Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

What confuses me is why I respond! I literally spewed milk on my computer screen when I read he believes Stefanoni when she said (which I doubt she did) that the reason why Knox's DNA was not found in Meredith's room was because she was female.

He's looking for excuses to prove his own bias. It is imply impossible for him to start out with the premise that the defendants are innocent and then establish the evidence that proves guilt.

No he starts out with Amanda must be guilty so he comes up bizarre explanation for the total absence of evidence. Let's say he's right about female DNA (even though he's dead wrong) It's irrelevant as it is the prosecution's responsibility to prove affirmatively why any defendant is guilty. "Where's the beef?" one might say.

 

[acbytesla]

I have proven you wrong too many times?

You have an imaginative mind Machiavelli. I can only think of one thing that I was wrong and you were right about and that was the Cheiffi court's verdict.

Beyond that I cannot think of a thing.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm confused. I thought Bruno and Marasca were Italians. It seems they used their own "Italian reality" to acquit the pair.

So is Conti and Vechiotti, Hellmann

 

[Bill Williams]

And yet you didn't answer.

Let's clarify again anyway: yes, it would be impossible to find Amanda's DNA on Meredith's body, or in any context where Meredith's DNA would be very abundant in comparison to a tiny amount of Knox's DNA, because they are both females.
It would have been impossible to find Knox's DNA inside the victim's vagina. It was posible to find a Y-haplotype compatible with Guede, because Guede has a Y-haplotype. But his X-haplotype could not be detected, probably because Meredith's DNA was just too much and the amplification process and machine settings required would make it impossible to detect an X profile on a much lower magnitude.

I have already proven that your claim that Nencini attributed Y haplotypes to females is false, it's made up. Your false claim is based upon a series of falsehoods made up by yourself, among them your wrong interpretation of what Nencini says about the Conti-Vecchiotti report. You maintain that Nencini stated that the Conti-Vecchiotti report is reliable under every aspect, and this is false. Also your claim about what the Conti-Vecchiotti report says is false.
You are most obstinate and obsessive about your misinterpreting and twisting of what others say.
Your claim about Nencini is a lie.

I am actually not willing to "win an argument", but I am ready to teach you things that you may not know. It appears you are telling me those things don't interest you.

You say again "my interpretation" of things. Yet it is not my interpretation. The text of the Cassazione report is quite clear while making points like Knox was certainly in via della Pergola house when the murder was committed, whashed her hands from Meredith's blood (despite its astonishing contradicting some them in some other page, and then re-stating them in a further page again, as if it was really written by a fool).
The SC report is also clear about the fact that Guede did not kill alone and that Knox was malicious. I repeat: these things are stated clearly, it's not my interpretation.

Your first paragraph is stunningly embarrassing. Stop it.

Your last paragraph begs the question you tefuse to answer. Who in Italy shares your view or is even talking about it? Does anyone in Italy care that you want to teach Bill Williams things?

We will make it to the 25th continuation with these inanities.

You've lied about being shot in Genoa. You have a laughingly absurd view of female forensics, which you have now defended three times. You have proved nothing. You've asserted things and expect to be taken simply at your word.

And after each of us has had at each other, the pair are still innocent.

 

[moije2]

No, I substituted a real issue, rather than deal with your insipid stupidity. You are the guy who believes that because Knox is female, her DNA cannot be detected on the victims body. You're the guy who said he was shot in Genoa without one shred of proof at all. Simply another lie on you part. (You would not believe who I've heard from re: this.)

You are the guy foisting interpretations on things that no one, repeat no one within Italy shares. If it were so you would point to them. Those are bombastic claims you are making, and not one paper in Italy is covering it. Not one. You've been tweeting Porta a Porta, and they, apparently, are ignoring you as some kind of nut! There is no press-buzz on these claims you are making....

.... you simply want to win an argument with me. Me! An english-language speaker with no power one way or another to influence anything.

Ok, say I agree with you. Say for a minute I agree that this is what it says and what it means in Italian.

So what!? Where I would go with that is this - this is now Motivations Report #5 in an 8 year legal odyssey which has provided proof of something with no evidence to support it. Knox wiping blood off of her hands? And they then acquit? That, then, is the equivalent of Nencini implying that women (amica) have y-haplotypes. None of this makes anyone in the English speaking world want to trust the adjudication of a murder of an innocent to the Italian legal system.

Massei in 2009 gives a great description of what a suspect-centric investigation is, and warns against them. THEN he agrees with the very investigators who conducted a suspect centric system. Nencini ignores from 3 to 5 Y-DNA presences on 35B, and then rules out contamination because the only thing for him was to find Raffaele there. That is the very definition of suspect-centric.

And fresh from LMAO about your gaffe about Knox's DNA not neing able to be found on Meredith because the two of them are female, is.....

..... well, not exactly encouraging me to "answer the question".

Dude, you are simply in another universe, dude. Let's say you and I agree and you can reach up and put a check mark beside what you've written on your wall, "I've now got Bill Williams to see reason."

Big deal. So what.

Why are you not doing this in Italy in Italian? Can you point to anyone who is saying what you are saying in Italy in Italian? While we are accusing each other of not answering questions, that's a question you are not dealing with adequately.

Yup. Alternative universe. Totally logical. Right.

.

 

[Machiavelli]

He's looking for excuses to prove his own bias. It is imply impossible for him to start out with the premise that the defendants are innocent and then establish the evidence that proves guilt.

No he starts out with Amanda must be guilty so he comes up bizarre explanation for the total absence of evidence. Let's say he's right about female DNA (even though he's dead wrong) It's irrelevant as it is the prosecution's responsibility to prove affirmatively why any defendant is guilty. "Where's the beef?" one might say.

But there is abundant evidence.

There is no DNA of Knox found inside Meredith's room, but this is not the same thing of saying no evidence.

Look the coarse way you distort statement. It's not "female DNA". It's autosomic DNA.

The simple problem with finding small traces of autosomic DNA on a female's body, is the profiles unbalance in the sample.

Stefanoni explained (Oct. 2008 testimony, p.153-154) that in a mixed sample when profile amounts are very unbalanced, the amplification process leads often to the loss of information of the smaller amount.

This is why Guede's X-chromosome was not found on the bra, nor inside her body. We can infer there was obviously an autosomic profile of Guede, but it was not found because the victim's DNA was too much.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your first paragraph is stunningly embarrassing. Stop it.

You are embarassing yourself. Read something of the trial papers.

Your last paragraph begs the question you tefuse to answer. Who in Italy shares your view or is even talking about it? Does anyone in Italy care that you want to teach Bill Williams things?

I am not interested in discussing this kind of topics with you. A topic you can discuss with me if you like, is the content of the SC report.

(...)

You've lied about being shot in Genoa.

Who are you to call me liar? I am not the liar here. I despise liars. Why should I lie?
I was not wounded, luckily, but unfortunately they shot on us. They were not loaded with live ammunition, they only had tear gas and non-lethal ammo, but I discovered that only later. Precisely that happened in via Casaregis and I was not the only person there, we were hundreds obviously.

You have a laughingly absurd view of female forensics, which you have now defended three times. You have proved nothing. You've asserted things and expect to be taken simply at your word.

Not "female forensics", but finding autosomic profiles from very unbalanced DNA mixtures.

 

[bagels]

Mach how come all PGP are certain the kitchen knife is the murder weapon? What if Amanda And Raff are guilty but they didn't use that particular knife? Did you ever consider it?

 

[acbytesla]

But there is abundant evidence.
There is no DNA of Knox found inside Meredith's room, but this is not the same thing of saying no evidence.
Look the coarse way you distort statement. It's not "female DNA". It's autosomic DNA.

The simple problem with finding small traces of autosomic DNA on a female's body, is the profiles unbalance in the sample.

Stefanoni explained (Oct. 2008 testimony, p.153-154) that in a mixed sample when profile amounts are very unbalanced, the amplification process leads often to the loss of information of the smaller amount.

This is why Guede's X-chromosome was not found on the bra, nor inside her body. We can infer there was obviously an autosomic profile of Guede, but it was not found because the victim's DNA was too much.

Yes it is. There is NO EVIDENCE that puts Amanda in Meredith's bedroom on the night of her murder. NONE. You're just attempting to come up with excuses for the failure to find any. That is not enough.

And relying on that hack Stefanoni doesn't help your cause.

 

[moije2]

First of all, I wish I knew how to format this stuff like everyone else! Maybe I will spend more time on this site to figure it out. Not! I am about ready to move on. Be that as it may....

First, the greasy thing: I actually don't know if that word is usable the way I used it in English. The fact is that I intended to translate a couple of Italian word sto qualify Knox's stile, the words untuoso and the word viscido (slimy or so). These are charachter qualities, don't have anything to do with race or culture. Specifically here they describe the quality of Knox's lies.

I didn't expect you to tap into the English usage. At least by Italian Americans. However, for me, I wonder if there is a carry over of culture with respect to a view of the world. A color of lens through which one interprets the world. No answers expected, or perhaps possible here. There is a word in English - unctuous - which may be a false friend here. Not the same meaning. Nonetheless, greasy is the last thing I would attribute to Amanda Knox. She represents the diametric opposite of that in American culture, and provides never ending wonderment that she could be interpreted as such. Again, alternative universe.


I don't see relevant "logical" errors by Mignini and Stefanoni because probably there aren't any. But anyway, I have no zer-sum concept of a trial. If there were important mistakes to point out, of a kind that could effect the outcome of the investigation, I would point them out. I don't see them. The kinds of criticism from the pro-Knox side are specious, they are pretexts.

Perfect. Just perfect.

I might have had respect and hold as intellectually honest, albeit wrong, someone who says "I don't feel completely sure, still have some doubt about the suspect's guilt".
But nobody near to the realm of intellectual honesty could claim a belief that the suspects are innocent. There is no room for that within the scope of human rationality and honesty, there is no respect on my part for such people, those "believers" (or self-proclaimed belivers). They only deserve contempt, and their sick venomous prejudice just should be pointed out.
The alternative universe is apparent. From my view, and I perceive by many here on this site, you do not brush against the penumbra of reality. There is zero intellectual honesty. You provide a humorous insight into a marginal element of Italian society. Take a look at yourself and judge honestly. You sir, have spent an unquantifiable amount of time on this case. You go personally to the court hearings. You report Alice in Wonderland commentary about your country's judiciary yet can only pull commentary that supports your unsupported view of guilt. Unsupported except for "all the other evidence" that somehow vaguely must exist, at least in your alternative world. Again I posit, you must be tortured by a judiciary that issues comical - in your opinion - judgments.

I am not "under a Judiciary", I am in Italy, a land torn apart by powerful forces. Just don't think the US is any better.

Indeed you in fact are under a judiciary. You may not directly work for them. Or not. Not my intention for you to divulge what role you play. But you live there, and presumable are an Italian citizen. You are subject to their laws, yet make slanderous/libelous commentary frequently. It is nice you feel the freedom of speech to do such with the cloak of anonymity. Too bad Amanda Knox can't experience the freedom to describe a cuffing by your police officers without being subject to calunnia trials. Or her parents. Or authors or journalists reporting behaviour of the participants. This doesn't pass the whiff test for a truly free society. If anything is specious it is your argumentation. And I use that word loosely.

I hope that you have improved your English in this endeavor. Fight against corruption and continue your efforts to be an idealogue. You have failed to convince me of an honest effort to look at actual human beings and interpret their lives and their actions.


PS: What is the term that Italians use for that special little whack given upside the head? You know, as we call it - "cuffing". You have a special word for it don't you? It is something for which Italian society has evolved a specific term, n'est-ce pas?

 

[Bill Williams]

You are embarassing yourself. Read something of the trial papers.

Read Chris Halkides post on IA/IIP. There is no reason to believe that Meredith' DNA would be in an overwhelming quantity over a hypothetical female assailant.

I am not interested in discussing this kind of topics with you. A topic you can discuss with me if you like, is the content of the SC report.

Why? So you can win a point? You still have not established why that is even interesting.... beating me in an argument on the SC report, when (if I ended up agreeing with you), neither of us would be arguing this in Italian in Italy.

I now get a sense why you are not interested in discussing this. Because it is the issue at hand. And you know the implications of you being the lone voice in all of Italy, when everyone else is simply getting on with their lives.

Who are you to call me liar? I am not the liar here. I despise liars. Why should I lie?
I was not wounded, luckily, but unfortunately they shot on us. They were not loaded with live ammunition, they only had tear gas and non-lethal ammo, but I discovered that only later. Precisely that happened in via Casaregis and I was not the only person there, we were hundreds obviously.

I duly note your change of story here. Scroll back to where you claimed to be shot. Now you claim to be shot at.

Strangely, when there was this lack of precision in a Knox memoriale, you were not shy about calling her a liar. You operate out of a double standard.

Not "female forensics", but finding autosomic profiles from very unbalanced DNA mixtures.

There is no reason to think why they would be unbalanced. Try another line of argument.

 

[acbytesla]

There was a time I despised Machiavelli.

While I can understand not wanting to see a killer go free, I never understood that need to be so compelling that it would be necessary to be dishonest. It bothered me because of people like him Amanda and Raffaele went to prison instead of graduate schools or started their careers. They had a dark cloud around them that threatened to envelop them for a greater part of their young lives.

But I don't despise him any more. I worry about him. That cloud that surround Amanda and Raffaele is gone. Instead, it hovers over people like Yummi. He, the Sancho Panza to Mignini's Don Quixote. Or maybe Mach is McMurphy in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. He's had his good time being disruptive but if he doesn't stop soon the ending for him will not just be bad but tragic.

 

[anglolawyer]

If the American citizen is a resident of Italy, he/she can only be judged by Italian institutions, rules and people. There is a principle of soverignity quite obvious, it's someone who lives in this reality, not in the US.

But maybe you mean something more subjective, rather than juristidction. You mean interpretation of behaviours, "through the eyes of", or "as if".

Now, the problem is twofold. First of all, it is correct to say that interpretation of things must be put in relation to a cultural context. But this does not equate to say that I cannot interpret things and can't judge a person from another culture in the absolute. Most inmates in Italy are foreigneers, they are very diverse and from very different cultures (chinese, african etc.). People are not put in jail because of cultural interpretaion of behaviours. You seem to incur in the mistake of believing - and I think that this was your belif from the origin - that Knox was suspected because of cultural behaviour. But telling inconsistent stories to the police is not a cultural behaviour of American women, nor knowing details of the victim's death that they shouldn't know, nor falsely accusing black men of raping and killing their roomate while covering their ears, and having a boyfriend who retracts their alibi may be also not that typical of a foreign culture.

But the second, most important problem is the following.
I can use my Italian reality to judge Mignini, Anna Donnino, Stefanoni. And also the fairness of a trial under the Italian system. While instead, based on your principle, an American citizen should not judge Mignini, Donnino or Stefanoni. Nor should ever dare to judge a witness within an Italian trial. or if a procedure is followed properly.

The hypocrisy of your position comes out as we just turn our attention to this second point.
The problem here, is what the US-based campaign and supporters like you are saying about people and things they are not supposed to be able to judge.

It's the presumption and the chuzpah in their intent to "judge" (and violently attack) a number of things beyond your knowledge. At the same time, you present me with a complaint that someone may judge Knox trhough non-American eyes. You can see the grotesque chuzpah, don't you.

Well I'm neither an American nor an Italian but I do know what just and fair procedures look like and those are invariant. The list of abuses in the process in this case is way too long to set out and is well-trodden ground anyway on this thread. 'Being Italian' does not cut it when it comes to basic principles of disclosure, publicity, case funding (a huge point, little understood) admissibility, finality, rationality, etc. etc.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The assumption that there is no evidence o Knox in the room is also false. The fact that she is a female -to start with - would explain the impossibility to find her DNA on the victim's body or on spots where there is Meredith's blood.

Then why is it possible to find it in the sink?

The fact that Guede's DNA evidence is minimal..

Always minimizing Guede's involvement.

The fact that there is Knox's lamp inside the room is evidence of her on the murder scene...

Because no innocent person ever moved an inanimate object.

and the fact that her blood is found in suspicious circumstances and her DNA is found on blood spots of the victim and on multiple luminol stains mixed with the victim's DNA, even in areas of the house where Knox was not supposed to leave DNA, is also evidence of Knox on the scene of crime.

So it's locatable in some places, but not in others? This makes no sense at all. Why can you find it "on blood spots of the victim" but not "on the victim's body or on spots of the victim's blood." You can't have it both ways.

 

[Mr Fied]

If the American citizen is a resident of Italy, he/she can only be judged by Italian institutions, rules and people. There is a principle of soverignity quite obvious, it's someone who lives in this reality, not in the US.

She was, and guess what the verdict was.

 

[analemma]

You are all wrong.

I don't care about anyone in particular. I'm not loyal to anyone. I don't care about any authority, nor the Judiciary nor the Italian Police. I have trashed the Italian Police on their involvement in the Aldrovandi case. I was arrested and shot by the Police in Genova 2001. I am no "friend" of any police in principle.
I am also not a friend of "magistrates" in general, not even loyal to certain specific magistrates.

The fact that you question "what" motivates me, actually reveals that you have probably just an utter ignorance about Italy. You fail to see the ideological faction and identify the part of society I belong to.
I am not motivated by any of the people you think I "defend".
I am motivated by my enemy. It's my ideology, my feeling of justice and truth what motivates me. The "enemy" is obviously not Amanda Knox, who is a "nobody" (Hannah Arendt); the enemy is a corrupt part of the society I live in, and the aggressive foreign vultures who take advantage of it. I am motivated by what motivates Roberto Saviano, Giulio Cavalli, Giuseppe Fava, Lirio Abbate, Federica Angeli.... You could equally say that I am motivated by hatred, and that could be a way to put it.

It is far from "obvious" that the enemy is not Amanda Knox.
But I agree that you are motivated by hatred
We see it every day

 

[anglolawyer]

Mach is incensed by the ISC verdict. I don't get it from his posts that he is overly bothered about Amanda herself. If I believed what he does, I would be pissed at the judges too. I was pissed at the idiots who reversed Hellman. So were we all. Let's get off his case a little bit and use him as a source of (perhaps somewhat slanted) information about the motivation and the recent slander trial.

 

[JihadJane]

What books would people recommend for an overview of this case?

For example, I just read a review of The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox by Nina Burleigh. Is that worth reading?

 

[Dougm]

Mach is incensed by the ISC verdict. I don't get it from his posts that he is overly bothered about Amanda herself. If I believed what he does, I would be pissed at the judges too. I was pissed at the idiots who reversed Hellman. So were we all. Let's get off his case a little bit and use him as a source of (perhaps somewhat slanted) information about the motivation and the recent slander trial.

If Mach is a reliable source on any topic, so was Curutolo (RIP).

His track record of inaccurate statements speaks for itself.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[anglolawyer]

What books would people recommend for an overview of this case?

For example, I just read a review of The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox by Nina Burleigh. Is that worth reading?

Yes, that's a good one and you should also read a bad one for balance. The worst bad one by far is by Barbie Nadeau. Thats so bad it's funny. A better bad one is by John Follian, which is a guilter bible. Of the two, I would go for Barbie, for laughs and because it's shorter. There are about ten others I could suggest but I have formed the impression that you are pretty much a sane person with better things to do in your spare time.