Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

one point of agreement

There should be no discussion, in fact.

You have been told the truth about the files many times. I snipped out the falsehoods from your comment, leaving behind the only thing that is true.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have been told the truth about the files many times. I snipped out the falsehoods from your comment, leaving behind the only thing that is true.

You have been told the truth many times.

And you always snipped it.

While you always lost.

 

[Machiavelli]

But, Massei found as factual otherwise, as listed above.

Massei never found anything factual about psycopathology. Absolutely never.

(he they did not even search the topic, actually).

No factual finding on the topic. This did not happen.

The fact that Massei does not speak about psychopatology, is not a factual finding of something. Massei doesn't make any finding about the existence of the Venice bell-tower. By your logic you would deduce they made the factual finding that the Venice bell-tower doesn't exist.

 

[Bill Williams]

Massei never found anything factual about psycopathology. Absolutely never.

(he they did not even search the topic, actually).

No factual finding on the topic. This did not happen.

The fact that Massei does not speak about psychopatology, is not a factual finding of something. Massei doesn't make any finding about the existence of the Venice bell-tower. By your logic you would deduce they made the factual finding that the Venice bell-tower doesn't exist.

Have it your way, Machiavelli. The post was not aimed at you, anyway. It was for those who are interested in what Massei had to say about the two students' personalities.

And if what YOU say is true, why is so much of what under lies the hate websites predicated on psychopathology?

You cannot have this both ways. It's nice to see you retreat like this, though. That made the reposting of Massei worth it. He he.

Be a nice chap, now, and make an osmotic evaluation of what Massei DID write!

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, do you hold as the ISC implies that everything Rudy says is untrustworthy and must be disregarded?

You should not consider a person untrustorthy a priori, you always need to listen to the testimony first. Then you can state that the testimony is untrustworthy.

If the courts believed that apriori, what was the point of bringing Rudy into Amanda and Raffaele's trial? Are trials in Italy just for show?

Guede's declarations were brought into court by the defence. You may turn the question to the defences: they called Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello as witnesses - those are charechters not more trustworthy or reliable than Guede. The Sollecito defence called Alessi to answer about confidential declarations he had from Rudy Guede.
So it's the defence who brought Guede's declarations into court.
Once such evidence was entered by the defence, you can only listen to it completely. What Guede had to say about his own confidences to Alessi, is obviously part of the same piece of evidence. The evidence must be complete.

 

[Machiavelli]

Have it your way, Machiavelli. The post was not aimed at you, anyway. It was for those who are interested in what Massei had to say about the two students' personalities.

And if what YOU say is true, why is so much of what under lies the hate websites predicated on psychopathology?

You cannot have this both ways. It's nice to see you retreat like this, though. That made the reposting of Massei worth it. He he.

(..)

But quit talking about retreats. That's pathetic, boring, and actually offensive.
There is no retreat. There is only the obvious self-evident fact that you claim Massei made "finding" of things when this is obviously false. What is obvious, is your way of producing unfounded claims.

Now, with a logic which would delight a SC judge, you seem to claim that Massei must have found "no psychopatology" as a factual finding, because there are "hate sites" (?) who think Knox has a disturbed personality.
This is your argument? This is how you argue about trial findings?

Again, it's very simple. You claim Massei made factual findings on the defendants personalities. Your claim is false. The Massei court did not make any findings. They did not even consider or discuss the topic.
Of course it could be both ways. You could well have a defendant who is a psycopath, and a judge who does not say anything about it and a trial that does not deal with the topic at all. This actually happens many many times.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli, do you hold as the ISC implies that everything Rudy says is untrustworthy and must be disregarded?

You should not consider a person untrustorthy a priori, you always need to listen to the testimony first. Then you can state that the testimony is untrustworthy.

Finally I get my answer about the clothes Knox said she wore on the night of the 1st of Nov.

I asked Machiavelli why the cops did not collect Knox's clothes and test them, since she claimed to be wearing them the night of the murder.

His answer? "When did you stop beating your wife?"

So let me answer for Machiavelli, given that he's been so kind to answer about Rudy's trustworthiness....

You should not consider a person evidence untrustorthy a priori, you always need to listen to test the testimony first. Then you can state that the testimony evidence is untrustworthy.

There, I fixed it for you Machiavelli. Be a good boy and listen.

 

[acbytesla]

In any argument, there are three way to deal with unfavorable facts or evidence. One way is to refute the evidence, the second is to ignore the evidence and there is Machiavelli's way. Lie about it.

How does one deal with such a sophistry?

Never mind that countless people have cited Massei's motivation. Machiavelli is proving that his moniker is pure. He takes his lessons not only from Machiavelli. but Goebbels and E. Gordon Liddy.

I impressed with your ethics Machiavelli. That is to say, their absence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Finally I get my answer about the clothes Knox said she wore on the night of the 1st of Nov.

I asked Machiavelli why the cops did not collect Knox's clothes and test them, since she claimed to be wearing them the night of the murder.

His answer? "When did you stop beating your wife?"

"since she claimed to be wearing them the night of the murder" is not a reason.
First, before putting any question, you need to explain in what way the clothes could confirm her story.
You still did not answer and did not explain your assertion.

Then you should avoid making false, unproven claims, such as the false assertion that the clothes were not collected.

Third, you would need to indicate what you mean by "test". Visual examination to search for blood or biological stains? Made with the assistence of defence experts (incidente probatorio)? Test of what samples (of one particular stain? of one spot of some cloth? for DNA?).

 

[Grinder]

Although Bill shades Massei here and there (Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others.) because the bolded section was edited out by BW but it does seem Massei goes on about how the kids are good kids and have no history of bei.ng bad.

Mach this comes from the motivations. How can it be that Massei "Massei never found anything factual about psycopathology. Absolutely never.

(he they did not even search the topic, actually)."

How do define psycopathology?

Did Massei find anything about their personalities?

 

[Machiavelli]

In any argument, there are three way to deal with unfavorable facts or evidence. One way is to refute the evidence, the second is to ignore the evidence and there is Machiavelli's way. Lie about it.

How does one deal with such a sophistry?

Never mind that countless people have cited Massei's motivation. Machiavelli is proving that his moniker is pure. He takes his lessons not only from Machiavelli. but Goebbels and E. Gordon Liddy.

I impressed with your ethics Machiavelli. That is to say, their absence.

Instead, I am impressed by the absence of your arguments.

(By the way, event the referent is absent in your post; the topic is unknown).

Never mind nobody is able to quote Massei's alleged "factual finding"; nonetheless, a little mob of converts believes there is a factual finding.
Never mind nobody is able to explain the absence of an instance to obtain EDF data from the laboratory, the proof in trial transcripts with Bongiorno's admission they were not requested for two years (2007-2009), the proof in Vecchiotti and Conti's declarations that all data they requested was given and the laboratory never withhold anything, never mind nobody is able to quote a defence complaint to the SC about such missing data, nor a request from the reasons for appeal, nor a witten brief or oral request to Hellmann.
All this doesn't matter to the believers who decided that Stefanoni withhold data.

Any factual basis of an argument is missing.
The argument is missing.
The referent is missing.
Never mind. Your idea is made of proclaims and beliefs. This is your intellectual ethics.

 

[Machiavelli]

Although Bill shades Massei here and there (Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others.) because the bolded section was edited out by BW but it does seem Massei goes on about how the kids are good kids and have no history of bei.ng bad.

"Kids" is a word which doesn't belong to Massei's document.
(a court of Assise tries adults, not kids).

Also, there is no "history of being good"; there is no moral judgement of "being good" or "being bad" on a person in a legal document.

There is actually no assessment on the personality of a defendant in a criminal trial at all, unless limited aspects are explicitly required and discussed in court for specific legal purposes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Although Bill shades Massei here and there (Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others.) because the bolded section was edited out by BW but it does seem Massei goes on about how the kids are good kids and have no history of bei.ng bad.

Mach this comes from the motivations. How can it be that Massei "Massei never found anything factual about psycopathology. Absolutely never.

(he they did not even search the topic, actually)."

How do define psycopathology?

Did Massei find anything about their personalities?

Thanks for catching that. Perhaps I had a brief moment of confirmation bias. Damn, I thought I was perfect.

The point being that nothing that Massei wrote even hinted at psychopathology, and (to me) it is illustrative that Massei seems to go out of his way to define their normalcy, even calling it a mitigating circumstance to their sentencing (and provides legal precedent in the motivations for it.)

This is not aimed for Machiavelli, but given that "psychopathology" of some kind played big in the presentation of the prosecution's case, and it most certainly occupies copious hours upon hours of typing on the three hate sites....

It would be nice if Machiavelli would repeat his claim at the hate sites. Which, by the way, was a separate request of mine. Apologies Machiavelli... I should have s-p-o-k-e-n s-l-o-w-l-y to not confuse you that I was meaning to make reference to the hate sites only in the sense that they continue this myth of psychopathology in the absence (your words) of discussion of it in any fact finding, and in fact Massei talks about the students normalcy. You will have to somehow deal with this before you blow a blood-vessel getting so angry!

 

[Bill Williams]

"Kids" is a word which doesn't belong to Massei's document.
(a court of Assise tries adults, not kids).

Also, there is no "history of being good"; there is no moral judgement of "being good" or "being bad" on a person in a legal document.

There is actually no assessment on the personality of a defendant in a criminal trial at all, unless limited aspects are explicitly required and discussed in court for specific legal purposes.

Machiavelli - then why does Massei say what he says, which I quote upthread? Have you even read page 421 of the Massei report? You are doing yourself no favours, my friend. I am trying to protect you.

 

[MDDVS]

So, were Amanda's clothes collected? If so, when?

 

[Bill Williams]

"since she claimed to be wearing them the night of the murder" is not a reason.
First, before putting any question, you need to explain in what way the clothes could confirm her story.
You still did not answer and did not explain your assertion.

Then you should avoid making false, unproven claims, such as the false assertion that the clothes were not collected.

Third, you would need to indicate what you mean by "test". Visual examination to search for blood or biological stains? Made with the assistence of defence experts (incidente probatorio)? Test of what samples (of one particular stain? of one spot of some cloth? for DNA?).

Once again, Machiavelli, my question was, "why did the PLE not collect and examine Knox's clothes?" No, I do not have to explain what the clothes would confirm or deny.... no wonder you have no sense in this case.

Did the PLE act this way in the collection of the knife at Raffaele's apartment?
Did the PLE act this way in the swabbing for DNA in the small bathroom?

You are being purposely obtuse, Machiavelli and I will leave it up to readers here to make up their own minds about this. The fact is there was potential evidence sitting on Knox's bed for weeks.

Meredith's jacket also lay on the floor and then suddenly six weeks pater was found in the clothes hamper.

The bra-clasp lay on the floor for weeks to be found some feet from where it had been photographed on Nov 2.

The reasonable person would conclude that this is the very definiton of bungling the crime scene. And you are showing your colours by defending the practise.

It just means that if the Florence court ends up convicting the two students, then you have provided the very roadmap of that injustice.

Thank you for that. I would never have figured it out on mu won.

 

[acbytesla]

Instead, I am impressed by the absence of your arguments.

(By the way, event the referent is absent in your post; the topic is unknown).

Never mind nobody is able to quote Massei's alleged "factual finding";

As Ronald Reagan said.. "There you go again".

Bill quoted Massei moments ago. To deny this is total sophistry.

As I said, you have NO ETHICAL Standards at all. But that isn't surprising. Considering your association with the Perugian judicial system and your adoption of Machiavelli as a moniker. He too had no problem using deception and lies. Diogenes would need more than a lantern in your little hamlet.

 

[Bill Williams]

So, were Amanda's clothes collected? If so, when?

Be prepared to be accused of beating your wife! For some reason asking innocent questions of Machiavelli presses some sort of sophistry button. If Machiavelli is at all indicative of Italian reasoning, I weep for Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Again, it's very simple. You claim Massei made factual findings on the defendants personalities. Your claim is false. The Massei court did not make any findings. They did not even consider or discuss the topic.
Of course it could be both ways. You could well have a defendant who is a psycopath, and a judge who does not say anything about it and a trial that does not deal with the topic at all. This actually happens many many times.

Massei rejected the claims of the prosecution of the kinds of personalities that would lead to or participate in satanic rites, ritualistic orgies, sex-games gone wrong, and irrational hate between Meredith and Amanda based on jealousy or thievery of rent money. Instead, Massei talked about both Sollecito and Knox as normal.

You're simply going to have to deal with this, Machiavelli.

No wonder you do not attempt a comprehensive theory of this horrible crime, that happened almost 6 years ago, and is about to head into its third trial!!

And when it comes to whether or not Rudy is a liar, you say that one should not proceed with that as an a priori and listen to what he has to say to begin with. Yet, you cannot answer why the PLE did not collect Knox's clothes (nor Meredith's jacket for that matter!) without engaging in sophistry. All I am saying is that both should have been tested for clues, rather than engaging in what YOU engage in to divert, obscure and distort.

By the way, I do not really think you're an out and out liar. If I've said that I apologize.

 

[acbytesla]

Isn't it interesting that no one who actually knows Amanda or Raffaele have said anything other than that they are both kind intelligent people. Their behavior has always been upstanding. The prosecution looked desperately for signs of violence or unstable behavior and they found nothing at all.

NOTHING!!!!