A B-Movie Already Seen
We’’ve heard that they were possessed by satanic forces of evil, that they wanted to imitate the comics, that they wanted to have an orgy, that the problem was the cleaning schedule, that they needed 300 euros, all these things together… Obviously these motives don’t work, so, finally today Comodi revealed to us the secret: “THEY KILLED HER FOR NOTHING”.
See? Those judges have been breaking their heads for four years to figure out the motive and instead it was so simple: nothing!
The motive, then, ranged from everything to nothing!
By the way, to ask for life in jail you need to have some aggravating circumstances (prevailing over the extenuating circumstances). The futile reasons (like, for instance, killing someone for a few bucks, or a kid because he cries) are in fact aggravating circumstances. In this case they found a hell of a futile reason: nothing! Which is less, much less than a few bucks… It couldn’t be more futile…
In other words, it seems that they didn’t know what else to invent as a motive, so, in the end they found refuge in a mental elucubration, in a paradox: ‘nothing’ as best possible motive.
The problem is that mind games are good for puzzles but they don’t really stand up in a court, and if there are no reasons, judges endowed with reason, can only acquit.
They asked for life in jail because prof. Antonio Curatolo of the University of Capanne, expert in biochemistry of heroin, said to have seen them in the square. What if he made to Mignini a joke?
Or because Raffaele told his father that he was washing dishes at 8:40. What if he was washing dishes before dinner? What if what he said was bullshit? What if his dad is confused with another day?
Or because to go to Gubbio you need one hour, not 30 minutes! (see previous article).
Or because according to two tests there was some DNA on a knife and on a bra clasp. What if those test are wrong?
Well, let’s make them again, and we solve the mystery. The problem is that the tests can’t be made again, and a test that can’t be repeated has only a relative value. If the quality is low, then, doesn’t have any value.
Frankly I know scientific concepts more complicated than this. But for some understanding this simple scientific concept seems impossible.
Prosecutors keep saying that the tests have been made under article 360 of the procedure code, “accertamenti tecnici irripetibili”: the test is made only once and it’s legally validated because of being made on the presence of the parties. So, they confuse legal validation with scientific certainty. But I give up, when the reasoning goes a bit complicated they don’t follow you anymore.
It’s like the interpretation of Amanda’s note: I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house.
When the concept is simple, like “I stand by what I said last night” everyone catches it. But when it goes a bit complicated the simple mind doesn’t follow you anymore…
This is the real problem of the case: communication barriers.
Barrier between scientist and lawyers, who can’t understand what scientific method is (as we have seen the latter think that an article of law guarantees the scientific certainty!).
Barrier between different cultures and different levels of education.
Amanda is an educated person, who comes from an advanced society, full of behavioral rules, and where kids are taught anything is possible.
A girl like this happened to go into a village out of history, into the hands of a pack, people who until yesterday were with the goats, and who certainly can’t understand sophisticated concepts. People who should uphold the law to others and instead are the first to violate it. How could it end up?
Tomorrow we’ll speak about the rest, hopefully…
I am in awe of your courage in the face of, what I imagine to be, extremely intimidating animosity.
I hope you are vindicated with the verdict in 8 days time.
The Defense will have to fight the motive of Nothing?
They already had to retest the knife that had nothing.
At least the bra clasp had mold and rust, that means something.
Billy Preston, the musician, had a song “Nothing from Nothing leaves Nothing…”
A motive of Nothing…wow….
Can they be found Guilty of Nothing?
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the keeping us up to date,
glad that you got that fine paid off…
We’ve read that the prosecution wants the defense to prove contamination, a really hard thing to do.
A poster on JREF named CodyJuneau wrote this
:
“It seems to me that DNA contamination/transfer is like catching the flu.
You don’t know when, where or how you contacted the virus.
But you know you did!”
Some of us would luv the defense to point this out in court…
RW
“Would you entrust the wedding reception of your only daughter to someone who knew all the recipes by heart but had never actually cooked?” asks Comodi. As usual, the wrong question. Because it’s really a choice: someone who knows all the recipes, but hasn’t cooked, or someone who thinks they know all the recipes by heart, but
burned the restaurant down the last time they cooked?
giannimagnifico, that Comodi quote also caught my eye. In addition to yours, maybe it could be something like: “Would you entrust the wedding reception of your only daughter to someone who made new and exotic recipes just before the wedding, can’t prove they will be any good, and didn’t write down what the ingredients are or how she cooked them.
Would you entrust the gift wrapping of your mop to Patrizia Stefanoni?
Would you entrust the forensic investigation of your daughter’s murder to someone who gift wrapped a mop?
Would you entrust… oh, nevermind.
I suppose nothing is the best they can do at this point. Who knows, it might just work. Its certainly better to be vague and keep them wondering than to present what little case you have remaining and show how truly foolish you really are.
For the life of me I cant understand why this judge and this court puts up with such a mockery being made of it in order to save the face of a prosecutor and his pack of hyenas… the police of Perugia.
The world is watching and this time they understand what is going on here. There is nothing to this case! There never was anything! And you can not pretend there is something just to keep someone in jail so that you can keep your job and save face.
I wonder what Hellmann and Zanetti think of Comodis review of their very own chosen cooks?
I disagree Frank some people like Comodi and Mignini are too dumb to be trusted with sheep.
To Frank
Hey Frank it does sound strange of being guilty for nothing. But I already updated my blog of something else, into the works!!!
From TMJ
Hi Frank,
I’m glad you are well and writing.
As far as “GIVE THEM LIFE IN JAIL”-Take 2″ …there is a certain deja vu quality to this, isn’t there. They had all the momentum in 2009 yet it still didn’t work out. Now they have “negative” momentum but are still trying. The prosecution has thrown up their “Hail Mary” pass and it looks like it is incomplete. Hopefully no surprises in the coming week.
P.S. Once this is all over I hope you find a way to visit Seattle. It would be great to hear you speak about your experiences in person.
And now for a few relevant quotes on witches from “Riding the Nightmare” :
“In the absence of science and scientific knowledge, superstition reigned supreme. Men acted on what they believed, what they had been told and taught over the centuries- not on what they could prove.”
“Ordinary law was no match for the supernatural powers of a witch, even when she was trapped and imprisoned. She could, after all, bewtich her inquisitors or judges into setting her free. The only solution was to ignore the law and establish special rules substituting wold accusations for sober proof.”
“The country which shall (let witches escape) will be scourged with pestilences, famines, and wars…One accused of being a witch ought never to be fully acquitted and set free…, inasmuch as the proof of such crimes is so obscure and so difficult that not one witch in a million would be accused or punished if the procedure were governed by the ordinary rules.”
Joan of Arc said: “Even if you tear me limb from limb, and even if you kill me, I should not respond otherwise: and if I did speak otherwise, I should always thereafter say that you had made me answer so by force. ”
Or there is Alice Kyteler: ” the trial record reflects ‘only subtly the real reasons for Joan’s persecution. All accusations against her were couched in terms of heretical behavior: wearing male clothing and sporting short hair…’ ” (i.e. doing cartwheels, eating pizza, not behaving as they thought she should behave, not getting a lawyer, not properly speaking the language).
About Lady Alice, “Her conviction for witch-heresy would allow confiscation and redistribution of her holdings.” Like how the cops took Amanda’s things and gave them to the press, sold them, made money off them, lied about them, held them up as ‘evidence’.
And more about Alice (Amanda) : “Lady Alice Kyteler’s accusers knew well how to use witch lore and having set the stage, they then put forth the real causes for complaint against the Lady. First, they claimed that she had bewitched her husbands…Here she had worked with her incubus or demonic lover called Robin (Rudy), who appeared at various times as a cat, a shaggy dog, or a black man.”
“..a long parade of witnesses left no terror to the imagination. Explicitly they testified to Lady Alice’s heresy, sorcery, and witchcraft, as well as petty treason…”
Amanda was called Lilith: “Lilith, Adam’s first wife, who demanded equality, deserted when it was denied, and forever after haunted all men as a night monster..”
Descended from Eve the temptress, so called ‘witches’ faced prosecutors who directed harsh persecution against them in order to extract confession and assure penitence, “subject to inhumanly long imprisonment. Once accused, persons were considered guilty and had to prove their own innocence. Almost to insure that injustice would be done, the accused had no lawyer… ” their confessions (were embroidered) with legends portraying women as Satan’s tool for destroying men.” Sounds like some local prosecutor’s theories and tactics….
How to extort a confession, 1692 Salem, by Pitcairn:
“…the want of sleep and privation of all the comforts, even the commonest necessaries of life, the desertion of their relations and friends…, generally induced them at length…weary…to make their ‘confession’ as it was called…Day and night ‘waked’ and watched by some skillful person appointed by her inquisitors, the unhappy creature, after a few days of such discipline, maddened by the misery of her forlorn and helpless state, would be rendered fit for ‘confessing’ anything…”
Does it say anything in “Riding the Nightmare” about some of the witch hunters’ motives?
I know it’s been alleged very often in English literature that many of these creeps were actually sex offenders (or people who wanted to commit such offenses) trying to cover their tracks. It was all too easy to scapegoat their victims, whom they accused of casting spells on them, “to cloud the mind with unholy thoughts” (by the way, that’s a direct quote from one of these unsavoury characters). Naturally, these “Men of God” could never experience these desires on their own, could they? It must be the “witch”!
Maybe that explains some of the cops’ observations of Amanda’s behaviour. They thought she was trying to “tempt” them but it was all in their imagination…
Ok, so, to sum up:
1) MOTIVE: No motive. Even the prosecution agrees.
Check…
2) MEANS: The so-called murder weapon doesn’t match the wounds, or the bloody imprint left at the crime scene. And claims of the victim’s DNA being on it shown to be nothing but a figment of careless and unreliable police work.
Double check…
3) OPPORTUNITY: Circumstances and medical science point to a time of death shortly after 9pm. Knox and Sollecito were at his place, enjoying each other’s company, and fiddling around on the computer. Forensic computer records support this.
Triple check…
…Where I come from, it’s three strikes and you’re out. And thus, in the name of fairness, justice, and truth, must Knox and Sollecito be let “out” now.
p.s. Frank Sfarzo, you are not always right. But you usually are. And you’ve got a hell of a lot of guts.
Frank,
I applaud you for all of your hard work and all of the bullshit you have gone throughout just because you have a brain and isn’t going to believe Migini and his henchmen. My question is how are the jurors doing? Are they paying attention to these lies or are they doing other things? I heard that they fell asleep a couple times and looked bored.
I wonder what kind of meal Stefanoni cooked up from the left over food in the freezer… do you think she will hand out the recipe at the courthouse?
Damn, a few comments but high high level, seriously, I gotta copy something from here.
Hey, thank you for supporting here and with PP. There’s a dummy name there but it’s me.