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

[Bill Williams]

Truly this is brilliant analysis. I'm not joshing you.

When suspicions finally coalesced around the two innocents, the geniuses at PLE were so convinced that "strange behaviour" had solved this crime, together with coerced admissions, that yhey never really thought about gathering no stinkin' evidence.

They realized the clothing was a huge problem. Multiple witnesses saw Amanda wearing it on Nov. 1. It would have been covered with blood if she had participated in the murder, in which case she wouldn't have left it strewn across her bed.

Their "solution" was to tell the media it was missing.

No wonder Machiavelli refuses to even discuss it. He wants me to first place the clothing into an "osmotic context" before he'll discuss why they were left on Knox's bed for 5 months, right where she said she'd left them.

This is a huge problem for all guilters. Assume Knox is guilty for a second; as did the cops. Why not collect the clothes and test them, and if you find nothing then claim this is simply another one of her lies?

Instead there is extreme silence from guilters. Because not collecting the clothes for five months points to the extreme incompetence of those who investigated this crime. Mr. Mignini waltzed into court (before he moved Knox out into the hall) told them that she'd wielded the knife. If so, why are her clothes not tested?

Machiavelli's refusal to discuss this is a tacit admission that this is a HUGE obstacle to the prosecution. (It certainly wouldn't fit well in a comprehensive theory of the crime from Machiavelli's point of view. No wonder he, and few guilters, even try to assemble one.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you.

I do think I agree with you that as time went by they became more frustrated that they could find a smoking gun or even a gun. I'm sure they had hoped for more DNA etc. though I can't agree that they didn't bother with "actual evidence" until 6 weeks or 4 months later.

If there really is evidence that blood was found in F's room's windows and that a hair was found and anything else then the defense should make a big deal of it in this coming appeal.

I reiterate that I think Amanda should claim poverty and have the Italians pay for their lawyers and use fund raising to pay experts etc.

This coming trial should be viewed as the basis for fighting extradition. They should attempt to enter as much as possible into the record and then when denied bring that to the US as proof of the unfair treatment. Get reports from DNA scientists from around the world and attempt to enter them into the record. Attempt to enter the break-in reconstruction. Request all the videos from the murder night. Demonstrate how the Italians aren't truly allowing them to show their lack of guilt.

As the Massei court proved, the judge controls what is and what isn't entered into the record. If the new judge is as friendly to Patrizia Stefanoni as Massei was, then the court will be the court of public opinion.

As long as Raffaele is safe, then go full bore on embarrassing the Italians. They'll be able to take it... well, all except Machiavelli.

Grinder - we've had our differences... but this is not one of them. Your analysis is brilliant. However, please let it be known that where we do differ, I'm still right and you're still wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

No wonder Machiavelli refuses to even discuss it. He wants me to first place the clothing into an "osmotic context" before he'll discuss why they were left on Knox's bed for 5 months, right where she said she'd left them.

This is a huge problem for all guilters. Assume Knox is guilty for a second; as did the cops. Why not collect the clothes and test them, and if you find nothing then claim this is simply another one of her lies?

Instead there is extreme silence from guilters. Because not collecting the clothes for five months points to the extreme incompetence of those who investigated this crime. Mr. Mignini waltzed into court (before he moved Knox out into the hall) told them that she'd wielded the knife. If so, why are her clothes not tested?

Machiavelli's refusal to discuss this is a tacit admission that this is a HUGE obstacle to the prosecution. (It certainly wouldn't fit well in a comprehensive theory of the crime from Machiavelli's point of view. No wonder he, and few guilters, even try to assemble one.)

Mach is in denial of any of the facts that are favorable to Amanda and Raffaele or any of the facts that cast the Perugian authorities in a bad light.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Grinder
Thank you.
I do think I agree with you that as time went by they became more frustrated that they could find a smoking gun or even a gun. I'm sure they had hoped for more DNA etc. though I can't agree that they didn't bother with "actual evidence" until 6 weeks or 4 months later.

If there really is evidence that blood was found in F's room's windows and that a hair was found and anything else then the defense should make a big deal of it in this coming appeal.

I reiterate that I think Amanda should claim poverty and have the Italians pay for their lawyers and use fund raising to pay experts etc.

This coming trial should be viewed as the basis for fighting extradition. They should attempt to enter as much as possible into the record and then when denied bring that to the US as proof of the unfair treatment. Get reports from DNA scientists from around the world and attempt to enter them into the record. Attempt to enter the break-in reconstruction. Request all the videos from the murder night. Demonstrate how the Italians aren't truly allowing them to show their lack of guilt.

As the Massei court proved, the judge controls what is and what isn't entered into the record. If the new judge is as friendly to Patrizia Stefanoni as Massei was, then the court will be the court of public opinion.

As long as Raffaele is safe, then go full bore on embarrassing the Italians. They'll be able to take it... well, all except Machiavelli.

Grinder - we've had our differences... but this is not one of them. Your analysis is brilliant. However, please let it be known that where we do differ, I'm still right and you're still wrong.

I agree Bill. I too don't agree with Grinder on some things ...such as Rudy having a date with Meredith that night and him staging the break in.

Having said that I think he is right on with this post. They need to be assertive with motions for more disclosure including the EDFs, the videos. I think they should get into the apartments of those people who supposedly were woken by a scream. (not the footsteps, that could have been anything or any one). with a decibel meter and replicate a scream from Meredith's back bedroom with the windows closed on the cottage and the windows closed on that apartment. My bet is that it wouldn't register 30 dbs at that distance through all that. Remember the Cottage is a stone cottage with foot thick walls and the windows were double pane.

That story is a bunch of bull excrement.

They should also translate all the motions and the judges responses in English, French, German, Spanish and issue press releases in the respective languages. Really try and focus the spotlight on the Italian process, especially to it's fellow EU member countries.

 

[Grinder]

As the Massei court proved, the judge controls what is and what isn't entered into the record. If the new judge is as friendly to Patrizia Stefanoni as Massei was, then the court will be the court of public opinion.

As long as Raffaele is safe, then go full bore on embarrassing the Italians. They'll be able to take it... well, all except Machiavelli.

Grinder - we've had our differences... but this is not one of them. Your analysis is brilliant. However, please let it be known that where we do differ, I'm still right and you're still wrong.

Yes Bill you right me wrong

My point on the acquiring expert reports isn't necessarily that the court will accept them, but if they are offered to the court and rejected I believe that it will play well here both in public opinion and against a potential extradition.

The court is denying an aspect of their two trial system raising the specter of de facto double jeopardy. They were found innocent, that verdict was returned to the de novo appeal level, but the new appeal court was ordered to accept premises that had never been agreed on by the lower court and the new appeal court refused to accept new analysis that had been developed over the years.

The expert reports of course will be made public in multiple languages starting with Italian and English. Scathing denunciations of the ICSI in general and PS specifically. The break-in analysis etc.

With the assistance of Harper Collins and a follow-up book written by a third party all of the above should get great play worldwide.

Both of the kids need to be defended by public defenders conserving their funds for reports and PR.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes Bill you right me wrong

My point on the acquiring expert reports isn't necessarily that the court will accept them, but if they are offered to the court and rejected I believe that it will play well here both in public opinion and against a potential extradition.

The court is denying an aspect of their two trial system raising the specter of de facto double jeopardy. They were found innocent, that verdict was returned to the de novo appeal level, but the new appeal court was ordered to accept premises that had never been agreed on by the lower court and the new appeal court refused to accept new analysis that had been developed over the years.

The expert reports of course will be made public in multiple languages starting with Italian and English. Scathing denunciations of the ICSI in general and PS specifically. The break-in analysis etc.

With the assistance of Harper Collins and a follow-up book written by a third party all of the above should get great play worldwide.

Both of the kids need to be defended by public defenders conserving their funds for reports and PR.

As much as I guffawed when gulters thought Marriott was about a PR effort, it is time to actually have a PR supertanker.

The Massei trial during the prosecution phase was dominated by the guilter PR supertanker of Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau who passed on stuff uncritically (some directly to Peggay Ganong, resulting in Ganong's boast that everything she heard came directly from the courtroom!)

Some of the things Vogt passed on without ever once correcting herself was "I was there," construing Knox saying this as meaning, "I was at the cottage," when it means in context, "I was at Raffaele's". Vogt never corrected that. That was the most obvious of Vogt's bias passed uncritically to Ganong, and heck, since it was the prosecution's case at one point, all the stuff that even Massei ruled against was just passed on as if - the prosecution said it, so it must be so.

This time will be different. Hopefully Raffaele is free to roam about, and obviously Amanda is. So, there is more of a chance to expose the prosecution theories for what they are - as well as the stipulated areas of inquiry as mandated by the ISC for what they are.

The defence can at least now proceed without one arm tied behind their back. I remember Mark Geragos commenting on how important it was for Oscar Pistorius to make bail, saying that defending someone who is available 24/7 (rather than at the whim of jailers) is huge.

It still may be a rigged result, but there is more of an opportunity to get the real story out this time.

 

[Machiavelli]

No wonder Machiavelli refuses to even discuss it. He wants me to first place the clothing into an "osmotic context" before he'll discuss why they were left on Knox's bed for 5 months, right where she said she'd left them.

I am actually not interested in discussing about Knox's clothing - or about the collecting of Knox's clothing - neither before nor after you do something; you should put if into a context and clarify your assertions as you want to discuss them, on principle. What I say, is that I point out your method to say you should prove or substantiate your claims before you ask someone to discuss them. That goes for anyone, not for me. I'm not interested in any case, but to discuss with anyone, if you say "the clothes were not investigated", that is actually a wild claim. You should prove it, not just imply it or give it as taken. Also if you asserted "the cloth could have confirmed Knox's story", you should deal with your assertion and clarify it.
I recall once you posted asmall picture of a forensic allegedly (you said) standing "on blood stains" and you asked me a generic opinion on the photo, without saying anything about the day and time when the photo was taken, what trail of photos and what step of evidence collection it was part of, etc. It's the same method. You delete everything by which evidence can be "information", you break out instead a small bit (a photo, a bit of twiested information) and you put it as a corollarium to decorate the top of your unfounded assumption.

 

[Grinder]

I recall once you posted asmall picture of a forensic allegedly (you said) standing "on blood stains" and you asked me a generic opinion on the photo, without saying anything about the day and time when the photo was taken, what trail of photos and what step of evidence collection it was part of, etc. It's the same method. You delete everything by which evidence can be "information", you break out instead a small bit (a photo, a bit of twiested information) and you put it as a corollarium to decorate the top of your unfounded assumption.

Are you saying that Bill should provide all the data that preceded the photo?

Are you suggesting that for someone to make a valid point of evidence that they need to provide the context within which the opinion about the evidence was formed?

You'd like Bill to provide the equivalent of the EDF of the photo.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - this is simply a repeat of your logic that you can tell the level of sleep deprivation that Amanda Knox had on the late evening of Nov 5, simply by reading her letters.

You always twist. Always. There isn't a single logical statement where you don't attempt at least slight strain or twist. Now here it is reporting that I can "tell the level" of slep deprivation. It is a twist obviously; and it's also a good time to point out that the truth, about our actual disagreement, most times, is in terms of placing the burden of proof. On a topic such as an allegation or claim about "sleep deprivation", among other things (like responsability of police etc.), there is divide in our concepts of burden of proof, and of significance; me, for example, I am not even remotely interested in establishing the level of sleep deprivation of Amanda Knox. I would be satisfied in establishing that there is no evidence that a possible state sleep deprivation - hypothetical, any level - would be present in a degree of gravity of a kind that would compromise mental faculties. To the point of making a person become unable to will and decide. Police officers in that room were all sleep deprived. But I only consider causes that would be significant to infer severe mental incapacity, which would present itself with an array of symptoms, recognizable and lasting over a long period of time.

Think, Machiavelli, think. Of course it is in the section on mitigating factors. That's the whole point. Mr. Mignini attempted to paint the two students as first Satanic cultists, then sex-crazed sex-gamers, then vindictive lesson-teaching murderers, then the worse of all Mignini's theories - that they were so maladjusted that they killed for no reason at all.

This is a mass of falsehood. There were never Satanic cult claims, there was no pictureing or profiling "sex-gamers". Again, you ar twisting and inflecting bits into a picture along your likes. The elements that you are mentioning (albeit in a twisted way), by the way, have nothing to do with the psychopatological sphere: they are not clinical findings on personalities; instead, they only have to do with a theory of the motive.
They only have to do with the investigators hypothesizing possible moitives.
There is a slight difference between speculating a motive and making a clinical examination about personality disorders.

All of those theories go to mitigation, meaning that in Mignini's opinion he thought there should be none, and that they should have got life in jail, with long periods of solitary confinement.

Instead, after hearing ALL the pseudo evidence that Mignini entered as evidence, the trier of fact, Massei and the other judge and the six lay judges, even in the conviction court, found mitigating factors based on the fact that Knox and Sollecito were normal people, with no psychopathology at all.

No no, mitigation is one thing. But here you come to the point where you make the gross, basic mistake. Showing a very gross misinterpretation and ignorance of basics of the law principles.
Mitigation is NOT to based on being normal people. Actually mitigation (or aggravation) CANNOT be based on being normal or less normal individuals.
Mitigation or aggravation CANNOT be based on having a disease or a type of psychology (actully, only mitigation can be based, sometimes, on the fact that the person suffers from a personality disorder causing fragility, if this affects the capability to intend and understand in some degree).
But in NO case mitigation can be based on "being normal".
In NO case migitation or aggravation can be based on what people are, or linking to their health or mental condition.
In NO case mitigation can be based on not suffering from a disorder.

Actually, NO judge would ever, ever write about someone that he is "normal".

So, if you cite the paragraph about mitigation, by definition you automatically rule out that you are speaking about anything that would concern their being mentally healthy or sane.

Most notably, the Massei court rejected the theories of the prosecution, as ever changing as they were, all to speak against there being mitigating factors. Based on what Massei called a chance event, where the two students made one, uncharacteristic and only by chance, "choice for evil" as Massei put it, so these are the reasons why Massei found mitigating factors to be operative in this case.

It is absolutely false. It is almost the other way around. Massei did not found any glaring mitigating factor. Mitigation can derive from mental disorders which affect capabilities, but not from mental health.
Massei founded the mitigation factor on - among other things, including his discretional poweer - the fact that the murder was an isolated event in the lives of the defendants.
Which is something totally different from making a clinical assessment on their personalities.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am actually not interested in discussing about Knox's clothing - or about the collecting of Knox's clothing - neither before nor after you do something; you should put if into a context and clarify your assertions as you want to discuss them, on principle. What I say, is that I point out your method to say you should prove or substantiate your claims before you ask someone to discuss them. That goes for anyone, not for me. I'm not interested in any case, but to discuss with anyone, if you say "the clothes were not investigated", that is actually a wild claim. You should prove it, not just imply it or give it as taken. Also if you asserted "the cloth could have confirmed Knox's story", you should deal with your assertion and clarify it.
I recall once you posted asmall picture of a forensic allegedly (you said) standing "on blood stains" and you asked me a generic opinion on the photo, without saying anything about the day and time when the photo was taken, what trail of photos and what step of evidence collection it was part of, etc. It's the same method. You delete everything by which evidence can be "information", you break out instead a small bit (a photo, a bit of twiested information) and you put it as a corollarium to decorate the top of your unfounded assumption.

See highlighted part.... yet, Machiavelli, you answered a question related to the usefulness of asking questions of Rudy Guede, who everyone regardless of what they believe about Knox and Sollecito regards as a liar and a murderer.

Your answer was, "Why not?" It's not a good idea to make an a priori assumption that Rudy Guede would lie at the next question he was asked - ask the question, get the information and THEN assess it. In other words, assemble the informtation, THEN put it into an osmotic context!!!!

Yet with the clothing, you simply will not discuss it. You will stall, and make unrelated philosophical sophistry. Why?

I know the answer why. Because if you did have the information about whether or not the clothing was collected and/or tested you would post it. If for no other reason than to prove me wrong BEFORE being all vague about it.

Again, my comments are not really aimed at you. They are for the readers here (even if only 1) who is still trying to figure out this case. You represent well the guilt side of things, and the reasons behind the unjust prosecution of two innocents.

You are missing that this is now a case in the court of public opinion. The Florence court will be watched, and neither Sollecito nor Knox are being held hostage any more, which means that a full disclosure WILL happen, either inside the courtroom, or in the press outside of it.

And you are perhaps the only person I know of who would defend a scientific policeperson standing in a dried pool of blood, with a bootie on his foot. Does it really matter WHEN in the timeline the SP does this?

Again, this is not something meant for you. It is a comment meant for reasonable people. Why the need for a protective bootie if the crime scene is no longer needed?

Well, it was needed - both 6 weeks after the first scientific sweep (because they forgot the bra-clasp!!!!!!!!!!!! at the first sweep!) and then 5 months later when Knox's clothes, and other items, were collected.

Can you tell our gentle readers what eventually happened to that bra-clasp? You know, just to instil in them some confidence that the SP knew what they were doing.....

.... I'll let you have first crack at telling everyone what happened to that bra-clasp in police care (as evidence). Hint - it's pretty much the same thing as happened to the computers the police seized......

My bet is that you'll try to put that into an "osmotic context too."

By the way - can you describe ANY context in which it is appropriate for the SP to be standing in blood, while being protectively clad? Please think this time, Machiavelli, before answering..... because the question is, why be protectively clad IF the crime scene is closed for evidence gathering?

Think, Machiavelli.... apparently for you this is a trick question.

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you saying that Bill should provide all the data that preceded the photo?

Are you suggesting that for someone to make a valid point of evidence that they need to provide the context within which the opinion about the evidence was formed?

Of course. How can you tell what that is, if you don't know how it was formed?

You'd like Bill to provide the equivalent of the EDF of the photo.

No I am asking much more, I am asking the equivalent of the incidente probatorio and of Stefanoni's testimony.

 

[acbytesla]

I am actually not interested in discussing about Knox's clothing - or about the collecting of Knox's clothing - neither before nor after you do something; you should put if into a context and clarify your assertions as you want to discuss them, on principle. What I say, is that I point out your method to say you should prove or substantiate your claims before you ask someone to discuss them. That goes for anyone, not for me. I'm not interested in any case, but to discuss with anyone, if you say "the clothes were not investigated", that is actually a wild claim. You should prove it, not just imply it or give it as taken. Also if you asserted "the cloth could have confirmed Knox's story", you should deal with your assertion and clarify it.

huh??? Machiavelli is consistent. Deny, deny, deny. Interesting isn't it? Amanda's clothes that she wore on November 1st were lying on her bed. No blood on them, and no investigator is interested. Italy, a nation in denial. 2 very innocent kids being harassed by and Italian mob of judicial morons and Machiavelli is there cheerleader. Mignini lies and Machiavelli backs up his lies. I bet all he can smell is Eaude de Mignini's excrement.

Time and time again, Bill, and others have provided countless references and yet Mach's answer is obfuscate and deny their references.

Of course he's not interested...it make his city look like total incompetents in Police Investigation 101

 

[Bill Williams]

It is absolutely false. It is almost the other way around. Massei did not found any glaring mitigating factor. Mitigation can derive from mental disorders which affect capabilities, but not from mental health.
Massei founded the mitigation factor on - among other things, including his discretional poweer - the fact that the murder was an isolated event in the lives of the defendants.
Which is something totally different from making a clinical assessment on their personalities.

It's hard to know where to start commenting on this mass of illogic you spent a good portion of your life wasting time on typing. I highlight two things above as representative of your skills at saying the exact opposite things within a couple of sentences of each other.

Read it s l o w l y Machiavelli.... I think even you can spot it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you saying that Bill should provide all the data that preceded the photo?

Are you suggesting that for someone to make a valid point of evidence that they need to provide the context within which the opinion about the evidence was formed?

You'd like Bill to provide the equivalent of the EDF of the photo.

No I am asking much more, I am asking the equivalent of the incidente probatorio and of Stefanoni's testimony.

Point Grinder. And thanks a lot, I just spewed coffee at the computer screen. Thanks a lot Grinder!

Tell you what, Machiavelli. You produce the EDF's and I will withdraw all and every claim I ever made about that photo.

Deal?

I'm beginning to like Grinder! Rats.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Yet with the clothing, you simply will not discuss it. You will stall, and make unrelated philosophical sophistry. Why?

I know the answer why. Because if you did have the information about whether or not the clothing was collected and/or tested you would post it. If for no other reason than to prove me wrong BEFORE being all vague about it.
(...)

The trousers were analyzed as item #150, the jacket was analyzed as item #159. The sweater was not analyzed since apparently did not have blood-like stains.
The scarf fits the description by Quintavalle.

 

[Dan O.]

The photographs taken on December 18th have been renumbered and are not entirely in chronological order.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's hard to know where to start commenting on this mass of illogic you spent a good portion of your life wasting time on typing. I highlight two things above as representative of your skills at saying the exact opposite things within a couple of sentences of each other.

Read it s l o w l y Machiavelli.... I think even you can spot it.

But they are not the exact opposite. I only forget to type the word "generic".

The Italian law has the "generic mitigation", which is mitigation factor for those who don't have any specific reason to be awarded mitigation.
I used the word glaring with a purpose. A mitigation related to mental condition causing a degree of impairment would be - that's what I meant - a glaring mitigation. A specificalli motivated mitigation. Somthing that goes beyond generic mitigation.
Knox and Sollecito are not given such kind of mitigation (the defence didn't even seek it; if they were given such kind of mitigation though, this would imply that they are insane for sure).

Now, however, I invite you to read the rest of what I said in the other post. Not just the bit that you can use as pretexts for claiming that I am contradictory.

 

[Dan O.]

There is a slight difference between speculating a motive and making a clinical examination about personality disorders when speaking in front of the press.

ftfy

 

[Bill Williams]

But they are not the exact opposite. I only forget to type the word "generic".

The Italian law has the "generic mitigation", which is mitigation factor for those who don't have any specific reason to be awarded mitigation.
I used the word glaring with a purpose. A mitigation related to mental condition causing a degree of impairment would be - that's what I meant - a glaring mitigation. A specificalli motivated mitigation. Somthing that goes beyond generic mitigation.
Knox and Sollecito are not given such kind of mitigation (the defence didn't even seek it; if they were given such kind of mitigation though, this would imply that they are insane for sure).

Now, however, I invite you to read the rest of what I said in the other post. Not just the bit that you can use as pretexts for claiming that I am contradictory.

I will let others judge this. You forget, Machiavelli, this is now in the court of public opinion. The British tabloids have pretty much done an about face, after being embarrassed with the PLE's early leaks, as well as by their own behaviour by the Leveson Inquiry.

I read what you posted. I cannot really insult you by saying you are wasting your life by typing this tripe. Because I also wasted some of my life reading it. I am now off to confession where the priest shall absolve me from my sins.

If I'm lucky.

How's your own confession coming?

 

[Bill Williams]

(...)
Yet with the clothing, you simply will not discuss it. You will stall, and make unrelated philosophical sophistry. Why?

I know the answer why. Because if you did have the information about whether or not the clothing was collected and/or tested you would post it. If for no other reason than to prove me wrong BEFORE being all vague about it.
(...)

The trousers were analyzed as item #150, the jacket was analyzed as item #159. The sweater was not analyzed since apparently did not have blood-like stains.
The scarf fits the description by Quintavalle.

Before we proceed, can you do me a kindness and answer a question?

Why are you retreating into providing information, when you first refused because you wanted me to provide an osmotic description of the totality of the whole "why weren't the clothes collected and analysed," issue?

You yourself have not stated the "when" of the analysed, even as you describe their analysing number..... you are retreating my friend. You have not provided much of an osmotic evaluation...... that's what I call a full reverse on something you said was essential....

I'm just asking. Please do not take offence that I point out your backpeddling. (Hopefully "backpeddling" is also an Italian idiom.)