Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

Rose has pointed out a number of serious errors which fundamentally change the meaning of the document to the detriment of the accused.

I would go further and say that the English translation of the Massei Report has been intentionally falsified by the advocacy group that produced it. Luckily the Report is so ridiculous that no amount of tweaking was ever going to make it look credible.

I disagree, outside that last sentence, which is sheer shining truth!

I'd say the errors in translation are minor and rather expected from the volunteer efforts of various different people over the course of a four hundred page document. As for the bias, I'd say the first one is neutral, or even slightly in the favor of the accused. Saying Filomena is normally tidy is meaningless in a sense, as what's she gonna say 'No, PM, this place is usually a mess, clothes everywhere, looks like someone trashed the place everyday?' No woman is going to admit to that, they're all the soul of cleanliness--just ask one!

I know what they're trying to imply, however what is 'lost' is more damaging in my opinion. I'd rather not have any testimonials to Filomena's 'very well-defined memory,' as it appeared to me an especially malleable memory, what with the 'recovered memories' of closing the shutters and the frosty turn she took against Amanda as things progressed. Being as it's not impossible she may come back into the story to throw more daggers at Amanda's back, I'd rather she keep the 'orderly room' rather than the 'well-defined memory.' Actually I want the truth, of course, but I don't see how this works to the disfavor of Amanda and Raffaele.

Google translate and my fading knowledge of another Romance language suggests to me that "in una di queste occasioni" should be rendered 'on one of these occasions' and "e in una occasione" 'and on one occasion,' which is worth about as much as you paid for it, and doesn't quite make sense. As I understand it this is the actual truth--Rudy only met Amanda once--but I can see how that mistake could be made, as they're talking doubly about the same 'one occasion,' which scans strangely. It would make more sense in context the other way. That might have been what they were relying on, not realizing that nine months later we'd be fighting tooth and nail over every possible Rudy and Amanda tryst.

In the last I see the negation in the original Italian 'non' but I don't see it in the sentence, which means Rose should be correct, but I can see how the mistake was made. I just got done erasing the paragraph I wrote because I think I figured it out. The 'fluorescent measuring tapes' and the 'metric reference' must be separate items, but initially looking at it I assumed they were the same, and still don't understand how a 'measuring tape' is not a 'metric reference,' does anyone think they were using the old Imperial system? Why wouldn't a 'measuring tape' be a 'metric reference' unless the latter is some kind of instrument? I don't think it matters much anyway, we know they were measured, we can see them, and outside those like Katy-Did and Katody, who really knows what this means anyway? Hardly biased, unless I'm totally missing something.

Thus overall these mistakes don't seem especially biased to me, and appear to be understandable errors, in fact it's also quite possible my analysis in agreement with Rose is mistaken, being as all I know for sure with google translate is it's going to give me a headache, rendering perfectly good Italian into almost readable English is just an occasional bonus. Nous ne parlons pas de mon Français!

However, having said all that, I do remember from my reading of their archives that there is (or was) one definite translation error they made, and it was to the certain detriment of Amanda and Raffaele's....supporters! It wasn't in Massei though, it's in Raffaele's diaries. It's that tangled bit where he's trying to explain what he changed his story to and what was the 'load of crap' and if you read it one way it sounds like he's still trying to say Amanda told him to 'lie.' I recall reading a little dialogue with (if I remember correctly) mainly Thoughtful and Michael where the former was trying to say it needed to be fixed as it was misleading, and initially Michael liked it better the original way but eventually was persuaded the more logical and correct way was to fix it, but asked Thoughful not to.

He thought it was so much fun watching the 'groupies' run around in circles twisting their minds into pretzels when it came up somewhere, he would not have his entertainment in that regard ruined! Thus it was to be understood amongst the 'cognoscenti' the correct way, and not to be disseminated to the unwashed masses of Amanda and Raffaele supporters, lest the bi-monthly games cease. I laughed my ass off, I was still new to the issue and undecided at that point, and I have a twisted sense of humor.

 

[RoseMontague]

I disagree, outside that last sentence, which is sheer shining truth!

I'd say the errors in translation are minor and rather expected from the volunteer efforts of various different people over the course of a four hundred page document. As for the bias, I'd say the first one is neutral, or even slightly in the favor of the accused. Saying Filomena is normally tidy is meaningless in a sense, as what's she gonna say 'No, PM, this place is usually a mess, clothes everywhere, looks like someone trashed the place everyday?' No woman is going to admit to that, they're all the soul of cleanliness--just ask one!

I know what they're trying to imply, however what is 'lost' is more damaging in my opinion. I'd rather not have any testimonials to Filomena's 'very well-defined memory,' as it appeared to me an especially malleable memory, what with the 'recovered memories' of closing the shutters and the frosty turn she took against Amanda as things progressed. Being as it's not impossible she may come back into the story to throw more daggers at Amanda's back, I'd rather she keep the 'orderly room' rather than the 'well-defined memory.' Actually I want the truth, of course, but I don't see how this works to the disfavor of Amanda and Raffaele.

Google translate and my fading knowledge of another Romance language suggests to me that "in una di queste occasioni" should be rendered 'on one of these occasions' and "e in una occasione" 'and on one occasion,' which is worth about as much as you paid for it, and doesn't quite make sense. As I understand it this is the actual truth--Rudy only met Amanda once--but I can see how that mistake could be made, as they're talking doubly about the same 'one occasion,' which scans strangely. It would make more sense in context the other way. That might have been what they were relying on, not realizing that nine months later we'd be fighting tooth and nail over every possible Rudy and Amanda tryst.

In the last I see the negation in the original Italian non but I don't see it in the sentence, which means Rose should be correct, but I can see how the mistake was made. I just got done erasing the paragraph I wrote because I think I figured it out. The 'fluorescent measuring tapes' and the 'metric reference' must be separate items, but initially looking at it I assumed they were the same, and still don't understand how a 'measuring tape' is not a 'metric reference,' does anyone think they were using the old Imperial system? Why wouldn't a 'measuring tape' be a 'metric reference' unless the latter is some kind of instrument? I don't think it matters much anyway, we know they were measured, we can see them, and outside those like Katy-Did and Katody, who really knows what this means anyway? Hardly biased, unless I'm totally missing something.

Thus overall these mistakes don't seem especially biased to me, and appear to be understandable errors, in fact it's also quite possible my analysis in agreement with Rose is mistaken, being as all I know for sure with google translate is it's going to give me a headache, rendering perfectly good Italian into almost readable English is just an occasional bonus. Nous ne parlons pas de mon Français!

However, having said all that, I do remember from my reading of their archives that there is (or was) one definite translation error they made, and it was to the definite detriment of Amanda and Raffaele's....supporters! It wasn't in Massei though, it's in Raffaele's diaries. It's that tangled bit where he's trying to explain what he changed his story to and what was the 'load of crap' and if you read it one way it sounds like he's still trying to say Amanda told him to 'lie.' I recall reading a little dialogue with (if I remember correctly) mainly Thoughtful and Michael where the former was trying to say it needed to be fixed as it was misleading, and initially Michael liked it better the original way but eventually was persuaded the more logical and correct way was to fix it, but asked Thoughful not to.

He thought it was so much fun watching the 'groupies' run around in circles twisting their minds into pretzels when it came up somewhere, he would not have his entertainment in that regard ruined! Thus it was to be understood amongst the 'cognoscenti' the correct way, and not to be disseminated to the unwashed masses of Amanda and Raffaele supporters, lest the bi-monthly games cease. I laughed my ass off, I was still new to the issue and undecided at that point, and I have a twisted sense of humor.

Good points. Of the three mentioned the first is in my mind the hardest to explain as just an unintentional mistake. The point that I was trying to make with these was not only how one word in a translation can change things but even among those who are fluent in both languages a lost in translation mistake can happen. At the time, we were discussing the possible translation problems regarding the always, never, and sometimes locked door and I was trying to make that point, one which the poster I was addressing it to still did not want to understand.

 

[Danny]

I disagree, outside that last sentence, which is sheer shining truth!

I'd say the errors in translation are minor and rather expected from the volunteer efforts of various different people over the course of a four hundred page document.

I'm afraid I don't agree. The errors spotted by Rose fundamentally change the meaning of the text to the detriment of the accused, and they are not errors which can be put down to the complexity of the Italian. There's no excuse for them.

I would like to know how many other such errors exist in the translation. I regard the translation as suspect and unreliable.

 

[Danny]

Has "Rose" completed a translation of her/his own?

I think what Rose has done is to compare the Italian text with the English translation in areas where there has been controversy over what actually happened.

It has then been discovered that the English translation is not only inaccurate but in fact downright misleading in those particular areas.

Many people on this forum are capable of reading simple Italian phrases, including Rose. I'm not sure why it would be necessary for her to complete an independent translation of the Massei Report before pointing out any errors.

 

[Kaosium]

Good points. Of the three mentioned the first is in my mind the hardest to explain as just an unintentional mistake. The point that I was trying to make with these was not only how one word in a translation can change things but even among those who are fluent in both languages a lost in translation mistake can happen. At the time, we were discussing the possible translation problems regarding the always, never, and sometimes locked door and I was trying to make that point, one which the poster I was addressing it to still did not want to understand.

I didn't get that first one either, but then again I don't know the nuances of the language and I don't think it actually 'biased' it in a way to the overall detriment of Amanda and Raffaele.

I recall portions of that discussion elsewhere, and what I was thinking was if she was really trying to dissuade them from opening the door, she'd have yelled 'Don't break down the door!' That might have at least worked if that was actually her aim. She could then pretend to remember Meredith had told her she was planning on going somewhere mid-day, and de-escalated the situation.

I'm afraid I don't agree. The errors spotted by Rose fundamentally change the meaning of the text to the detriment of the accused, and they are not errors which can be put down to the complexity of the Italian. There's no excuse for them.

I would like to know how many other such errors exist in the translation. I regard the translation as suspect and unreliable.

Fair enough, I made my points. Outside the first that I don't understand, I could see myself making the same errors in good faith, especially with the 'metric measuring' thingy which I was arguing was probably not their mistake until it occurred to me they could be two different items.

It was the Massei Report that more or less convinced me of innocence, and I have read I'm not the only one, thus how biased could it be? If they wanted to really bias it they'd have come up with a translation for 'It's possible, indeed probable' that doesn't sound like he's trying to slip a sugar cube into your kool-aide whilst you're turning the page.

 

[el buscador]

Frank has a powerful new post up!

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/03/media-embracing-amanda-knoxs-innocence.html#more

 

[RoseMontague]

Frank has a powerful new post up!

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/03/media-embracing-amanda-knoxs-innocence.html#more

Awesome. I love this part:

Mignini’s cops, instead, say We didn’t beat, didn’t threaten, didn’t mistreat, didn’t insult Patrick and Amanda. But we can’t prove it because we forgot to record the interrogations: we are no good at our job.
They say We didn’t force Amanda to name Patrick, she accused him spontaneously, and we believed her: we are no good at our job.
We burned four computers, but we didn’t do it on purpose, they were four accidents, we did four times the same mistake: we are no good at our job.
We didn’t make up that Amanda and Raffaele called the 112 after the postal police arrived, we really thought that, but we were wrong: we are no good at our job.
We said that Amanda and Raffaele had washed their stuff in the washing machine. Amanda, instead, said that Meredith made that laundry. Amanda was right and we were wrong: we are no good at our job.
We said that Amanda had thrown away her sweatshirt because it was dirty with Meredith’s blood. But that sweatshirt, instead, was in her room, so we were wrong: we are no good at our job.
We said that there was Raffaele’s shoeprint in the room. But, instead, it was Rudi’s, we were wrong: we are no good at our job.
We said that there was Amanda’s shoe-print on the pillowcase, instead, it was Rudi’s, we were wrong: we are no good at our job.

 

[el buscador]

Awesome. I love this part:

I loved it, too! The post seems almost directed to mignini and no wonder.

 

[billyryan]

I loved it, too! The post seems almost directed to mignini and no wonder.

I loved it too!Frank is one of the real heroes of this tragic case,despite my enormous respect for Frank Sfarzo I think the time is long gone for the evil Mignini to be able to rescue any credibility and likewise for Camodi and Stefanoni,who really knows what was on Franks mind when he wrote that post maybe he is like me looking forward to the day when the prosecuters the judges the police and the forensic scientists whose shameful actions and decisions created this miscarriage of justice turn on one another

 

[Danny]

I loved it too!Frank is one of the real heroes of this tragic case,despite my enormous respect for Frank Sfarzo I think the time is long gone for the evil Mignini to be able to rescue any credibility and likewise for Camodi and Stefanoni,who really knows what was on Franks mind when he wrote that post maybe he is like me looking forward to the day when the prosecuters the judges the police and the forensic scientists whose shameful actions and decisions created this miscarriage of justice turn on one another

We have seen one evil group of people attack each other and split as a result of this case. It's not impossible that there will be more.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why not look

Hi everyone,
I am not going to get into the finer details of the knife testings, but I wonder of something.

When Dr. Stefanoni kept getting a Too Low reading as she tested the knife, why didn't she afterwards have the knife handle taken apart and she could have then run testing on it herself?

I ask this becuase if Meredith Kercher's blood were found inside the knife handle, my mind might truly change to support a pro-guilt position. But this testing has never happened and it might not ever happen, since recently we watched the prosecution oppose taking apart the knife handle. I think that is strange. Why wouldn't the prosecution want the knife handle opened and tested to further solidify their case against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox?

And why didn't Dr. Stefanoni open and test the inside of the knife handle for blood a long time ago?

RWVBWL,

A graduate of my university who is now a forensic scientist with the police came here to give a seminar. I started telling her about the knife, and before I was finished, she asked something like, "Did they open the knife?" I really can't think of a good reason not to look.

 

[Kestrel]

RWVBWL,

A graduate of my university who is now a forensic scientist with the police came here to give a seminar. I started telling her about the knife, and before I was finished, she asked something like, "Did they open the knife?" I really can't think of a good reason not to look.

Does a really cheap knife with a molded in place plastic handle have anything to open up?

 

[Chris C]

Does a really cheap knife with a molded in place plastic handle have anything to open up?

There should be a small crack where the handle meets the blade. Even in molded knives. The size of the crack will depend on how new and the usage of the knife.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Here are a few that have been noted recently:

I had not really noticed that all of these seem to favor the prosecution side of things until a poster brought this up over here, if I see one that works the other way, I'll let you know.

Thanks for the correction, RoseMontague. None of them are exactly critical points, as others have said, but they are all indeed fairly serious errors and all favouring the prosecution story.

That's probably confirmation bias rather than conspiracy, in general, although it doesn't surprise me that Michaelnelli tried to suppress the fact that the translation was in error on one or more points - I don't think he lets the truth get in the way of talking up guilt if he can avoid it.

 

[Branded]

Frank has a powerful new post up!

Who is "Frank"?

 

[Malkmus]

Who is "Frank"?

The author of the article cited. He also owns the site it is hosted on.

His site started chronicling the murder of Meredith Kercher from the very first days, and like many others believed in Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito's guilt based on what was being printed in the media. As he followed the case further and attended trial hearings he determined that the pair were in fact, more than likely, innocent.

BTW, you're new here, so first a welcome.
Second, if you're also new to the case (most who have followed it are aware of Perugia-Shock, it's the longest running site on this case so just a guess) there are plenty of resources which can be recommended for getting familiarized with the case. Let us know if you need any help.

 

[RWVBWL]

Who is "Frank"?

Hi Branded,
Welcome to JREF and the Continuation Part 2 of Discussion of the Amanda Knox Case!

You have asked a simple question, so I'll give you a simple answer:
Francesco Sforza, aka Frank Sfarzo, is an Italian guy who has covered this brutal murder case on a website he started, Perugia Shock, since right after the murder of Meredith Kercher happened.

Here is a link to his 1st posting, dated November 6, 2007:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2007/11/patrick-diya-lumumba-arrested-as.html

Frank originally thought Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were guilty of involvement in Miss Kercher's murder, but eventually realized the truth as he watched the case unfold. I believe that Mr. Sfarzo has observed practically every single court hearing.

With this in mind, his website is a valuable source of information. I might suggest that a person truly interested in what has transpired in this tragic case we discuss read his postings from over the years...

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Malkmus,
I just posted a response to Branded and saw that you had too. Man, I am a slow typer!
Anyways, tomorrow is an important day in court for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I wonder how the Court will find the testimony of Antonio Curatolo to be?

RWVBWL,

A graduate of my university who is now a forensic scientist with the police came here to give a seminar. I started telling her about the knife, and before I was finished, she asked something like, "Did they open the knife?" I really can't think of a good reason not to look.

Hi halides1
Thanks for sharing that story.
It makes sense that another police forensic scientist would ask "Did they open the knife?",
IMHO...

 

[Branded]

Thank you M. & R. for your posts.

I'm afraid, however, that I still have no idea who "Frank" is.

Is it correct to say that he is not employed as a reporter?

You or I could open a free gmail account and start a blog about this case, too.

Why does anyone care what this one person has to say?

What are his credentials?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Thank you M. & R. for your posts.

I'm afraid, however, that I still have no idea "Frank" is.

Is it correct to say that he is not employed as a reporter?

You or I could open a free gmail account and start a blog about this case, too.

Why does anyone care what this one person has to say?

What are his credentials?

Priceless. You could have at least have tried to be believable. Yeesh.