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

[Grinder]

Busy intersection next to underused park with trees near the rail to stay partially hidden.

Lots of people out and about but none saw the kids running all over town with bloody clothes and a knife.

I thought there was a kiosk in the park. Was that there for the underused aspect of the park?

Heavy traffic that prevents Curatolo from hearing (not enough to cover the sound of footsteps) but all these people driving around don't spot the kids.

Pity for the prosecution.

 

[Grinder]

How are those two traces of evidence of " A vicious game where the attackers took pleasure at her expense."? I don't see the connection. Even if they were evidence of murder, where is the evidence of that "game"? In other words, if there was no game but just a simple murder, how would those traces be any different?

Lalli said the sex was consensual. At first the police suspected that the killer was someone she had met a party the night before. She was described as a party girl in early british tab stories.

About day 3 there was a radical change and the police started leaking or reporters just wrote that she was totally innocent and was an unwilling participant. I believe this was done out of respect for or pressure from John Kercher.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, I get that and have indicated as such.

What you don't get is that we are discussing whether it's actually factual, not just 'judicially' factual.

Your failure to understand this is the biggest barrier to your understanding of the contentions regarding their testimonies. How convenient that you just happened to pick the definition that allows you to make claims of 'facts' without having to do anything to back them up.

It's pretty pointless discussing such things with you if you're just going to run and hide behind pedantic applications of law.

A "judicial fact" is simply the thing closest to what is actually factual that you can get from a trial. In a trial you only find "judicial truth" or "judicial facts". You will never get anything closer to the "truth" than that (it is just not reasonable to aim to "absolute truths" at all stages in human justice systems; a trial is not a phylosophy research session). (The irony is that even Hellmann "agrees"!) And the path towards the truth must be reached through rules of a game between two or more parties. The process in fact is logical. The conclusion about the truth is the consequence of logical mechanisms which are embedded in the rules.

 

[Briars]

Lots of people out and about but none saw the kids running all over town with bloody clothes and a knife.

I thought there was a kiosk in the park. Was that there for the underused aspect of the park?

Heavy traffic that prevents Curatolo from hearing (not enough to cover the sound of footsteps) but all these people driving around don't spot the kids.

Pity for the prosecution.

The kiosk would be winding down its paper selling that late. The rail where the couple looked over cannot be seen by someone in the Kiosk. Cheap shot about Meredith who dated only one boy in Perugia.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This link was posted on PMF, Paul Callan CNN

 

[RoseMontague]

A "judicial fact" is simply the thing closest to what is actually factual that you can get from a trial. In a trial you only find "judicial truth" or "judicial facts". You will never get anything closer to the "truth" than that (it is just not reasonable to aim to "absolute truths" at all stages in human justice systems; a trial is not a phylosophy research session). (The irony is that even Hellmann "agrees"!) And the path towards the truth must be reached through rules of a game between two or more parties. The process in fact is logical. The conclusion about the truth is the consequence of logical mechanisms which are embedded in the rules.

The truth is Amanda and Raffaelle are innocent. If your precious judges can't arrive at that conclusion through a process that will eventually take them close to a decade it will show how bad this system is. Just my opinion, btw.

 

[acbytesla]

A "judicial fact" is simply the thing closest to what is actually factual that you can get from a trial. In a trial you only find "judicial truth" or "judicial facts". You will never get anything closer to the "truth" than that (it is just not reasonable to aim to "absolute truths" at all stages in human justice systems; a trial is not a phylosophy research session). (The irony is that even Hellmann "agrees"!) And the path towards the truth must be reached through rules of a game between two or more parties. The process in fact is logical. The conclusion about the truth is the consequence of logical mechanisms which are embedded in the rules.

So silly.

Nara's testimony is a fact, but what she may or may not have heard is not. This also goes for expert testimony. Stefanoni's testimony is a fact,as is the report by Conti Vechhiotti etc.etc. etc. Whether or not what they testified to is truthful is an entirely different matter.

There are countless people that say that evolution is false and global warming is a myth, that doesn't mean their testimonies are truthful. One must remember that the pursuit of justice is the pursuit of truth and not the pursuit of facts.

 

[Skind]

A "judicial fact" is simply the thing closest to what is actually factual that you can get from a trial. In a trial you only find "judicial truth" or "judicial facts".

But- as I've explained several times now - we're talking about 'factual' in terms of how it's commonly used, not just how it's used in a judicial trial.

I don't know how to explain it to you in a simpler way.

This has gone well beyond merely being annoying to the point where I'm starting to suspect you're being obtuse on purpose.

No-one can be having as much trouble as you are having with such simple to understand distinctions.

 

[Diocletus]

This link was posted on PMF, Paul Callan CNN

Convicted on the testimony of an accomplice? WTF is this guy talking about?

 

[Diocletus]

And the path towards the truth must be reached through rules of a game between two or more parties. The process in fact is logical. The conclusion about the truth is the consequence of logical mechanisms which are embedded in the rules.

Then you should have no problem with full disclosure and you should abhor evidence suppression by the prosecution.

 

[MDDVS]

Lalli said the sex was consensual. At first the police suspected that the killer was someone she had met a party the night before. She was described as a party girl in early british tab stories.

About day 3 there was a radical change and the police started leaking or reporters just wrote that she was totally innocent and was an unwilling participant. I believe this was done out of respect for or pressure from John Kercher.

I'm just tired of hearing these references to a "sex game gone wrong" supported by "evidence" that is indistinguishable from what is expected in a simple rape/murder. Where's the evidence of that "game"?

 

[Dan O.]

The kiosk would be winding down its paper selling that late. The rail where the couple looked over cannot be seen by someone in the Kiosk. Cheap shot about Meredith who dated only one boy in Perugia.

Glass is effective at blocking sound but pretty good at letting light through. Only the north wall on that kiosk is not glass.

 

[Bill Williams]

This link was posted on PMF, Paul Callan CNN

There's a reason why PMF posts that. Here's simply another person making a personality assessment of someone they've never met based on a media source. The guy in the video is more than likely 100% sincere in his own personal reaction to someone who is dissecting her method of communication, and coming up with his opinion that she's an "ice queen", or "wouldn't make a good witness in her own behalf."

My hope is that everyone can get past those sorts of excruciatingly subjective observations. Erin Burnett should have asked a follow-up question to the fellow; "Do you think it's fair to judge someone like that?"

His answer more than likely would have been evasive, just like his analogy to the Perugia trial to the Boston trial.... he'd have said, "Look, this is how juries view people." He's probably seen people convicted because they smiled at the wrong time at a trial....

What would that man have said about there being no forensics pointing to Knox or Sollecito in a messy crime room? He'd have said, "I've seen people convicted on less...." which is:

1) not exactly an answer to the question
2) not an endorsement, really, of those other convictions, just that they happen.​

But then again, if this is the best the anti-Amanda camp has to offer, that says quite a lot. All they have really is smoke. The fire is on Amanda and Raffaele's side.

Thanks for posting the video. It is actually part of a good representation of where things sit right nowl the video perhaps being the very best the anti-Amanda camp has to offer.

 

[Bill Williams]

A "judicial fact" is simply the thing closest to what is actually factual that you can get from a trial. In a trial you only find "judicial truth" or "judicial facts". You will never get anything closer to the "truth" than that (it is just not reasonable to aim to "absolute truths" at all stages in human justice systems; a trial is not a phylosophy research session). (The irony is that even Hellmann "agrees"!) And the path towards the truth must be reached through rules of a game between two or more parties. The process in fact is logical. The conclusion about the truth is the consequence of logical mechanisms which are embedded in the rules.

Finally. Something I agree with from Machiavelli.

I would only add to this the mistake Andrea Vogt makes in her reporting. It is one thing for Ms. Vogt to make a big deal about of the allegedly incriminating, "I was there" comment was supposed to have been.

It is true that lower judges contorted that claim all out of shape, using the very same enagled semantics Machiavelli uses to try to squeeze something out of the context that is not there.... but it is true that this is what lower courts did.

It's just that when Judge Massei published his motivations report, as the finder of these judicial fact, Massei makes 1 reference to that particular issue - one - quotes it with the spin that Amanda's side puts on to it (that what she meant was that she was at Raffaele's) .............

...... and then Judge Massei drops the whole issue. How's that for a judicial fact!

Machiavelli (and Peggy Ganong) would have us believe that Massei omits reference to any sinister meaning because Massei already has enough to convict. Yet, this statement, "I was there," if it HAD been a confession on Knox's part would have been the aces of spades sealing the deal.... "I was there" at the cottage, would be a sure and certain antidote to there being no forensic presence of Knox there at all.

Who would care about no forensic presence, if she admitted to being there?

Which, of course, she did not admit to and Massei agrees. Even Massei takes this ace of spades of of his deck, even as Machiavelli and Peggy Ganong refuse to. Good for them.

But the issue which brought Massei back to this forum is this: Ms. Vogt the comprehensive journalist makes the sinister allegation, then when even Judge Massei mentions it, and drops it - Ms. Vogt does not retract.

Why? Because Peggy and Machiavelli have given her their convoluted, twisted semantics which suggest Knox meant the opposite of what she said when you hold your mouth funny, put your hands over your ears and hum?

In reading Ms. Vogt's stuff she's obvious a competent journalist. She obviously not in this for the money. All I am asking for is that she say SOMETHING about this gaff of hers. Nobody is perfect, but lives are on the line.

I think the reason why Ms. Vogt does not comment is because she does not want to betray just how close she's always been to both Machiavelli and to Peggy. THAT'S the more interesting story - how a journalist makes the very news she comments upon.

Every once in a while it leaks out.... Ms. Vogt is now endorsing the anonymous McCall's Wiki. The only people who refer to that as authoritative are PMFers. Makes you go, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Ok I wasn't aware CNN is regarded as anti-Amanda.

I was more interested with his comments about the possible extradition process.

 

[Bill Williams]

Lalli said the sex was consensual. At first the police suspected that the killer was someone she had met a party the night before. She was described as a party girl in early british tab stories.

About day 3 there was a radical change and the police started leaking or reporters just wrote that she was totally innocent and was an unwilling participant. I believe this was done out of respect for or pressure from John Kercher.

All of this is what seems to be turning the Brits against the prosecution... meaning, the Brits who are concerned that Meredith is not dragged through the mud in all this.

The very first "sex game gone wrong" theory did not begin with coercion. It seems that in the attempt to sanitize the motive (#2 of the ever changing motive merry-go-round) is that the sex-game fantasy of the prosecution has to get morphed into a rush attack of some sort. And if it was that, what of Lalli's evidence?

Of course, I am doing what I criticize others for doing - reading meaning into people's faces - but I simply cannot get over the facial expression of disgust on Piers Morgan's face (on CNN with Gloria Allred and Jeffery Toobin) when they were discussing the ISC returning the motive to the "sex game gone wrong".

Piers Morgan, a good friend of John Kercher, seems to have the ability to put 2+2 together on this. The sex game theory has as part of its origins that Meredith's participation was, at first, consensual.

And now that the prosecution is being told it was perhaps not:

1) what does that do to Lalli's testimony?
2) is this simply another in a parade/merry-go-round of ever changing motives?​

So, I will now refrain from reading into people's looks the meaning of their sentences. But I truly thought that this ISC ruling, to revisit the sex-game gone wrong, was an "aha" moment for Piers Morgan; who by his own admission says he cannot rationally cover this as a journalist because he's too close.

 

[Diocletus]

Ok I wasn't aware CNN is regarded as anti-Amanda.

I was more interested with his comments about the possible extradition process.

There are a thousand and one different scenarios that could unfold going into any extradition proceeding, but we're a long way from getting there anyway. For what it's worth, I don't agree with his assessment to the effect that if the public wants her to go, she gets extradited, but if they don't, she won't. This will be decided on the law and diplomacy, both of which are tilted towards extradition, but both of which are subject to enough nuance that extradition is by no means a giveaway.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok I wasn't aware CNN is regarded as anti-Amanda.

I was more interested with his comments about the possible extradition process.

Andrea Vogt says that CNN and nearly all the US media is pro-Amanda. To my way of thinking, CNN is giving Knox a platform, and every once in a while someone like Erin Burnett or Anderson Cooper lets their commentary stray into the belief of Knox's innocence.

Piers Morgan's latest is now that he's quite agnostic about guilt or innocence, which would be a hard personal place given his relationship with John Kercher.

And...... Barbie Nadeau is CNN's go-to person in Italy to cover this; but it is clear that CNN had reined in Barbie. In the last year or so, Barbie has only had one CNN piece where she says, "Amanda isn't telling us all she knows," which is her version of trying to be a guilter without needing to trample the evidence.

My opinion is that CNN, itself, is mildly pro-innocence. I believe they listen to Jeffery Toobin who has said many times that there simply is no evidence that either Amanda or Raffaele were even at the cottage that night.

For the sake of balance, I guess, CNN then gets people like the gentleman you posted about. I think that he was dead-on with his "political" comments about extradition. I think he is part of a very small legal minority about the legality of how the American judiciary would regard double jeopardy.

You see, the issue ISN"T what Italy's system is, when it regards an American now residing in the United States it still is the way an American judge would view it. His comments are about how an Italian judge would argue why this isn't double jeopardy, but that judge or some other lawyer would have to convince an American extradition judge of two things:

1) why this ISN'T double jeopardy the way it is viewed in the US,
2) why the basic facts of the case support a conviction to begin with.​

Add those two things to the fact (as I see it) that the American government would never in a million years ask the extraditing judge to convene a hearing..... and the possibility goes to zero. (I could be wrong, I am not a lawyer.)

 

[JREF2010]

the blind witness heard Raffaele and Amanda running from the murder!

the blind witnesses, Nara and neighbors, were accepted by Massei for a 11-11:30pm ToD.

for me the 10pm-11:40+ witnesses standing outside, near the cottage override the origin of any scream.
in addition to the cell tower data, which seemed to drive Hellmans decision of no later than 10:13pm.

sure, we can all hear dogs barking and kids yelling, when things are silent or close to our windows and walls. but how absurd to assign blind witnesses hearing footsteps to specific people! Noises and screams to be adamantly defended as belonging to Amanda or Meredith, and more absurd this is to even be allowed into a lengthy part of a higher level courts interests.

Im curious how far away Toto was, its another hole in the Guilt Mongers case that Toto didn't hear anything. They should of had Toto add that in too before he died, while in poloizia custody. Its odd he died so quickly in their custody, the Guilters were saying how sharp and quick he was, how brilliant he was and healthy in general.

 

[davefoc]

Ok I wasn't aware CNN is regarded as anti-Amanda.

I was more interested with his comments about the possible extradition process.

Was this guy really an expert? He seemed to be looking at this case in a vacuum, without any acknowledgment of the reality of the case or extradition procedures.

The chance that Knox would be extradited to Italy approaches zero. The fact that there is overwhelming evidence of factual innocence would work in her favor in any kind of extradition hearing. Even amongst the states extradition hearings are not always rubber stamps and the notion that the US would just forcibly pull Knox from her home and send her back to Italy is laughable.

More important than overwhelming evidence of factual innocence for Knox is strong public support that would increase substantially if Italy asked for extradition. So Knox would not only have the decided advantage that the evidence supports her innocence she would also have the huge advantage in any extradition hearing that extraditing her would be almost impossible politically.

I don't know how this thing is going to unfold but I think the Italian criminal system will figure out how to not ask for Knox's extradition if there is another conviction. The open airing of the horrendous treatment of Solecito and Knox at the hands of whack jobs in the Italian criminal system in an American court is something that the adults in the Italian criminal system are very unlikely to initiate with an extradition request.