• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
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.
Click to expand...


You flatterer you! :D

Mignini, Stefanoni, Comodi and Napoleoli have all been shown conclusively to be liars in matters directly related to this case. Anyone with an open mind, basic intelligence and logic can easily see these truths. But people with an agenda, a closed mind, a stubborn refusal to be wrong or a narcissistic streak might either refuse to see these truths or be unable to see them. Oh, and plain stupid people too. Just sayin'.
 
HumanityBlues said:
GREAT usage of datum.
Click to expand...


Thanks - I try! :D

Curiously, I write quite a lot of consultancy reports which contain analysis of data; I'm one of the few people who insists on treating the word "data" as a plural noun (of which "datum" is the singular equivalent) - meaning that I will (e.g.) write "the data indicate that...." rather than "the data indicates that....". I get a tiny amount of perverse delight on hearing/reading people "correcting" me on this issue :)
 
Poppy1016 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ask him about his burgeoning (and totally ridiculous) conspiracy theory argument concerning the acts and findings of Hellmann's court. It's a classic, and not just because of its innate irony :)
 
So Machiavelli--

Any ideas how Roberto Settonce got ahold of the crime scene photos and sold them to a photo agency?

Any idea what info Monica Napoloeoni was leaking to the press, per the testimony of Alessandra Formica?

Why did Comodi try to give Hellmann "negative control" documents that did not have the right control numbers?

Did Stefanoni run negative controls on the Qubit Flourometer, and if so, where are they?
 
LondonJohn said:
Thanks - I try! :D

Curiously, I write quite a lot of consultancy reports which contain analysis of data; I'm one of the few people who insists on treating the word "data" as a plural noun (of which "datum" is the singular equivalent) - meaning that I will (e.g.) write "the data indicate that...." rather than "the data indicates that....". I get a tiny amount of perverse delight on hearing/reading people "correcting" me on this issue :)
Click to expand...

Something that always grates on me is when people use "agendas".
 
Machiavelli said:
The prosecution as far as I know never lied. I have never heared a false report by the prosecution.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

2 mal 3 macht 4
Widdewiddewitt und Drei macht Neune !!
Ich mach' mir die Welt
Widdewidde wie sie mir gefällt ....

-
Osterwelle
 
Machiavelli said:
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".

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".

Thus, Hellmann's acquittal can well be an acquittal for insufficient proof (530.2). I don't know for certain if it is so, and specifically I don't know for which defendant and on which charges, but I know that on any of the 9 charges this could well be. I think it will probably be so.
Click to expand...

But if he has said that the acquittals are not under the second subparagraph of 530, then doesn't that mean that the acquittals must be for innocence under 530.1? What other options could there be if 530.2 is excluded, as he has said?
 
Osterwelle said:
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

2 mal 3 macht 4
Widdewiddewitt und Drei macht Neune !!
Ich mach' mir die Welt
Widdewidde wie sie mir gefällt ....

-
Osterwelle
Click to expand...


Pippi Langstrumpf!!!!

Das macht mir sehr freudig :D

Und ist das vollig angemessen :)
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
But if he has said that the acquittals are not under the second subparagraph of 530, then doesn't that mean that the acquittals must be for innocence under 530.1? What other options could there be if 530.2 is excluded, as he has said?
Click to expand...

It's either a 530.1 or a misquote. But was he referring to all the charges or just a particular one? I could see a 530.2 acquittal for the actual murder charges but a 530.1 acquittal for the "simulated burglary".
 
Machiavelli said:
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?
Click to expand...

The reason for not recording the first interview is because they didn't have to , as she was a witness at this time. That Mignini did not give this as the reason strongly indicates that he was talking about the second interview, or that he believes they should have recorded it.

Until you provide the full and proper context that you have already been asked to provide, there is no reason to believe that you are not utterly mistaken. Your claims simply do not match up to the context. You can't have 'they didn't have to record it' (your claim) and 'they didn't record it due to budget' (Mig's claim) at the same time.

The reason for not recording the second intererview is absurd, they had several hours to start recording, not all were needed for the arrest, they were all apparently seasoned and professional interviewers and unlikely to therefore be jumping about like children.

The 'budget' reason simply does not work as they demonstratably had enough budget for recording multiple previous interviews, suspect surveillance, phone tapping and wiretapping, both previous and post-interview. They were already recording Knox and Sollecito prior to the interview.

Your excuses simply do not work, are not logical, do not follow what has been said in court, and do not follow the experience, training, skill and previous behaviour of the police in this case.

In short, you're making it up as you go along.

Stop it.
 
LondonJohn said:
Pippi Langstrumpf!!!!

Das macht mir sehr freudig :D

Und ist das vollig angemessen :)
Click to expand...
It's a common thing to quote on German forums if you've got somebody like Machiavelli around.

And sometimes I just can't help myself and post it on English forums as well. Most of the time, some people understand... :D

-
Osterwelle
 
Ammonitida said:
It's either a 530.1 or a misquote. But was he referring to all the charges or just a particular one? I could see a 530.2 acquittal for the actual murder charges but a 530.1 acquittal for the "simulated burglary".
Click to expand...

I thought that the "simulated burglary" acquittal was on the grounds that no such crime occurred. Is that the same as they didn't do the crime?
 
Ammonitida said:
It's either a 530.1 or a misquote. But was he referring to all the charges or just a particular one? I could see a 530.2 acquittal for the actual murder charges but a 530.1 acquittal for the "simulated burglary".
Click to expand...


Hellmann is totally unequivocal in that press interview. He leaves absolutely no room for doubt (not there ever was any in the minds of anyone except Machiavelli and his acolytes) that the entirety of the acquittals, including explicitly those on the murder charges, were of the 530.1 variety.

I find it interesting thought that Machiavelli also chooses to somewhat duplicitously twist the words of Hellmann from another part of the interview to suit his (Machiavelli's) own agenda. Hellmann responded to a very specific question about what might truly have happened in the cottage on the night of the murder by stating - quite correctly - that Guede definitely knew what happened, and that Knox and/or Sollecito might possibly also know what happened. He also stated - also correctly - that his court's verdict might not match with the truth.

But if you interpret these statements in their correct legal context (rather than resorting to willful bias and a particular agenda), Hellmann is in fact saying that it's impossible for a court to know the absolute truth of what happened. The court can only assess the guilt or non-guilt of those on trial. And if there's no evidence pointing towards the accused, it doesn't mean that the accused definitively did not commit the crime(s), but it does mean that the accused can definitively not be convicted of committing the crimes(s). And just as Hellmann cannot definitively say that Knox/Sollecito weren't participants in the murder, he could not likewise definitively say that any person in or around Perugia on the night of the murder (perhaps, for example, Monica Napoleoni, if she didn't have an alibi) might not have been involved in the murder.
 
Diocletus said:
I thought that the "simulated burglary" acquittal was on the grounds that no such crime occurred. Is that the same as they didn't do the crime?
Click to expand...


No, they mean different things, but they both fall under the 530.1 part of the code. Either the court deemed that no crime actually occurred (and therefore nobody at all could be convicted of a crime that never existed), as was Hellmann's finding on the "staging", or that a crime did occur (e.g. in this case the murder), but that the defendants were not the person/people who committed the crime.
 
Didaktylos said:
Incidentally - how many of Mach's predictions have proven right so far?
Click to expand...


That'll be........none.

I also particularly enjoy Popper's (over on trainwreck.org) quantitative probability predictions. He triumphed with his "1% chance of acquittal" in Hellmann's court, and he's going for the spectacular double with his laughable "75% chance of overturning of acquittal" in the Supreme Court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom