Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

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.

Just replying here because its up-thread.

1. Mach, were any of the judges in your view, acting from ulterior motives? Were they closet masons for example, or corrupt in some other way?

2. Also, you said Guede's trial has not been sealed for 5 years, and that you had posted content from his trial (in the Kercher case I presume). Can you provide any links to that. (Both Nina Burleigh and just yesterday Barbie Nadeau stated Guede's case was still under seal. Where is the discrepancy from what they say and what you say coming from?).

In particular, I'm curious as to Guede's original interview when he returns to Perugia from Germany, I belive it was in December 2007, and was a 7 hour interview with Mignini, Biscotti and Judge Matteini.

3. Lastly, what do you make of the logic the Marasca court applied, that the absence of any traces of Knox or Raf in the murder room, when there is copious evidence of only Rudy Guede, implies Amanda and Raf did not participate in the murder? You had the same issue, but you explained it by proposing that Amanda and Raf "immediately ran out of the room" after stabbing Meredith. Cassation did not adopt your view. Do you still maintain Amanda and Raf, immediately ran out of the room after stabbing Meredith? Is that still your breakdown of the crime?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Machiavelli seems to think if he can best us , here, in an argument over what the Marasca report says, that somehow that will make a difference.

I don't get it. It seems to me that Machiavelli needs to convince Italians in their own language.

I mean I could cave in and admit he's right. So? Truly I am nobody, so why would he waste an English language key stroke.

I don't get it.

 

[Kauffer]

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 forensic matters 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").

Are you really saying that the report asserts that the callunia conviction would stand regardless of a finding of human rights violations? If so, the court is plainly wrong. It is the constitutional position in Italy that convention jurisprudence stands above everything other than in a situation where it is in conflict with the constitution itself. Since the law states that an unfair trial finding must negate a guilty verdict, then this verdict will not stand. If the court has said what you suggest, then it is in conflict with the convention and its own governing constitution. I fancy that the ECHR will not like it and will teach the Italian judiciary a well needed lesson by referring to it in its judgement on the matter.

 

[Strozzi]

Mach I thought the Italian constitution said that an individual was innocent until conviction was confirmed by cassation. Since this has not happened for the murder Sollecito and Knox are innocent according to Italian law?

Machiavelli, now that the murder case is definitively resolved, what will happen to all the evidence held by authorities?

Will Stefanoni preserve all her DNA records and matter and ship them to a central police repository?
Will Raffaele's knives, shoes, comic book, and computer be returned to him?
Will Amanda get her jacket and laptop back?
Will Raffael and Amanda get their reputations back?
Will the animated cartoon of the murder paid for by the Italian taxpayer be available to the public?

Some of these items now could have considerable cash value.

Maybe Amanda can do a trade with Mignini. He will give her the recording of the late night interrogation and she will let him retain possession of her pink bunny. .

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

It's you one of those who usually make the point that this is a skeptics' forum. I am not saying that you should believe anyone. I am saying that you should read the SC report, even just the paragraph that I cited.

 

[Desert Fox]

Machiavelli, now that the murder case is definitively resolved, what will happen to all the evidence held by authorities?

Will Stefanoni preserve all her DNA records and matter and ship them to a central police repository?
Will Raffaele's knives, shoes, comic book, and computer be returned to him?
Will Amanda get her jacket and laptop back?
Will Raffael and Amanda get their reputations back?
Will the animated cartoon of the murder paid for by the Italian taxpayer be available to the public?

Some of these items now could have considerable cash value.

Maybe Amanda can do a trade with Mignini. He will give her the recording of the late night interrogation and she will let him retain possession of her pink bunny. .

Don't forget the vibrator

 

[analemma]

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

LOL

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Yup.

Not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni was laughably poor and incompetent at her job. And what's worse, it appears that she (and/or Comodi and Mignini) obfuscated and dissembled to try to cover up for her incompetence and professional malpractice.

And indeed this lies at the very heart of the matter, in my opinion. Stefanoni's police/PM masters effectively instructed her to find evidence of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, and (with the help of outrageously bad working practices) she duly obliged. Her bogus "evidence" was, IMO, by far the most important factor in driving forward the charging and trial of Knox and Sollecito. The PM was able to tell the courts, with gusto, that cutting-edge science, as conducted by the "world-class" Stefanoni, proved that Sollecito's kitchen knife was used in the murder, that Sollecito had touched Kercher's bra clasp, and that Knox had been bleeding at the same time as Kercher (per the infamous "mixed blood" samples from the small bathroom).

If any court were to take these three things at face value, they were of course extraordinarily damaging to Knox and Sollecito. And when courts such as Massei and Nencini did accept them credulously as such, I think that the rest of the so-called "evidence" in the case was automatically viewed through the prism of this forensic "evidence". It was almost as if the courts were given permission to reason as follows: the DNA evidence shows for sure the involvement of Knox and Sollecito, therefore the only thing left to do is to make sure that all the other evidence is also compatible with their guilt, and we're safe to convict.

So, in a very real sense, I believe that the actions of Stefanoni - both her incompetence and malpractice in the collection/testing/interpretation of the forensic evidence, and her bold-faced attempts to justify her work - were probably the single biggest reason why Knox and Sollecito had to endure all these years of anguish and injustice. I really nope (not out of vindictiveness, but for reasons related to accountability and non-repetition) that Stefanoni gets properly investigated and heavily censured for what she did in this case. But, as with so many regrets about the horribly flawed and unfit-for-purpose Italian criminal justice system, I suspect that Stefanoni will wriggle away from any sort of proper accountability.

 

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli seems to think if he can best us , here, in an argument over what the Marasca report says, that somehow that will make a difference.

I don't get it. It seems to me that Machiavelli needs to convince Italians in their own language.

I mean I could cave in and admit he's right. So? Truly I am nobody, so why would he waste an English language key stroke.

I don't get it.

Neither does he Bill. He's practicing both his dietrology and his English. In the past he's been able to rely on the simple fact that very few of us have much more than a passing understanding of Italian,. So Mach can say that we simply don't understand and dodge reality. In Italy, others can and probably do call him on his nonsensical diatribe so this is a safe haven.

 

[acbytesla]

It's you one of those who usually make the point that this is a skeptics' forum. I am not saying that you should believe anyone. I am saying that you should read the SC report, even just the paragraph that I cited.

I don't speak italian. But you knew that didn't you?

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli seems to think if he can best us , here, in an argument over what the Marasca report says, that somehow that will make a difference.

I don't get it. It seems to me that Machiavelli needs to convince Italians in their own language.

I mean I could cave in and admit he's right. So? Truly I am nobody, so why would he waste an English language key stroke.

I don't get it.

Neither does he Bill. He's practicing both his dietrology and his English. In the past he's been able to rely on the simple fact that very few of us have much more than a passing understanding of Italian,. So Mach can say that we simply don't understand and dodge reality. In Italy, others can and probably do call him on his nonsensical diatribe so this is a safe haven.

I may not have made my point very well.

What if it is true, that we here on this English language site, a relatively obscure English language site which argues incessantly and endlessly about the Kercher murder from 2007.....

What if it is true that it the Marasca report says what it says, as Machiavelli claims? Let's even concede for a moment that it's not even taken out of context - and that Marasca's more global statement, "It was simply impossible for the two to have been involved in this crime," is actually a contradiction in the report, and a fatal one at that.....

Why is Machiavelli arguing this HERE? The worst possible thing to imagine is that Machiavelli is right. He's right, yet he's going about his arguments in the worst possible way - trying to convince a few Yankees, some dodgy-maddogs and Englishpeople, and freshfaced-but-naive Canadians that a great injustice has just taken place. Us. Here.

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail - as well as every single Italian news outlet has read the very same thing that Machiavelli has read and comes up with a differing narrative - that the investigators AND prosecutors screwed the pooch......

..... which they may or may not have done in truth, but the point is that every news outlet in the country - including in Umbria - relates a completely different narrative to Machiavelli who stands as a lone voice in an obscure corner of CyberSpace.

Yes, there are a few bones thrown to the Mignini's of the world in the Marasca report, but every other Italian, other than Machiavelli, is saying things which would cause Mignini to go hide somewhere, or perhaps worse.

Himself be charged - yet again - with some sort of abuse of office charge. (I mean, the first thing that a profiler uses is past-behaviour as a predictor!)

Given what's at stake, and the reach of the conspiracy Machiavelli is claiming... why is Machiavelli arguing this HERE? In English? That one is just a headscratcher......

...... and possibly the only thing of interest remaining to get this thread to its 25th continuation. Say what you wish about the young lad, but Machiavelli is doing his bit to accomplish that!

 

[acbytesla]

I may not have made my point very well.

What if it is true, that we here on this English language site, a relatively obscure English language site which argues incessantly and endlessly about the Kercher murder from 2007.....

What if it is true that it the Marasca report says what it says, as Machiavelli claims? Let's even concede for a moment that it's not even taken out of context - and that Marasca's more global statement, "It was simply impossible for the two to have been involved in this crime," is actually a contradiction in the report, and a fatal one at that.....

Why is Machiavelli arguing this HERE? The worst possible thing to imagine is that Machiavelli is right. He's right, yet he's going about his arguments in the worst possible way - trying to convince a few Yankees, some dodgy-maddogs and Englishpeople, and freshfaced-but-naive Canadians that a great injustice has just taken place. Us. Here.

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, even the Daily Mail - as well as every single Italian news outlet has read the very same thing that Machiavelli has read and comes up with a differing narrative - that the investigators AND prosecutors screwed the pooch......

..... which they may or may not have done in truth, but the point is that every news outlet in the country - including in Umbria - relates a completely different narrative to Machiavelli who stands as a lone voice in an obscure corner of CyberSpace.

Yes, there are a few bones thrown to the Mignini's of the world in the Marasca report, but every other Italian, other than Machiavelli, is saying things which would cause Mignini to go hide somewhere, or perhaps worse.

Himself be charged - yet again - with some sort of abuse of office charge. (I mean, the first thing that a profiler uses is past-behaviour as a predictor!)

Given what's at stake, and the reach of the conspiracy Machiavelli is claiming... why is Machiavelli arguing this HERE? In English? That one is just a headscratcher......

...... and possibly the only thing of interest remaining to get this thread to its 25th continuation. Say what you wish about the young lad, but Machiavelli is doing his bit to accomplish that!

No, in fact you were very clear. The fact is it doesn't say what Machiavelli says it does, But at this site under the rules of the membership agreement it is difficult, even impossible to call him out. Mach is NOT trying to effect or influence anyone really Bill, he KNOWS that he can't. But at least he can't be called loony.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, in fact you were very clear. The fact is it doesn't say what Machiavelli says it does, But at this site under the rules of the membership agreement it is difficult, even impossible to call him out. Mach is NOT trying to effect or influence anyone really Bill, he KNOWS that he can't. But at least he can't be called loony.

........... it's just that we waited so long for the Marasca report to come out - apparently so that we could get back to serious discussion on this case. So we could get away from an endless loop of threads about the meaning of "met"!!

Yea, like that happened.

 

[Diocletus]

Are you really saying that the report asserts that the callunia conviction would stand regardless of a finding of human rights violations? If so, the court is plainly wrong. It is the constitutional position in Italy that convention jurisprudence stands above everything other than in a situation where it is in conflict with the constitution itself. Since the law states that an unfair trial finding must negate a guilty verdict, then this verdict will not stand. If the court has said what you suggest, then it is in conflict with the convention and its own governing constitution. I fancy that the ECHR will not like it and will teach the Italian judiciary a well needed lesson by referring to it in its judgement on the matter.

I see two possibilities here:

1) The Court really did say that not even the ECHR can undo the calunnia. In this case, the court is really just inviting/begging the ECHR to do just that.

2) The Court simply said: "nothing we can do about the calunnia at this point--that's all on Chieffi . . . by the way, did we mention that Knox was under duress". In this case, the court is putting the responsibility on Chieffi, and loading the dice against Italy before the ECHR.

 

[analemma]

I see two possibilities here:

1) The Court really did say that not even the ECHR can undo the calunnia. In this case, the court is really just inviting/begging the ECHR to do just that.

2) The Court simply said: "nothing we can do about the calunnia at this point--that's all on Chieffi . . . by the way, did we mention that Knox was under duress". In this case, the court is putting the responsibility on Chieffi, and loading the dice against Italy before the ECHR.

Diocletus,
This is a very interesting observation.
I could not understand why THIS court would even mention the calunnia conviction, since the calunnia verdict became "Judicial Truth" in the motivation by the whack job Chieffi court. This verdict was not even part of this appeal, since it was settled years ago.
I think that you are right, in that this court has recognized the full weight of the injustice here and realizes that it cannot annul the calunnia but is making it possible, now almost mandatory, that the ECHR correct this last injustice.
Analemma

 

[Matthew Best]

It's you one of those who usually make the point that this is a skeptics' forum. I am not saying that you should believe anyone. I am saying that you should read the SC report, even just the paragraph that I cited.

How about you offer up a translation of the entire paragraph you're referring to and then we get someone else to do a translation and see how they compare?

 

[Machiavelli]

No, in fact you were very clear. The fact is it doesn't say what Machiavelli says it does, But at this site under the rules of the membership agreement it is difficult, even impossible to call him out. Mach is NOT trying to effect or influence anyone really Bill, he KNOWS that he can't. But at least he can't be called loony.

So, you say that you are completely unable to find out what some paragraphs say (even with the help of Google translator, even with a dictionary, even asking about what phrases mean). You deem yourself unable. Ok.
And at the same time, you say you can tell what the text actually says or doesn't say. Right?

 

[Numbers]

I see two possibilities here:

1) The Court really did say that not even the ECHR can undo the calunnia. In this case, the court is really just inviting/begging the ECHR to do just that.

2) The Court simply said: "nothing we can do about the calunnia at this point--that's all on Chieffi . . . by the way, did we mention that Knox was under duress". In this case, the court is putting the responsibility on Chieffi, and loading the dice against Italy before the ECHR.

I think we need to await a really good translation to understand what the Marasca CSC panel wrote about the calunnia. They may have stated both of the above, and more, especially that they don't no orders from any stinkin' international courts.

 

[Machiavelli]

Diocletus,
This is a very interesting observation.
I could not understand why THIS court would even mention the calunnia conviction, since the calunnia verdict became "Judicial Truth" in the motivation by the whack job Chieffi court. This verdict was not even part of this appeal, since it was settled years ago.
I think that you are right, in that this court has recognized the full weight of the injustice here and realizes that it cannot annul the calunnia but is making it possible, now almost mandatory, that the ECHR correct this last injustice.
Analemma

But the SC wrote quite the contrary of that. They emphasized that Knox's malice in committing calunnia is out of question, and could not depend on any possible detectives' behaviour. They wrote even duress during interrogation wouldn't explain her hand written memoirs, which are manifestly voluntary and malicious to the court. They said even theoretical violations could not change this fact, which they called "irrefutable".
Not only, the court also pointed out that Knox's declarations contained " inconsistency and lying" even before her interrogation, and calls this a "strong element" of suspicion of her involvement in the murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

So, you say that you are completely unable to find out what some paragraphs say (even with the help of Google translator, even with a dictionary, even asking about what phrases mean). You deem yourself unable. Ok.
And at the same time, you say you can tell what the text actually says or doesn't say. Right?

You would help me understand the bee in your bonnet if you addressed the two questions put to you, and quit beating this drum.

You're going nowhere in this thread by beating this drum. Indeed, I say that admitting there's a possibility that you and only you is right on this and everyone else is wrong.

But......

1) why does every Italian news service seem to disagree with you? Every one of them! The issues raised by the Marasca report are causing the police union in Unbria to blame the prosecutors for this travesty of the last 8 years. No one in Italy is critiquing that Marasca report at all!

2) why do YOU do this only in English to try to convert us, mainly English speakers with no dog in this hunt? What good would it do even if you somehow managed to convince us you were right?​

Try those two, dude, and you might get somewhere with your postings.