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

[RoseMontague]

With the exception of keeping the calunnia charge, which of course should also have been overturned, Pratillo Hellmann happened to be %100 correct and wise in his judgment of the case. Any opposing view is strictly the province of conspiricists, crackpots and special pleaders.

And of the Supreme Court.

Yep, I agree. The ISC belongs in that group as well.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Conti and Vecchiotti had projected a video which - as for your logic - should have no evidentiary value, because it was the one the judges already have.

You see, your argument is so utterly flawed I hardly understand you can't see it. Why should the defence (like Vinci) project their findings in court instad of just giving the judges the photos?

Autopsy and wounds was a main point of evidence i this trial. The fact that you think it wasn't, that it was only prejudicial and not evidentiary, it's just your opinion, and your opinion is wrong.

Francesco Maresca was acting onf the Kercher's behalf and was doing exactly what he had to do in order to discuss with the judges about why their daughter and sister was assaulted and killed by three people, not by a lone killer.

Pratillo Hellmann is the only person responsible for not abiding to Maresca's requests of sending out the people. I recall very well his lazy indifferent tone when he tried to object saying let's not lose time, that the public won't be impressed, who cares. And Maresca objecting that Meredith was naked, that there were sexual details, that the family wanted respect.

-

And your opinion is even more wrong... and you think I'm delusional hahahaha

ETA: It's how I was able to guarantee Hellman's court was going to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty. I predicted that here in this forum (and on this thread) before it happened. Go back to just before the last verdict was reached and see for yourself... THAT's how wrong you are.
-

 

[RoseMontague]

Francesco Maresca was acting onf the Kercher's behalf and was doing exactly what he had to do in order to discuss with the judges about why their daughter and sister was assaulted and killed by three people, not by a lone killer.

Pratillo Hellmann is the only person responsible for not abiding to Maresca's requests of sending out the people. I recall very well his lazy indifferent tone when he tried to object saying let's not lose time, that the public won't be impressed, who cares. And Maresca objecting that Meredith was naked, that there were sexual details, that the family wanted respect.

Big difference between your story and the story of others that were there. You have the transcript showing Maresca made this request?

 

[Skind]

Big difference between your story and the story of others that were there. You have the transcript showing Maresca made this request?

Irrelevant if he did or not.

He follows the judges requests, not the other way around.

If Hellmann had not cleared the court, then Maresca should not have continued, or requested that he be allowed to continue in full public view.

 

[RoseMontague]

Irrelevant if he did or not.

He follows the judges requests, not the other way around.

If Hellmann had not cleared the court, then Maresca should not have continued, or requested that he be allowed to continue in full public view.

It matters to me. If this happened the way Machiavelli said it happened, I would like to know.

 

[Bill Williams]

It matters to me. If this happened the way Machiavelli said it happened, I would like to know.

Me too.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)
I go back again to my counterexample which you unhelpfully snipped out of your reply. If someone accused you of sleeping with his wife, would you have any ethical obligation to reply: "No I didn't, but instead I must confess that I did kiss her very briefly once when we were both drunk". Or would you only have the ethical obligation to say "I have never slept with your wife"?

First I don't think your example really fits, because your example tends to represent the assumption that the report was "grossly inaccurate". While in fact, Joh's account does not specify whether the staged assault included a rape threat or a burglary threat (to that, Knox's first explanation did not explain that either), but offered instead precise details about place (her apartment), context, identity of 'victims' (her roomates), date (April), dynamics ('uses' friends to inscenate a crime, producing terror or distress), and a further detail (ski masks). The prank depicted is roughly identical to Knox's admission, most these pieces of information just match with it.

So I won't speak about grossly inaccurate report. But as for your question involving the wife, I will say the question is set incorrectly: if someone sleeps with my wife, this individual actually has no absolute 'ethical obligation' to reveal anything of any sort. He - as well as wife - are also free to lie.

However, if the person (and my wife) say "no, we didn't do anything", but then I happen to see a video recording showing the man and my wife kissing each other, at that point the problem what happens is that the man and the woman will lose any credibility. It would be too late at that point to say "no we didn't sleep together". Why should I believe them? And at that point, who cares after all? The lack of transparency is cheating.
Cheating is cheating, it is concealing, pulling curtains on facts. The nature of the action itself may become rather secondary, it's the intent to conceal the truth, whatever the truth is, to disguise it, this is what matters to credibility.
This attitude here qualifies a community, as I said.

 

[moije2]

The problem with this theory is that 1. Amanda Knox is under trial, not "the Italian system", and : 2. anyway no one is in moral or ethical position to be a "judge" of the Italian justice system, this is especially for a country that has a system like the USA has.

cliip

Yes Amanda Knox - and let's not forget R. Sollecito - are under trial.

It is also self evident that indeed "the Italian system" is under trial also. In the general sense of the term. Italy (their "system") is undoubtedly being judged. And it is not just a handful of hobbyists on some internet blog. You may not have been in the US at the time of the release of AK and RS, but that event was undoubtedly the biggest media event I have witnessed in a long long time. You can parse that how ever you want, but it is undeniable that there is an enormous interest in the case, and a very large part of the interest comes from the sense that one of "our own" was tried in a small provincial outpost of a country with a reputation for corruption. You may not like that and you may argue against it and you may pretend or claim that English speaking world is misinformed, but it is a fact and it is the source of the magnifying lens under which your "Italian system" is being judged.

You - as a spokesperson of sorts for Italy - have an uphill battle because the "Italian system" has a reputation, and your arguments are many times very tortured and convoluted and do not help in building confidence in said system. I would make a suggestion that you learn to express yourself in fewer words. Perhaps your ideas would take on more cogency. My opinion only.

That being said, your posts are very informative frequently as to your system, and as to your way of thinking. For that I thank you.

 

[Machiavelli]

-
And your opinion is even more wrong... and you think I'm delusional hahahaha

ETA: It's how I was able to guarantee Hellman's court was going to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty. I predicted that here in this forum (and on this thread) before it happened. Go back to just before the last verdict was reached and see for yourself... THAT's how wrong you are.
-

Interesting.

But the Pratillo Hellmann-Zanetti verdict doesn't exist anymore.
And meanwhile, you didn't explain why C&V and Vinci projecting slides the court alreayd has is "evidentiary" while Maresca projecting slides id "prejudicial".

 

[Dan O.]

Hydrogen peroxide? Would that cause a luminol reaction if you tracked it around on the floor?

The Kastle-Meyer test, Luminol and TMB are all variants on the same theme. The iron within hemoglobin acts as a catalyst to release the extra oxygen from the peroxide which then oxidizes the indicator molecule causing a color change or luminescence. The existence of extra peroxide isn't going to change much except in the case of TMB when using the 2 step process which adds the peroxide last.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

First I don't think your example really fits, because your example tends to represent the assumption that the report was "grossly inaccurate". While in fact, Joh's account does not specify whether the staged assault included a rape threat or a burglary threat (to that, Knox's first explanation did not explain that either), but offered instead precise details about place (her apartment), context, identity of 'victims' (her roomates), date (April), dynamics ('uses' friends to inscenate a crime, producing terror or distress), and a further detail (ski masks). The prank depicted is roughly identical to Knox's admission, most these pieces of information just match with it.

So I won't speak about grossly inaccurate report. But as for your question involving the wife, I will say the question is set incorrectly: if someone sleeps with my wife, this individual actually has no absolute 'ethical obligation' to reveal anything of any sort. He - as well as wife - are also free to lie.

However, if the person (and my wife) say "no, we didn't do anything", but then I happen to see a video recording showing the man and my wife kissing each other, at that point the problem what happens is that the man and the woman will lose any credibility. It would be too late at that point to say "no we didn't sleep together". Why should I believe them? And at that point, who cares after all? The lack of transparency is cheating.

Cheating is cheating, it is concealing, pulling curtains on facts. The nature of the action itself may become rather secondary, it's the intent to conceal the truth, whatever the truth is, to disguise it, this is what matters to credibility.
This attitude here qualifies a community, as I said.

-

The problem with your "Omerta" belief is that it implies that people should say something even if they don't know what the truth really is (you should know all about that kind of thing).

All I have to say is WOW!!!

In my opinion, only Amanda has the right to reveal what happened, because she's really the only one who knows what happened. Not you or anyone else that wasn't involved. For all you know all those other people who knew what happened and were involved in this "prank" and didn't say anything; they might also believe (like the PGP) that she and Raffaele are guilty of murdering Meredith... so are they liars also and not credible?

Your need to GWAK is so obvious it's not even funny,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

It matters to me. If this happened the way Machiavelli said it happened, I would like to know.

Sorry, by now I have only five full transcripts of hearings from the Hellmann trial. I think we will get more of them on the Meredith Wiki project. Certainly Amanda Knox has all of them at the present moment.

 

[andreajo]

So I won't speak about grossly inaccurate report. But as for your question involving the wife, I will say the question is set incorrectly: if someone sleeps with my wife, this individual actually has no absolute 'ethical obligation' to reveal anything of any sort. He - as well as wife - are also free to lie.

However, if the person (and my wife) say "no, we didn't do anything", but then I happen to see a video recording showing the man and my wife kissing each other, at that point the problem what happens is that the man and the woman will lose any credibility. It would be too late at that point to say "no we didn't sleep together". Why should I believe them? And at that point, who cares after all? The lack of transparency is cheating.
Cheating is cheating, it is concealing, pulling curtains on facts. The nature of the action itself may become rather secondary, it's the intent to conceal the truth, whatever the truth is, to disguise it, this is what matters to credibility.
This attitude here qualifies a community, as I said.

Many people feel that Patrizia Stefanoni was concealing, pulling curtains on facts. This has greatly damaged her credibility in the way that you described above.

If I understand what you are saying, she was under no obligation to tell the truth (clean gloves, TMB tests performed) or disclose everything (the missing electropherograms). She just stood to lose credibility if these fibs and omissions became known.

 

[AmyStrange]

Interesting.

But the Pratillo Hellmann-Zanetti verdict doesn't exist anymore.
And meanwhile, you didn't explain why C&V and Vinci projecting slides the court alreayd has is "evidentiary" while Maresca projecting slides id "prejudicial".

-

Interesting.

You don't like that I don't answer your question huh. Now you know what it's like to chat with you,

d

-

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It matters to me. If this happened the way Machiavelli said it happened, I would like to know.

Indeed, the more we know, the better.

I would be interested to know if Maresca really displayed this image to illustrate some point regarding the forensic evidence, and if so, what the point was. My understanding was that he did it for dramatic effect.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

The problem with your "Omerta" belief is that it implies that people should say something even if they don't know what the truth really is (you should know all about that kind of thing). (...)

At least five people were involved directly in the prank, and at least one more person proved she knew it, since posted about it on a forum.
At five or six people means five or six families, and means the close friends of five or six people.
This means a community.
You say that after Knox's arrest, none of these people and their friend ever talked about what they "knew" about Knox, with anybody? It's not credible.
If nobody talks in the open, is because nobody wants to talk. Because somehow feels that talking would look bad, against a tacit social feeling, against a quietly accepted agreement. The person who posted even remained anonymous.
It's obvious that people of this community didn't like to talk about some things regarding Knox. And it's obvious that there is a common implicit agreement about this.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

At least five people were involved directly in the prank, and at least one more person proved she knew it, since posted about it on a forum.

At five or six people means five or six families, and means the close friends of five or six people.

This means a community.

You say that after Knox's arrest, none of these people and their friend ever talked about what they "knew" about Knox, with anybody? It's not credible.
If nobody talks in the open, is because nobody wants to talk. Because somehow feels that talking would look bad, against a tacit social feeling, against a quietly accepted agreement. The person who posted even remained anonymous.

It's obvious that people of this community didn't like to talk about some things regarding Knox. And it's obvious that there is a common implicit agreement about this.

-

Replace Knox with Guede or Mignini etc. etc., and that makes the people from your community no more credible either.

Do you know who HarryRag is? If you do and you don't tell us, that makes you a liar by your definition,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

One of my co-workers shared a room with her before she ran off to Italy, and now he sleeps on the bed she gave him when she left. I told him he should put it on ebay and proclaim it is the site of "a hundred terrible sex acts". Gotta be worth millions. -Joh

Knox once got a bunch of her friends to dress up in ski masks and break into her apartment and assault her roomates as an "april fools" joke. She's guilty and *********** nuts. - Joh

Joh was contacted by Peggy but refused to comment further or give names of these people.

One reason I doubted his account was that she didn't live in an apartment before she left for Italy but rather a house. I still am not aware that she 'shared' a room with some unnamed female in that house on twelfth.

The PGP spent years on what they termed a 'rape prank'.

I'm not sure that I bothered to call Joh a liar but it would seem he was blowing it out his ass.

I think pranks are stupid. I'm not a fan.

Do you really think she should have made a statement in court about this event? Do you think that she was even aware that two comments had been left on a Muede post on the Slog?

I'm surprised that Muede's connection to the guy who died while having sex with a horse wasn't connected to Raf and his love of animal porn. See the movie Zoo.

I find it interesting that people from the birthplace of the mafia and fascism would label Seattle as some center of evil.

 

[Skind]

While in fact, Joh's account does not specify whether the staged assault included a rape threat or a burglary threat (to that, Knox's first explanation did not explain that either), but offered instead precise details about place (her apartment), context, identity of 'victims' (her roomates), date (April), dynamics ('uses' friends to inscenate a crime, producing terror or distress), and a further detail (ski masks). The prank depicted is roughly identical to Knox's admission, most these pieces of information just match with it.

Knox also offered place (house she shared with friends), context, identity of victim (the housemates who were not in on the prank), date (April the 1st - which is Aprils Fools Day), dynamics (using friends to hide things) and provides further detail (apology) and further claification (no damage to person or property) as well as further detail about victims reaction (shock).

By your metric, Knox's story is significantly more detailed. Joh's story is formulaic (just like the ones about 'creepy teacher' Chris Jefferies were) and uninventive. He may stick to it and believe with his whole heart that it is true, but it's a classic pulp fiction prank, trivially easy to make up.

The prank accusation is not 'roughly identical'. It leaves it vague as to who the friends were (housemate 'friends', school 'friends', local 'friends', work 'friends'?) whereas Knox provides the exact subset ("mutual friends"). Anyone who knew Knox and her housemates from the time could potentially work out who the exact individuals were.

It leaves it vague (not genreal, vague) as to wheter Knox commisioned the prank or was pragmatically involved. Knox makes it clear she participated at the physical level.

It leaves it vague what is meant by assault. Knox makes it clear that no one was harmed.

Everytime you make a claim about what Knox did/did not say, it's really easy to go to the source and see - quite, quite clearly - that you claim she did not say is there front and centre, and what you claim she definetly did say if conspicious by its absence.

You forget that anyone here can check to see if what you say is true. So far, it hasn't been.

 

[Dougm]

Indeed, the more we know, the better.

I would be interested to know if Maresca really displayed this image to illustrate some point regarding the forensic evidence, and if so, what the point was. My understanding was that he did it for dramatic effect.

That's what I was told too, by people who were there and were not expecting to have these images unveiled in front of them, giving them no opportunity to decide if they wanted to see them, or not. More than one person reported being shocked, not only because they saw these horrific images they would not have wanted to see, but because it came by surprise.

Media accounts said the same thing. It has also been noted that Mignini showed the crime scene images earlier in the same proceeding, and the courtroom was cleared of media and spectators.