Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

What I wrote was:
The persons who killed Meredith were obviously conscienceless psychopaths, who in addition, have never shown any remorse and, in fact, have flaunted themselves to the public as B-List celebrities.

Who are these unknowns?

 

[Bill Williams]

OK, fair enough, in that instance it was Jeff Rayner of Coleman-Rayner.

Thanks for this.

 

[acbytesla]

What I wrote was:
The persons who killed Meredith were obviously conscienceless psychopaths, who in addition, have never shown any remorse and, in fact, have flaunted themselves to the public as B-List celebrities.

Seriously? Do you think this is clever?

 

[Mike1711]

And in fact, it doesn't come from "previous judicial findings", it is Marasca-Bruno's own original reasoning.

You seem to struggle with the term hypothesis.

 

[acbytesla]

You seem to struggle with the term hypothesis.

Also "synoptic" and "even if".

 

[Vixen]

You seem to struggle with the term hypothesis.

Judges make rulings. They do not hypothesise. They are not saying, "if" or, "but" or "even if", they are paid to make a judgment. They write a Motivational Report.

A report has a beginning, a middle and an end.

The beginning sums up their verdict.

The middle discusses the basis of their findings.

The conclusion summarises the middle and underlines the beginning.

The PIP's are trying to kid themseves that the reasoning can only be found in the conclusion. No judge trained in how to write a report would ever make such an elementary mistake. You cannot put anything in the conclusion you have not brought up in the main body.

A judge doesn't sit on the fence.

Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

Also "synoptic" and "even if".

Synoptic simply means a summary, or in the case of the Gospels, a back to back summary of the same event from the viewpoint of different individuals.

Bruno-Marasca do not even say, 'even if'. They are absolutely categorical that Amanda was there at the murder cottage, covered for Rudy, the burglary was staged, and staged by someone who would benefit from same (i.e., an inside job) and, in addition, washed Meredith's still wet blood from herself.

We can infer reasonably, Amanda did not help Meredith and did not report the death.

 

[Vixen]

Who are these unknowns?

I leave you Dear Reader to make your own inference.

 

[Vixen]

http://web.archive.Org/web/20070715084023/http://www.washington.Edu/students/qtrdean/K.html

University of Washington Seattle - Quarterly Deans List

Knox,Amanda Marie
Arts & Sciences SEATTLE, WA

What does "Quarterly Deans List" mean?

 

[bagels]

What does "Quarterly Deans List" mean?

It means in between hosting rock throwing parties she still made time for homework to maintain a 3.5+ GPA.

 

[Bill Williams]

Synoptic simply means a summary, or in the case of the Gospels, a back to back summary of the same event from the viewpoint of different individuals.

Bruno-Marasca do not even say, 'even if'. They are absolutely categorical that Amanda was there at the murder cottage, covered for Rudy, the burglary was staged, and staged by someone who would benefit from same (i.e., an inside job) and, in addition, washed Meredith's still wet blood from herself.
We can infer reasonably, Amanda did not help Meredith and did not report the death.

No. That would have been against their remit to find those things absolutely categorical.

Summarizing the same event from the viewpoint of different individuals, M/B said that one of those individuals held those views which for **them** was categorical. When, then, viewed synoptically with other viewpoints then:

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.
In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the
referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously
observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2,
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.​

The "even if" comes from actually reading the full text, rather than cherry-picking one of those viewpoints, which is the opposite of viewing it synoptically. You are viewing it as if that viewpoint was proven. M/B are saying that even-if those things are proven, that still is not enough.

This is about the 20th time on this thread alone this has been explained. Fortunately people can read it for themselves.

 

[Bill Williams]

The PIP's are trying to kid themseves that the reasoning can only be found in the conclusion. No judge trained in how to write a report would ever make such an elementary mistake. You cannot put anything in the conclusion you have not brought up in the main body.

A judge doesn't sit on the fence.

Clear now?

Yet it is you saying that M/B made a mistake, not the PIP's! Hoots!

 

[Bill Williams]

Who are these unknowns?

I leave you Dear Reader to make your own inference.

At least this is progress. You are no longer **explicitly** accusing two innocent people of being murderers. The Dear Reader has all the resources they need to decide for themselves.

The only thing I ask is that they start with the full text of the M/B report, and not go to Nick van der Leek's cut and paste job.

 

[bagels]

What I wrote was:
The persons who killed Meredith were obviously conscienceless psychopaths, who in addition, have never shown any remorse and, in fact, have flaunted themselves to the public as B-List celebrities.

Just think, you, and thousands like you, have turned this pedestrian murder into a plural (killers) affair because eight years ago a handful of idiots were too fat to imagine climbing into a window.

It's fascinating to me. If Rudy was caught before they had a chance for their imaginations to run wild, none of you would know the name Meredith Kercher, let alone Amanda Knox.

 

[acbytesla]

Synoptic simply means a summary, or in the case of the Gospels, a back to back summary of the same event from the viewpoint of different individuals.

Bruno-Marasca do not even say, 'even if'. They are absolutely categorical that Amanda was there at the murder cottage, covered for Rudy, the burglary was staged, and staged by someone who would benefit from same (i.e., an inside job) and, in addition, washed Meredith's still wet blood from herself.

We can infer reasonably, Amanda did not help Meredith and did not report the death.

No in fact, they are saying nothing of the kind. They are not saying she was there and they are not saying she wasn't. They are saying that "even if" the prosecution and previous courts could prove that she was there it doesn't prove her involvement in the murder

Why is that so hard to understand? This cour was ruling that the logic in the previous rulings was wrong.

"If" is the KEY. It's a "conditional" word. Or as my father use to say "if is a condition contrary to fact".

 

[Mike1711]

Judges make rulings. They do not hypothesise. They are not saying, "if" or, "but" or "even if", they are paid to make a judgment. They write a Motivational Report.

A report has a beginning, a middle and an end.

The beginning sums up their verdict.

The middle discusses the basis of their findings.

The conclusion summarises the middle and underlines the beginning.

The PIP's are trying to kid themseves that the reasoning can only be found in the conclusion. No judge trained in how to write a report would ever make such an elementary mistake. You cannot put anything in the conclusion you have not brought up in the main body.

A judge doesn't sit on the fence.

Clear now?

You're getting confused with a Grade 6 essay.

Appeal Judgements do it this way...

1) They summarise the reasons for appeal.
2) They set out the arguments presented in the lower court (court a quo).
3) They consider the legal validity of the court a quo verdict in terms of 2) above.
4) They make a ruling giving reasons for the ruling.

If you look at 2) above you will see that this is what the appeal court lays down (warts and all) in the clauses you guilters love to quote as though it was the appeal court's findings.

In the B/M ruling you will notice (if you care to read and digest it) that:-

....there was a flawed investigation
....there were contradictions by witnesses
....there were contradictions in evidence
....despite the court a quo connecting the (false as above) dots to a presumed presence of AK in the house resulting in a judicial fact......

....it still proves nothing about either AK or RS being part of a murder.....

Because there is absolutely zero evidence of them being in the murder room.

....and the concluding paragraph of the appeal refers to the relevant legal clause declaring a not guilty verdict due to a "lack of evidence".

In fact the conclusion is there is NO evidence. NONE!!

Why is this difficult to understand? Or does it not suit your agenda?

 

[acbytesla]

You're getting confused with a Grade 6 essay.

Appeal Judgements do it this way...

1) They summarise the reasons for appeal.
2) They set out the arguments presented in the lower court (court a quo).
3) They consider the legal validity of the court a quo verdict in terms of 2) above.
4) They make a ruling giving reasons for the ruling.

If you look at 2) above you will see that this is what the appeal court lays down (warts and all) in the clauses you guilters love to quote as though it was the appeal court's findings.

In the B/M ruling you will notice (if you care to read and digest it) that:-

....there was a flawed investigation
....there were contradictions by witnesses
....there were contradictions in evidence
....despite the court a quo connecting the (false as above) dots to a presumed presence of AK in the house resulting in a judicial fact......

....it still proves nothing about either AK or RS being part of a murder.....

Because there is absolutely zero evidence of them being in the murder room.

....and the concluding paragraph of the appeal refers to the relevant legal clause declaring a not guilty verdict due to a "lack of evidence".

In fact the conclusion is there is NO evidence. NONE!!

Why is this difficult to understand? Or does it not suit your agenda?

It does not suit her agenda. BM never says what happened, only that there was a flawed investigation and that Nencini was wrong in its verdict of guilt because of the lack of evidence. And given all the contradictions another trial is unlikely to resolve those contradictions.

 

[Planigale]

Synoptic simply means a summary, or in the case of the Gospels, a back to back summary of the same event from the viewpoint of different individuals.

Bruno-Marasca do not even say, 'even if'. They are absolutely categorical that Amanda was there at the murder cottage, covered for Rudy, the burglary was staged, and staged by someone who would benefit from same (i.e., an inside job) and, in addition, washed Meredith's still wet blood from herself.

We can infer reasonably, Amanda did not help Meredith and did not report the death.

Synopsis is one of those words I would have expected you to define more traditionally. Certainly in modern usage it differs little from summarise or precis but originally it had a meaning that would be better given as overview, in this case 'presenting all views' would be the best meaning. I suspect that the process being used here is the 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' approach that appears common in European (continental) argument.

 

[Vixen]

No. That would have been against their remit to find those things absolutely categorical.

Summarizing the same event from the viewpoint of different individuals, M/B said that one of those individuals held those views which for **them** was categorical. When, then, viewed synoptically with other viewpoints then:

​

The "even if" comes from actually reading the full text, rather than cherry-picking one of those viewpoints, which is the opposite of viewing it synoptically. You are viewing it as if that viewpoint was proven. M/B are saying that even-if those things are proven, that still is not enough.

This is about the 20th time on this thread alone this has been explained. Fortunately people can read it for themselves.

You have conveniently omitted to state Section 10 is the conclusion. IOW the actual reasoning was in Section 9. Or are you not aware of the convention of report format?

From Bruno-Marasca:

10. The intrinsic contradiction of probative elements emerging from the text of the appealed
sentence, undermines in nuce the connecting tissue of the same sentence, causing the annulment
of it.
And in fact, when facing a picture marked by such contradiction, the appeal judge was not
supposed to issue a conviction but rather – as we observed above – they were compelled to issue
a ruling of acquittal with reference to art. 530 paragraph 2 of penal procedure code.
At this point the last question remains, about the annulment formula – that is, whether it should
be annulled with remand or without remand. The solving of such question is obviously related to
the objective possibility of further tests, which could resolve the aspects of uncertainty, maybe
through new technical investigations.

 

[Vixen]

Really?

1. Do you think a publisher will pay him for those?
2. Do you think anyone will believe him?

Why?

1. Probably
2. About as many who believe Amanda and Raff.