Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Skind]

You heard about it. I heared it directly. What did he make up?

They either willfully did not tape it due to budget contraints, or they were willing to tape it but just forgot.

Both cannot be true.

So, which one did he make up? You could try to catch him and ask him the next time you see him.

 

[HumanityBlues]

By the way, anyone who doesn't think Mignini is a liar should read John Follain's book. Mignini knew long before Raffaele's team knew that the Nike shoe print didn't belong to Raffaele, but he presented it that way anyways.

Over.

 

[RoseMontague]

You heard about it. I heared it directly. What did he make up?

Actually I readed about it and you said you heared directly of it. I am talking about his closing remarks in the first trail when he gave his version of the assault and murder, making up fantasy statements from AK.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Actually I readed about it and you said you heared directly of it. I am talking about his closing remarks in the first trail when he gave his version of the assault and murder, making up fantasy statements from AK.

This is the closest emoticon I could find for pffffft.

It's over.

(bla bla bla *datum*)

 

[RoseMontague]

But this is not true. He was clearly talking about the spontaneous statement, and the police interrogation, these are two things. The rush to go to arrest patrick obviously refers to his decision to not record the 05:54 statement, as he was busy about many other things. But on the 01:45 statement he is talking about a default police practice, where he was not present, and no one was busy about arresting patrick who was still unknown (I also explained how this default praxis had an influence also on the 05:54, when added to the other reason, lack of focus on setting a recording since he was displaced from his office and busy with other things, and so I explained how the two reasons obviously can both be true).

You explained they would not tape the 1:45 statement because AK was not an official suspect. Mignini is talking about the 5:45AM statement in both of his remarks.

 

[Poppy1016]

You heard about it. I heared it directly. What did he make up?

Mach, if nothing else, you are certainly persistent. But your steadfast belief in ignoring the facts and belief that you are right and the judge, jury, and the independant experts are wrong is unbelieveable. You are far too intelligent to believe all you say. I wish I knew what your motive is.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you remember that - besides stating that it is not possible to know if it is a 530.1 (innocence) or a 530.2 (insufficient proof) based on the formula - I told you that all 530.2 acquittals have the formula "per non avere commesso" il fatto, or "perchè il fatto non sussiste"?

I mean all acquittals for insufficient proof have one of these 2 formulas.
Did you record this information?

I did record all this information, but thank you anyhow for the condescension.

Knox and Sollecito were acquitted on charges A, B, C and D because they did not commit the crime, because there was no evidence that they committed the crime. They were acquitted on 530.1. Please try to understand that. Bye.

 

[Skind]

But on the 01:45 statement he is talking about a default police practice,

But, she was still a witness at that point, thus there was no obligation to tape it, thus the reason for not taping it is the third unmentioned option. He does not appear to have given this reason.

So, we now have 3 reasons for not taping the statements, all 3 of which are mutually contradictory. At least two of which are in complete contradiction to the modus operandi already in place in regards both witness interviews and subject-centered behaviour. Also, 4 hours is not a 'rush' and the arrest did not require that all interviewers rush off either, meaning they could easily have recorded the rest of the interview.

There was no reason to not tape after 1.45am.

Provide direct quotations to each of his statements so that we can see full and proper context.

 

[Machiavelli]

They either willfully did not tape it due to budget contraints, or they were willing to tape it but just forgot.

Both cannot be true.

So, which one did he make up? You could try to catch him and ask him the next time you see him.

They can bot be true.
There are in fact - red above - two possible moments for recording: the interrogation, 01:45, and the spontaneous statement at 05:54
They willfully did not tape it due to budged connstraints, this is true for the 05:54 and for the habitual praxis.
They forgot, or bttern did focus/ not worry about setting a recording because they (expecially Mignini) were concerned with other priorities, this is a further reason that only applies to the second one, the 05:54 recording.

So I see them as both true and consistent. Don't you?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's difficult to see what motivates them - indeed that was the case long before the Hellmann acquittals. Ironically, though, it's what makes this case as compelling as it is.

I agree. I had no idea that these sorts of online communities of maladjusted individuals with self esteem issues actually existed before I stumbled across this case. And as you say, I find it a fascinating study in human psychology, groupthink, collective vindictiveness and a desperate need to "belong", quite apart from the underlying case under discussion. Having just viewed the groups of oddballs outside the courtroom where Conrad Murray was just convicted, it seems that these sorts of individuals are more widespread than it might at first glance appear.

 

[Poppy1016]

Mignini is so full of crap that he believes his own ridiculous rantings.

 

[RoseMontague]

They can bot be true.
There are in fact - red above - two possible moments for recording: the interrogation, 01:45, and the spontaneous statement at 05:54
They willfully did not tape it due to budged connstraints, this is true for the 05:54 and for the habitual praxis.
They forgot, or bttern did focus/ not worry about setting a recording because they (expecially Mignini) were concerned with other priorities, this is a further reason that only applies to the second one, the 05:54 recording.

So I see them as both true and consistent. Don't you?

Too funny. You say one thing to make one point and the opposite to make another. For Mignini, you'll say both at the same time.

 

[Poppy1016]

Mignini lies and Mach swears to it . Too funny. The judge who resigned just confirms everything we have said about the Italian justice system.

 

[Machiavelli]

I did record all this information, but thank you anyhow for the condescension.

Knox and Sollecito were acquitted on charges A, B, C and D because they did not commit the crime, because there was no evidence that they committed the crime. They were acquitted on 530.1. Please try to understand that. Bye.

After your wrong statements where you expressed a basic misunderstanding of the topic (do you recall, you condescendigly stated that "per non avere commesso il fatto" in some way - "axiomatically" - rules out 530.2; then you guessed that the 530.2 + formula were rare cases only related to terrorism or mafia), my question would be, on what basis now you assert that you know it was 530.1.
Because of your records of claiming a knowledge that you don't have and is proven bogus, I am interested in seeing the ground for the assertion. To see if there is a legal inference, or nothing but the quoted newspaper line.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think Hellmann made it clear (from lastampa.it):

In our case we have not invoked the second subparagraph of article 530 of the code (the old lack of evidence, ED).

So what are you trying to point out here? That the Italian legal system doesn't even provide proper formulas for their judges?

-
Osterwelle

It was in fact clear from the moment the words left Hellmann's mouth on October 3rd that the acquittals were on 530.1. Machiavelli has disingenuously invoked certain political and terrorist rulings that deliberately distorted the code for specific reasons. Everyone else in Italy, including the entirety of the Italian media, and all international observers who know anything about the Italian criminal codes, knows full-well that these are 530.1 acquittals. Hellmann only confirmed this when he made the remark you quoted above.

I have no idea why Machiavelli continues to cling to this rather sad (and false) little assertion about 530.2. I think I can guess as to why (but clearly that's not a discussion for here!), but you'd really have to ask him. Whatever his motivation is for continuing his futile fight on this topic, it seems it will only take the Hellmann motivations report to finally convince him of the futility and error of his position. But then chiropractors still think they can cure things like childhood asthma and liver disease through pulling people's backs around, so I suppose we should be prepared to encounter incorrect, over-zealous, over-invested, irrational arguments in many fields.

 

[Osterwelle]

Hellmann made nothing clear. He stated the opposite as well: that maybe they committed the crime, that the evidence was contradictory, insufficient (but there was), that there was no certainity, and that the prosecution is not to be "criticized".

So you say the "lastampa.it" misquoted Hellmann then?

I am not trying to say anything. I stated something that is true, which maybe you do't get..
Which is: all 530.2 acquittals have a formula which is either "per non avere commesso il fatto" or "perché il fatto non sussiste".

I get it, I just find it ominous that the Italien legal system seems to have a formula which can mean two different - although similiar - things. Maybe it's also Hellmann's fault that he didn't make it clearer while reading the sentence.

Whatever, it will be clear once the the report is out. This is going to be interesting...

-
Osterwelle

 

[RoseMontague]

BTW Machiavelli, we were discussing this statement of yours earlier and need further clarification. How exactly do we know the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00 and not earlier and please explain this automatic ping at midnight thing, never heard this one before.

But also, the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00, not earlier, since at this time - not earlier - for the first time the phone automatically pings at the cell compatible with Lana's garden.

 

[Machiavelli]

Too funny. You say one thing to make one point and the opposite to make another. For Mignini, you'll say both at the same time.

Instead I think here you are disingenuous, and that you can see that the reasons are both consistent.
I think you can also see that the 05:54 statement and the 01:45 interogation are two different contexts, and the issue of recording them makes two topics.

 

[LondonJohn]

After your wrong statements where you expressed a basic misunderstanding of the topic (do you recall, you condescendigly stated that "per non avere commesso il fatto" in some way - "axiomatically" - rules out 530.2; then you guessed that the 530.2 + formula were rare cases only related to terrorism or mafia), my question would be, on what basis now you assert that you know it was 530.1.
Because of your records of claiming a knowledge that you don't have and is proven bogus, I am interested in seeing the ground for the assertion. To see if there is a legal inference, or nothing but the quoted newspaper line.

Seriously, it's over. You're wrong. These are 530.1 acquittals. Definitely. No datum point in the world will change that truth. But why does it matter to you so much?

 

[RoseMontague]

Instead I think here you are disingenuous, and that you can see that the reasons are both consistent.
I think you can also see that the 05:54 statement and the 01:45 interogation are two different contexts, and the issue of recording them makes two topics.

The logic of this has been pointed out to you and you are too intelligent not to see it. Mignini is a lying liar. Full stop and circle back, well done, cooked.