The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

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". .

Talk about misrepresenting what Hellmann said! This is what Hellmann actually wrote:

And it was to solidify [consolidare] a conviction [convinzione, i.e. belief] based on assessments of mere probability that the first-level Corte di Assise felt it necessary to come up with a motive [for the crime] which, however, while not being corroborated by any objective piece of evidence, is itself not probable in the least: the sudden choice, on the part of two fine young people, well-disposed towards others [due giovani, bravi e disponibili verso gli altri], of evil for evil’s sake, just like that, without any other point (whence the aggravating circumstance of futile reasons alleged by the Public Minister); [and] all the more incomprehensible due to having been aimed at supporting the criminal action of another youth, Rudy Guede, with whom they had no relationship (there is not, for example, proof of telephone calls or text messages among the three), and [who was] different from them in terms of personal history, character, and human condition.

Hellmann correctly assessed that Knox and Sollecito had no relationship with Guede and that it's not believable that they would, just for "evil's sake", support Guede's criminal actions. He also points out there was no evidence of any communication between them ever, that they had nothing in common and were different in terms of their characters and way of life. There is nothing racist is any of that. He is simply stating facts. But I see you agree with Guede that he is just a poor victim of racism.

 

[Machiavelli]

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...

No. You don't think Guede is guilty. What you think is, that Guede is the only person guilty in this case, and you also think there is no reason to argue the details. From a generic evidence of his involvement in the murder - and there is evidence of his involvment in the murder - you draw a conclusion about the guilt of a specific behaviour (a scenario not even specified - and backed by no evidence) and you also draw a conclusion about the innocence of someone else.
This is something very different.
To argue for a generic involvement of Guede in the murder, does not place you in disagreement with the guilters. All the guilters think Guede is guilty.
Guilters have no problem acknowledging the evidence of Guede's guilt in the murder.

But then, you start adding evidence of his involvement in the murder with profiling information, and that's where the reasoning becomes irrational, unfounded, and (obviously) racist.
The evidence that Guede is involved is valid circumstantial evidence but entirely good to support the scenario with the involvement of Knox & Sollecito too scenario.
You twist the 'profiling-evidence' about Guede - you add alleged evidence (suspicion) of being involved in a break-in - in a case where there is actually no evidence of break-in and you talk as if it was normal to infer a violent murder from a burglars' profile. You think that a serial killer profile can be inferred from a burglar's charachter. While at the same time, you miss equal profiling information of Knox and Sollecito. Disturbing aspects of their personality - compatible with the three killers scenario - don't disturb you: you decide to only draw inference from a burglar profile alone - and you replace the need to have a consistent scenario by this idea, that is your worldview.

(...)

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.

Chieffi doesn't say that. Chieffi doesn't say Quintavalle is reliable, and doesn't say Curatolo is reliable.... What Chieffi says is that Hellmann writes crap.
It is also false that Knox & Sollecito had no representation at Guede's trial: they were fully represented. They even presented some remarkable evidence-based theories.
And it is legally false that findings from Guede's trial had to be reconcilied with the next ruling: I repeat, this is, legally speaking, completely false. B/M even states it clearly that Guede's trial is not binding to the next judge. Why do you keep on saying that courts were forced to decide in accord with a previous trial. It is false.

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.

Come on don't be ridiculous.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

The convicting courts in the 1970s in the UK upheld the evidence "proving BARD" that Stefan Kiszko murdered Lesley Molseed, Vixen. As did the Court of Appeal in his first unsuccessful appeal.

And yet, and yet, it turned out Stefan Kiszko provably could not possibly have been the murderer, and that another man altogether was provably guilty (via a highly reliable DNA match).

How do we square those two pieces of information, Vixen?! A real conundrum, isn't it!! After all, a person convicted on proof BARD means, by definition, that there can be no doubt based in reason that the person committed the crime. To put it another way (and in a way in which instructions are sometimes given to juries on such matters), you (the trier of fact) have to judge that the totality of the evidence presented in court to all intents and purposes makes you (the trier of fact) CERTAIN that the person committed the crime.

And yet, in the case of Stefan Kiszko (which is just one example of hundreds and hundreds), a court convicted on the "certainty" that the person committed the crime, yet it could later be shown that the person factually did NOT commit the crime. Which in turn means, logically, that the original convicting court could not possibly have been presented with sufficient evidence to supply proof BARD (other than if corrupt inculpatory evidence was provided - and note here that the omission of exculpatory evidence cannot logically be a factor in a faulty BARD conviction).

Strange, huh? Courts get things wrong.



As a footnote, the wikipedia page on the Lesley Molseed murder and Kiszko's wrongful conviction contains an interesting paragraph which is extremely germane to the Knox/Sollecito case in general, and to the police interrogations of Knox and Sollecito on the three days leading up to 5th/6th November 2007 in particular:

"During questioning, the interviewing detectives seized upon every apparent inconsistency between his varying accounts of the relevant days as further demonstration of his likely guilt. Kiszko confessed to the crime after three days of intensive questioning: he believed that by doing so he would be allowed to go home, and that the ensuing investigations would prove him innocent and his confession false. Prior to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, suspects did not have the right to have a solicitor present during interviews, and the police did not ask Kiszko if he wanted one. His request to have his mother present while he was being questioned was refused and, crucially, the police did not caution him until long after they had decided he was the prime – indeed, the only – suspect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

Sound familiar, anyone......?

(And yes, before anyone jumps in, I do recognise that Kiszco had levels of mental retardation. But that doesn't affect the underlying principles here. Especially when you throw a little light police physical abuse into the overall equation.....)

 

[Stacyhs]

4



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



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.

Please. He cannot be more explicit in his belief that they did not kill Kercher when he says they are "innocent" and "did not commit the crime". What he said in 2011 is just after the acquittal while he was still a judge and had to consider the legal ramifications of what he was saying before a SC decision. What he said in 2015 was after his retirement and he could speak freely.

Oooh....you have "inside info" on what Hellmann really thinks, do ya? Do tell.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please. He cannot be more explicit in his belief that they did not kill Kercher when he says they are "innocent" and "did not commit the crime". What he said in 2011 is just after the acquittal while he was still a judge and had to consider the legal ramifications of what he was saying before a SC decision. What he said in 2015 was after his retirement and he could speak freely.

Oooh....you have "inside info" on what Hellmann really thinks, do ya? Do tell.

That's the difference between Mach's beliefs and us mere mortals. We have to be guided by evidence. Mach, apparently, has a huge advantage. He knows what people are thinking, and he has inside information which he cannot reveal.

I'm convinced. That's a great disadvantage for us who have to rely to verifiable evidence, as well as the concept of falsifiability.

Hellmann has made his views clear. They are as you say, Stacyhs. But then again, you've had to rely on what he actually said, not what he was (secretly) thinking. Mach has that advantage over us.

In this way Mach knows that "the courts" (his term) really believe that AK and RS are guilty. He also knows that Marasca-Bruno really in their heart of hearts believe the pair to be guilty as well, even though they acquitted them.

That's why for Mach the decision to acquit (definitively) is illogical. He knows their inner thoughts. They have inner, private thoughts accessible to only a chosen few, and those private thoughts are at odds with what they wrote in their motivations report.

The difference is - the rest of us cannot compare and hold those two things side by side - what they wrote vs. what the "really" believe.

I'm convinced. As of this post, I am changing sides. I just need someone to teach me how to divine what someone "really" believes, when they write the opposite.

Can you help me out here Machiavelli? I am now on your side, but need to be schooled in dietrology this method.

 

[LondonJohn]

Stop embarrassing yourself.

The ECHR does not have the power 'to shred a conviction.' That is not its function, anyway.

As for the Court - hello? - agreeing with the Court (=an establishment) of course law has to be consistent.

If a law says XYZ is a crime, you cannot have a law contradicting it.

In contract law for example, a badly worded clause, which if contradictory, will repudiate the entire contract.

This is why 'internal contradictions' within a judgment is a discrete legal ground for appeal. AIUI in Italy, this is the most common ground used.

Therefore it follows a judge will ensure his or her written reasons are as water tight as possible.

No Marasca-Bruno did not hold an opinion whcih they did not share with another court. Law has nothing to do with personal opinion. As a judge, you do what the law tells you, whether you like it or not. It is quite irrelevant what Marasca-Bruno secretly thought. A judge's first duty is to the court.

So your belief Marasca-Bruno had their hands tied and they were somehow distressed by this, is misconceived and exhibits an appalling ignorance of how law works.

My word, I am EMBARRASSING myself an awful lot today, it seems

As for the rest of your post, it's both irrelevant and inconsequential. In civilised nations, "Person A" can be convicted based on either evidence or judgements that have been the province of another, separate court (in which "Person B", "Person C" etc were tried), in which Person A had no representation or right to a defence.

It's a shame you can't see how horribly broken and unfit-for-purpose Italy's criminal justice system is (except, of course, when it suits your agenda - such as in the Hellmann verdict and the main thrust of the Marasca SC verdict). You'll note that pro-acquittal critical thinkers debating this case are perfectly prepared to criticise both of those verdicts in part - even some parts which are favourable to Knox and/or Sollecito.

And lastly, I am of course well aware that the ECHR does not have the power or remit to "shred" Knox's criminal slander conviction (or, for that matter, Sollecito's denial of compensation). I was speaking in a wider, more colloquial context. You might know that, ooh, several times already within this thread, I (and, of course, many others) have explained that if/when the ECHR rules in Knox's favour, then the near-certain outcome will be in two parts: the ECHR will instruct Italy to provide financial remedy of some sort to Knox; and the ECHR will instruct Italy to provide Knox with a fair trial on this criminal slander charge. Which is to say that the ECHR will instruct Italy to try Knox on this charge without using any evidence which was obtained in breach of Knox's human rights. Which is to say that the ECHR will be instructing Italy to try Knox in the absence of all of the statements in which she ever even mentioned Lumumba's name

Now, at that point, Italy can do one of two things: 1) it can pay the financial remedy, and direct the courts to annul the criminal slander conviction (since even the most ardent pro-guilt commentator can probably understand how it would be impossible to convict Knox under the conditions set out by the ECHR judgement......); or 2) it can stick its middle finger up at the ECHR and choose to ignore its instructions - in which case it would most probably be "invited" to remove its signature from the European Convention on Human Rights and "invited" to leave the Council of Europe. Even Russia honours its obligations and instructions under the ECHR. Interesting times ahead, possibly.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's the difference between Mach's beliefs and us mere mortals. We have to be guided by evidence. Mach, apparently, has a huge advantage. He knows what people are thinking, and he has inside information which he cannot reveal.

I'm convinced. That's a great disadvantage for us who have to rely to verifiable evidence, as well as the concept of falsifiability.

Hellmann has made his views clear. They are as you say, Stacyhs. But then again, you've had to rely on what he actually said, not what he was (secretly) thinking. Mach has that advantage over us.

In this way Mach knows that "the courts" (his term) really believe that AK and RS are guilty. He also knows that Marasca-Bruno really in their heart of hearts believe the pair to be guilty as well, even though they acquitted them.

That's why for Mach the decision to acquit (definitively) is illogical. He knows their inner thoughts. They have inner, private thoughts accessible to only a chosen few, and those private thoughts are at odds with what they wrote in their motivations report.

The difference is - the rest of us cannot compare and hold those two things side by side - what they wrote vs. what the "really" believe.

I'm convinced. As of this post, I am changing sides. I just need someone to teach me how to divine what someone "really" believes, when they write the opposite.

Can you help me out here Machiavelli? I am now on your side, but need to be schooled in dietrology this method.

Ok..you've finally convinced me, too. The revelation of the Mafia/Masonic manipulation of the case had me wondering, but knowing that Hellmann really thinks they're guilty and that his verdict was racist has convinced me not only of AK and RS's guilt, but that poor Rudy is the real victim here.

 

[bagels]

To argue for a generic involvement of Guede in the murder, does not place you in disagreement with the guilters. All the guilters think Guede is guilty.
Guilters have no problem acknowledging the evidence of Guede's guilt in the murder.

They think it at an academic level perhaps. But they don't really think it. Because there's no way to make it work. When you guys close your eyes and picture the murder, you picture Amanda stabbing Meredith in the neck. You picture Raffaele ripping off Meredith's bra. You don't really picture Guede. He's just kind of a shadow in the background, because of the inconvenience of the evidence requiring his presence.

There's some crazed person out there, I think they're on twitter with the name Free_Guede or something. Anyway, they got one thing right, which is no guilter theory works with Guede. If AK is guilty, he is innocent.

Amanda doesn't grab a knife to butcher MK with, then pick up the virtual stranger Guede along the way on a random whim. It's a non sequitur.

You twist the 'profiling-evidence' about Guede - you add alleged evidence (suspicion) of being involved in a break-in - in a case where there is actually no evidence of break-in and you talk as if it was normal to infer a violent murder from a burglars' profile. You think that a serial killer profile can be inferred from a burglar's charachter. While at the same time, you miss equal profiling information of Knox and Sollecito. Disturbing aspects of their personality - compatible with the three killers scenario - don't disturb you: you decide to only draw inference from a burglar profile alone - and you replace the need to have a consistent scenario by this idea, that is your worldview.

Guede literally was a burglar. We have direct evidence of his involvement in multiple burglaries, and further substantial witness testimony of his involvement in others, including with violence. The break-ins at the law office and the murder cottage are so similar I always expected the PGP/guilters to have some excuse, like Amanda must have known about Guede's law office break-in and staged it to frame him. The fact that you guys ignore this blatant connection says a lot about the PGP mindset. You became focused on Knox before the facts of the case really sunk in, and you've never been able to let go of that.

Raff being an obnoxious twerp or Amanda being a space case doesn't connect to the crime, no.

Chieffi doesn't say that. Chieffi doesn't say Quintavalle is reliable, and doesn't say Curatolo is reliable.... What Chieffi says is that Hellmann writes crap.
It is also false that Knox & Sollecito had no representation at Guede's trial: they were fully represented. They even presented some remarkable evidence-based theories.
And it is legally false that findings from Guede's trial had to be reconcilied with the next ruling: I repeat, this is, legally speaking, completely false. B/M even states it clearly that Guede's trial is not binding to the next judge. Why do you keep on saying that courts were forced to decide in accord with a previous trial. It is false.

Meanwhile, from the actual Chieffi report:

"This is without considering that when he was called to testify both in the first and second trials, Curatolo was able to identify and easily recognize the two defendants – even some time after the fact – as those he had seen in Piazza Grimana "

" the fact that the noise from the rock, supposedly launched from the ground, did not arouse concern in the young Englishwoman, so as to lead her to ask for help outside the house before being attacked"

"Furthermore, the witness also clarified during his testimony that he became convinced that the identity of the girl who appeared in the newspapers was the same as the one who came to his shop first thing on 2 November 2007, given that in the photo it was not possible to see the colour of her eyes, but he became certain once he saw the girl in person in the courtroom."

"The outcome of such an osmotic assessment will be decisive... to possibly delineate the subjective positions of those who acted with Guede,"

Chieffi spells it all out for us. The stupidity is laid out for all to see.

 

[Machiavelli]

Talk about misrepresenting what Hellmann said! This is what Hellmann actually wrote:

(...)

Stachys, Hellmann draws an argument from an alleged anthropologic difference between Knox & Sollecito, and Guede.

This is called racism.

Hellmann calls Knox & Sollecito "goodfellows", lists positive adjectives, then calls Guede "different", based on his "human condition".

Please note some reality of facts: Guede, Knox, Sollecito had the same age, attended the same bars, the same night clubs, the same friends, and the same house. Sollecito and Guede lived along the same road. Guede spent most of his time at the basketball court which is 90 meters from Knox's housedoor and 30 meters from Knox's school. Knox crossed past Guede literally every day. At least twice, everytime she went back and forth from home to languege classes.
Knox tells in her diary that she met a most beautiful black man in a bar on the road where Guede spent his time, saif they would keep in contact and meet again when she would return from Germany - but then, fails to mention him again and doesn't reveal his name.
Also, witnesses described Knox as bringing home "strange men" almost compulsively (why not Guede?).
Witensses also described Guede and Knox talking "very friendly" at the downstaris apartment. Guede and Knox admitted to knowing each other for longer than Knox & Sollecito, at least one month.
Guede's friends knew he had a crush for Knox and they aso testified that he normally liked and attended American young women.
Knox had phone conversations with a number of cocaine dealers who used to be around the area and sell drugs to female students, had at least one sexual intercourse with one of them (Federico Martini), and she had huge unaccounted-for cash expenditures every months.
Knox was not exactly a regular student, she was not studying at university but at a language school, drifting away from her course in an anarchic path of study, she got a job in Germany but left after only one day of work. Sollecito was working on his dissertation but he had spent all his life in a college room masturbating before snuff movies and collecting knifes, had a record for drug possession, made extensive use of drugs, had depression issues, anxiety, sexual identity issues and and almost asperger-grade introvert charachter, and he was under special observation by the college director and by his father - he performed very poorly, took his degree with low marks, despite the easy Perugian bachelor's course.
Sollecito was arrested while illegally carrying a knife inside a police station, while Knox had launched a farewell party that ended with drunk people throwing rocks at cars passing on the road, had organized a horrifying rape prank on her roommate, and used to write stories about depraved psycopaths drugging and raping young girls.
Did they have stabile families? Guede had a distant mother, a weak natural father, an affluent stepfather, and so we have an uprooted charachter with serious family issues. Sollecito's mother committed suicide. His father controlled his life like a mafia boss and he hated him, and also considered him responsible of his mother's death. Knox was traumatized by her parent's divorce, her father did not consider her a person capable in control of herself, her stepfather consiedered her a dickhead, she wanted to have a life outside the rules and (as Sollecito) experience the sense of revolutionary omnipotence and delusion of the student abroad (the Erasmus syndrome) where everything is "unreal" and all experiences are extreme.

Please explain what is the alleged difference in lifestyle between Guede, Knox, Sollecito. What makes one charachter worse ore better or less suspicious than the other. What exactly makes Guede "different" - or less "goodfellow - from the other two?

 

[LondonJohn]

Please. He cannot be more explicit in his belief that they did not kill Kercher when he says they are "innocent" and "did not commit the crime". What he said in 2011 is just after the acquittal while he was still a judge and had to consider the legal ramifications of what he was saying before a SC decision. What he said in 2015 was after his retirement and he could speak freely.

Oooh....you have "inside info" on what Hellmann really thinks, do ya? Do tell.

The other salient point here is that in the absence of cast-iron proof of factual innocence, it's impossible to state that Knox and Sollecito are factually innocent of participation in the murder.

But exactly the same logic applies to every single person (or couple, or group of people) who a) were within, say, 50 miles of Perugia on the evening of the murder, with the means to get to/from the cottage), and b) could not prove that they did not commit the murder.

And therefore, let's take a hypothetical man in his 30s living alone in an apartment in Assisi (around 20 miles from Perugia), who owns a car. The man neither made nor received any phone (mobile or text) communications between 8pm and 12am on the evening of the murder, but his phone was constantly registered to the base station which usually served his apartment throughout this time period. The man states that he watched broadcast TV programmes and did some reading during the 8pm-11pm period, and retired to bed at around 11pm. This man cannot PROVE he did not participate in the murder (he could have left his phone, switched on, in his apartment, driven to Perugia, participated in the murder, then driven back to Assisi). And therefore it is impossible and improper to state that this man is definitely factually innocent of participation in the murder.

But as we (and by "we", I mean critical thinkers who understand law and ethics (and logic and reason) sufficiently well) know, nobody ever has to prove they did not commit a crime. Rather, it's entirely incumbent upon the State to provide proof beyond all reasonable doubt that the person must have committed the crime. Anything less than that is equivalent to the maintenance of the presumption of innocence. Full stop (or "period" if you prefer ).

 

[Bill Williams]

Stachys, Hellmann draws an argument from an alleged anthropologic difference between Knox & Sollecito, and Guede.

This is called racism.

Hellmann calls Knox & Sollecito "goodfellows", lists positive adjectives, then calls Guede "different", based on his "human condition".

Please note some reality of facts: Guede, Knox, Sollecito had the same age, attended the same bars, the same night clubs, the same friends, and the same house. Sollecito and Guede lived along the same road. Guede spent most of his time at the basketball court which is 90 meters from Knox's housedoor and 30 meters from Knox's school. Knox crossed past Guede literally every day. At least twice, everytime she went back and forth from home to languege classes.
Knox tells in her diary that she met a most beautiful black man in a bar on the road where Guede spent his time, saif they would keep in contact and meet again when she would return from Germany - but then, fails to mention him again and doesn't reveal his name.
Also, witnesses described Knox as bringing home "strange men" almost compulsively (why not Guede?).
Witensses also described Guede and Knox talking "very friendly" at the downstaris apartment. Guede and Knox admitted to knowing each other for longer than Knox & Sollecito, at least one month.
Guede's friends knew he had a crush for Knox and they aso testified that he normally liked and attended American young women.
Knox had phone conversations with a number of cocaine dealers who used to be around the area and sell drugs to female students, had at least one sexual intercourse with one of them (Federico Martini), and she had huge unaccounted-for cash expenditures every months.
Knox was not exactly a regular student, she was not studying at university but at a language school, drifting away from her course in an anarchic path of study, she got a job in Germany but left after only one day of work. Sollecito was working on his dissertation but he had spent all his life in a college room masturbating before snuff movies and collecting knifes, had a record for drug possession, made extensive use of drugs, had depression issues, anxiety, sexual identity issues and and almost asperger-grade introvert charachter, and he was under special observation by the college director and by his father - he performed very poorly, took his degree with low marks, despite the easy Perugian bachelor's course.
Sollecito was arrested while illegally carrying a knife inside a police station, while Knox had launched a farewell party that ended with drunk people throwing rocks at cars passing on the road, had organized a horrifying rape prank on her roommate, and used to write stories about depraved psycopaths drugging and raping young girls.
Did they have stabile families? Guede had a distant mother, a weak natural father, an affluent stepfather, and so we have an uprooted charachter with serious family issues. Sollecito's mother committed suicide. His father controlled his life like a mafia boss and he hated him, and also considered him responsible of his mother's death. Knox was traumatized by her parent's divorce, her father did not consider her a person capable in control of herself, her stepfather consiedered her a dickhead, she wanted to have a life outside the rules and (as Sollecito) experience the sense of revolutionary omnipotence and delusion of the student abroad (the Erasmus syndrome) where everything is "unreal" and all experiences are extreme.

Please explain what is the alleged difference in lifestyle between Guede, Knox, Sollecito. What makes one charachter worse ore better or less suspicious than the other. What exactly makes Guede "different" - or less "goodfellow - from the other two?

Really? You know all this stuff? Really?

 

[Machiavelli]

Please. He cannot be more explicit in his belief that they did not kill Kercher when he says they are "innocent" and "did not commit the crime". What he said in 2011 is just after the acquittal while he was still a judge and had to consider the legal ramifications of what he was saying before a SC decision. What he said in 2015 was after his retirement and he could speak freely.

and this is called rationalization. Come on. The fact that Hellmann said two different things, in 2011 and in 2015, is a fact.
Sorry, this is the fact.

The "explanation" - that he is "free" here and not there - is your speculation, that is an unverifiable, non-objective theory that you like to give yourself in order to reconcile facts into your belief - that is, your belief, a feeling, not a fact.

The fact is just what he said, and what he said publicly is objectively changing.

Oooh....you have "inside info" on what Hellmann really thinks, do ya? Do tell.

Not only about what he thinks - yes also something about what he thinks - but also about things that other people close to him have revealed. It is very entertaining information but it is not for a public forum. And it is not essential to the point. You just cannot tell me that Hellmann has an integrity or that he "believes" something, just don't tell me that. It's no good argument.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stachys, Hellmann draws an argument from an alleged anthropologic difference between Knox & Sollecito, and Guede.

This is called racism.

Hellmann calls Knox & Sollecito "goodfellows", lists positive adjectives, then calls Guede "different", based on his "human condition".

Oh, good lord. This is not racism. He describes AK and RS in positive terms because of their personal history not their race. Guede was "different" based on his history and reputation (getting disowned by his own foster family, failure to keep a job, being caught with stolen items, being caught trespassing (if not breaking in), being caught breaking into Tramontano's home and threatening him with a knife, being a known liar, etc). His "human condition" is not his race, but his personal background. Claiming this is racism is simply ludicrous.

Please note some reality of facts: Guede, Knox, Sollecito had the same age, attended the same bars, the same night clubs, the same friends, and the same house. Sollecito and Guede lived along the same road. Guede spent most of his time at the basketball court which is 90 meters from Knox's housedoor and 30 meters from Knox's school. Knox crossed past Guede literally every day. At least twice, everytime she went back and forth from home to languege classes.

So what? The majority of people in Perugia were their age: college students. They ALL attended the same bars, night clubs, etc. It's a small college town!
They did not have the same friends. The ONLY "friends" they had in common were the boys downstairs and they weren't really friends with Guede. They played basketball with him (neither Knox nor Sollecito played basketball).

So Guede and Sollecito lived along the same road. I've lived in the same house for 20 years and I barely ever speak to my immediate neighbors. I don't even know their last names.

The basketball court is close to Knox's door and from her school. Again, so what? She didn't play basketball. Nor did Sollecito. I imagine she walked past many people on her way to school and back. Do you claim she was friends with all of them?

Knox tells in her diary that she met a most beautiful black man in a bar on the road where Guede spent his time, saif they would keep in contact and meet again when she would return from Germany - but then, fails to mention him again and doesn't reveal his name.

So? Is Guede the only black man in Perugia? You're really stretching here.

Also, witnesses described Knox as bringing home "strange men" almost compulsively (why not Guede?).

LOL! No, they never said "almost compulsively". That is your invention. When asked who she brought home, the roommates said some strangers. These turned out to be a few friends of Amanda's like Spiros or Daniel, the friend of one of the boys downstairs who was visiting. The ONLY man she had sex with in the cottage was Daniel (while Meredith was in her room with Giacomo). The innuendo that AK was dragging men home to sleep with is a common PGP tactic.

Witensses also described Guede and Knox talking "very friendly" at the downstaris apartment. Guede and Knox admitted to knowing each other for longer than Knox & Sollecito, at least one month.

Please quote this testimony that they were talking "very friendly". From what I've read, they barely spoke two words to each other at the boys' apartment downstairs.
If you consider Knox serving Guede a drink at Le Chic once or twice "knowing each other", then I'm really good friends with the waitresses at several restaurants around here. They said "hi" to each other in passing a few times. Again, that's not exactly "knowing each other".

Guede's friends knew he had a crush for Knox and they aso testified that he normally liked and attended American young women.

Crush? LOL. He asked Giacomo Silenzi once if he knew if Amanda was seeing anyone. That's it. Interested in a pretty girl? Yes. A crush? Hardly.

Knox had phone conversations with a number of cocaine dealers who used to be around the area and sell drugs to female students, had at least one sexual intercourse with one of them (Federico Martini), and she had huge unaccounted-for cash expenditures every months.

False. She had the phone number of ONE guy who turned out to be a coke dealer. I doubt she even knew he sold coke. Of course, she did not use cocaine as her hair test proved. But you just ignore that part. As far as having intercourse with Martini, that is also false. He was not named in her private diary list of men with whom she'd had sex when she had been told she was HIV+. She admits in her book they fooled around but did not have actual intercourse. She did not have "huge unaccounted-for cash expenditures every month". Your inference that she was buying cocaine is disproved by her hair test.

Knox was not exactly a regular student, she was not studying at university but at a language school, drifting away from her course in an anarchic path of study, she got a job in Germany but left after only one day of work.

LOL! She had already completed a year at the University of Washington. She did not set the course of study at the Univ. for Strangers, the school did. So what if she didn't stay at the job in Germany? Stop the innuendo.

Sollecito was working on his dissertation but he had spent all his life in a college room masturbating before snuff movies and collecting knifes, had a record for drug possession, made extensive use of drugs, had depression issues, anxiety, sexual identity issues and and almost asperger-grade introvert charachter, and he was under special observation by the college director and by his father - he performed very poorly, took his degree with low marks, despite the easy Perugian bachelor's course.

Oh, dear lord. This is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to bother discussing it. It's not worth my time.

Sollecito was arrested while illegally carrying a knife inside a police station, while Knox had launched a farewell party that ended with drunk people throwing rocks at cars passing on the road, had organized a horrifying rape prank on her roommate, and used to write stories about depraved psycopaths drugging and raping young girls.

You really need to stop believing all the crap that's written at TJMK. He had a freaking pocket knife, not a gun. Knox's party was a typical college party where a few people got a bit out of hand, not her. I went to several in my college days. You must have had a very dull time in college. I'm surprised you haven't brought up how it was a "scene out of Baghdad" with Knox being hauled off to jail under arrest!

Please explain what is the alleged difference in lifestyle between Guede, Knox, Sollecito. What makes one charachter worse ore better or less suspicious than the other. What exactly makes Guede "different" - or less "goodfellow - from the other two?

OK: Knox and Sollecito were actually going to school and doing something with their lives. Guede was playing basketball all day long and surviving by selling stolen goods at the very least. Or why else do you think he was ending up with all those stolen items? Knox was also holding a job down. Guede kept getting fired when he bothered to actually get a job. Knox worked 3 jobs to save the money to go to Italy. Guede was getting thrown out by his family for lying and his behavior. Knox had never been in trouble with the police (getting a noise citation is not being in trouble with the police). Guede had been arrested after either breaking into or trespassing into a school and being found in the possession of stolen goods. Guede had a reputation for "bothering" girls.
I think that about sums it up.

 

[Stacyhs]

False. The Aprii Fool's prank she and some friends pulled had nothing whatsoever to do with rape. They staged a robbery. I have no idea where you get the "rape" nonsense.
We had a long discussion with Vixen over the false accusation that Knox wrote any stories about rape here some time ago. She claimed the same as you. It was shown clearly that no rape ever happened in Knox's story "Baby Brother". Vixen was unable to quote anything from the story regarding rape. You can't either as it doesn't exist. Try reading it.

Did they have stabile families? Guede had a distant mother, a weak natural father, an affluent stepfather, and so we have an uprooted charachter with serious family issues. Sollecito's mother committed suicide. His father controlled his life like a mafia boss and he hated him, and also considered him responsible of his mother's death. Knox was traumatized by her parent's divorce, her father did not consider her a person capable in control of herself, her stepfather consiedered her a dickhead, she wanted to have a life outside the rules and (as Sollecito) experience the sense of revolutionary omnipotence and delusion of the student abroad (the Erasmus syndrome) where everything is "unreal" and all experiences are extreme.

Evidence of any of this other than your imagination? Seeing how both their families stood by and supported them during their ordeal, I'd say you're really scraping the bottom of the desperation barrel.

Please explain what is the alleged difference in lifestyle between Guede, Knox, Sollecito. What makes one charachter worse ore better or less suspicious than the other. What exactly makes Guede "different" - or less "goodfellow - from the other two?

Already did. See my post above.

 

[Stacyhs]

and this is called rationalization. Come on. The fact that Hellmann said two different things, in 2011 and in 2015, is a fact.
Sorry, this is the fact.

The "explanation" - that he is "free" here and not there - is your speculation, that is an unverifiable, non-objective theory that you like to give yourself in order to reconcile facts into your belief - that is, your belief, a feeling, not a fact.

The fact is just what he said, and what he said publicly is objectively changing.



Not only about what he thinks - yes also something about what he thinks - but also about things that other people close to him have revealed. It is very entertaining information but it is not for a public forum. And it is not essential to the point. You just cannot tell me that Hellmann has an integrity or that he "believes" something, just don't tell me that. It's no good argument.

It is a FACT that Hellmann said he believes they are innocent and did not commit the crime. Sorry, this is the fact. Reconcile yourself to that.

I don't have to tell you what Hellmann believes. He said so himself. I'll go by that and not what some alleged, unidentified, "secret" source supposedly said. Talk about a lousy argument...

 

[Bill Williams]

Sollecito was arrested while illegally carrying a knife inside a police station,

There's been a lot of malarkey posted today by Mr Machiavelli, it's instructive to pick one to make an example of.

Yes, Sollecito was arrested that night. But why does Machiavelli add, "while illegally carrying a knife in a police station"?

Does this futher factoid have anything to do with the murder? The police seized the knife and have the prosecutor enter it into evidence?

No. So what's Machiavelli's purpose for including it in the same sentence as the one starting with, "Sollecito was arrested"?

It's a way of conflating an otherwise unrelated corpus of factoids to make it seem suspicious. But still eventually you have to make your case, rather than throwing everything out there hoping something sticks.

It's the nature of the the "case" the guilters have always tried to make - "all the other evidence" once the DNA evidence fell apart comes to mind.

C'mon guys. "Arrested" while "illegally carrying a knife"? Really? You do know don't you that one of the charges they were charged with wss the transport if a knife - but it was another knife, the large kitchen knife which was the ONLY one ever forensically tested!

Anyway, such are the things guilters throw out there in their PR campaign......

 

[Vixen]

The convicting courts in the 1970s in the UK upheld the evidence "proving BARD" that Stefan Kiszko murdered Lesley Molseed, Vixen. As did the Court of Appeal in his first unsuccessful appeal.

And yet, and yet, it turned out Stefan Kiszko provably could not possibly have been the murderer, and that another man altogether was provably guilty (via a highly reliable DNA match).

How do we square those two pieces of information, Vixen?! A real conundrum, isn't it!! After all, a person convicted on proof BARD means, by definition, that there can be no doubt based in reason that the person committed the crime. To put it another way (and in a way in which instructions are sometimes given to juries on such matters), you (the trier of fact) have to judge that the totality of the evidence presented in court to all intents and purposes makes you (the trier of fact) CERTAIN that the person committed the crime.

And yet, in the case of Stefan Kiszko (which is just one example of hundreds and hundreds), a court convicted on the "certainty" that the person committed the crime, yet it could later be shown that the person factually did NOT commit the crime. Which in turn means, logically, that the original convicting court could not possibly have been presented with sufficient evidence to supply proof BARD (other than if corrupt inculpatory evidence was provided - and note here that the omission of exculpatory evidence cannot logically be a factor in a faulty BARD conviction).

Strange, huh? Courts get things wrong.



As a footnote, the wikipedia page on the Lesley Molseed murder and Kiszko's wrongful conviction contains an interesting paragraph which is extremely germane to the Knox/Sollecito case in general, and to the police interrogations of Knox and Sollecito on the three days leading up to 5th/6th November 2007 in particular:

"During questioning, the interviewing detectives seized upon every apparent inconsistency between his varying accounts of the relevant days as further demonstration of his likely guilt. Kiszko confessed to the crime after three days of intensive questioning: he believed that by doing so he would be allowed to go home, and that the ensuing investigations would prove him innocent and his confession false. Prior to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, suspects did not have the right to have a solicitor present during interviews, and the police did not ask Kiszko if he wanted one. His request to have his mother present while he was being questioned was refused and, crucially, the police did not caution him until long after they had decided he was the prime – indeed, the only – suspect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

Sound familiar, anyone......?

(And yes, before anyone jumps in, I do recognise that Kiszco had levels of mental retardation. But that doesn't affect the underlying principles here. Especially when you throw a little light police physical abuse into the overall equation.....)

Kisko's conviction was rendered unsafe because new evidence - a legal ground for appeal - showed that it was vanishingly remote that he could have committed the crime due to infertility caused by his condition.

There is no extenuating evidence for Raff and Amanda. There is zero evidences that makes it BARD that they cannot be guilty.

 

[Vixen]

That's the difference between Mach's beliefs and us mere mortals. We have to be guided by evidence. Mach, apparently, has a huge advantage. He knows what people are thinking, and he has inside information which he cannot reveal.

I'm convinced. That's a great disadvantage for us who have to rely to verifiable evidence, as well as the concept of falsifiability.

Hellmann has made his views clear. They are as you say, Stacyhs. But then again, you've had to rely on what he actually said, not what he was (secretly) thinking. Mach has that advantage over us.

In this way Mach knows that "the courts" (his term) really believe that AK and RS are guilty. He also knows that Marasca-Bruno really in their heart of hearts believe the pair to be guilty as well, even though they acquitted them.

That's why for Mach the decision to acquit (definitively) is illogical. He knows their inner thoughts. They have inner, private thoughts accessible to only a chosen few, and those private thoughts are at odds with what they wrote in their motivations report.

The difference is - the rest of us cannot compare and hold those two things side by side - what they wrote vs. what the "really" believe.

I'm convinced. As of this post, I am changing sides. I just need someone to teach me how to divine what someone "really" believes, when they write the opposite.

Can you help me out here Machiavelli? I am now on your side, but need to be schooled in dietrology this method.

Er, you do know Hellmann is toast?

 

[Vixen]

Stachys, Hellmann draws an argument from an alleged anthropologic difference between Knox & Sollecito, and Guede.

This is called racism.

Hellmann calls Knox & Sollecito "goodfellows", lists positive adjectives, then calls Guede "different", based on his "human condition".

Please note some reality of facts: Guede, Knox, Sollecito had the same age, attended the same bars, the same night clubs, the same friends, and the same house. Sollecito and Guede lived along the same road. Guede spent most of his time at the basketball court which is 90 meters from Knox's housedoor and 30 meters from Knox's school. Knox crossed past Guede literally every day. At least twice, everytime she went back and forth from home to languege classes.
Knox tells in her diary that she met a most beautiful black man in a bar on the road where Guede spent his time, saif they would keep in contact and meet again when she would return from Germany - but then, fails to mention him again and doesn't reveal his name.
Also, witnesses described Knox as bringing home "strange men" almost compulsively (why not Guede?).
Witensses also described Guede and Knox talking "very friendly" at the downstaris apartment. Guede and Knox admitted to knowing each other for longer than Knox & Sollecito, at least one month.
Guede's friends knew he had a crush for Knox and they aso testified that he normally liked and attended American young women.
Knox had phone conversations with a number of cocaine dealers who used to be around the area and sell drugs to female students, had at least one sexual intercourse with one of them (Federico Martini), and she had huge unaccounted-for cash expenditures every months.
Knox was not exactly a regular student, she was not studying at university but at a language school, drifting away from her course in an anarchic path of study, she got a job in Germany but left after only one day of work. Sollecito was working on his dissertation but he had spent all his life in a college room masturbating before snuff movies and collecting knifes, had a record for drug possession, made extensive use of drugs, had depression issues, anxiety, sexual identity issues and and almost asperger-grade introvert charachter, and he was under special observation by the college director and by his father - he performed very poorly, took his degree with low marks, despite the easy Perugian bachelor's course.
Sollecito was arrested while illegally carrying a knife inside a police station, while Knox had launched a farewell party that ended with drunk people throwing rocks at cars passing on the road, had organized a horrifying rape prank on her roommate, and used to write stories about depraved psycopaths drugging and raping young girls.
Did they have stabile families? Guede had a distant mother, a weak natural father, an affluent stepfather, and so we have an uprooted charachter with serious family issues. Sollecito's mother committed suicide. His father controlled his life like a mafia boss and he hated him, and also considered him responsible of his mother's death. Knox was traumatized by her parent's divorce, her father did not consider her a person capable in control of herself, her stepfather consiedered her a dickhead, she wanted to have a life outside the rules and (as Sollecito) experience the sense of revolutionary omnipotence and delusion of the student abroad (the Erasmus syndrome) where everything is "unreal" and all experiences are extreme.

Please explain what is the alleged difference in lifestyle between Guede, Knox, Sollecito. What makes one charachter worse ore better or less suspicious than the other. What exactly makes Guede "different" - or less "goodfellow - from the other two?

In addition, she introduced herself to Rudy in the street - after the lads had a basketball game and were standing on the corner - as , 'Hi, I'm Amanda from Seattle?'

He didn't recognise her and she had to explain that had chatted each other up at Le Chic one day.

Rudy went back with the guys downstairs with Amanda in tow. She went into her upper level flat whilst the boys went to chill out downstairs.

Amanda followed them downstairs. Rudy says she gave him the glad eye. The smoked a passed around joint together. Mez came downstairs, had one puff and then went off to bed, leaving Amanda to carry on flirting.

It's rubbish to claim she had nothing to do with Rudy and would not have done.

 

[Vixen]

The other salient point here is that in the absence of cast-iron proof of factual innocence, it's impossible to state that Knox and Sollecito are factually innocent of participation in the murder.

But exactly the same logic applies to every single person (or couple, or group of people) who a) were within, say, 50 miles of Perugia on the evening of the murder, with the means to get to/from the cottage), and b) could not prove that they did not commit the murder.

And therefore, let's take a hypothetical man in his 30s living alone in an apartment in Assisi (around 20 miles from Perugia), who owns a car. The man neither made nor received any phone (mobile or text) communications between 8pm and 12am on the evening of the murder, but his phone was constantly registered to the base station which usually served his apartment throughout this time period. The man states that he watched broadcast TV programmes and did some reading during the 8pm-11pm period, and retired to bed at around 11pm. This man cannot PROVE he did not participate in the murder (he could have left his phone, switched on, in his apartment, driven to Perugia, participated in the murder, then driven back to Assisi). And therefore it is impossible and improper to state that this man is definitely factually innocent of participation in the murder.

But as we (and by "we", I mean critical thinkers who understand law and ethics (and logic and reason) sufficiently well) know, nobody ever has to prove they did not commit a crime. Rather, it's entirely incumbent upon the State to provide proof beyond all reasonable doubt that the person must have committed the crime. Anything less than that is equivalent to the maintenance of the presumption of innocence. Full stop (or "period" if you prefer ).

You do not understand how law works. The prosecutor has to demonstrate to an arraigning court there is cause for prosecution.

In the UK the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) assesses police submissions and will not recommend prosecution unless there is a reasonable prospect of success, the England & Wales criterion.

Thus there is no possible reason the guy in Assisi would even come within police radar, let alone be prosecuted.