International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336870)

Bill Williams 8th June 2019 04:30 PM

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12720607)
The pair lied and lied and lied. Raff deliberately and knowingly mislead the police as did Knox. Knox WAS present during the murder of Meredith Kercher, did wash of Mez' blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.

This is spelt out large.

The Supreme Court signed off on this judgment.

For the 100th time, the Supreme Court did not say this. In 2015 they wrote, in exonerating, that even if those things were true, all that the Nencini proved was that:
Quote:

Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.

Why do you never respond to the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE FINDING!?



Mod InfoContinued from part 28. You can quote or reply to any post from that part or any previous part of the topic.
Posted By:zooterkin

Stacyhs 8th June 2019 05:34 PM

Quote:

if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.
That "if" is very important. He is not saying it IS true/accepted as fact, he is saying that even IF it were, it still is not enough to surmount the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. I do love how Vixen claims BARD is a 'loophole used for corrupt politicians! :eek:
I'm still trying to figure out what blood of Kercher's Knox came into contact with. None of Kercher's blood was found on Amanda, her shoes, or her clothes. The mixed blood and DNA does not depend on Knox having come in contact with the blood at all, but as forensic science has clearly established, DNA/DNA-Blood can become mixed by being deposited one on top of the other at competely different times. There is no forensic evidence that Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood. None.

Bill Williams 8th June 2019 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12720712)
That "if" is very important. He is not saying it IS true/accepted as fact, he is saying that even IF it were, it still is not enough to surmount the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. I do love how Vixen claims BARD is a 'loophole used for corrupt politicians! :eek:

I'm still trying to figure out what blood of Kercher's Knox came into contact with. None of Kercher's blood was found on Amanda, her shoes, or her clothes. The mixed blood and DNA does not depend on Knox having come in contact with the blood at all, but as forensic science has clearly established, DNA/DNA-Blood can become mixed by being deposited one on top of the other at competely different times. There is no forensic evidence that Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood. None.

This business of "Knox wiped the victim's blood from her hands" all started as a "deduction" that Massei made in his Motivations Report in 2010. It had nothing to do with any evidence offered. Massei deduced it, and his deduction IS DEPENDENT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT KNOX HAD BEEN IN THE MURDER ROOM DURING THE MURDER - something that the final 2015 exonerating court said was the only certainty, namely, that she'd not been in the murder room.

A judicial fact, especially when it is a deduction with no physical evidence to back it up, does not become a fact-fact just because a judge says so. Marasca-Bruno's final report covers that point when it says that judges are not some sort of supra-expert who knows more than the experts.

Here is the section of the Massei Report that covers this.
Quote:

The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.

First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean. It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to. In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood. Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet. The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.

Massei says that the non-hematological cells found in the blood MUST be from the act of rubbing......

..... something that even Scientific Police lead Stefanoni said was impossible to ascertain, AND WHICH EVEN MASSEI SAYS IS ONLY POSSIBLE, RATHER THAN PROVEN.

So this is what Vixen is hanging her argument on. Not "evidence", but a deduction made by a judge that even the prosecution's expert (Stefanoni) said was impossible to ascertain.

This is repeatedly pointed out to Vixen. Yet Vixen continues repeating the untrue factoid as if it was what the 2015 Supreme Court said.

Stacyhs 8th June 2019 11:16 PM

Bill, Massei does the same thing when he deduces that the luminol revealed footprints in the hallway must have been Knox's (despite no DNA identification or comparisons to the other 3 women living there) and that they must have been in Meredith's blood (despite negative TMB results) because "what else could it be?" And this is the epitome of judicial wisdom presented to us from Vixen.

Vixen 9th June 2019 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12720645)
But courts and judges cannot create evidence. And there is no evidence that Knox or Sollecito or anyone besides Guede committed the murder.

Only in your wishes.

Stacyhs 9th June 2019 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12720863)
Only in your wishes.

Sure...all that DNA, fingerprints, hair, foot/shoe prints of Knox's in Meredith's room sure prove she was there! And don't forget those footprints in Meredith's blood that tested positive for her DNA and MK's blood. Oh...and that bleach she bought so she could clean it all up! Yep, you sure got an iron clad case there!

TomG 9th June 2019 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12720625)
You have been asked repeatedly to show the forensic evidence that supports this and you have failed to do so. No forensic expert did either. Nor did Massei.

It seems that M/B did inherit it from the Massei; however, leading expert Peter Gill rubbishes the theory in his analysis of the evidence:

"Mixtures of Knox and Kercher were found in the washbasin and bidet and Massei inferred: “an activity that, through the action of rubbing, involved the cleaning of the victim’s blood, and could involve the loss of the cells through exfoliation of whoever was cleaning themselves: the two biological traces thus united together in that single trace.” These statements relate to the activity of transfer—not backedup by any scientific evidence beyond the sub-source inference. There is an expectation that mixtures of DNA will be observed as natural background where people share premises. This expectation of mixtures also extends to visitors of premises. Therefore the limitations of interpretation of the DNA evidence are still firmly rooted at sub-source level."

So as I understand it Massei and subsequently M/B had no right to infer that the DNA had reached an "Activity level"; therefore, the theory of Amanda rubbing off epithelial cell while washing off Meredith's blood is fantasy.

Hoots

sept79 9th June 2019 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12720865)
Sure...all that DNA, fingerprints, hair, foot/shoe prints of Knox's in Meredith's room sure prove she was there! And don't forget those footprints in Meredith's blood that tested positive for her DNA and MK's blood. Oh...and that bleach she bought so she could clean it all up!


Stacyhs' post quite succinctly reveals the utter incompetence of judge Massei and all the other convicting Italian judges

Bill Williams 9th June 2019 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12720863)
Only in your wishes.

Ah, er, no. "Wishes" has nothing to do with it.

The final judicial judgment, the one which exonerated the pair, didn't wish anything.

It did what the guilter-nutters plaguing this case never did. It tried to put the guilter factoids onto a timeline, and concluded....

.... that even if true, all that the guilter-nutters factoids proved was that Sollecito and Knox had been in the cottage at a time later than the murder, and not in the murder room.... which no one disputes.

You could help us and compose your own guilter-timeline for the murder, one that implicates the pair.

It has nothing to do with "wishes". It has to do with your inability to construct a factoid-laden timeline that makes sense.

LondonJohn 9th June 2019 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 12720976)
Ah, er, no. "Wishes" has nothing to do with it.

The final judicial judgment, the one which exonerated the pair, didn't wish anything.

It did what the guilter-nutters plaguing this case never did. It tried to put the guilter factoids onto a timeline, and concluded....

.... that even if true, all that the guilter-nutters factoids proved was that Sollecito and Knox had been in the cottage at a time later than the murder, and not in the murder room.... which no one disputes.

You could help us and compose your own guilter-timeline for the murder, one that implicates the pair.

It has nothing to do with "wishes". It has to do with your inability to construct a factoid-laden timeline that makes sense.


It's more even than that. It's a total inability to present a set of credible, reliable* evidence that, taken as a whole, proves the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito BARD for anything related to the murder. Nothing comes even close to doing that. In fact, there's not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence which can only reasonably be explained by way of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder.


* And of course once one places the stipulation of credibility and reliability onto the evidence - as one must - this immediately rules out every single piece of Stefanoni's disgraceful low-template DNA work, plus all of the massively-flawed footprint/shoeprint evidence related to Knox and Sollecito, plus most (if not all) of the shockingly-inept crime scene sample collection by Stefanoni and her goons, plus (it goes without saying....) the bra clasp, for dozens of different reasons related to ineptitude and malpractice.

Bill Williams 9th June 2019 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 12720991)
It's more even than that. It's a total inability to present a set of credible, reliable* evidence that, taken as a whole, proves the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito BARD for anything related to the murder. Nothing comes even close to doing that. In fact, there's not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence which can only reasonably be explained by way of Knox's/Sollecito's participation in the murder.

The irony is that the 2013 First Chambers of the ISC cited the width, rather than depth, of evidence - which in its opinion proved that there was some "there" there.

Which is what Stefano Maffei also cites. "Too much (peripheral) evidence to ignore." Or what Peter Q wrote back in 2011 in virtually conceding that the DNA forensics against K and S were useless - that there was still a claimed "all the other evidence."

When an attempt is made to place it onto a timeline, acc. to the 2015 Supreme Court, there never was any "there" there.

LondonJohn 9th June 2019 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 12720993)
The irony is that the 2013 First Chambers of the ISC cited the width, rather than depth, of evidence - which in its opinion proved that there was some "there" there.

Which is what Stefano Maffei also cites. "Too much (peripheral) evidence to ignore." Or what Peter Q wrote back in 2011 in virtually conceding that the DNA forensics against K and S were useless - that there was still a claimed "all the other evidence."

When an attempt is made to place it onto a timeline, acc. to the 2015 Supreme Court, there never was any "there" there.


But to the unscrupulous, ignorant eye, there DID appear to be a very strong width of evidence in this case. The problem was, every single one of these wideranging pieces of evidence was fundamentally flawed in terms of its reliability and credibility.

Look: if proper low-template DNA analysis had been conducted on Sollecito's kitchen knife (and if that knife had been correctly collected, transported and stored prior to analysis), and that analysis had shown Kercher's DNA reliably and credibly on the blade....

.... and if there really was scientifically-valid analysis of the partial footprint on the bath mat, which produced the credible and reliable conclusion that the print was probably Sollecito's and definitely not Guede's....

.... and if the bra clasp had been collected in a timely fashion (i.e. on November 2nd or 3rd) in accordance with accepted protocols and processes, and had been correctly transported and stored, and had been subjected to proper low-template analysis in accordance with accepted protocols and processes, and that analysis had shown the reliable and credible presence of Sollecito's DNA on the clasp....


... well, you could almost certainly have convicted Knox and Sollecito on just those three pieces of evidence alone - never mind all of the other seemingly-credible/reliable pieces of evidence pointing at Knox's/Sollecito's participation.


The problem was this: the police investigators and "scientists" and prosecutors were either mendacious or ignorant in their presentation to the Massei court of the evidence, and in their assessment of the credibility/reliability of that evidence. And the Massei court (and the Chieffi SC and the Nencini appeal court) was simply too beholden to the outdated (inquisition-era) mindset that the police/prosecutors were impartial experts who were purely committed to seeking the truth, and who were more-or-less unimpeacable. And - I'm afraid I have to say once again at this point - the defence teams, in the Massei trial in particular, failed in their duty to ride a horse and carriage through the horrible malpractice, ineptitude and lies presented by the police and prosecutors. Which, IMO, they could rather easily have done.

And all of that adds up to the Massei court rubber-stamping the prosecution case, and Chieffi and Nencini doing more of the same. It's something of a disgrace that it took until the Marasca SC panel for a proper, rational, scientifically-literate approach to the "evidence" to reveal it for exactly what it was: a pile of unreliable, non-credible garbage.

Bill Williams 9th June 2019 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 12721007)
But to the unscrupulous, ignorant eye, there DID appear to be a very strong width of evidence in this case. The problem was, every single one of these wideranging pieces of evidence was fundamentally flawed in terms of its reliability and credibility.

<..... sinister deletia .....>

And all of that adds up to the Massei court rubber-stamping the prosecution case, and Chieffi and Nencini doing more of the same. It's something of a disgrace that it took until the Marasca SC panel for a proper, rational, scientifically-literate approach to the "evidence" to reveal it for exactly what it was: a pile of unreliable, non-credible garbage.

Since the local PMs and courts in Perugia and elsewhere are hand in glove....

The courts, in effect, were signaling that no PM would assemble that much nonsense unless there was some "there" there. As many observers also saw, the courtroom was a place where the best theatrics between lawyers won.....

.... and the most detailed dietrology over wine afterwards won.

It still is stunning to read (from this distance) Massei give a **full** accounting of how the bra-clasp was improperly handled, forensically speaking. It's all there in the Massei report! He just chose to ignore it.

Which is another reason why Vixen is full of it in claiming that the 2015 Supreme Court wrongly brought in new evidence. In law, all that faulty DNA presented at the 2009 trial should have acquitted the pair.

It's all there.

Vixen 9th June 2019 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sept79 (Post 12720961)
Stacyhs' post quite succinctly reveals the utter incompetence of judge Massei and all the other convicting Italian judges

Haha! The funniest thing I have read in a long time. This would be like a flat earther claiming Copernicus is wrong, right?

Stacyhs 9th June 2019 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad V
But courts and judges cannot create evidence. And there is no evidence that Knox or Sollecito or anyone besides Guede committed the murder.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12720863)
Only in your wishes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12720865)
Sure...all that DNA, fingerprints, hair, foot/shoe prints of Knox's in Meredith's room sure prove she was there! And don't forget those footprints in Meredith's blood that tested positive for her DNA and MK's blood. Oh...and that bleach she bought so she could clean it all up! Yep, you sure got an iron clad case there!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sept79 (Post 12720961)
Stacyhs' post quite succinctly reveals the utter incompetence of judge Massei and all the other convicting Italian judges


Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12721277)
Haha! The funniest thing I have read in a long time. This would be like a flat earther claiming Copernicus is wrong, right?

Are you claiming that the things I mentioned in my post above do provide an iron clad case?

May I remind you that all the convicting judges were overturned for very valid reasons with the final Supreme Court ruling that , with the evidence that had been presented, they should never have convicted in the first place?

Quote:

An objectively wavering process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result of clamorous failures, or investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of investigative activity. Had they been carried out these would, in all probability, have led to a picture if not of certainty, at least of tranquil reliability pointing either towards guilt or innocence of today’s accused. Such a scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutes in itself already a first and eloquent signal of an investigation that was never capable of reaching a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.
But, I forgot. BARD to you is only a 'loophole' used to acquit corrupt politicians.

Myriad 9th June 2019 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12721277)
Haha! The funniest thing I have read in a long time. This would be like a flat earther claiming Copernicus is wrong, right?


If Copernicus said there was evidence Amanda Knox murdered anyone, and a flat earther said there wasn't, the flat earther would be correct and Copernicus would be wrong.

Also, it would probably be the end of the world or something because Copernicus is dead and shouldn't be able to say anything.

Stacyhs 9th June 2019 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12721402)
If Copernicus said there was evidence Amanda Knox murdered anyone, and a flat earther said there wasn't, the flat earther would be correct and Copernicus would be wrong.

Also, it would probably be the end of the world or something because Copernicus is dead and shouldn't be able to say anything.

:D:D:D:D:D

Vixen 10th June 2019 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12721402)
If Copernicus said there was evidence Amanda Knox murdered anyone, and a flat earther said there wasn't, the flat earther would be correct and Copernicus would be wrong.

Also, it would probably be the end of the world or something because Copernicus is dead and shouldn't be able to say anything.

I'll let Massei know that you think a keyboard warrior who champions Amanda Knox is a superior legal mind to him.

bagels 10th June 2019 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12722387)
I'll let Massei know that you think a keyboard warrior who champions Amanda Knox is a superior legal mind to him.

I mean, the very first post of this thread chain, 4000 pages and 10 years ago, was by a Knox championing keyboard warrior saying Massei's garbage conviction would be thrown out by a higher court...and well....it was.

It's not a high bar.

Stacyhs 10th June 2019 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12722387)
I'll let Massei know that you think a keyboard warrior who champions Amanda Knox is a superior legal mind to him.

I doubt Massei cares what a keyboard warrior who champions his overturned verdict (that the Supreme Court says should never have been rendered in the first place) has to say about anything. But go ahead; give him a call. Maybe he'll have you over for a glass of prosecco and a cheese plate.

Stacyhs 10th June 2019 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bagels (Post 12722412)
I mean, the very first post of this thread chain, 4000 pages and 10 years ago, was by a Knox championing keyboard warrior saying Massei's garbage conviction would be thrown out by a higher court...and well....it was.

It's not a high bar.

Bwaaaahaaahaaaahaaaaa! Well done.

Bill Williams 10th June 2019 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12722387)
I'll let Massei know that you think a keyboard warrior who champions Amanda Knox is a superior legal mind to him.

There's your problem right there. No one is "champion(ing) Amanda Knox".

People these days are being led by evidence, or in this case the lack of same.

People are agreeing that the original investigation was hopelessly botched, or as the 2015 Italian Supreme Court put it, "amnesiac".

Stacyhs 10th June 2019 11:41 PM

Bill, something I've noticed about so many PGP is that they tend to judge the case based on personality vs evidence, thus their need to vilify, disparage and dehumanize Knox. It's far easier than dealing with the evidence...or in this case...the lack of it.

Welshman 11th June 2019 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12721277)
Haha! The funniest thing I have read in a long time. This would be like a flat earther claiming Copernicus is wrong, right?

Not as funny as Vixen's claim Amanda and Raffaele had to go back to the cottage to stage a rape when Rudy had already raped Meredith.

Bill Williams 11th June 2019 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12722615)
Bill, something I've noticed about so many PGP is that they tend to judge the case based on personality vs evidence, thus their need to vilify, disparage and dehumanize Knox. It's far easier than dealing with the evidence...or in this case...the lack of it.

...... and they first have to invent a cardboard personality full measure for hating!

Stacyhs 11th June 2019 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 12722826)
...... and they first have to invent a cardboard personality full measure for hating!

Absolutely. They have constructed a person...actually two people...who don't really exist except in their minds. We see it all the time when those who don't know either Knox or Sollecito tell us what they think and feel.

Welshman 12th June 2019 11:43 AM

Why the need to lie part 1
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 12720686)
For the 100th time, the Supreme Court did not say this. In 2015 they wrote, in exonerating, that even if those things were true, all that the Nencini proved was that:
Why do you never respond to the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE FINDING!?



Mod InfoContinued from part 28. You can quote or reply to any post from that part or any previous part of the topic.
Posted By:zooterkin

There is one thing which you guaranteed to see on this forum and that is Vixen saying Amanda and Raffaele have told numerous lies. There are two issues raised with this claim. Firstly, why would Amanda and Raffaele need to resort to lying. Secondly, why do PGP have to resort to lying to sustain the claim Amanda and Raffaele have told numerous lies.

Lying is something you resort to when the facts are against you. I remember Vixen telling an innocent person would not need to lie in reference to Amanda. The implication is there was a mountain of damming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, a slam dunk case and the facts supported the case for guilt and not the case for innocence. Because of this Amanda and Raffaele could only argue the case for innocence by lying.

If the facts support the case for innocence and go against the case for a guilt, the accused should not have to resort to lying to argue the case for innocence. If someone has told numerous lies, you should not have to resort to lying to sustain this argument. Because of the gross stupidity of PGP and the inability to understand simple things, I will use a hypothetical example to illustrate this point and make things as simple as possible. Someone breaks in the home of a woman and the woman is brutally stabbed to death numerous times. The ex husband is arrested. A lot of the evidence which should exist against the ex husband is missing. The wife lost vast amounts of blood but there is no blood on the clothing of the husband, in his home or car. Bloody fingerprints and palm prints found in the woman’s home don’t match the ex husband. There is no forensic trace at all of the ex husband in the woman’s house such as hairs or DNA. There is skin found on the woman’s fingernails which indicates she scratched her attacker in defence. The attacker should have scratches on his face which the ex husband doesn’t have. The ex husband and the woman divorced on amicable terms and there is no evidence the husband was violent towards his ex wife during their marriage or has ever threatened his wife after their divorce. The ex husband has a strong alibi. At the time of the murder the ex husband was caught on CCTV in a supermarket a hundred miles from the woman’s house. The evidence used by the police has no credibility. The police collect a butter knife and claimed it was used to stab the woman despite the fact it is impossible for a butter knife to stab someone. In addition the butter knife has no blood or biological material on the knife and the knife was purchased two days after the woman was murdered. The police and PGP have to resort to lying. Both police PGP spread lies such as blood of the woman being found in the ex husband’s car and the car of the ex husband was seen on CCTV close to woman’s house. The fact the police and PGP have to resort to lying indicates the police have a lack of evidence.

PGP claim the ex husband has told numerous lies. Would people not find it strange the ex husband would need to resort to lying when the facts overwhelmingly support the case for the ex husband’s innocence and go against the case for guilt. PGP have to resort to lying to sustain the notion the ex husband has told numerous lies. When the ex husband says no traces of his blood was found in his home or car, PGP claim he was lying when he was in fact telling the truth. Despite CCTV confirming the presence of the husband at the supermarket, PGP claim the ex husband was lying when he said he was at the supermarket. Would people not find it strange PGP would need to resort to lying to sustain the claim the ex husband has lied if he has told numerous lies.

Welshman 12th June 2019 11:44 AM

If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and the facts went totally against the case for innocence, why are there massive problems with the prosecution’s case as detailed in the points below. Why would Amanda and Raffaele need to resort to lying when the facts overwhelmingly support the case for innocence and go against the case for guilt. In fact it is the prosecution and PGP who had to resort to lying.

• The evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Raffaele were guilty is missing. Besides the dubious bra clasp, there was no forensic traces of Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith’s room. No reliable witnesses saw Amanda and Raffaele near the cottage on the night of the murder. Amanda and Raffaele were not caught on CCTV coming to and from the cottage. Meredith lost vast amounts of blood but despite this Amanda and Raffaele left no blood traces in the Meredith’s room such as bloody footprints and palm prints. There was no blood transfer in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s flat. There was no blood on Amanda and Raffaele’s clothing. There were no cuts on Amanda or Raffaele’s hands which should have occurred when trying to stab someone. The prosecution couldn’t find a motive which is proved by the fact the prosecution had to constantly change motives which indicated that each motive suggested was not credible and the prosecution had to find something else. As the link below shows the evidence suggests Meredith and Amanda had a good relationship and Amanda had no hatred towards Meredith. The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped for three days and nothing incriminating was said in their phone calls. Amanda had no history of psychiatric disorders or violence.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony provided by the prosecution lacked credibility and were full of holes :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/luminol/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...her-bra-clasp/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...mised-witness/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/antonio-curatolo/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/marco-quintavalle/

• The prosecution had to resort to these tactics detailed in the links below

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case. Below are some of the numerous lies Vixen has told in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is that in all the time Vixen has been a member of this forum Vixen has consistently been unable to argue the case for guilt on the basis of facts and Vixen can only argue the case for guilty by making things up or resorting to falsehoods which directly contradict the facts of the case eg saying Stefanoni found tissue on the knife when in reality there was no biological material on the knife.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575

The PGP have set up a fake wiki detailed in the link below

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anti-a...eceptive-wiki/

• Below are the appeal documents prepared by the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele before the Hellman trial. As you can see the defence were able to make highly effective arguments which punched major holes in the prosecution’s case. How do you explain this if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

Vixen constantly repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda and Raffaele told numerous lies. As can be seen from my posts below, there are several instances where Vixen has made false allegations Amanda has lied. I recall Harry Rag saying Amanda told numerous lies to the police but Harry Rag was unable to list these lies and there is no record of the police saying Amanda told numerous lies. Vixen has made the same claim. If Amanda and Raffaele were such prolific liars, why do PGP need to resort to lying to sustain this claim? With Vixen you don’t need to lie to sustain the claim Vixen has told numerous lies because there are plenty of genuine instances of Vixen lying in her posts as detailed in the above posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post11849235
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11952561
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12389273
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post12390810

Bill Williams 12th June 2019 01:09 PM

Your content, my life
 
Worse than the guilters?

"I apologize for using you for my entertainment."

https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-y...PoV1EOKKWOsxVY

Fits all of us......

Numbers 12th June 2019 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 12724284)
Worse than the guilters?

"I apologize for using you for my entertainment."

https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-y...PoV1EOKKWOsxVY

Fits all of us......

The bottom line:

Quote:

Of all the surreal moments in my extremely surreal life, the one that brings me the most hope right now, while I’m polishing up the speech I’m about to give to a potentially hostile audience in Italy, came in the wake of that Netflix documentary. A woman approached me, crying, after I gave a talk, and she said something I’d been told before on Twitter. I wish I could say it’s been thousands or even hundreds of people who have tweeted the sentiment at me, but it has only been a few dozen. Still, hearing this woman say it to my face, it shocked me. She said, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry I treated you as entertainment.”
Source:
https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-y...PoV1EOKKWOsxVY

Vixen 12th June 2019 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshman (Post 12724195)
There is one thing which you guaranteed to see on this forum and that is Vixen saying Amanda and Raffaele have told numerous lies. <snip>.


They did. It is official. They still haven't got an alibi.

How sad is that?

Numbers 12th June 2019 01:58 PM

For the ECHR case Knox v. Italy, we are awaiting the next GC Panel meeting and its decision:

"Demande de renvoi devant la Grande Chambre en cours"

"Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending"

If the Panel turns down the request from Italy, then the Chamber judgment will become final on the day the refusal is announced.

If the Panel accepts the request, there will be a Grand Chamber judgment in the case in perhaps 1 or 2 years. All GC judgments are final on the day they are announced.

Only requests for cases considered "exceptional" in terms of the interpretation of the Convention or ECHR case-law are accepted by the Panel.

The request cannot be based on an issue of inadmissibility that the respondent state had the obligation to bring up in response to the Communication (the notice to the respondent state ["contracting party"] in Rule 54.2c):

"Rule 55 – Pleas of inadmissibility

Any plea of inadmissibility must, in so far as its character and the circumstances permit, be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application submitted as provided in Rule 51 or 54, as the case may be.

Rule 54 – Procedure before a Chamber

1. The Chamber may at once declare the application inadmissible or strike it out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision of the Chamber may relate to all or part of the application.

2. Alternatively, the Chamber or the President of the Section may decide to

(a) request the parties to submit any factual information, documents or other material considered by the Chamber or its President to be relevant;

(b) give notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and invite that Party to submit written observations thereon and, upon receipt thereof, invite the applicant to submit observations in reply;

(c) invite the parties to submit further observations in writing.
....

Rule 73 – Request by a party for referral of a case to the Grand Chamber

1. In accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, any party to a case may exceptionally, within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the judgment of a Chamber, file in writing at the Registry a request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. The party shall specify in its request the serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or the serious issue of general importance, which in its view warrants consideration by the Grand Chamber.

2. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber constituted in accordance with Rule 24 § 5 shall examine the request solely on the basis of the existing case file. It shall accept the request only if it considers that the case does raise such a question or issue. Reasons need not be given for a refusal of the request.

3. If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment."

Vixen 12th June 2019 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numbers (Post 12724316)

Still neatly sidestepping the issue of Lumumba.

Perpetrator feigning victimhood.

Bill Williams 12th June 2019 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12724375)
Still neatly sidestepping the issue of Lumumba.

Perpetrator feigning victimhood.

"Perpetrator" of what? If it is about the murder, the 2015 Supreme Court exonerated both K and S, citing no presence of them in the murder room.

If it is about Lumumba, that part IS unaddressed, as the conviction for calunnia in relation to it was ruled result of Italy abusing K of her rights as a suspect.

You are "neaty" mixing apples and oranges.

TruthCalls 12th June 2019 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12724343)
They did. It is official. They still haven't got an alibi.

How sad is that?

What part of "We spent the evening alone at Raffaele's apartment" fails to meet the definition of an alibi?

Stacyhs 12th June 2019 03:42 PM

I bet there were many people on the night of the murder who couldn't provide a proven alibi. Any person who was home alone that night reading or watching TV and who neither made nor received any phone calls between 9 PM and midnight wouldn't have an alibi. Come to think of it, Nara Capezalli was home alone that night. Can she prove she didn't kill Meredith? :rolleyes:Just because someone doesn't have an alibi, doesn't mean they committed the crime.

Bill Williams 12th June 2019 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCalls (Post 12724454)
What part of "We spent the evening alone at Raffaele's apartment" fails to meet the definition of an alibi?

Note how silent - all of a sudden - guilter-nutters are about the claims of felons being ineligible for international travel. It was one thing for them to harp on this for coming to conferences in, say, Canada.... quite another for them to harp on this for coming to Italy.

Crickets. I remember when the guilter-nutters claimed that sneaking past Canada Customs put Canada into ill repute....

But Italy? Crickets. The predictable, consistent part of their claim, is the ease by which they drop both "felon" and "unable to travel" once both have been disproved; and they move on to the next bogus claim.

Vixen 12th June 2019 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12724469)
I bet there were many people on the night of the murder who couldn't provide a proven alibi. Any person who was home alone that night reading or watching TV and who neither made nor received any phone calls between 9 PM and midnight wouldn't have an alibi. Come to think of it, Nara Capezalli was home alone that night. Can she prove she didn't kill Meredith? :rolleyes:Just because someone doesn't have an alibi, doesn't mean they committed the crime.

A person knowingly giving the police a false alibi - as Knox and Sollecito did - will find themselves under the scrutiny of the Old Bill as a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints.

Stacyhs 12th June 2019 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12724375)
Still neatly sidestepping the issue of Lumumba.

Perpetrator feigning victimhood.

Why would Amanda lie about Lumumba when we've been told she was trying to set up Guede to take the rap? Or was she protecting him by accusing Lumumba? Which one is it today?

Vixen 12th June 2019 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12724478)
Why would Amanda lie about Lumumba when we've been told she was trying to set up Guede to take the rap? Or was she protecting him by accusing Lumumba? Which one is it today?

Er, because Raff dropped her in it..?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.