviously the use of the word in some phrases does not change a iota about the fact that B/M states certain things as factual findings. I don't see how you may think you could deny B/M statements. There's no way you could deny them.

 

[Vixen]

As always, you provide no citation for any of what you claim. There's no point in reading these posts unless you provide citations.

Do read Amanda's Prison Diary where she spells out she can't remember ... until she saw a nun, who came to visit her.

Also with regards to memory, we can see Amanda is full of **** from her own court testimony.

False memories? Or blatant lies...?

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen;11877647]

You have no grasp of chronology. The books were written in retrospect AFTER evidence was produced in court that adrenaline-fueled grunge was played at 5:30 am and Raff's phone switched on to receive message around the same time.

Of course their books will offer the unwary reader an 'explanation' along the lines of 'would, could, should, not quite sure, I can't remember now, but...'

I only mentioned one book, not "books". I also only mentioned one quote from Sollecito's book while the others are all from the interrogation of Nov 5/6, the memorial given within hours of the interrogation and court testimony. But I note you ignore that and focus solely on the one book quote.

Given the damning evidence they deliberately lied to police about their movements.

Once again you are giving your opinion as you have no evidence that they "deliberately lied". You are simply projecting your beliefs onto them.

They did indeed claim to have forgotten what they did on the night of the murder, with Knox claiming she only got her memory back in jail, after seeing a nun. (No indication as to her age or state of her eyes.)

Reading comprehension problems since I said:

AK and RS did not claim to have lost their memory of what happened on Nov 1 except while under interrogation on Nov 5/6.

The quote you provided from the Florence court 2017 is what Sollecito said during the Nov 6 police interrogation. As I said while under interrogation.

This led to an obsession with the song, 'Let it be'. In court she was asked about her amnesia problem, and had to be asked more than once, as presumably, she immediately forgot what the question was.

Again, you are giving your opinion which means nothing evidentially. Additionally, this is from testimony, not her book.

Raff also had a faulty memory. Florence Court, Feb 2017, writes:

See above regarding this which was from statements taken during the interrogation which is what I said in the first place.

The pair tried to blame their lies on smoking a joint.

No, they blamed their amnesia on smoking weed, among other reasons. Please try to limit your word choice to the facts, not to your bias. Of course, the fact that smoking weed does, indeed, affect short term memory is simply ignored.

According to Kolansky and Moore in their book "Effects of Marijuana on Adolescents and Young Adults", symptoms of smoking include "mental confusion, slow time sense, and difficulty with recent memory". Or do you deny this?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, another personal opinion unsupported by any evidence is irrelevant. Stating things as fact when they are no such thing is a waste of time.


But I do agree it's not about the money.

Once again, please cite where Knox and Sollecito stated they "slept soundly from 10-ish to 11-ish" the night of Nov 1/Nov 2.

Do read the court documents.

What about this? In Amanda's own words.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't have a bias. I have a simple observation of a bunch of facts and evidence and a straight forward and very simple conclusion. A burglar broke into cottage, Meredith came home and surprised him, he murdered and sexually assaulted her. The police had a bad initial hunch and compounded that into wrongful arrests and eventually convictions. But it was corrected and now it's over.

You have a bias because you pick some facts - by the way, also quite bending them - and you ignore completely some others. In fact, you ignore the almost whole of them. Your not seeing things - or seeing things crooked - is systematic.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do read the court documents.

What about this? In Amanda's own words.

LOL! Really? That's what you provide to support that she said she "slept soundly" all night long? She says she woke up around about 10:30. She does not say she didn't wake up at all during the night! And you've provided nothing from Sollecito!

If you were relating the events of a day, would you mention if you'd woken up during the night or just what was relevant...what time you actually got up? Sorry, but you've got nothing and you know it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Some of these things might be falsifiable. For example, we could find a completely neutral observer that couldn't care less about the case and give them some choice passages from the Hellmann report. If they think it is garbage reasoning, you may be onto something. I doubt it though, I've never know anyone to flip out over Hellmann except dyed in the wool PGP. Now passages from Massei, or worse, Nencini on the other hand...lol

Hellmann's reasoning for convicting Knox of calunnia is bad yes, he wasn't perfect. IIRC he may have mentioned something about regretting that conviction, especially if he knew what was going to happen at cassation, but I don't remember. Maybe you know.

Sorry, I was not talking about Hellmann's reasoning for convicting Knox of calunnia. I was talking about the inconsistency of the whole of his verdict on a macro-level, between his coming to a conclusion that Knox is guilty of calunnia beyond reasonable doubt, but not guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
It would be impossible to make an argument for such a conclusion that has a reseblance to consistency, because it would be not reasonable (and not legal) to argue that there may be no logical link between Knox's guilt of calunnia and her involvemment in the murder. The logical link is manifest, because the calunnia is a crime aimed at derailing the investigation on the murder, and therefore her guilt of calunnia is legally a piece of circumstantial evidence for her involvement in the murder.
Chieffi in fact determined that this was one of the poits that made Hellmann's verdict illogical, and annulled Hellmann's reasoning in the part where he found that the calunnia was not linked with the murder.

Hellmann was annulled on 16 points. This was just one of the points, just an example of why Hellmann's verdict is an idiocy, that one is a very simple one to undertand even for people who don't know the law.

 

[Stacyhs]

Unfortunately for you, that is not what happened in the Kercher case.

Both Amanda and Raff claimed to have lost their memory of what they did on the murder night, yet strangely, they can recall with absolute certainty, they slept solidly from 11:00-ish to 10:00-ish next morning.

<phew> so that's all right, then.

As always, you provide no citation for any of what you claim. There's no point in reading these posts unless you provide citations.

Do read Amanda's Prison Diary where she spells out she can't remember ... until she saw a nun, who came to visit her.

Also with regards to memory, we can see Amanda is full of **** from her own court testimony.

False memories? Or blatant lies...?

Try reading what Bill actually wrote again. You claimed that RS and AK recalled that "they slept solidly from 11:00-ish to 10:00-ish next morning." That is what he and I were questioning and what I requested a citation for.

There is no question that Knox had some confusion over what happened during the interrogation and afterwards. Her memorial confirms that. That was never in question. Your relating of the prison diary and her memorial does not address what we wanted; a citation for your claim that RS and AK recalled "sleeping soundly" all night long. Which you still have failed to do.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then provide the test that showed the footprints were in blood. I've provided the test that proved they were not.

This is the crux of your problem, Mach. You can't because it doesn't exist.

You "provided" nothing. There is no test "that showed the footprints were not in blood".

 

[Numbers]

One possible reason for a delay in the ECHR concluding a judgment after a case is communicated to a respondent State is that the ECHR Registry attempts to broker a "friendly settlement" between the applicant and the State, and this can take considerable time and, of course, is often not successful.

In a friendly settlement, the State admits to having violated the applicant's Convention rights and offers compensation ("just satisfaction") of an amount that the applicant agrees acceptable, and the ECHR agrees that the admission of a violation of rights by the State and its offer of just satisfaction satisfies the protection of human rights.

Now, sometimes the ECHR finds that the respondent State has made an appropriate admission of a violation of rights and an appropriate offer of just satisfaction, but the applicant refuses to agree to the amount of the just satisfaction. In such cases, the ECHR may allow a "unilateral declaration", in which the State admits to the violation and pays the amount of just satisfaction it has proposed, and the case is struck from the list of ECHR cases. The unilateral declaration typically is allowed only for less critical violations of the Convention than Articles 3 or 6.

The ECHR case of Knox v. Italy may or may not be at the stage where the potential of a friendly settlement is being discussed and thus giving occasion to the possibility of a unilateral declaration. This may be a remote possibility because of the particular articles of the Convention claimed violated by applicant Knox include Articles 3 and 6, as well as 8.

Here's some statistics on unilateral declarations, with Italy compared to other western European democracies* of about the same size population or larger:

Unilateral declarations before the ECHR by:

Year.....2014....2015.....2016

Italy........27....1853......811

France......9..........3.........2

Germany...3..........2.........2

UK............3.........0.........2

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=
Link: PDF {ECHR} Analysis of Statistics 2016, p 13


*Some other countries had a large number of unilateral declarations in 2016: Greece 15; Turkey 65; Romania 111; Russia 215; and Ukraine 482.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sorry, I was not talking about Hellmann's reasoning for convicting Knox of calunnia. I was talking about the inconsistency of the whole of his verdict on a macro-level, between his coming to a conclusion that Knox is guilty of calunnia beyond reasonable doubt, but not guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
It would be impossible to make an argument for such a conclusion that has a reseblance to consistency, because it would be not reasonable (and not legal) to argue that there may be no logical link between Knox's guilt of calunnia and her involvemment in the murder. The logical link is manifest, because the calunnia is a crime aimed at derailing the investigation on the murder, and therefore her guilt of calunnia is legally a piece of circumstantial evidence for her involvement in the murder.
Chieffi in fact determined that this was one of the poits that made Hellmann's verdict illogical, and annulled Hellmann's reasoning in the part where he found that the calunnia was not linked with the murder.

Hellmann may have been annulled but the definitive finding by the 2015 Supreme Court agrees more with his finding than with any of the courts that found them guilty.

Hellmann was annulled on 16 points. This was just one of the points, just an example of why Hellmann's verdict is an idiocy, that one is a very simple one to undertand even for people who don't know the law.

Mach, you can argue their guilt until the cows come home and for whatever psychological and emotional reasons you have, but that will not change the fact that they have been definitively acquitted. You lost. It's over.