Hmm... Not Exactly. IF the stain is the BF downstairs it will just mean that MK is not necessarily as prissy as Mignini wanted the court to believe. AK & RS need the DNA thrown out for the knife and bra clasp respectively. That and a jaundiced eyeing of the testimony of the "superwitnesses" should overturn the verdict.
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
Hmm... Not Exactly. IF the stain is the BF downstairs it will just mean that MK is not necessarily as prissy as Mignini wanted the court to believe. AK & RS need the DNA thrown out for the knife and bra clasp respectively. That and a jaundiced eyeing of the testimony of the "superwitnesses" should overturn the verdict.
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/20101227/5e331f_cops_12272010.jpg
The guy's face is inches away from the service weapon of one of Massachusetts' super cops.
Remind you of the Gestapo?
The guy's face is inches away from the service weapon of one of Massachusetts' super cops.
Remind you of the Gestapo?
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Well, me too - but it seems that Quadraginta finds offence with the "colpevolisti" term - and its direct English translation of "guilters".
I would however add (and this is not sheer pedantry) that the opposite of "colpevolisti" would not strictly be "innocentisti". It would, rather, be something like "non-colpevolisti". "Innocentisti" are a subgroup of "non-colpevolisti". "Non-colpevolisti" (of which I'd class myself as one) believe that the convictions are unsafe - and it's not necessary to be totally convinced of Knox's/Sollecito's innocence in order to belong to this group.
Now, while we're talking about pejorative, offensive vocabulary, the terms "FOAker" and "groupie", on the other hand............
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I'm sure quadraginta will complain just as much about those next time they are used, too.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
I wonder how long the review of the DNA might take. The testimony of the bus driver and the disco owners could be done in one day, one hour, but somehow I think that will get dragged out too.
I also read somewhere that the court determined that stain on the pillow won't be tested and that the ToD won't be re-examined. Is this correct? Thanks again in advance.
Is that when the DNA review will commence?
Or worse is that when the review panel submits a proposed review protocol to the court for both sides (three really with the Kerchers' attorney thrown in) to wrangle over for 2 -3 hearings before the court rules what the final protocol will be?
Or best - some report of their review (even preliminary only) will be presented to the court?
Anyone?
BTW - this is NOT a poll - facts only not opinions (Italian speakers preferred
Lost in Translation
Thank's for your work.
This passage is interesting. I haven't had a chance to enlarge and try to translate Rose's posted documents of the Matteini Report, but the highlighted section (above) suggests to me that Raffaele is blaming Amanda, and the ultimate blame is due to Amanda's difficulty to "speak and understand Italian."
If this is the proper explanation for Raffaele telling the cops that Amanda left him that night---"a different version than the dates previously"--- then he must have been bewildered, indeed, to find that Amanda had begun her own interrogation ---a couple hours later---the night of November 5th saying she'd stayed with him all night. When the cops confronted him with that information he must have realized ---WTF!!!---that he'd misunderstood what Amanda wanted him to say. But, apparently, the cops didn't believe him.
(By the way, I believe that no one ever thought that Patrick and Amanda smoked hash when they met the afternoon of November 5th. They'd met outside the library of the University for Foreigners. A very public place, and neither Patrick nor Amanda said they smoked hash there.)
///
Kaosium,
Thank's for your work.
This passage is interesting. I haven't had a chance to enlarge and try to translate Rose's posted documents of the Matteini Report, but the highlighted section (above) suggests to me that Raffaele is blaming Amanda, and the ultimate blame is due to Amanda's difficulty to "speak and understand Italian."
If this is the proper explanation for Raffaele telling the cops that Amanda left him that night---"a different version than the dates previously"--- then he must have been bewildered, indeed, to find that Amanda had begun her own interrogation ---a couple hours later---the night of November 5th saying she'd stayed with him all night. When the cops confronted him with that information he must have realized ---WTF!!!---that he'd misunderstood what Amanda wanted him to say. But, apparently, the cops didn't believe him.
(By the way, I believe that no one ever thought that Patrick and Amanda smoked hash when they met the afternoon of November 5th. They'd met outside the library of the University for Foreigners. A very public place, and neither Patrick nor Amanda said they smoked hash there.)
///
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
No, that's incorrect. Hellmann has reserved the right to call for new testing once the knife and bra clasp tests have been done. And in the case of ToD, it's worth pointing out (once again) that the rulings of 18th December were purely on the narrow issue of allowing new tests and new witnesses. Hellmann's court will be examining the entire case again (including ToD).
The only decision made on 18th December was whether the court felt that it needed additional witnesses to assist in its re-evaluation of the case. So, even if Hellmann subsequently decides not to admit any new expert witnesses to testify about ToD, this merely means that he'll be re-evaluating the ToD issue based solely on the evidence presented in the first trial.
As it happens. Hellmann has reserved judgement on calling new ToD witnesses as well, so it could well be that additional experts are called to testify t some point down the line. But even if no new experts are heard, the expert testimony in the first trial clearly implies that 10.30pm was an upper limit for ToD, and the police's own autopsy pathologist was even more limiting (correctly, in my opinion) at putting the latest ToD at around 9.30pm.
It's conversation like this that make me question the point of participating in this debate and the good faith or sanity of the people I'm debating with.
Saying that something is evil is generally understood to be a personal value judgement, or at least a value judgement against a personally held moral/metaphysical framework. It certainly isn't a claim about an externally testable physical reality.
Saying that something is Satanic can either be (overly florid metaphorical uses aside) a subjective statement with reference to ones personal Judaeo-Christian cultural background, or an objective claim that somebody is ACTUALLY a Satanist. The use of the word Satanist with reference to Mignini is heard in the context of The Monster Of Florence case where the claim was that ACTUAL Satanists were involved. To use the word to descibe both his alleged belief that the killings in the Monster Of Florence were the work of ACTUAL satanists and a claim that he, as a Catholic, would naturally regard the actions of the killers as being the work of Satan is clearly confusing two different meanings and misleading. I don't see why anybody would introduce the word "Satanic" in this case except to ridicule Mignini, and/or to confuse the uninitiated into thinking that he actually believed the killings were the work of characters from a Dan Brown novel.
Of course he didn't think it was the work of druids. But again, in talking about druids you are talking about an objective externally testable claim about the religious practices of the people he is talking about. By your rational he would describe their religion as Satanism, wouldn't he? As for the Manga comics, allegedly those were what Mignini thought violent porn lover Raffaele might have been acting out. What relationship Manga has to Satanism I have no idea. They clearly do not derive from a Judeo-Christian Culture. Saying that there were ritualistic elements, assuming that's what he did say, clearly does not necessarily imply religious, let alone specifically Satanist religious rituals.
If I went about bunging words into Amanda's mouth in the manner that is going on here with Mignini people would freak. Should I describe Amanda as a "known whore", or even "self-confessed whore" because she slept with Raffaele outside marriage? Is Raffaele a Catholic, does he agree, do you suppose, with Mignini that the murder was satanic?
Last edited:
Thank you, Mary-H. I was wondering about that. So Sollecito's confession that Amanda had indeed gone to Le Chic that night is in the record, due to his legal team's untimely attempt to suppress it. I'll have to study on the proposition that, on a "philosophical" level, we must disregard it on the basis of his claim that he was denied an attorney. In the meanwhile, I'll point out that the "psychological torture" of which he complains in his diary is described as being stripped, cuffed, and relieved of his shoes. And he was afraid to aver, even to his own diary, "They told me Amanda was there that night"? Or even "Gee, they got me all confused"? And Amanda feared to say, during her lengthy examination, that the change in Raf's account of the facts which so "astonished" her had been procured by representing evidence placing her at the scene had come to light? Putting the philosophical dimension aside, is it conceded that there is now no way, unless Raf takes the stand, of proposing to the court that his confession was "coerced," or even the result of "confusion"? Do you suppose they could put an expert on the stand to explain that he had been suffering from IFMS (Internalized False Memory Syndrome)?
I probably need to back away from all this for a while, because I'm beginning to experience some of those weird, Jason Bourne type images myself. One of them is of a great vessel with water gushing through a gaping hole below the waterline.
I probably need to back away from all this for a while, because I'm beginning to experience some of those weird, Jason Bourne type images myself. One of them is of a great vessel with water gushing through a gaping hole below the waterline.
Thank you, Mary-H. I was wondering about that. So Sollecito's confession that Amanda had indeed gone to Le Chic that night is in the record, due to his legal team's untimely attempt to suppress it. I'll have to study on the proposition that, on a "philosophical" level, we must disregard it on the basis of his claim that he was denied an attorney. In the meanwhile, I'll point out that the "psychological torture" of which he complains in his diary is described as being stripped, cuffed, and relieved of his shoes. And he was afraid to aver, even to his own diary, "They told me Amanda was there that night"? Or even "Gee, they got me all confused"? And Amanda feared to say, during her lengthy examination, that the change in Raf's account of the facts which so "astonished" her had been procured by representing evidence placing her at the scene had come to light? Putting the philosophical dimension aside, is it conceded that there is now no way, unless Raf takes the stand, of proposing to the court that his confession was "coerced," or even the result of "confusion"? Do you suppose they could put an expert on the stand to explain that he had been suffering from IFMS (Internalized False Memory Syndrome)?
I probably need to back away from all this for a while, because I'm beginning to experience some of those weird, Jason Bourne type images myself. One of them is of a great vessel with water gushing through a gaping hole below the waterline.
I probably need to back away from all this for a while, because I'm beginning to experience some of those weird, Jason Bourne type images myself. One of them is of a great vessel with water gushing through a gaping hole below the waterline.
What is the point of your post? The reason the Gestapo are remembered is not because of pictures like that.
http://www.sublimegoodness.com/2009/05/hero-cop-saves-toddler-from-train.html
But Guede's story wasn't believed by anyone, least of all the courts. Bodily fluids aren't required to convince anybody.
Pedantry accepted
. You are, I believe, referring to the implication that innocentisti is synonamous with innocent whereas you are in the not guilty by reasonable doubt camp.BTW for all the non-USA members there is a recent movie release the third in a series about a couple who have difficulty with their in-laws in particular the husband's (who last name is Foaker - running gag in the series) relationship with his wife's father. In the current movie, the plot centers around how the young children are being raised - the title? - "Little Foakers" - no double entendre intended of course!
And that is why FOAKers is offensive to the innocentisti (at least one anyway
).Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
The movies have in fact managed to make it out of the USA and the name of the family in them is "Focker", not "Foaker".
American movies do sometimes get shown abroad.Pedantry accepted
BTW for all the non-USA members there is a recent movie release the third in a series about a couple who have difficulty with their in-laws in particular the husband's (who last name is Foaker - running gag in the series) relationship with his wife's father. In the current movie, the plot centers around how the young children are being raised - the title? - "Little Foakers" - no double entendre intended of course!
And that is why FOAKers is offensive to the innocentisti (at least one anyway
Actually its really simple. Look at it from the Jury's point of view. Its called reasonable doubt. Some say in the 2nd trial the defense has to prove their innocent, yet the standard of evidence is also higher. There is a semen stain, sitting between the thighs of a murdered woman. The prosecution made NO attempt to identify who it belonged to. Did the prosecution petition the court to get dna samples from other people that visited or lived at the house? So in effect the prosecution has made no attempt to prove it could have belonged to someone else on a previous visit to merediths room.
Then you add in the claim that Meredith and Knox got into an argument because Knox had sex in the apartment. Yet why would Meredith accuse Knox of something she would have been doing herself.
Then there is the supposed claim that the body was moved after death. Yet there would be a semen stain in a spot that would suggest sexual assault in the position the body was left at. Thereby poking a hole in the prosecutions theory of a staged murder room.
If its a semen stain, its enough for reasonable doubt, because it would destroy all the prosecutions theories of how the murder happened.
Last edited:
No, the court accepted prrof beyond reasonable doubt based on the other evidence. Presumably this means that the court were satisfied, based on the other evidence in the case, that it was not reasonable to believe that the semen sample might throw the case wide open.
Then perhaps this will come out in the appeal. Clearly though, the court was satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are wrong.
By the way, was the really an argument about having sex in the appartment? I must have forgotten this. All I recall is something about complaints that Amanda was bringing men back.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Pedantry accepted
BTW for all the non-USA members there is a recent movie release the third in a series about a couple who have difficulty with their in-laws in particular the husband's (who last name is Foaker - running gag in the series) relationship with his wife's father. In the current movie, the plot centers around how the young children are being raised - the title? - "Little Foakers" - no double entendre intended of course!
And that is why FOAKers is offensive to the innocentisti (at least one anyway
Well, to be properly pedantic, the family name in the movie series is "Focker", not "Foaker" - but the implied profanity is of course the same.
As a related but peripheral issue, a fairly well-known UK comedian named Stan Boardman had his TV career blown to smithereens in the 1980s when he appeared on a live TV show (The Des O'Connor Show it was, IIRC), and told an extended joke about a Polish WW2 pilot's reminiscences of a dogfight, involving the allies' shorthand term for German Fokke-Wulf 190 fighter aircraft: "Fokkers" (the punchline to the joke was "These Fokkers were Messerschmitts!"). I remembered him just the other day when I saw a poster for "Little Fockers", and wondered how he must feel about the shift in acceptable public morality since his similar wordplay some 25 years earlier had led to him being ostracised.
- Status