Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Hellmann motivation has been demolished with ironclad law arguments and doesn't exist by any jurisdiction, except on the part where it finds Knox guilty of calunnia. Hellmann was not overturned, it was annulled, it was fully explained, and I had anticipared it.
The Chieffi verdict and the verdict on Rudy Guede are definitive findings and by now they contain definitive truths on the case.

So, contrary to all the news reports, they found them guilty after all

Come on, Mach. Face it. You were wrong and you lost. It ain't so bad.

 

[Bill Williams]

A premise: I really don't think I have to "reconcile" things in a paper written by Mad Hatter and March Hare. The motivations is a joke, completely barmy and inconsistent, it cannot be reconciled with reality, law or with itself.

The SC 5th section anyway does not state what you claim. It seems you are twisting and misquoting. It seems you are quoting § 9.4 at p.45, which itself says something different. What the para says is that there is "one element (of evidence)" of "sure relevance" which points "in the direction" of "excluding the physical participation to the murder of Knox" even in the event that she was present on the murder scene when Meredith was killed. In fact, the following paragraph 9.4.1 the report goes on (still p.45) pointing out that it is a "proven fact" that Amanda Knox was present in the house where the murder took place at the time when Meredith was killed.

Incidental observation. The above reasoning is in fact nothing more than one of the most common pro-Knoxes' pseudo-scientific mantras (the idea that Knox could not be the killer because no DNA of her was found in the room). The Bruno-Marasca is obviously self- contradictory here, insofar as it had just stated that SC court should not assess the merits (criticizes Chieffi panel for doing this, p. 22), and states that courts should not be held competent of making direct assessment in scientific matters (§ 7.); and yet, what they do is making assessment in the merits, and making up conclusions on forensim matter on their own pseudo-scientific reasoning!

All this is just part of a comical pattern of inconsistency. But let's put aside this, and just look at what the report says.
What it says, at p. 45 is that it is an absolutely proven fact Knox was inside the apartment where the murder was committed at the time when Meredith was killed. It also says Knox's statements manifestly contain "incongruenze e mendacio" (inconsistencies and lies) (p.47.).
The report also states that it is an "irrefutable fact" that Knox is guilty of committing calunnia on malicious grounds (p.25), repeats again that this is a strong element of suspicion against Knox (p.46), and in § 2. states again that her guilt of calunnia is obvious, that the calunnia conviction would stand in any event, even alleged violations of human rights would be irrelevant, because it is obvious that she wrote her written memoirs voluntarily (p.20).

And also, the report says (p.26) that another fact to be hold as undisputable is that Guede committed the murder together with other people, they state this in §4.2 (p.25), and then emphasize this in the following paragraph (p.26) motivating how a lone-perpetrator scenario would make no sense ("elements exclude that Guede could have acted alone").

Machiavelli - can you explain something?

It's the parallel universe that **someone** is occupying. There's you, then there is everyone else in Italy.

The Umbria police union something-or-other is now blaming the prosecutors for the mess of the last 8 years.

The one thing that everyone in Italy, aside for you and (perhaps) Mignini, is agreed upon is that the case against RS and Ak was a sham.

Can you explain why you stand alone - and need to do what you do in the English language? Where is the Italian language stuff that agrees with you?

Oh yes, you don't read the papers in Italy. You should. It might save you embarrassment.

 

[Desert Fox]

As long as you don't even read yourself what court documents actually say...

Let me just say that I question your personal integrity when it comes to telling me what these documents actually state.

 

[Bill Williams]

So, contrary to all the news reports, they found them guilty after all

Come on, Mach. Face it. You were wrong and you lost. It ain't so bad.

I think we should give Machiavelli the benefit of the doubt. Well, if there was one, but still......

ETA - there's still the issue of the lamp. You'll note there is no mention of it in the Marasca report. You just have to ask yourself - why?

 

[Sergei Walankov]

As long as you don't even read yourself what court documents actually say...

That's all you've got - the fact that you can speak Italian and I can't. But Italian journalists can read the language just as well as you can, and have sources in the legal fraternity besides, and it is embarrassingly plain that nobody who matters is interpreting this the way you are.

 

[Machiavelli]

So, contrary to all the news reports, they found them guilty after all

Come on, Mach. Face it. You were wrong and you lost. It ain't so bad.

You are the one who should face the truth sometimes: at least you should face the obvious fact that the report states certain things! It's not that difficult, it's written before your eyes, you only need to read it.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's all you've got - the fact that you can speak Italian and I can't. But Italian journalists can read the language just as well as you can, and have sources in the legal fraternity besides, and it is embarrassingly plain that nobody who matters is interpreting this the way you are.

You are in on a forum that calls itself "skeptics'" , you invoke journlists who are pasting from press agancies, while you avoid direct sources that are before your eyes?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - can you explain something?

It's the parallel universe that **someone** is occupying. There's you, then there is everyone else in Italy.

The Umbria police union something-or-other is now blaming the prosecutors for the mess of the last 8 years.

The one thing that everyone in Italy, aside for you and (perhaps) Mignini, is agreed upon is that the case against RS and Ak was a sham.

Can you explain why you stand alone - and need to do what you do in the English language? Where is the Italian language stuff that agrees with you?

Oh yes, you don't read the papers in Italy. You should. It might save you embarrassment.

Bill, you can check everything I stated above yourself in the Bruno-Marasca report. I report what is written. It's the letter of the text. I am not the person who needs to provide explanations. Any person who is able to read can read it.

 

[bagels]

Bill, you can check everything I stated above yourself in the Bruno-Marasca report. I report what is written. It's the letter of the text. I am not the person who needs to provide explanations. Any person who is able to read can read it.

I think we're all eagerly awaiting a proper translation.

 

[acbytesla]

Hellmann motivation has been demolished with ironclad law arguments and doesn't exist by any jurisdiction, except on the part where it finds Knox guilty of calunnia. Hellmann was not overturned, it was annulled; the grounds for this were fully explained, and I had anticipated that.
The Chieffi verdict and the verdict on Rudy Guede are definitive findings and by now they contain definitive truths on the case.

Yet here we stand, almost 4 years after Hellman acquitted Amanda and Raffaele and the effect is exactly the same. Only final.

Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that your ramblings are just insane and have no resemblance to reality.

Look around Mach. Smell the coffee and the flowers, drink some wine and get over it. Maybe you and Mignini can go fight windmills somewhere else. I'm sure there are other innocents to persecute.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, you can check everything I stated above yourself in the Bruno-Marasca report. I report what is written. It's the letter of the text. I am not the person who needs to provide explanations. Any person who is able to read can read it.

You have steadfastly ignored dealing with anything I posted.

No matter. As has been said, you lost, Machiavelli. The police are now blaming the prosecutors for this fiasco. Who will the prosecutor's blame?

Implicit in all that is grudging acceptance of the Marasca/Bruno report. None of **their** acceptance makes even passing reference to what you claim.

No matter. You are the only person in the universe - in Italian, esp. - who is claiming what you claim.

Claim away! Knock yourself out! We'll get to the 25th continuation of this thread because of it.

Can you at least deal with what others are raising, before trying desperately to control the agenda. Ok, so you will not.

Whatever.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yet here we stand, almost 4 years after Hellman acquitted Amanda and Raffaele and the effect is exactly the same. Only final.

Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that your ramblings are just insane and have no resemblance to reality.

Look around Mach. Smell the coffee and the flowers, drink some wine and get over it. Maybe you and Mignini can go fight windmills somewhere else. I'm sure there are other innocents to persecute.

Your rants are worthless. The paper is before your eyes. This is what Cassazione 5th panel writes. You are even unable to see what is manifest before your eyes, and you deflect on the poster.

 

[anglolawyer]

You are the one who should face the truth sometimes: at least you should face the obvious fact that the report states certain things! It's not that difficult, it's written before your eyes, you only need to read it.

The truth? The truth? I can't handle the truth.

I will read the motivation when it has been properly translated. Meanwhile, I repeat, you were wrong and you lost and are now condemned to articulate fanciful conspiracy theories involving Freemasons, the Mafia etc (Vixen got there ahead of you). I feel sorry for you. Such a clever guy but so utterly wrong. Oh well. Caso chiuso as we have learned to say.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With all due, Strozzi, this story will fade into obscurity by later today. AFAIK CNN did not run the release of the Marasca/Bruno report at all, not on television, not on-line. ...

It was given passing mention.


Interesting in that the local coverage on our PBS radio station here in the Knox Northwest is reporting that the report cleared the two saying definitively, they weren't there. That contrasts with the news article I cited earlier which said the investigation was botched and couldn't prove they were there.

I don't know if that was NPR or just the local news. The radio station, KUOW, is based at the U of WA where Knox was a student.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have steadfastly ignored dealing with anything I posted.

Of course.
I was already talking about another topic. You deflected from it. One topic is direct content of a trial document.

No matter. As has been said, you lost, Machiavelli. The police are now blaming the prosecutors for this fiasco. Who will the prosecutor's blame?

You make statements that make no sense ("won", "lost"..?). You are unable to respond.

Implicit in all that is grudging acceptance of the Marasca/Bruno report. None of **their** acceptance makes even passing reference to what you claim.

I do not "accept" absolutely anything and I am not grudging. I am actually quite amused by their absurd rambling. I just take note of what they write. As a matter of fact they wrote some things. Just start to acknowledge that the fact that they write some things is just a fact.

No matter. You are the only person in the universe - in Italian, esp. - who is claiming what you claim.

I do not claim: the Bruno Marasca says those things. I can cite, I can quote those things. Anyone can. I am not talking about my personal claims.

 

[Machiavelli]

The truth? The truth? I can't handle the truth.

I will read the motivation when it has been properly translated. Meanwhile, I repeat, you were wrong and you lost and are now condemned to articulate fanciful conspiracy theories involving Freemasons, the Mafia etc (Vixen got there ahead of you). I feel sorry for you. Such a clever guy but so utterly wrong. Oh well. Caso chiuso as we have learned to say.

You are self contradictory in this post. You say "caso chiuso", and at the same time you say that you are still waiting to read what the Cassazione says.
A clever guy like me is the kind of person who would think it has to be one thing or the other, not both. One thing can't be closed and still awaiting, and I can't be wrong "meanwhile".

I state again adamantly that the SC report says exactly what I say. It is manifest to anyone who can read. I can show the pages and underline the passages. Prove me wrong.

 

[Diocletus]

You are self contradictory in this post. You say "caso chiuso", and at the same time you say that you are still waiting to read what the Cassazione says.
A clever guy like me is the kind of person who would think it has to be one thing or the other, not both. One thing can't be closed and still awaiting, and I can't be wrong "meanwhile".

I state again adamantly that the SC report says exactly what I say. It is manifest to anyone who can read. I can show the pages and underline the passages. Prove me wrong.

Does the report say that Knox was under duress while the police conducted their lawyerless interrogation?

Does the report say that Stefanoni's labwork was unreliable?

Does the report say that the police avoided exculpatory paths of investigation?

Yeah, it does. Not sure what else anyone really needs to know.

 

[acbytesla]

Your rants are worthless. The paper is before your eyes. This is what Cassazione 5th panel writes. You are even unable to see what is manifest before your eyes, and you deflect on the poster.

You're right, it is. And everyone EXCEPT YOU is saying something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

Should I believe CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail or you?

Hmmmmm, let me think.

 

[Ken Dine]

The US Government has never commented publicly on guilt or innocence in the Knox case. It is neutral on the matter. If it is widly or loudly claimed in Italy that the US Government interferred with (pressured) the Government of Italy to arrive at a certain verdict related to Knox, the US Government may finally be forced to take a public position. It could be forced to publicly address any allegation accusing the US Government of tampering in the matter. Will the US Embassy in Rome merely deny pressuring the Italian Government on this issue or will the Embassy go further and comment on the evidence or the quality of the police and prosecution investigation - that is the question.

If Italian guilters become very loud in accusing the US Government of influencing the verdict, the US Government may take action guilters really don't want them to take. The US Government could sponsor more interchanges between US forensic experts and their Italian counterparts. They may offer training in US forensic labs to Italian police officials. It could in the long run become more difficult for unprofessional Italian police or prosecutors to skew DNA evidence if more Italian scientists, journalists, or judges are better informed about forensic DNA.

The Italian Supreme Court's release of its motivation report is front-page news in the US. Yesterday (Monday) was a holiday in the US - Labor Day. Today (Tuesday) people return to work. I expect reporters asking questions of senior government officiaks at press conferences at the White House, Department of State, and Department of Justice to ask senior officials about the findings publicly released in the Italian Supreme Court's motivation report.

I also expect political candidates to be asked about their views. Perhaps Trump will publicly reiterate his earlier statement made 3 years ago that Knox is innocent. Perhaps he will publicly call the Italian police investigation and the prosecution corrupt. That would be headline material.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, having been US Secretary of State while Amanda was tried, wrongfully convicted, and imprisoned for four years for a crime she did not commit, will surely in front of media cameras be asked about it and will be asked to explain herself. What did you do, Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State to protect this innocent American in this Italian show trial?

Stay tuned! More US news coverage to follow.

I checked my Los Angeles Times this morning expecting to find some coverage, and not one mention of Amanda today. Surely, their online version would say something:

http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=amanda+knox&target=all&spell=on

NOPE!

The Los Angeles Times was once a good rag, but it quickly went downhill after being bought out by the Chicago based Tribune company.

As for Hillary fielding Amanda Knox questions, you'd think Hillary would welcome questions like that to divert the reporters away from her own legal scandals, which seem to be increasing with every new revelation.

With so much to ask Hillary about, I suspect few reporters will even bother to mention Amanda to her. But if one does, Hillary would be smart to take 2 hours to answer the Amanda question, and then quickly sneak out as the reporters go for a bathroom break.

 

[anglolawyer]

You are self contradictory in this post. You say "caso chiuso", and at the same time you say that you are still waiting to read what the Cassazione says.
A clever guy like me is the kind of person who would think it has to be one thing or the other, not both. One thing can't be closed and still awaiting, and I can't be wrong "meanwhile".

I state again adamantly that the SC report says exactly what I say. It is manifest to anyone who can read. I can show the pages and underline the passages. Prove me wrong.

Can I wait until it has been translated? If they have decided A and R were present but involved, I can only presume there has been some crazy conspiracy at work. They weren't present.