Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

This thread is 'boggling my mind' (again)

The question is, what did Rafaelle say, when did he say it, and was it true/accurate?

From his prison diary, Nov. 7, 2007:





Prison diary, Nov 12, 2007:



So back to the silence, which is actually platonov's silence. We are waiting for him to provide a link to support his assertion that Rafaelle claimed Amanda left his place between 9pm and 1 am on Nov 1-2.

LondonJohn: "I'm just not aware that it has ever been established that Sollecito claimed that Knox left his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the evening/night of November 1st/2nd. And I'm still not aware that this fact has ever been established."

<snip>

platonov: "It has been, repeatedly - whether to your satisfaction or not, confusion over other issues notwithstanding."

When, how and by whom has it been repeatedly established, plat?

More confusion, no doubt the fault is again mine.

The Silencereferred to is
you'll need to explain why it seemingly never cropped up in the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito
- both of which were hilited in the original and quoted post.



ps
Most recently by Kaosium as it happens, not that it made any difference it seems ??
Perhaps this is justification, if it were needed, for my 'qualification'.

pps " 'There is hope yet' was also made in jest - lest there be any confusion"

 

[pilot padron]

Thanks, agree with the zero chance of truth possibility

pilot padron,

Amanda has only ever given two versions of what happened that night, not three. Mr. Ghirga should be asked to explain what he meant. Even if we accept three versions for the sake of argument, it is incorrect to assign a 1 in 3 chance for each one automatically. Finally, we know that one of the versions has a zero percent chance of being true. Your argument belongs in the Massei report.

1) OK, yes, of course.... there is also the possibility (probability) of zero truth *in all three* versions; thanks.

2) Can't the resident self proclaimed mind reading expert here help you with what lead Attorney Ghirga 'meant to say'?

3) Appreciate the suggestion, but since I personally regrettably have nothing anywhere near the academic achievements, professional accreditation, long judicial experience, nor revered peer respect appropriately and accurately accorded to *Judge* Massei, I respectfully disagree with your suggested placement of my pronouncements.

 

[Katody Matrass]

oh, and one more thing, pilot.

Why don't you ask those factual people to explain to you why did Massei rejected the untruth of the Postals, that they arrived at half past twelve?

Since you're in touch with them, you can also ask if the untrue things the police told are lies or not.

You know the untruths about the missing sweatshirt, the shoeprint, the bleach receipts etc. You think that those untrue things are all lies. I wonder if they agree with your unfavorable view of the cops.

 

[pilot padron]

Facts and lack thereof

LOL, surely the brave men of Massei court broke the shackles of conventional logic on this one.

Along the lines of the importance of 'accuracy' particularly in opening statements (a-la correct lead Attorney), especially on a group so frequently chiding opponents about importance of such 'facts'........

Surely I need not also correct you in that the 'Massei Court' jury consisted of more than brave *men*

Or did you......
1) 'mean to say' something different
2) consider the correct jury composition to be a 'nit picking' non mattering thing
3) plan to rebut with pages of Google/You Tube meanings/uses of 'men' or 'Massei Court'

ETA:

oh, and one more thing, pilot.
........

I wonder if they agree with your unfavorable view of the cops.

Are you confusing me with another poster here (on your team) who brags about macing a Police Officer, as well as his distrust/dislike of *all police* ??

Again the "fact' you again incorrectly cite about 'my unfavorable view' of Police is inaccurate, unfounded, absurd, as well as blatantly diametrically opposed to the truth (again)

 

[Katody Matrass]

Impossible! You missed it again, pilot!
Why don't you ask those factual people to explain to you why did Massei reject the untruth of the Postals, that they arrived at half past twelve?

What they said was untrue, according to you that makes them liars, no?

 

[babycondor]

More confusion, no doubt the fault is again mine.

The Silencereferred to is
you'll need to explain why it seemingly never cropped up in the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito
- both of which were hilited in the original and quoted post.



ps
Most recently by Kaosium as it happens, not that it made any difference it seems ??
Perhaps this is justification, if it were needed, for my 'qualification'.

You did account for why, if it had been established, it never cropped up in the trial. I got that. However, you remained silent on LJ's request to provide a link showing that it was established that Rafaelle claimed Amanda left his place between 9pm and 1am on Nov. 1

 

[platonov]

There is boggling and there is 'boggling'

You did account for why, if it had been established, it never cropped up in the trial. I got that. However, you remained silent on LJ's request to provide a link showing that it was established that Rafaelle claimed Amanda left his place between 9pm and 1am on Nov. 1

No, I did the very opposite (inadmissibility issues regarding direct usage notwithstanding) and implied strongly that it had 'cropped up' in the trial and later hoped that platonov's implication had been enough, or that London John (for once) or Fine had checked before contradicting me and thus we had been spared the usual rigmarole.

I most certainly did - see my ps which you quoted.

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't help noticing that one side of this discussion makes their points in simple declarative sentences that are easy to understand (even for simpletons such as myself) while the other side seems to want to make their points as difficult as possible to figure out, couching them in obfuscatory language or directing people towards links which lead to other links which lead to yet more links which end up saying something apparently quite different.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[Kaosium]

I can't help noticing that one side of this discussion makes their points in simple declarative sentences that are easy to understand (even for simpletons such as myself) while the other side seems to want to make their points as difficult as possible to figure out, couching them in obfuscatory language or directing people towards links which lead to other links which lead to yet more links which end up saying something apparently quite different.

Why is that, do you think?

They read too much translated Italian legalese. I need to 'deprogram' myself every time I venture too close to that abyss!

 

[babycondor]

No, I did the very opposite (inadmissibility issues regarding direct usage notwithstanding) and implied strongly that it had 'cropped up' in the trial and later hoped that platonov's implication had been enough, or that London John (for once) or Fine had checked before contradicting me and thus we had been spared the usual rigmarole.

I most certainly did - see my ps which you quoted.

Can you provide a link establishing that Rafaelle claimed Amanda left his place between 9pm and 1am on Nov. 1?

 

[platonov]

Can you provide a link establishing that Rafaelle claimed Amanda left his place between 9pm and 1am on Nov. 1?

Well, this is a different kind of a rigmarole

ps
Most recently by Kaosium* as it happens, not that it made any difference it seems ??
Perhaps this is justification, if it were needed, for my 'qualification'.

* bottom of page 283 in this thread, that's the page before this one [using Forum Default]
A rather large post (#11318) - If you cant find it ask Kaosium.

 

[LondonJohn]

If the silence that followed this post is any indication it seems that for once platonov will not be contradicted and thus several pages of obfuscation, denial, demands for cites, incomprehension, and finally evasion can be avoided.

Well that is a happy surprise.

There is hope yet.

Platonov doesn't understand basic jurisprudence. LondonJohn will attempt to explain it to him in terms which he (platonov) might be able to comprehend:

The reason why Sollecito's "9pm to 1am" story was not brought up during the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito was nothing at all to do with Sollecito exercising his right to silence.

Sollecito was present throughout the trial, and had the right - and the opportunity - to challenge, confirm or refute anything that he was alleged to have said. The only time when verbal or written evidence is not allowable is when the person who's alleged to have spoken or written the testimony has no opportunity to be present in the court and challenge/confirm/deny the testimony.

Perhaps platonov might like to consider that the real reason why this was not introduced in the first trial was that it was evidence that was improperly obtained, and which was almost immediately refuted by Sollecito himself. LondonJohn believes that an open mind, a willingness to understand jurisprudence, and decent reasoning skills, can go a long way to forming a proper, objective viewpoint on this case. On the other hand, closed-minded thinking, coupled with poor research and confirmation bias, can lead to erroneous arguments.

.

 

[Kaosium]

Uhhhhh

Per chance, each and every one of the only people whose 'acceptance' matters so far..... *All* the jurors apparently did not accept that "fact?"

Additionally,

1) the *l-e-a-d* Attorney defending Knox stated that he in effect had only a 1 in 3 possibility of accepting that 'fact?' ('version').

2) The majority of members of the more factual and more popular with researchers of the case Forums most definitely do not accept that 'fact?'.

3) Albeit not mattering, the majority of posters on this Forum probably would accept that 'fact?'.
However, there are a few remaining minority here still willing to endure arguments replete with unsolicited spelling lessons and accompanying borderline incivility directed at them who absolutely do not accept that 'fact?'.

There's another explanation. The two statements she signed were produced under great duress which accounts for their existence, the police had convinced her temporarily she must have been at the scene when the murder occurred. Her note is an attempt to explain what happened to her and what she was trying to say as they weren't really listening, in part because the translator wasn't trying to comprehend what she was saying merely trying to help the cops get something damning.

So you have gibberish from the first two, and in the note she tries to put it all in English after they were done with her.

 

[platonov]

Platonov doesn't understand basic jurisprudence. LondonJohn will attempt to explain it to him in terms which he (platonov) might be able to comprehend:

The reason why Sollecito's "9pm to 1am" story was not brought up during the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito was nothing at all to do with Sollecito exercising his right to silence.

Sollecito was present throughout the trial, and had the right - and the opportunity - to challenge, confirm or refute anything that he was alleged to have said. The only time when verbal or written evidence is not allowable is when the person who's alleged to have spoken or written the testimony has no opportunity to be present in the court and challenge/confirm/deny the testimony.

Perhaps platonov might like to consider that the real reason why this was not introduced in the first trial was that it was evidence that was improperly obtained, and which was almost immediately refuted by Sollecito himself. LondonJohn believes that an open mind, a willingness to understand jurisprudence, and decent reasoning skills, can go a long way to forming a proper, objective viewpoint on this case. On the other hand, closed-minded thinking, coupled with poor research and confirmation bias, can lead to erroneous arguments.

.

Nonsense, with some strawmen thrown in for good measure.

Without getting into pointless arguments regarding the admissibility issue i.e. directly using the 'BS' statement of the 5th by RS - I presume we are all familiar with the situation in that regard.

& Given that this issue is moot as RS never took the stand in the trial or even answered Q's after Nov 8th so subsequent references couldn't be put to him

You haven't responded on whether it 'cropped up' in the trial - which was the point of the original post

Any reason for this reticence ? ? ?

 

[Kaosium]

Well, this is a different kind of a rigmarole




* bottom of page 283 in this thread, that's the page before this one [using Forum Default]
A rather large post (#11318) - If you cant find it ask Kaosium.

It could be someone's decided 'if you can dish it out you can take it.'

 

[platonov]

It could be someone's decided 'if you can dish it out you can take it.'

It could be someone's trying to change the subject

Better in these situations to drop it - No

 

[odeed]

I can't help noticing that one side of this discussion makes their points in simple declarative sentences that are easy to understand (even for simpletons such as myself) while the other side seems to want to make their points as difficult as possible to figure out, couching them in obfuscatory language or directing people towards links which lead to other links which lead to yet more links which end up saying something apparently quite different.

Why is that, do you think?

Because one side tries to provide evidence, while the other nitpicks over minor issues.

How many threads, pages has this been going on, how many times has the same topic been discussed?

 

[babycondor]

Well, this is a different kind of a rigmarole




* bottom of page 283 in this thread, that's the page before this one [using Forum Default]
A rather large post (#11318) - If you cant find it ask Kaosium.

Thank you.

If the translation is accurate, the Matteini report says Rafaelle at one point claimed that on the evening of the 1st, he and Amanda walked from Via della Pergola to the town center where they separated, he going home and she going to Le Chic. Matteini also says Rafaelle later retracted this version.

This is different than Rafaelle claiming that Amanda left his place between 9pm and 1 am on the 1st.

 

[platonov]

Because one side tries to provide evidence, while the other nitpicks over minor issues.

How many threads, pages has this been going on, how many times has the same topic been discussed?

Wow, I didn't realise it had started that early in the thread.

Prophetic posts there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let's talk about the evidence

Because one side tries to provide evidence, while the other nitpicks over minor issues.

How many threads, pages has this been going on, how many times has the same topic been discussed?

odeed,

Do you care to discuss "The Machine's" take on the mixed DNA? She wrote, "The mixed blood samples are perhaps the strongest and most damning of all the physical evidence in the case."