The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[bagels]

As said before, no, all this is false. You talk the contrary of reality.
This is a desperate rationalization, but it is surreal as for as much it flies in the face of what is actually written in B/M's verdict.

You'll have to excuse us Mach, we're not use to dealing with spectacularly stupid rulings from a higher court. For us they are usually concise, well supported in legal precedent, and coherent, written by educated intelligent professionals. The opposite of what I have witnessed in Italy.

The rationalizations are because nobody here could conceive of higher court judges believing a pair to be incontrovertibly guilty of a senseless sex murder, but acquitting them anyway. We just aren't used to things that 3rd world. If that is the truth of M&B (which I doubt) it doesn't change anything for us, so you're wasting your breath. It just means they were idiots in addition to being corrupt, which would put them in good company.

As for me, I couldn't care less what M&B wrote ruled said or thought. The case ended in 2011 and everything after that has been for sport, which ought to be getting stale for even those of us still stubbornly sticking around in 2017.

 

[Vixen]

This is not the paragraph I was talking about.
This paragraph does not talk - at all - about the timing of Knox presence on the scene of crime with reference to Meredith's death.
This paragraph (which is an incorrect translation anyway) rather talks about Knox active participation to the killing action, that is, the timing of her touching the blood (not the timing of her being present on the scene).
B/M repeatedly says (in other paragraphs) that Knox was present at the scene of crime when Meredith was killed. It is repeated in multiple passages that it is a proven fact that Knox was there at that moment. B/M even bring up specific events related to that moment (the scream, sexual violence) as explains their point.

The fact is that B/M says Knox's presence at the time of the murder is proven, but not so her active participation.

B/M emphasizes the difference between presence and active participation, also as it points at these specific legal categories ("non punishable concurring" and "compliticy in crime committed by another person"). B/M raises legal categories that imply the presence of Knox at the time of the murder.
Disputes the proof of Knox's active participation to the killing action.
But does not dispute the presence of Knox at the moment of the crime.[/

By Stacyhs : As has been said before, he had to harmonize the previous SC ruling regarding the calunnia as to avoid a conflict. No one has ever been able to present an example where a SC court has openly disagreed with a previous SC ruling concerning the same case. After all, once a SC court has ruled, it becomes set in stone. Imagine the legal ramifications if Supreme Courts started declaring a previous court was just wrong. Mama mia!

You cannot deny that no evidence was EVER presented which showed Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood. None.

Try to think of it in tangible terms. Suppose a man applies for a divorce. The Court examines his marriage certificate and decides as a legal fact he is married, therefore, he qualifies for divorce under several broad headings. He gets granted a divorce. Once he has his certificate of decree nisi in his hand, it is a legal fact he is now divorced, regardless of whether he carries on living with his ex-wife exactly as before, or she refuses to accept the divorce on religous grounds.

Do you now understand that it is a legal fact - an actual certainty - that Amanda Knox washed off Meredith Kercher's blood.

It honestly doesn't matter whether you believe this or not. However, it is so.


Accept it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you now understand that it is a legal fact - an actual certainty - that Amanda Knox washed off Meredith Kercher's blood.

It honestly doesn't matter whether you believe this or not. However, it is so.


Accept it.

It should then be easy to provide the "eloquent proof" and post it here.

 

[Stacyhs]

Try to think of it in tangible terms. Suppose a man applies for a divorce. The Court examines his marriage certificate and decides as a legal fact he is married, therefore, he qualifies for divorce under several broad headings. He gets granted a divorce. Once he has his certificate of decree nisi in his hand, it is a legal fact he is now divorced, regardless of whether he carries on living with his ex-wife exactly as before, or she refuses to accept the divorce on religous grounds.

Do you now understand that it is a legal fact - an actual certainty - that Amanda Knox washed off Meredith Kercher's blood.

It honestly doesn't matter whether you believe this or not. However, it is so.


Accept it.

Nonsense. A legal fact does not make it an actual fact. Try to think of it this way; a man is convicted of murder that he, in fact, did not commit. It is a legal fact he is a murderer. He is not an actual murderer.

You are attempting to dance around the fact that no one, including the prosecution, you, or Mach, has provided any evidence that proves Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood. You and Mach have been requested to provide that evidence on multiple occasions. You have failed to do so. Why? Because it does not exist. And you know it. Accept it.

 

[Vixen]

You'll have to excuse us Mach, we're not use to dealing with spectacularly stupid rulings from a higher court. For us they are usually concise, well supported in legal precedent, and coherent, written by educated intelligent professionals. The opposite of what I have witnessed in Italy.

The rationalizations are because nobody here could conceive of higher court judges believing a pair to be incontrovertibly guilty of a senseless sex murder, but acquitting them anyway. We just aren't used to things that 3rd world. If that is the truth of M&B (which I doubt) it doesn't change anything for us, so you're wasting your breath. It just means they were idiots in addition to being corrupt, which would put them in good company.

As for me, I couldn't care less what M&B wrote ruled said or thought. The case ended in 2011 and everything after that has been for sport, which ought to be getting stale for even those of us still stubbornly sticking around in 2017.

Bagels, you might not care. However, this latest final ruling puts Amanda's claims of being 'exonerated' and 'wrongfullly imprisoned' into grave doubt, if not an outright lie.

If she was 'wrongfully imprisoned', where is the compensation she is legally entitled to under Italian law?

Fact is, she was RIGHTFULLY imprisoned and is not exonerated. By extrapolation from Raff's Florence/Supreme Court's verdict, she is a liar who, like Raff, willfully and maliciously obstructed the investigation or at best was knowingly negligent or imprudent.

The Florence Court spells out that her version of events on the night of the murder is 'implausible' and that it is an 'indisputable fact of absolute certainty' she was there at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, by multiple attackers.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nonsense. A legal fact does not make it an actual fact. Try to think of it this way; a man is convicted of murder that he, in fact, did not commit. It is a legal fact he is a murderer. He is not an actual murderer.

You are attempting to dance around the fact that no one, including the prosecution, you, or Mach, has provided any evidence that proves Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood. You and Mach have been requested to provide that evidence on multiple occasions. You have failed to do so. Why? Because it does not exist. And you know it. Accept it.

The proof is surprisingly eloquent, even for a proof which does not exist.

But no matter. It's a judicial truth.

 

[Stacyhs]

Bagels, you might not care. However, this latest final ruling puts Amanda's claims of being 'exonerated' and 'wrongfullly imprisoned' into grave doubt, if not an outright lie.

If she was 'wrongfully imprisoned', where is the compensation she is legally entitled to under Italian law?

Fact is, she was RIGHTFULLY imprisoned and is not exonerated. By extrapolation from Raff's Florence/Supreme Court's verdict, she is a liar who, like Raff, willfully and maliciously obstructed the investigation or at best was knowingly negligent or imprudent.

The Florence Court spells out that her version of events on the night of the murder is 'implausible' and that it is an 'indisputable fact of absolute certainty' she was there at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, by multiple attackers.

Yep...and she owns a flaming red Ferrari, too!

If it is an 'indisputable fact of absolute certainty' she was there at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, by multiple attackers, then where is the evidence of those other attackers in Kercher's room? Just like Guede, there should be multiple traces of forensic evidence of them. Oh, I forgot...she managed to clean up only Sollecito's and her DNA and fingerprints.

Exactly WHAT evidence places Knox at the cottage at the time of the murder except her retracted statement of hearing Kercher scream? And please, if M&R accepted that those were her footprints in blood or her shoeprint in blood then that would place her in the bedroom. But, of course, they say there is no evidence of her in that bedroom.

 

[Stacyhs]

The proof is surprisingly eloquent, even for a proof which does not exist.

But no matter. It's a judicial truth.

The way they dance around this makes them perfect contestants for Dancing with the Stars. I've never seen such a tap dance.

 

[Welshman]

You'll have to excuse us Mach, we're not use to dealing with spectacularly stupid rulings from a higher court. For us they are usually concise, well supported in legal precedent, and coherent, written by educated intelligent professionals. The opposite of what I have witnessed in Italy.

The rationalizations are because nobody here could conceive of higher court judges believing a pair to be incontrovertibly guilty of a senseless sex murder, but acquitting them anyway. We just aren't used to things that 3rd world. If that is the truth of M&B (which I doubt) it doesn't change anything for us, so you're wasting your breath. It just means they were idiots in addition to being corrupt, which would put them in good company.

As for me, I couldn't care less what M&B wrote ruled said or thought. The case ended in 2011 and everything after that has been for sport, which ought to be getting stale for even those of us still stubbornly sticking around in 2017.

A good point has been made here. Machiavelli and Vixen are arguing the supreme court said Amanda was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and washed her hands of Meredith's blood but the supreme court decide to annul the conviction. How do PGP explain this massive contradiction.

 

[Machiavelli]

You'll have to excuse us Mach, we're not use to dealing with spectacularly stupid rulings from a higher court. For us they are usually concise, well supported in legal precedent, and coherent, written by educated intelligent professionals. The opposite of what I have witnessed in Italy.

The rationalizations are because nobody here could conceive of higher court judges believing a pair to be incontrovertibly guilty of a senseless sex murder, but acquitting them anyway. We just aren't used to things that 3rd world. If that is the truth of M&B (which I doubt) it doesn't change anything for us, so you're wasting your breath. It just means they were idiots in addition to being corrupt, which would put them in good company.

As for me, I couldn't care less what M&B wrote ruled said or thought. The case ended in 2011 and everything after that has been for sport, which ought to be getting stale for even those of us still stubbornly sticking around in 2017.

Bagels, what you - personally - care about and what you believe, including your view of the world, is your business. As long as there are posters who make arguments claims and false reports about the verdict, it is not possible to maintain that they don't care. Otherwise they wouldn't contend.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12

B/M obviously do not believe the defendants being innocent of murder.
I tell you - you can believe me on this - no judge belived that. Not even Hellmann.
The 2017 courts who denied Sollecito's damages also obviously don't think he's innocent.
I am used at consistent rulings like Chieffi's - that may be above the level of your estimation - I am not used to anything like B/M's ruling, with a few, notorious exceptions.

If you don't believe judges may believe defendants to be incontrovertibly guilty of a murder and acquit them anyway, then, I must say, you are quite naive. Maybe the fact of belonging to a privileged group at the center of an imperialist power, could contribute to sustain your naivete and your view, you can afford it.

You might ask an African what he thinks about Hellmann's verdict, if feels that it is all fair and ok. What thinks about the parts where Hellmann explains that Knox and Sollecito would just never hang out with Guede because they are "goodfellows" while he is "different".
Or still, what an African might think about Steve Moore's explanation, saying that had he been an investigator, once he had found out that a fingerprint belonged to Guede who had a police record for suspected burglary, he would have just closed the invstigation right at that point and gone out for a beer.

 

[Vixen]

Yep...and she owns a flaming red Ferrari, too!

If it is an 'indisputable fact of absolute certainty' she was there at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, by multiple attackers, then where is the evidence of those other attackers in Kercher's room? Just like Guede, there should be multiple traces of forensic evidence of them. Oh, I forgot...she managed to clean up only Sollecito's and her DNA and fingerprints.

Exactly WHAT evidence places Knox at the cottage at the time of the murder except her retracted statement of hearing Kercher scream? And please, if M&R accepted that those were her footprints in blood or her shoeprint in blood then that would place her in the bedroom. But, of course, they say there is no evidence of her in that bedroom.

Go to the court documents. The court upheld the evidence showed that this was so BARD.

 

[Stacyhs]

Bagels, what you - personally - care about and what you believe, including your view of the world, is your business. As long as there are posters who make arguments claims and false reports about the verdict, it is not possible to maintain that they don't care. Otherwise they wouldn't contend.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12

B/M obviously do not believe the defendants being innocent of murder.
I tell you - you can believe me on this - no judge belived that. Not even Hellmann.
The 2017 courts who denied Sollecito's damages also obviously don't think he's innocent.
I am used at consistent rulings like Chieffi's - that may be above the level of your estimation - I am not used to anything like B/M's ruling, with a few, notorious exceptions.

If you don't believe judges may believe defendants to be incontrovertibly guilty of a murder and acquit them anyway, then, I must say, you are quite naive. Maybe the fact of belonging to a privileged group at the center of an imperialist power, could contribute to sustain your naivete and your view, you can afford that.

Please present Hellmann's statements that are "racist".

Hellmann certainly did believe Knox and Sollecito innocent. He called the reasoning behind Nencini's guilty verdict "the result of fantasy".

Hellmann said in La Republbica, 30 March, 2015:

For three and a half years I’ve suffered for the fate of two youths that I believed innocent and who risked to undergo a very harsh punishment for a crime that they hadn’t committed.

We had acquitted those two youths because the trial had demonstrated that there was no proof of their participation in the crime.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yep...and she owns a flaming red Ferrari, too!

If it is an 'indisputable fact of absolute certainty' she was there at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, by multiple attackers, then where is the evidence of those other attackers in Kercher's room? Just like Guede, there should be multiple traces of forensic evidence of them. Oh, I forgot...she managed to clean up only Sollecito's and her DNA and fingerprints.

Exactly WHAT evidence places Knox at the cottage at the time of the murder except her retracted statement of hearing Kercher scream? And please, if M&R accepted that those were her footprints in blood or her shoeprint in blood then that would place her in the bedroom. But, of course, they say there is no evidence of her in that bedroom.

Go to the court documents. The court upheld the evidence showed that this was so BARD.

There is no evidence of multiple attackers in Kercher's bedroom: No DNA, no fingerprints, no shoe/footprints other than that of Guede. The court records show this.

The court also said there was "eloquent proof" that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood yet NO COURT provided evidence of this. Try and dance around this as much as you like but you cannot present this evidence from any court record because it does not exist.

 

[Vixen]

There is no evidence of multiple attackers in Kercher's bedroom: No DNA, no fingerprints, no shoe/footprints other than that of Guede. The court records show this.

The court also said there was "eloquent proof" that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood yet NO COURT provided evidence of this. Try and dance around this as much as you like but you cannot present this evidence from any court record because it does not exist.

Claim you.

 

[Machiavelli]

About this old post by Bagels:

Chieffi is very explicit. He disagrees with Hellmann's interpretation of the evidence, and substitutes his own preferred interpretation, despite supposedly being barred from doing so. He does this for literally each and every piece of evidence evaluated. He worked to change a verdict from Not Guilty to Guilty, because he either personally believed Amanda was guilty and didn't care what the lower court found, or because he wanted to appease the political climate in Italy surrounding the case. Had nothing whatsoever to do with the law or any alleged corruption, no matter how much you and Mach rant and rave about it. That's why there's no Hellmann investigation. M&B cleaned up Chieffi's mess (sloppily). Caso chiuso.

Just to be clear, Chieffi (and the other judges, including magistrate Riello) did exactly the job they were paid for, they did not exced their powers. And contrarily to your claim, they did not re-interpret the evidence.

On this it seems you are unable to see the difference between picking on a judge's conclusions, and picking the reasons for those conclusions.
You refuse to see the red line between assessing the evidence, and assessing the consistency of a judge's argumentation.

There is sometimes something circular in your points, as when this difference between these things is pointed out to you, what you do is you respond by dismissing the alleged "too much sophistry" or "detail" of the Italian system - so basically you implicitly recognize that there was something not consistent and not accurate in Hellmann-Zanetti at some level of detail.

Chieffi correctly spotted the unacceptably low-quality level of consistency of the Hellmann-Zanetti verdict. The arguments were pointed out to Chieffi by the Prosecutor General of Umbria, Galati. And the Court was also presented with an opinion of the Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court, Riello. Basically they all agreed that the Hellmann verdict was trash.

It is a mass of crap not because of the conclusions that he brings on each point of evidence, but because of the deranged, broken and unstitched path by which he builds their conclusions, and because of the sloppy or unacceptable bits that he adds up at each turn.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is no evidence of multiple attackers in Kercher's bedroom: No DNA, no fingerprints, no shoe/footprints other than that of Guede. The court records show this.

The court also said there was "eloquent proof" that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood yet NO COURT provided evidence of this. Try and dance around this as much as you like but you cannot present this evidence from any court record because it does not exist.

Claim you.

No, Vix...say the court records. Or in the case of the "eloquent proof", they don't say.

 

[bagels]

Bagels, what you - personally - care about and what you believe, including your view of the world, is your business. As long as there are posters who make arguments claims and false reports about the verdict, it is not possible to maintain that they don't care. Otherwise they wouldn't contend.

I already know you don't care about anything bagels, and I appreciated that you openly admitted that your view of the case is basically only based on your worldview, which I assess as overtly and self-declared racist. I appreciate your position because there is at least an element of being frank in admitting the reasoning that lead you to your conclusion.

The Hellmann verdict was also explicitly racist. Because it is so aligned with your worldview, so ingrained into your values, you don't really notice the obvious prejudicial framework - both of your reasonings as well as the explicit racism of Hellmann - as well as its manifest lack of logic.

B/M obviously do not believe the defendants being innocent of murder.
I tell you - you can believe me on this - no judge belived that. Not even Hellmann.
The 2017 courts who denied Sollecito's damages also obviously don't think he's innocent.
I am used at consistent rulings like Chieffi's - that may be above the level of your estimation - I am not used to anything like B/M's ruling, with a few, notorious exceptions.

If you don't believe judges may believe defendants to be incontrovertibly guilty of a murder and acquit them anyway, then, I must say, you are quite naive. Maybe the fact of belonging to a privileged group at the center of an imperialist power, could contribute to sustain your naivete and your view, you can afford it.

You might ask an African what he thinks about Hellmann's verdict, if feels that it is all fair and ok. What thinks about the parts where Hellmann explains that Knox and Sollecito would just never hang out with Guede because they are "goodfellows" while he is "different".
Or still, what an African might think about Steve Moore's explanation, saying that had he been an investigator, once he had found out that a fingerprint belonged to Guede who had a police record for suspected burglary, he would have just closed the invstigation right at that point and gone out for a beer.

I think you have turned this case into some sort of racial issue, which it never was, or if it was it was initiated by the police themselves (their rapid willingness to believe their local married business owner and solid member of the community was a brutal sex crazed butcher - and of course them calling him a "dirty black" that "deserved the electric chair").

The reason I think Guede is guilty is because he is. My opinion was removed from the matter by the overwhelming evidence. His DNA was found in Meredith's forcefully exposed genitals, and he was covered in her wet dripping blood, and he fled the scene, and he was picked up alone on CCTV, and he was a burglar with a history of similar break-ins, and he had wounds on his hands he self-connected to the murder weapon, and...well I could go on...

Hellmann clearly believed them innocent, and said so unequivocally when he was interviewed about the case. He considered the final definitive acquittal a "vindication" of his court.

If you choose to prescribe a secret motivation and belief to him he has never expressed, that is just another example of you indulging in a fantasy view of this case.

The Chieffi report is so illogical and stupid that I can barely comprehend the PGP taking it seriously. Like I always assume you go well it's **** but it got the job done. I mean let's take a moment to laugh at some of his reasoning: Guede couldn't have thrown the rock before the murder because Meredith would have heard it...Curatolo is reliable because he pointed out AK in the courtroom...Quintavalle is reliable because he became certain he saw AK after seeing her blue eyes in court...findings from Guede's trial where the two students had no representation have bearing on their trial and need to be reconciled with whatever the next ruling is....etc etc. This level of reasoning wouldn't cut it in my local community college's remedial level courses. And you revere it. Lmao.

What you ought to do Mach is take a few moments to reflect on why there isn't a single educated esteemed individual that has found fault with the acquittals or the Hellmann report.

It's a straight forward wrongful conviction. There is no controversy surrounding the verdict among any professional entities or organizations. It's all in your head, and the heads of thousands of tabloid readers who can't believe this one shocking weird trick your bank doesn't want you to know.

 

[Stacyhs]

Mach, I'm still waiting for the "racist" statements of Hellmann now that I've disproved your claim that not even Hellmann believed Knox and Sollecito were innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

Please present Hellmann's statements that are "racist".

Hellmann certainly did believe Knox and Sollecito innocent. He called the reasoning behind Nencini's guilty verdict "the result of fantasy".

Hellmann said in La Republbica, 30 March, 2015:

4

For three and a half years I’ve suffered for the fate of two youths that I believed innocent and who risked to undergo a very harsh punishment for a crime that they hadn’t committed.

Please.
Btw, we may note C. Pratillo Hellmann appeared to somehow update his opinion, since in 2011 he said:

(....) «Non sapremo mai» ha spiegato Pratillo Hellmann «se c' erano o non c'erano. La decisione della Corte di assolverli è il risultato della verità che si é creata nel processo ma quella reale può essere diversa».

translation:

"We weill never know if they were there or not. The decision by the court to acquit is the result of the truth that was created in the trial, but the real one might be a different one".

He also said: "this case will remain unsolved".

So Hellmann, in 2011 apparently did not agree with bagels that the case was "solved".

The fact is, by some inside info, I can tell you what Hellmann declares may have little relation with what he believes - not just on this case.

 

[bagels]

The fact is, by some inside info, I can tell you what Hellmann declares may have little relation with what he believes - not just on this case.

When you bust open the Hellmann conspiracy, I'll owe you a coke.