Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Stacyhs]

On Google Translate, for the whole sentence, the I'ho punta sulla mano is translated as "I pricked her hand":


However, when the phrase is isolated, it translates as "I pointed it at my hand". Reverso Context gives: I put it on my hand. The word "punta" by itself has about 18 English translations according to Google Translate. The problem may be, in part, the different ways English and Italian handle pronouns; to translate, we need to understand, among other things, what person or persons l'ho refers to.

Exactly. It can mean several things, not necessarily "pricked". But the PGP have a tendency to choose the most negative translations. But considering that RS had already written that he "brushed her hand" with the knife, the odds are he was meaning he'd touched her hand with the knife, not pricked it.
Regardless, there is no way that knife was used to kill Meredith as her blood was definitely not on it and any bleach cleaning would have destroyed her DNA anyway.

 

[Numbers]

Exactly. It can mean several things, not necessarily "pricked". But the PGP have a tendency to choose the most negative translations. But considering that RS had already written that he "brushed her hand" with the knife, the odds are he was meaning he'd touched her hand with the knife, not pricked it.
Regardless, there is no way that knife was used to kill Meredith as her blood was definitely not on it and any bleach cleaning would have destroyed her DNA anyway.

The point (punta, in one of its meanings) to me is that no matter what Sollecito wrote, the knife did not have any blood on it, nor did it have any in reliable sense Kercher's DNA. Sollecito's writing seems to have been an imaginative attempt to explain to himself a possible way the police reports of Kercher's DNA on the knife, apparently wrongly assumed by him to be reliably true, could have happened, but it is clear that he was not describing a real event.

 

[Numbers]

Exactly. It can mean several things, not necessarily "pricked". But the PGP have a tendency to choose the most negative translations. But considering that RS had already written that he "brushed her hand" with the knife, the odds are he was meaning he'd touched her hand with the knife, not pricked it.
Regardless, there is no way that knife was used to kill Meredith as her blood was definitely not on it and any bleach cleaning would have destroyed her DNA anyway.

I continue to agree with what you've written, but I've done a little linguistic detective work using Google Translate to investigate the mystery. Contrary to part of my earlier thought that words previous to the key phrase (with punta) influenced the translation, it seems that words following it make the difference. Here's my small experiment in computer translation - first, I translated up to and including the key phrase, then with the full text of the two sentences.

1.
l fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina
è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme,
io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello,
l’ho punta sulla mano,

The fact that there's Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife
is because once, while we were cooking together,
I, moving around the house handling the knife,
pointed it on my hand,

2.
l fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina
è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme,
io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello,
l’ho punta sulla mano,
e subito dopo le ho chiesto scusa ma lei non si era fatta niente.
Quindi l’unica vera spiegazione a quel coltello da cucina è questa.

The fact that there's Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife
is because once, while we were cooking together,
I, moving around the house handling the knife,
stung her hand,
and immediately afterward I apologized, but she hadn't hurt herself.
So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this.

Conclusion: It's the context after the key phrase that determines whose hand is affected. Stung is similar to pierced or pricked in meaning.

 

[Vixen]

Um, because the window was broken? As he told 112: "Someone entered the house by breaking the window."
It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's no reason to break a window unless it was to gain entry.

Inspector Clouseau would have been several steps ahead of the police.


Um...no she didn't say "at the time of the murder"; it was two days after the murder. "Skulking about"? Mansey never said any such thing, but you just can't help yourself, can you? Here is Mansey's story.

What are you talking about by "an innocent passerby"? This was two days after the murder and Neither Mansey nor he ever claimed to be "an innocent passerby". You really need to rein in that imagination of yours.

What the hell? That is one weird comment even for you considering this was two days after the murder and he was there on Nov. 2.

Mansey says she passed him in the street and over an espresso in a bar RS insisted it was the Thursday he and Knox was at a party. In Follain she says she was surprised by his lack of emotion.

But the issue here is, yet another whopping lie. Why is Solleciot such a compulsive liar, do you think? Is it a DSM-diagnosable trait for psychopathy, do you think? What is the point in compulsively lying? He even lied about his Dad's phone call. Does he even lie straight in bed?

"Someone entered the house by breaking the window." No, he doesn't say that, he says: "It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place.

Broken windows usually mean vandals, why would he assume it was the way the killer came in? He was pushing his own narrative; manipulative as well as icy cold and unable to tell the truth. Then he complains about being a suspect.

So, that is fourteen lies - if we include the phony party - so far, and still counting. So we can't blame Mignini and the police, as they weren't even around at the time! Who are you going to blame for this? Perhaps Mansey made him do it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your posts indicate that you don't have the first idea what you're talking about. Fortunately the intelligent people in the room figured everything out correctly some time ago. But keep shouting into the void as long as you like, if it's somehow a therapeutic exercise for you

 

[Numbers]

I continue to agree with what you've written, but I've done a little linguistic detective work using Google Translate to investigate the mystery. Contrary to part of my earlier thought that words previous to the key phrase (with punta) influenced the translation, it seems that words following it make the difference. Here's my small experiment in computer translation - first, I translated up to and including the key phrase, then with the full text of the two sentences.

1.
l fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina
è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme,
io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello,
l’ho punta sulla mano,

The fact that there's Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife
is because once, while we were cooking together,
I, moving around the house handling the knife,
pointed it on my hand,

2.
l fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina
è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme,
io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello,
l’ho punta sulla mano,
e subito dopo le ho chiesto scusa ma lei non si era fatta niente.
Quindi l’unica vera spiegazione a quel coltello da cucina è questa.

The fact that there's Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife
is because once, while we were cooking together,
I, moving around the house handling the knife,
stung her hand,
and immediately afterward I apologized, but she hadn't hurt herself.
So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this.

Conclusion: It's the context after the key phrase that determines whose hand is affected. Stung is similar to pierced or pricked in meaning.

As a parallel linguistic contrast, in English, adjectives modifying nouns come before the noun (example: red mill), but in some other languages, such as French and Italian, adjectives come after the noun (French: moulin rouge, Italian: mulino rosso).

Another difference lies in pronouns. In English, the pronouns for single persons are linguistically gendered (he, she; him, her; his, hers) and that gender remains linguistically constant. (Almost all English words are linguistically non-gendered.) However, in some other languages, where essentially all words are assigned a linguistic gender, pronouns, although gendered, when used as a possessive, change their linguistic gender to the linguistic gender of the modified word. Here are examples from Italian (Google translation):

His car. Her car. Italian: La sua macchina. La sua macchina.
His knife. Her knife. Italian: Il suo coltello. Il suo coltello.

 

[Welshman]

Mansey says she passed him in the street and over an espresso in a bar RS insisted it was the Thursday he and Knox was at a party. In Follain she says she was surprised by his lack of emotion.

But the issue here is, yet another whopping lie. Why is Solleciot such a compulsive liar, do you think? Is it a DSM-diagnosable trait for psychopathy, do you think? What is the point in compulsively lying? He even lied about his Dad's phone call. Does he even lie straight in bed?

"Someone entered the house by breaking the window." No, he doesn't say that, he says: "It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place.

Broken windows usually mean vandals, why would he assume it was the way the killer came in? He was pushing his own narrative; manipulative as well as icy cold and unable to tell the truth. Then he complains about being a suspect.

So, that is fourteen lies - if we include the phony party - so far, and still counting. So we can't blame Mignini and the police, as they weren't even around at the time! Who are you going to blame for this? Perhaps Mansey made him do it.

Posts showing numerous lies by Vixen. Guilters lie on an industrial scale in their posts and then attack people for telling numerous lies. When it comes to hypocrisy, guilters are world beaters.

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14614593

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...meredith-kercher-part-23.312658/post-11598412

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-26.321793/post-11942728

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14610192

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14573506

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14573506

https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?posts/14558306/

 

[Stacyhs]

Mansey says she passed him in the street and over an espresso in a bar RS insisted it was the Thursday he and Knox was at a party. In Follain she says she was surprised by his lack of emotion.

As I said, this was written for the Sunday Mirror, a UK red top tabloid. I give little credence to the sensationalist rubbish written in them.

But the issue here is, yet another whopping lie. Why is Solleciot such a compulsive liar, do you think?

I think you'd know the answer to why people just make up crap more than I.

Is it a DSM-diagnosable trait for psychopathy, do you think? What is the point in compulsively lying? He even lied about his Dad's phone call. Does he even lie straight in bed?

Again, why ask me about compulsive lying when I think you know more about it?

"Someone entered the house by breaking the window." No, he doesn't say that, he says: "It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place.

Yes, that is exactly what he said in his 112 call as I explicitly stated: "As he told 112: "Someone entered the house by breaking the window."
When he made the 112 call he didn't know she was dead yet as the bedroom door had not been broken down yet. When he spoke to Mansy, the murder had been discovered.

Broken windows usually mean vandals, why would he assume it was the way the killer came in?

Unbelievable. Are you serious? REALLY? Yes, Vixen, why on earth would anyone assume the killer entered through the broken window? That you'd even ask such a ludicrous question is mind-boggling.

He was pushing his own narrative; manipulative as well as icy cold and unable to tell the truth. Then he complains about being a suspect.

"manipulative as well as icy cold and unable to tell the truth" the killer skulked through the dark and stormy night toward the beautiful and innocent young girl...."
Dime novel level rubbish.

So, that is fourteen lies - if we include the phony party - so far, and still counting.

The irony of you counting his 'lies' isn't lost on anyone here.

So we can't blame Mignini and the police, as they weren't even around at the time! Who are you going to blame for this? Perhaps Mansey made him do it.

Perhaps Mansey was like Nick Pisa and others who like to twist and exaggerate what people say. A tabloid reporter has to make a living, ya know!

 

[Numbers]

Why would someone charged with a crime imagine a scenario that never happened in reality about alleged evidence in a crime, or about involvement in the crime? There is a large scientific literature on the topic of false confessions that can provide explanations.

The following scientific review article is relevant to the Knox - Sollecito and similar cases; I post here some excerpts (bolding, except in the title, is my emphasis):

The Science-Based Pathways to Understanding False Confessions and Wrongful Conviction​

Gisli H. Gudjonsson

This review shows that there is now a solid scientific evidence base for the “expert” evaluation of disputed confession cases in judicial proceedings. Real-life cases have driven the science by stimulating research into “coercive” police questioning techniques, psychological vulnerabilities to false confession, and the development and validation of psychometric tests of interrogative suggestibility and compliance. Mandatory electronic recording of police interviews has helped with identifying the situational and personal “risk factors” involved in false confessions and how these interact. It is the combination of a detailed evaluation and analysis of real-life cases, experimental work, and community (and prison/police station) studies that have greatly advanced the science over the past 40 years. ....

Kassin and Wrightsman (1985), through a rigorous literature review, articulated the three psychological types of false confessions which Münsterberg (1908) had crudely outlined. They labeled them voluntary (i.e., not police induced), coerced-compliant (i.e., the result of not being able to cope with the custodial/interrogative pressure and merely agreeing with police), and coerced-internalized (i.e., police persuade suspects that they committed the crime of which they are genuinely innocent) types. ....

As a part of the early development, Gudjonsson and MacKeith (1982) introduced the term “memory distrust syndrome” to describe the memory vulnerabilities and processes that produced internalized false confessions. Numerous case studies (Gudjonsson, 2003a, 2018), as well as experimental evidence (Kassin and Kiechel, 1996; Horselenberg et al., 2003; Van Bergen et al., 2008, 2009, 2010), have supported the crucial role of memory distrust in some cases of false confessions. What initially drove the resurgence of scientific interest in false confessions in the 1980s were two cases of miscarriage of justice in the 1970s, one in the USA and another in the UK. They set the scene for a better understanding of the vulnerabilities of young people when manipulated by the police to extract a confession. In both cases the confessions turned out to be false and police coerced.

Gudjonsson and colleagues conducted studies among prisoners and suspects at police stations who reported a history of false confession as well as surveys among community samples (for a review see Gudjonsson, 2018, Tables 5.3, 5.4). The studies show that about 20% of Icelandic prisoners and “regular” suspects questioned at police stations report a history of false confession, with a rate of 33.4% reported among Scottish prisoners (Gudjonsson et al., 2019). A false confession rate of 13.8% was found among 2,726 pupils (mean age = 15.5 years) who had been interrogated at police stations in seven European countries (Iceland, Norway, Finland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, and Russia) (Gudjonsson et al., 2009).

A recent survey of experts in the field of confessions (Kassin et al., 2018) has shown a consensus that there is a sufficient evidence base to assist jurors in their evaluation of the reliability of confession evidence. Not only were explicit threats and promises during police interviews seen as risk factors for false confessions, but also false evidence ploy and minimization tactics that imply leniency by offering sympathy and moral justification. The experts also strongly agreed that the risk during police questioning is more prominent among adolescents, persons with compliant or suggestible personalities, and those with intellectual impairments and other mental health conditions.

Despite the impressive evidence base, there has been police and judicial resistance to the notion that suspects would falsely confess to crimes they did not commit (Gudjonsson, 2003a; Kassin, 2014), but innovations in DNA technology have proven that many defendants have in fact been wrongfully convicted based on false confession evidence (Scheck et al., 2000; Garrett, 2011; Norris, 2017).


The most fundamental problem with evaluating the nature of police interviews is that the interviews are not always electronically recorded (Gudjonsson, 2003a; Lassiter et al., 2010). This makes it difficult if not impossible to substantiate suspects' claims of coercion, even if true (Gudjonsson, 2018). In the UK, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [1984], known as “PACE”], makes it mandatory to record electronically all suspect interviews, which has helped to identify coercion and false confessions (Gudjonsson, 2003a, 2018).

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7937609/

 

[AmyStrange]

Posts showing numerous lies by Vixen. Guilters lie on an industrial scale in their posts and then attack people for telling numerous lies. When it comes to hypocrisy, guilters are world beaters.

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14614593

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...meredith-kercher-part-23.312658/post-11598412

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-26.321793/post-11942728

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14610192

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14573506

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14573506

https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?posts/14558306/

Yup, proof positive that guilters are guilty of murder, at least according to our favorite fictionist, Vixen!



pssst... I'm stealing those... bwahahahahaha!

 

[AmyStrange]

Why would someone charged with a crime imagine a scenario that never happened in reality about alleged evidence in a crime, or about involvement in the crime? There is a large scientific literature on the topic of false confessions that can provide explanations.

The following scientific review article is relevant to the Knox - Sollecito and similar cases; I post here some excerpts (bolding, except in the title, is my emphasis):

The Science-Based Pathways to Understanding False Confessions and Wrongful Conviction​

Gisli H. Gudjonsson












Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7937609/

I wonder if they teach that in Criminology.

 

[Numbers]

I wonder if they teach that in Criminology.

I hope it's taught in Criminology curricula.

You may be aware that Saul Kassin, who did considerable work on the science of false confessions, is a Distinguished Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, part of the City University of New York system, so his findings and that of other workers in the field are, one may hope, increasingly taught.

Kassin has written a book, copyright 2022:

Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions​

Here's an excerpt from the Amazon summary (my bolding for emphasis):

Starting in the 1980’s, Dr. Kassin pioneered the scientific study of interrogations and confessions. Since then, he has been on the forefront of research and advocacy for those wrongfully convicted by police-induced false confessions. Examining famous cases like the Central Park jogger case and Amanda Knox case, as well as stories of ordinary innocent people trapped into confession, Dr. Kassin exposes just how widespread this problem is. Concluding with actionable solutions and proposals for legislative reform, Duped shows why the stigma of confession persists and how we can reform the criminal justice system to make it stop.

See:

Saul Kassin | John Jay College of Criminal Justice

www.jjay.cuny.edu

Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions: Kassin Ph.D, Saul: 9781633888081: Amazon.com: Books

Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions [Kassin Ph.D, Saul] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions

www.amazon.com

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh, Numbers you silly boy, don't you know that Gudjonsson, Kassin. Wrightsman, MacKeith, Kiechel, Horselenberg, and Van Bergen are all bent? They were certainly paid off by the massive million-dollar PR machine that Curt hired even before hiring lawyers!

 

[Numbers]

Oh, Numbers you silly boy, don't you know that Gudjonsson, Kassin. Wrightsman, MacKeith, Kiechel, Horselenberg, and Van Bergen are all bent? They were certainly paid off by the massive million-dollar PR machine that Curt hired even before hiring lawyers!

Right, thanks for pointing that out. What's even more remarkable is that they started working on their bent efforts even before Amanda Knox started college and formulated plans to go to Italy! For example, here are some of Kassin's articles and scientific papers, the latter with co-authors:

Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187-203.

Meissner, C.A., & Kassin, S.M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior. 26, 469-480.

Kassin, S. (2002). False confessions and the jogger case. The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2002, p. A31.

Source: https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/saul-kassin

 

[Welshman]

Oh, Numbers you silly boy, don't you know that Gudjonsson, Kassin. Wrightsman, MacKeith, Kiechel, Horselenberg, and Van Bergen are all bent? They were certainly paid off by the massive million-dollar PR machine that Curt hired even before hiring lawyers!

You forgot to mention the mafia, masons, state department and Trump.

 

[Stacyhs]

Right, thanks for pointing that out. What's even more remarkable is that they started working on their bent efforts even before Amanda Knox started college and formulated plans to go to Italy! For example, here are some of Kassin's articles and scientific papers, the latter with co-authors:



Source: https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/saul-kassin

It just proves the extent of their devious planning!

 

[Numbers]

No, the verdict was the 'prosecco' one (proscoglio_? sp]. Case dismissed due to insufficient evidence Art 539 clause 2.

"Prosecco" according to Reverso Context, is an Italian word translating to "sparkling wine". It seems Vixen is playing a prank (making a joke, punning) based on another Italian word, "proscioglimento" that, according to Reverso context, translates to: "acquittal, exoneration, dismissal, release".

....

Sources:

https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/prosecco

https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/proscioglimento

https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/09/03/giudizio-sentenza

Here's the use of the Italian word "prosecco" in an English-language news article, demonstrating it indeed refers to sparkling wine and not to an Italian legal term:

Costco warns of shattering prosecco bottles in recall notice​

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/business/costco-recalls-kirkland-prosecco-bottles

 

[Stacyhs]

Here's the use of the Italian word "prosecco" in an English-language news article, demonstrating it indeed refers to sparkling wine and not to an Italian legal term:

Costco warns of shattering prosecco bottles in recall notice​

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/business/costco-recalls-kirkland-prosecco-bottles

Damn. I do love me some Costco prosecco.

 

[Numbers]

Damn. I do love me some Costco prosecco.

Any party would really be a blast with that prosecco!

 

[Vixen]

As I said, this was written for the Sunday Mirror, a UK red top tabloid. I give little credence to the sensationalist rubbish written in them.

I think you'd know the answer to why people just make up crap more than I.


Again, why ask me about compulsive lying when I think you know more about it?

Yes, that is exactly what he said in his 112 call as I explicitly stated: "As he told 112: "Someone entered the house by breaking the window."
When he made the 112 call he didn't know she was dead yet as the bedroom door had not been broken down yet. When he spoke to Mansy, the murder had been discovered.


Unbelievable. Are you serious? REALLY? Yes, Vixen, why on earth would anyone assume the killer entered through the broken window? That you'd even ask such a ludicrous question is mind-boggling.


"manipulative as well as icy cold and unable to tell the truth" the killer skulked through the dark and stormy night toward the beautiful and innocent young girl...."
Dime novel level rubbish.

The irony of you counting his 'lies' isn't lost on anyone here.

Perhaps Mansey was like Nick Pisa and others who like to twist and exaggerate what people say. A tabloid reporter has to make a living, ya know!

The DAILY MIRROR was one of the better tabloids. Its webpage, alas is too full of ads to bear looking at. Kate Mansey is now with the SUNDAY TIMES and is a well-respected journalist. Unlike Nina Burleigh, Mansey was there doing her gumshoe duty interviewing people at the scene. It's amusing the lengths you go to to cover up for this lying pair. This time it's the messenger's fault. Of course, the killer came in through the window. How incredibly stupid of Battistelli and Napoleoni to conclude their first impressions were it was staged, thanks to all the glass on top of Filomena's stuff scattered around. (Please don't come out with the bull butter about there was some glass on the floor proving it wasn't. Police and forensics confirmed it was. As was upheld by the final Supreme Court.)