• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also would like more information from Mach about the background of his ideology. The authors he listed are or were all anti-Mafia activists. I think Mach has acknowledged in the past, too, that he is a member of the Communist Party in Italy.

I would like to know how those he considers his enemies influenced the judicial processes for this trial, and I would like to know how aggressive foreigners took advantage of it.

I have never been a mamber of Communist parties. I have been a member of the European Greens.

I also would like more information from Mach about the background of his ideology. The authors he listed are or were all anti-Mafia activists. I think Mach has acknowledged in the past, too, that he is a member of the European Greens.

I would like to know how those he considers his enemies influenced the judicial processes for this trial, and I would like to know how aggressive foreigners took advantage of it.

But I bet he's not going to tell us.
 
Guede's DNA evidence is minimal???????????????
You mean the GUEDE DNA evidence found INSIDE the victims vagina?????

Yes it's minimal.

Do you consider DNA evidence found inside a murdered rape victims vagina minimal?

I do not consider it. It is a minimal amount. And it is only compatible with Guede, since contains only a Y-haploptype profile, and no X-chromosomes DNA.

The cowardly police did not even examine the Guede semen stains found just below the vagina.

There are no "Guede semen stains". There are unknown stains luminescent under UV light, which Sollecito's defence - may I say cowardly? - remained silent about for months, if not years.
 
<snip>There are no "Guede semen stains". There are unknown stains luminescent under UV light, which Sollecito's defence - may I say cowardly? - remained silent about for months, if not years.

What did the prosecution and the lab say about them?
 
There are no "Guede semen stains". There are unknown stains luminescent under UV light, which Sollecito's defence - may I say cowardly? - remained silent about for months, if not years.

Jeez when Nencini refused the request to test it he should have also taken this into account as proof that it was indeed Raffaele's and thus there was no need to test it and it only further corroborated their guilt.
 
When will Machiavelli and Vixen get this? The guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele is like being pregnant. It is a binary stste. Either you are pregnant or your not. Either you are guilty, or you are innocent.

All the parsing of the words of the motivation while mildly interesting is totally irrelevant.

They are innocent and they are free.
 
In my opinion it's not seminal fluid. Unfortunately my guess cannot be verified. I think it's vaseline (petroleum jelly).
There are reasons why I think so. One of the reasons is that Meredith had an empty vaseline tub on her table. Now, I just don't think she would keep an empty tub. The vaseline must be somewhere.
Petroleum jelly is typically luminescent under UV light.

Could be. In her requested interview with PM Mignini, Amanda told him Mez "was covered in vaseline". Given Amanda's fixation with vaseline and anal sex, we have to wonder what she was revealing about the murder here.

The interesting thing is that actually, it was Sollecito who made the comment.
Other witnesses reported of hearing Sollecito's comment about vaseline (Altieri or Zaroli) and they felt appalled by it.

Any citations for this gossip? Let me guess.....

Sorry, it's no gossip. This is testimony.
Marco Zaroli

MZ:
Qualche giorno dopo non parlò esattamente di oggetti ma parlò di una circostanza in cui era stato trovato il corpo, ovvero alcuni giorni dopo ci vedemmo io, Filomena, Laura, Amanda e Raffaele per decidere un po' il punto della situazione, come comportarsi con la situazione con i giornalisti. Mi ricordo che le ragazze, Filomena e Laura, si preoccupavano, si chiedevano come mai venivano fatte domande sulla vita sessuale di Meredith e Sollecito disse che era perché avevano trovato il corpo interamente cosparso di vaselina.

GM:
Questo lo disse quando?

MZ:
Due giorni dopo, credo fosse, sono stato più preciso nei verbali, sulla data, nei verbali che ho rilasciato, non mi ricordo precisamente

GM:
Lo disse alla presenza di Amanda?

MZ:
Sì.

GM:
Ma voi gliel'avete avete chiesto, ma come hai fatto a..?

MZ:
Lì per lì non sembrò una cosa strana, lì per lì mi ha colpì più la glacialità con cui lo disse che non la cosa in se sinceramente.

GM:
Scusi, lei ha raccontato, adesso per capirci, io cerco di... lei mi ha raccontato che eravate di fronte, la porta era chiusa, avete... uno di voi ha sfondato la porta, loro non hanno assolutamente visto la camera in quel momento, né l'hanno vista successivamente, perché la Polizìa postale l'ha impedito, due giorni dopo, se ho ben capito, Raffaele dice: "hanno trovato il corpo cosparso di vaselina". Lei gli ha chiesto: ma come fai a dire una cosa del genere?

MZ:
No, credo che in quel momento eravamo tutti parecchio turbati e quindi ad esempio una cosa simile non saltava all'occhio. A me, ad esempio, mi rimase molto impresso più per come fu detta che per il senso che aveva.

GM:
Cioè, come fu detta?

MZ:
In maniera molto fredda, molto glaciale, molto... mi colpì prevalentemente il tono dell'affermazione, non mi colpì il significato dell'affermazione, forse Lse non fosse stata detta in un certo modo non c'avrei fatto nemmeno caso, perché erano giorni in cui eravamo molto colpiti, diciamo.

GM:
Questa frase la pronunciò alla presenza di chi, oltre a lei?

MZ:
Filomena, Laura e Amanda, eravamo noi cinque.

GM:
E Amanda disse qualcosa, commentò questa uscita?

MZ:
Non so nemmeno se aveva sentito perchè ognuno parlava con un altro, nel senso, eravamo cinque persone in cui c'erano dei discorsi incrociati, tra virgolette, cioè ognuno magari... comunque non disse niente.
 
Last edited:
Based on its quality on points of low, referred to jurisprudence standards.

For example: the Bruno-Marasca verdict says (I paraphrase): "the fact that there has been an acquittal among the trial instances, is a proof that the evidence must be contradictory".
Statements like this one belong to nursery school more than to Judiciaries of a Supreme Court. It's diotic - from jurisprudence view point - to assert that a null decision contains a proof of something.
A problem with the Bruno-Marasca decision is made of this kind of considerations. The illogical or false statements are so many that it's almost impossible to comment. It is full of points of merits that should be just inadmissible and are impossible to discuss for a Cassazione panel. There is also a patent violation of art. 628 cpp.

But, I don't know if I can render something. In p. 45 there is an unequivocal statement that it is a proven fact that Knox was inside the murder house when Meredith was killed, and the Court even emphasizes their belief as they cite Knox's statement describing herself covering her ears and other elements. In p. 47 there is a paragraph saying that it is not absolutely sure with "tranquillizing certainty" that Knox's alibi is false, maybe there is a possibility that she was at Sollecito's place. Then, at p.49 it states again that it is certain that Knox was in the murder apartment during the killing, only it is not completely sure if Sollecito was there (albeit, the court says, he was probably there).

Not even an imbecile could write something like that.

It's not evan a writing, in my opinion. It looks like a copy-paste work of paragraphs from Bongiorno's "reasons for appeal", inserted within a verdict that confirms Nencini. Intertwined with some superficial bar comments.

Thanks. If the motivation says what you say it says then I agree it's crap. So far, I haven't seen a judgment in this case that doesn't have a lot of crap in it (I include Hellman). I don't know whether this is typical of Italian jurisprudence or only a feature of this case. Is there a motivation among the collection that you would uphold as reasonable? Not Nencini, surely.
 
When will Machiavelli and Vixen get this? The guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele is like being pregnant. It is a binary stste. Either you are pregnant or your not. Either you are guilty, or you are innocent.

(...)

LOL ! :D

No, acbytesla, it is not.
 
Rats. You beat me to it.

Of course there was "forte sospetto". Why would Mignini have done what he did without "forte sospetto"?

Once again, why is it that nearly all, if not all, Italian media is seeing the Marasca report for what it is? A damning indictment of an amnesiac, incompetent, media-fueled myopic prosecution with a judiciary mainly co-conspirators!

Machiavelli is allowed his point of view. But he cannot escape that he is making a case at the far end of a spectrum, where there simply is not a lot of people - no one in Italy, really, willing to say what he's saying.

And he's not even saying it in Italy, much less in Italian (unless he wants to reprint his Porta a Porta tweets here....)

Sure he can have his POV, but just like mine and Mignini's at this point in time it is all irrelevant. The only people's opinion that mattered just expressed it. Will there be ramifications of this verdict? Maybe, but I doubt anyone will be punished, ie: Mignini or Stefanoni. Maybe some changes to the Italian judicial system might result, but that too is probably a longshot.

Mach is that crazy guy that no one takes seriously.
 
Thanks. If the motivation says what you say it says then I agree it's crap. So far, I haven't seen a judgment in this case that doesn't have a lot of crap in it (I include Hellman). I don't know whether this is typical of Italian jurisprudence or only a feature of this case. Is there a motivation among the collection that you would uphold as reasonable? Not Nencini, surely.

A report can be wrong or contain errors. And usually all reports contain what jurisprudence calls "material errors", which are mostly considered equivalent to typos. For example writing a "bare footprint with circles", a print found in "that room (wrong one)" or wrong name "Meredith" in place of "Amanda" are typical "material errors".
A verdict can also contain wrong information or a wrong conclusion.

But all this, is not the same thing of when judgement is unreasonable, illogical, inconsistent, or wrong in point of law.

Hellmann was abhorrent in point of law - not only the judgement, but the trial itself, its conduct under procedure.

I think the Massei judgement, an example to start with, was reasonable, that is good in conclusions and points of laws, even if it had some shortcomings (failure to mention some pieces of evidence, failure to elaborate a scenario). The courts have limitations as they elaborate their reports: they depend from the fact that parties usually provide only partial information, evidence that is sufficient for legal purposes is often insufficient to "explain" facts making them understandable in the common sense, from a human point of view. Judgements are usually legalistic, not like explanations that we commonly use that include narratives or psychological frameworks.
 
Last edited:
LOL ! :D

No, acbytesla, it is not.

You should look around you Mach. If they were found guilty, Raffaele would be in prison and Amanda would be fighting extradition. That's the negative condition in this statement. The positive condition resulted in Raffaele's passport being returned to him and being free to travel. Amanda can return to Italy without fear of imprisonment.

Simple programming my friend.
 
Based on its quality on points of low, referred to jurisprudence standards.

For example: the Bruno-Marasca verdict says (I paraphrase): "the fact that there has been an acquittal among the trial instances, is a proof that the evidence must be contradictory".
Statements like this one belong to nursery school more than to Judiciaries of a Supreme Court. It's diotic - from jurisprudence view point - to assert that a null decision contains a proof of something.
A problem with the Bruno-Marasca decision is made of this kind of considerations. The illogical or false statements are so many that it's almost impossible to comment. It is full of points of merits that should be just inadmissible and are impossible to discuss for a Cassazione panel. There is also a patent violation of art. 628 cpp.

But, I don't know if I can render something. In p. 45 there is an unequivocal statement that it is a proven fact that Knox was inside the murder house when Meredith was killed, and the Court even emphasizes their belief as they cite Knox's statement describing herself covering her ears and other elements. In p. 47 there is a paragraph saying that it is not absolutely sure with "tranquillizing certainty" that Knox's alibi is false, maybe there is a possibility that she was at Sollecito's place. Then, at p.49 it states again that it is certain that Knox was in the murder apartment during the killing, only it is not completely sure if Sollecito was there (albeit, the court says, he was probably there).

Not even an imbecile could write something like that.

It's not evan a writing, in my opinion. It looks like a copy-paste work of paragraphs from Bongiorno's "reasons for appeal", inserted within a verdict that confirms Nencini. Intertwined with some superficial bar comments.

From a recent conference on Cognitive Bias in Forensic Science:

Saul Kassin, John Jay College Professor of Psychology, discussed the overwhelming impact of confessions and presented several cases in which false confessions led to wrongful convictions despite other evidence being inconclusive or even exculpatory. The biasing power of a confession, even when false, is so overwhelming that it is difficult to overcome. The case histories presented by Dr. Kassin were very troubling because they destroyed the preconceived belief of most workshop attendees that innocent people would never voluntarily confess to a crime they didn’t commit. Dr Kassin effectively demonstrated how interrogation techniques can lead innocent people to perceive that confessing to a crime is somehow in their best interests, and how a false confession can bias and improperly influence the analysis and interpretation of other evidence in the case, thereby facilitating a wrongful conviction.

http://www.bfde.org/cognitive_bias.html
 
A report can be wrong or contain errors. And usually all reports contain what jurisprudence calls "material errors", which are mostly considered equivalent to typos. For example writing a "bare footprint with circles", a print found in "that room (wrong one)" or wrong name "Meredith" in place of "Amanda" are typical "material errors".
A verdict can also contain wrong information or a wrong conclusion.

But all this, is not the same thing of when judgement is unreasonable, illogical, inconsistent, or wrong in point of law.

Hellmann was abhorrent in point of law - not only the judgement, but the trial itself, its conduct under procedure.

I think the Massei judgement, an example to start with, was reasonable, that is good in conclusions and points of laws, even if it had some shortcomings (failure to mention some pieces of evidence, failure to elaborate a scenario). The courts have limitations as they elaborate their reports: they depend from the fact that parties usually provide only partial information, evidence that is sufficient for legal purposes is often insufficient to "explain" facts making them understandable in the common sense, from a human point of view. Judgements are usually legalistic, not like explanations that we commonly use that include narratives or psychological frameworks.

Well, OK, but I think Massei one of the worst, beaten into second place only by the incredible Nencini, but there's no need to explore this angle further I guess since we are at opposite polls.
 
Actually, I think the Porta a Porta tweets will have some effect...

Hey, dude, if Porta a Porta gives you an invite to be on their show, I'll fly to Italy to be in the audience!!!

I still owe you a dinner, and of course you will choose the wine.
 
Actually, I think the Porta a Porta tweets will have some effect...

Want to bet? It's over. Period. The only result possible left is you being sued. Longshot at the moment. But go ahead, keep it up. Hope you don't have any money.
 
Rats. You beat me to it.

Of course there was "forte sospetto". Why would Mignini have done what he did without "forte sospetto"?

Once again, why is it that nearly all, if not all, Italian media is seeing the Marasca report for what it is? A damning indictment of an amnesiac, incompetent, media-fueled myopic prosecution with a judiciary mainly co-conspirators!

Bill, the report places Knox on the scene of crime while Meredith was being killed. States that unequivocally Guede did not act alone. Emphasizes that Knox was certainly malicious when she falsely accused Lumumba. Reminds that Knox certainly came into contact with Meredith's blood, and that she washed her hands of it. It lists a series of pieces of evidence, each time pointing out that it's a valid piece and a reason for "suspicion".

The objective fact, is that this is what the Bruno-Marasca report is.

Any consideration about the media - or whatever you think about media, as long as it is your your interpretation of the media - is accessory, contour. It is not the real object.

An intellectual's job is to discover the object, what's below the surface. To research facts, not what allegedly people talk about.

People who can discuss with me are those who are interested in looking at facts. Those who are interested in the truth. Truth is made of facts, facts of the case, and one of the (many) facts of the case is, what the text of one SC report actually says. It's a factual element. Some who is interested may talk about it, think about it, and make other people talk about it. Either you are interested in the topic, or not. I am not interested in a discussion about what I think about what secondary sources say about "x", with someone who declares to be not interested in the object "x". If you are not interested about the actual content of the SC report, you have nothing to discuss with me and no question to ask. You won't be discussing with me an object indirectly, about what someone else thinks about it and what I think about what someone thinks about... (this is what you always do). You don't want to talk about facts of the case such as what Bruno-Marasca say, what you try to do seems to talk about me, to "frame" a social phenomenon or talk about how "popular" a talk is among media. This is the contrary of what an intellectual does. As long as the object is the case (about which this forum talks). An intellectual searches the truth, thje fact; not the echoes, the "reflexions", the "traction", the politics, talk about, the fashion. What is below, not what is above.
What you seem to do is to skip the content of the SC report. To set it aside. To skim over the fact. You have something to discuss with me if you intend to face the content of the Kercher case. It's a content that you don't know, because you claim you can't read Italian. The first thing a person (hones intellectual person researching a topic) should do, is to learn facts about the topic they don't know. Either you are interested in seeing what Bruno-Marasca say, or you aren't.
 
Last edited:
Bill, the report places Knox on the scene of crime while Meredith was being killed. States that unequivocally Guede did not act alone. Emphasizes that Knox was certainly malicious when she falsely accused Lumumba. Reminds that Knox certainly came into contact with Meredith's blood, and that she washed her hands of it. It lists a series of pieces of evidence, each time pointing out that it's a valid piece and a reason for "suspicion".

The objective fact, is that this is what the Bruno-Marasca report is.

Any consideration about the media - or whatever you think about media, as long as it is your your interpretation of the media - is accessory, contour. It is not the real object.

An intellectual's job is to discover the object, what's below the surface. To research facts, not what allegedly people talk about.

People who can discuss with me are those who are interested in looking at facts. Those who are interested in the truth. The truth is made of facts, and one of the (many) facts of the case is, what the text of one SC report actually says. Either you are interested, or not. I am not interested in a discussion about what I think about what secondary sources say about "x", with someone who declares to be not interested in the object "x". If you are not interested about the actual content of the SC report, you have nothing to discuss with me and no question to ask. You won't be discussing with me an object indirectly, about what someone else thinks about it and what I think about what someone thinks about... (this is what you always do). This is the contrary of what an intellectual does. An intellectual searches the truth, thje fact; not the echoes, the "reflexions", the "traction", the politics, talk about, the fashion. What is below, not what is above.
What you seem to do is to skip the content of the SC report. To set it aside. To skim over the fact. You have something to discuss with me if you intend to face the content of the Kercher case.

I am not sure there is an Italian translation for, "What a lot of hooey!"

Ok, let's stick with the fact of the motivations report. It justifies an acquittal. Full stop. The rest are details.

Ok, now what do you want to talk about? Oh, you still wish to vilify Amanda Knox. Good for you. What I'd like to know is why your "intellectual" take on this matches no one else's? But then again, you've simply repeated that you want to have an intellectual discussion, one to one, with me. On isolated points of your choosing.

Go for it. Wait a minute, you have! I simply do not want to play your game for reasons I have relayed ad nauseam to you. You want to frame the debate to guarantee an outcome before it begins.

Good for you. I wish you luck on Porta a Porta. Please let me know, I have a lot of frequent flyer points. Get a good wine in mind for our dinner when we will continue this "intellectual" discussion.
 
Hey, dude, if Porta a Porta gives you an invite to be on their show, I'll fly to Italy to be in the audience!!!

I still owe you a dinner, and of course you will choose the wine.

No, I'm not going to the show. But things I'm saying about the Bruno-Marasca report will go there, through other voices.
 
I am not sure there is an Italian translation for, "What a lot of hooey!"

Ok, let's stick with the fact of the motivations report. It justifies an acquittal. Full stop. The rest are details.

(....)

:D:D:D

Are you sure it justifies an acquittal? (actually it was an annullment). I mean if you don't read it, how can you judge, through your own critical thinking, whether it justifies an acquittal to you? I mean you assume, you know, that it was used by some judges to justify an acquittal. But how can you know that if it really justifies an acquittal, without reading it, and thinking about it yourself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom