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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
From my reading the evidence isn't stipulated to but rather limited. The prosecution presents their case with what they brought to the preliminary hearing (or whatever they call it) and the defense presents what they found before calling for the fast track.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want. It is in the interest of both Mignini and Guede to argue the same side of the multiple attacker scenario.

Maybe for differing reasons, but the point is that there's no trial judge who can get an independent assessment about it like Massei had to deal with.

And when Massei dealt with it he was flooded with experts who said that a single attacker was perfectly plausible.
 
Bill Williams said:
This is a translation of the conclusion of Nencini's report, which demonstrates in the most bald way the reverse of a normal burden of proof.

​

Nencini is saying that it is not up to the prosecutor to defeat "reasonable doubt" in manufacturing a conviction....

.... it is now up to the defence, or an acquitting judge, to defeat reasonable doubt in a prosecutor's case, or in the ruling of a lower court.

In a sense, Nencini is saying that the one who acquits must use "objective evidence," whereas all the prosecutor needs to have (cf. Micheli) is a reasonable, logical hypothesis even if it is devoid of evidence.

How does a defence find evidence, if it is no longer up to the prosecution to provide any?

There you have it. The definition of "osmosis" as applied to this case.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's very surprising even for Italy.
 
Samson said:
Barbie Nadeau has found this

The court also scoffed at certain rulings laid out by the first appellate court, saying that the court’s reasoning that it would have been easy for “a young athlete” like Rudy Guede to scale the wall and enter the apartment, was borderline racist.

It sounds a little post modern to me.
Click to expand...

What is racist about it? Rudy played Semi Pro basketball and by all accounts spent much of his time playing basketball. There should be little doubt that Rudy would consider himself to be a young athlete at that time.
 
Bill Williams said:
This is a translation of the conclusion of Nencini's report, which demonstrates in the most bald way the reverse of a normal burden of proof.

"The affirmation of the criminal responsibility of the defendants of the crime ascribed to them can be reached only if there is no reasonably reliable explanation other than that which emerged in the investigation, that of their personal involvement in the crime. Doubt over the significance of the circumstantial evidence that would justify an acquittal of the defendants must be reasonable, and not just a hypothesis unsupported by any objective evidence. The truth that emerges from the probative picture must be ascertained by the exclusion of any reasonable explanation of their cause that is different than the involvement of the defendants".​
Click to expand...


Nencini is saying that it is not up to the prosecutor to defeat "reasonable doubt" in manufacturing a conviction....

.... it is now up to the defence, or an acquitting judge, to defeat reasonable doubt in a prosecutor's case, or in the ruling of a lower court.

In a sense, Nencini is saying that the one who acquits must use "objective evidence," whereas all the prosecutor needs to have (cf. Micheli) is a reasonable, logical hypothesis even if it is devoid of evidence.

How does a defence find evidence, if it is no longer up to the prosecution to provide any?

There you have it. The definition of "osmosis" as applied to this case.
Click to expand...


I don't think you are reading this correctly. What he is saying is exactly that if there isn't a reasonable explanation other than guilt then guilt it must be.

He is saying that unless there is another reasonable explanation except that they did it, then they did it. Doubt about any evidence must be reasonable and not just some idea that has no support. The guilty verdict must be given unless there is a reasonable explanation of the evidence other than an involvement of the defendants

Not a fan of Italian writing translated to english.
 
acbytesla said:
What is racist about it? Rudy played Semi Pro basketball and by all accounts spent much of his time playing basketball. There should be little doubt that Rudy would consider himself to be a young athlete at that time.
Click to expand...

I frankly find it racist that he is suggesting that if Rudy were a white guy he couldn't do it. Humph.
 
Its much bigger than that

proudfootz said:
Can't you see this for what is truly is - a vast conspiracy from the Pope (and those who are pulling the strings at the Vatican) on down to the homeless guy on the street?

Most likely Sollecito and Knox were genetically manipulated to be the perfect patsies by the Reptilians. Incapable of doing wrong, innocent of anything more than being in love, but also incapable of telling the truth.

Is it a coincidence both families were Catholic? No doubt some super-secret cabal of Jesuits or Opus Dei were involved. The set up must have taken generations, as the parents don't seem quite right either, but these evil forces are ancient and very patient. Don't think for a second the powers that built the Pyramids and sank Atlantis couldn't pull this off.

It should be obvious that all the evidence was cooked up. Why is Guede in prison? On the basis of tainted DNA? Fingerprints or shoe prints conveniently 'found' by incompetent investigators? And why did the Pope need to have Kercher killed? Who ordered the rest of the residents to be absent that night? What did she know that she needed to be silenced? Like the passengers on Flight 370, Meredith was probably an investigator who got too close to the explosive truth!

There are many unanswered questions, but now that we know it was a conspiracy even more diabolical than 9/11 with the incontrovertible proof published on the internet there is nowhere the real killers can hide. Maybe OJ can help!
Click to expand...

No No No No No - man, its much BIGGER than that.

Why are you playing down the conspiracy against Britney ???

Are you one of the disinfo agents we have been hearing about.
 
Bill Williams said:
Call it what you want. It is in the interest of both Mignini and Guede to argue the same side of the multiple attacker scenario.

Maybe for differing reasons, but the point is that there's no trial judge who can get an independent assessment about it like Massei had to deal with.

And when Massei dealt with it he was flooded with experts who said that a single attacker was perfectly plausible.
Click to expand...

Bill you said that the FT is limited to stipulated evidence. The post I provided indicates that is not the case

Even if they had had a full trial it would have been in the interest of M and R to have multiple attackers. Are you saying there isn't an independant Judge based on anything factual?

It would seem you are trying hard to make something out of the fast track that isn't valid.
 
Bill Williams said:
It is interesting reading the (few) news reports about Nencini's motivations. CNN's comments section is running 99-1 in favour of Knox/Sollecito, with comments like, "What the hell's wrong with Italy?"

Or, "I thought this was about sex? Now it's about money? What happened to all the so-called 'evidence' presented earlier that this was about sex or at least about sex-rituals?"

People seem to be catching on.
Click to expand...

The ABC site also is going about 99 to 1 against Italy. I really do love the fact that many people are pointing out that if it was about money, why was Rudy's DNA found on Meredith's purse and not Amanda's. They also are going to town on the fact that Nencini is willing to believe the criminal Rudy Guede about the money even though there is nothing to back him up. They are pointing out just how absurd this idea is pointing out Amanda's financial position and that Raffaele's family is very wealthy.

Things that make you go hmmmm.
 
Diocletus said:
It's an example. There was a follow-up post that explained that I posted it because it looks just like the rings found on the outside steps.

BTW, did you see pic. no. 33 in your collection? Sweet Jesus.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification & apologies for the implication, I was a little (a lot! :o ) confused.
 
Grinder said:
I don't think you are reading this correctly. What he is saying is exactly that if there isn't a reasonable explanation other than guilt then guilt it must be.

He is saying that unless there is another reasonable explanation except that they did it, then they did it. Doubt about any evidence must be reasonable and not just some idea that has no support. The guilty verdict must be given unless there is a reasonable explanation of the evidence other than an involvement of the defendants

Not a fan of Italian writing translated to english.
Click to expand...

I hope to goodness that you are correct and that I am not. One has to hold their mouth funny to make out the translation.

Yet it fits. It fits with Micheli's original statement that one does not need evidence when one has a logical theory. (Or that one can be proud of determining that they are guilt by behavioural clues, even before the evidence comes in.) (Then the evidence came in and it all pointed to Rudy alone!)
 
acbytesla said:
The ABC site also is going about 99 to 1 against Italy. I really do love the fact that many people are pointing out that if it was about money, why was Rudy's DNA found on Meredith's purse and not Amanda's. They also are going to town on the fact that Nencini is willing to believe the criminal Rudy Guede about the money even though there is nothing to back him up. They are pointing out just how absurd this idea is pointing out Amanda's financial position and that Raffaele's family is very wealthy.

Things that make you go hmmmm.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but how did Rudy's DNA end up inside Meredith?
 
Grinder said:
Bill you said that the FT is limited to stipulated evidence. The post I provided indicates that is not the case

Even if they had had a full trial it would have been in the interest of M and R to have multiple attackers. Are you saying there isn't an independant Judge based on anything factual?

It would seem you are trying hard to make something out of the fast track that isn't valid.
Click to expand...

Sigh. At least the old Grinder is back. Whoever that reasonable person was who'd hacked your account, I think he's gone now.

The one thing I am almost certain about, is that "stipulations" do not exist in Italy in their courts in the way they're used in British systems. But whatever happened in the fast track trial, they came to conclusions based on not testing evidence as evidence would be tested in the missing trial-phase. These conclusions seem now to be called "procedural facts".

Argue with me all you want, Grinder. You seem to be the only one getting hung up on it being me presenting this stuff.

The thing that is real is that Nencini today released a report saying that the basis of multiple attackers is that it is a "procedural fact". Let's start there.

Maybe I should throw in some Latin terms, just to really rile you up that it is me saying all this. What is Latin for "procedural fact"?
 
Last edited:
That's it. I'm officially starting my Italian boycott, and I won't be buying any more Italian stuff . . . Like, um, well . . . Fiats.
 
Mignin's closing remarks

Diocletus said:
Wow. That's very surprising even for Italy.
Click to expand...
Some time ago I read a quote from Mignini's closing remarks that was an equally bizarre explanation of what beyond a reasonable doubt was. I don't have a link handy, however.
ETA
Andrew Gumbel quoted Mignini, "Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other."
 
Last edited:
From Steve Moore.....

Steve Moore said:
The “motivation” document produced by Judge Nencini alleges that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were able to do something that no criminal in the history of mankind has ever before been able to accomplish: Selectively clean up their own invisible DNA, leaving only the DNA of the man they wished to “frame.” To do so, they obviously had to possess the power to see DNA with their naked eyes, know whose it was (something the first Italian court famously couldn’t do with microscopes), and remove only their own. And most importantly, they had to clean the DNA from a bloody room without leaving a mark where the blood had been disturbed. This is like removing the underlying primer coat from a car’s paint without disturbing the paint job itself. It’s like doing a heart transplant through a sweat gland. It’s like removing Jesus from DaVinci’s masterpiece, “The Last Supper,” without anybody noticing.
Click to expand...

http://www.gmancasefile.com/1/post/2014/04/shhhhhnobody-will-notice.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom