The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

NotEvenWrong said:

Vixen honestly does not realize anything has happened since Massei in 2009. Anyone else worried about her?

Click to expand...

..... and that was 8 years ago.

I've run across folk who truly believe that John Follain's book is the actual, definitive account of "A Death in Italy." The problem with that book is its sources, and the fact that the 2011 acquittal by the Hellmann court is merely a short coda at the end.

It knows nothing of the 2013 ISC reversal of the Hellmann sourt, it knows nothing of the 2014 re-conviction of the pair, and (obviously) it knows nothing of the eventual 2015 ISC annulling of all the convicting courts.

Yet Follain is still being quoted as if it is the main source of information. Add to that, that Follain is nowhere to be seen these days - and is lucky that he's not been excoriated like Barbie Nadeau was in the Winterbottom film, or Nick Pisa was in the NetFlix documentary.

Consider that Follian's account is infinitely superior to Darkness Descending.... and yet people still quote from that.

Those who are left, that is.

Vixen said:

The DNA evidence is just one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle that points to just three perpetrators, and allows one to see the gestält:

Amanda Knox
Rudy Guede (whom Knox covered up for)
Raffaele Sollecito (who lost track of all his lies).

Click to expand...

The DNA evidence is just one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle that points to only one perpetrator because Guede's is the only indisputable DNA (besides Meredith's) found in the murder room. Other missing pieces that don't create a "multiple perpetrator" picture puzzle have been discussed ad nauseum. One might think that is why 6 out of 7 testifying experts concluded it either was, or could have been, a single perpetrator crime.

Bill Williams said:

Simply stating this - and repeating it ad naseam - does not make it true. At some point you have to address the ten or twelve outstanding questions to you about this which you simply refuse to address.

Click to expand...

No, she doesn't and she never will.

Vixen said:

The court is the establishment. It has no need to bring out 'peer reviewed papers'. It has the hegemony.

If a panel of judges (including laymen and moronic bimbos through to barristers and high court judges) can come to a verdict of guilty after having been presented with all the evidence, and as Massei states, with great reluctance and heavy heart, and open xenophobia towards Rudy (just like Knox' supporters) then we can be sure the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict unavoidable.

Click to expand...

Misconduct by police and prosecution

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314

Falsehoods told by Vixen

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: The postal police claimed to hear the washing machine cycle come to a finish.
Truth: The washing machine was not running. The washing machine story was among the false claims fed to the police to the media. The washing machine running was never presented as evidence in court or used in motivation reports.

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: Police didn't think she'd had a shower.
Truth: The police never claimed Amanda had not showered. The testimony from an officer says the opposite from the link below. At trial it was not part of the prosecution’s case Amanda had not showered
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/frequently-asked-questions/

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: Why would she buy bleach first thing in the morning?
Truth: Quintavelle in his testimony never said that Amanda purchased bleach. The till was checked and there was no record of any purchase of bleach receipts. No evidence has been presented that Amanda and Raffaele purchased bleach. The presence of bleach receipts was false story fed by the police to the media.

Post dated 20.03.2016
Claim: and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.
Truth: Amanda’s DNA was not on the clasp and this has never been part of the prosecution’s case. There is no record of the defence agreeing Amanda’s DNA was on the clasp and there is no evidence Vinci used Photoshop.

Post dated 22.03.2016
Claim: Blood was found on Raff’s underpants
Truth: No blood was every found on Raffaele’s clothing.
Post dated 22.03.2016
Claim: Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade.
Truth: Stefanoni found no such tissue on the blade and the prosecution have never claimed there was any human biological material on the blade. When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species.

Post dated 24.03.2016
Claim: The bloody pulp incident happened (he claims) when Raff was already in jail.
Truth: Raffaele said in his book that the incident happened during the interrogation at the police station.
Post dated 10.05.2016
Claim: Only one was of sufficient quality to produce a near full profile (15 alleles : legal standard UK =10) of the murder victim, Mez.
Truth: The prosecution never claimed there were 15 alleles on the knife.

Post dated 11.05.2016
The defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez.
Truth: The defence teams have never accepted there was a full DNA profile of Meredith on the knife and there is no record of this.
Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: Forensic police believed the blood in the bidet, sink and cotton bud were signs of the murderer rinsing the knife off.
Truth: There is no record of the prosecution saying the blood in the bathroom came from drippings from a knife.

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: a long convoluted story surrounding a mop found propped up by the front door of the cottage when postal police arrived was concocted by the pair, which any marine would be proud of in the scheme of tallest of tall stories about burst pipes and leaks as of the time of the murder.
Truth: There is no record of the postal police asking about the mop and there is no record of any conversation regarding the mop between Amanda, Raffaele and the postal police. There was an actual leak in Raffaele’s apartment as seen in the link below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/frequently-asked-questions/

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: She rang her mother for the first time since arriving in Europe ahead of the discovery of the body.
Truth: Vixen provides no evidence from phone records to back up her claim Amanda had never previously phoned her mother when she was in Europe.

Post dated 07.07.2016
Claim: What was Raff’s near full DNA profile doing on Mez’s bra clasp (whom he claimed he had never met)
Truth: Raffaele has never said he had not met Meredith.
Post dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: and having Mez - who shook a mean mojito - 'steal' her job was all too much for the poor reject.
Truth: Meredith was never offered a job at Le Chic.

Posted dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: She has never shown one iota of regret or remorse, nor ever shed one little bitty tear for her 'friend'.

Truth: The testimony from witnesses contradict this as seen in the link below :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-behavior-myths/

Post dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood.
Truth: There was no size 37 female footprint in Meredith’s room. The defence clearly showed all the footprints belonged to Rudy as detailed below
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

Post dated 08.06.2016
Claim: Oh come off it. Raff's footprint on the bathmat, and the feint, smaller, female footprint nearby.
Truth: No evidence has been presented there was a female footprint by the bathmat.
Post dated: 12.06.2016
Claim: when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'
Truth: This contradicts what the experts said. Experts who did not work for the defence could not rule out a single attacker. Dr Lali who carried out the autopsy could not say if there was more than one attacker. Dr Bacci who worked for the prosecution said the following :-
“the biological date cannot tell us if it was one or more persons who killed Meredith”
Dr Liviero, police doctor testifying for the prosecution said the following :-
“A single attacker could have done it”

Post dated: 13.06.2016
Claim: The defense experts came up with some of the most ridiculous 'expert opinion','Mez threw herself onto the one sliver of glass, and that caused the wounds found on her arms and hands'.
Truth: There is no record of the defence saying this.

Post dated: 04.12.2016
Claim: The court was satisfied that the prosecution forensic trajectory experts showed that the rock in all probability beyond reasonable doubt was thrown from inside the room, based on factors such as angle, resting place, distribution of glass and estimated velocity.

Truth: The prosecution never produced any experts on forensic trajectory. In fact the prosecution never had any expert witnesses to support a staged break in.

Post dated 05.06.2016

Claim: Amanda was getting through €300- cash daily - this certainly suggests a drug habit and it would appear Mez was ripped off her rent for dirty money.

Truth: Amanda’s bank statements are available in the link below and do not show 300 euros being taken out every day. The fact Amanda was willing to make her bank statements publicly available indicates Amanda was not taking huge sums from her bank account and was in such dire financial straits she would need to resort to stealing money.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Amanda-Knox-Bank-Records-2007.pdf

Post dated: 06.06.2017
Claim: There is also the case of the paper scattered under Filomena's window which had Amanda Knox' footprint on it.
Truth: No such footprint exists.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412

Vixen constantly bangs on about how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was overwhelming. If this was true, why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics above? If the prosecution had a slam dunk case, why is that the tactics the prosecution had to resort to were clearly the tactics prosecutors would resort when they have no case or evidence? I have listed some of the numerous falsehoods Vixen has said in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why do PGP have to lie on an industrial scale to argue their case?

Vixen said:

Kiszko's conviction was found unsafe because his doctor in endrinocology came forward to give expert testimony that Kiszko was infertile so unlikely he could have left his bodily fluids.

Click to expand...

No, No. You're missing the whole point here.

And the point is this:

1) The court in Kiszko's trial determined that there was sufficient evidence to PROVE his guilt (of committing the sexual murder of Molseed) BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

2) It subsequently transpired that a) Kiszko could not possibly have committed the sex murder, and that b) there was proof BARD that a totally different man (who had zero connection to Kiszko) was actually the murderer.

So...... therefore........

How could Kiszko's original trial have found him guilty BARD, when we now know that Kiszko factually had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder?

Shall I tell you the (extremely simple and easy to divine) answer, Vixen?

It's this:

THE ORIGINAL TRIAL GOT IT WRONG.


Now, Vixen. How do you think we can apply the principle on display in the case of Stefan Kiszko to the Massei and Nencini verdicts in the Knox/Sollecito case...........?

Amanda Knox talks about being kidnapped (as a girl) and emerging as a woman.
I wonder which cases she is active in. She is a writer and no doubt a researcher I would hope to see her being specific. There is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4741368/Amanda-Knox-speaks-trial-jail-defined-her.html

I am not suggesting she owes anyone anything after her experience, more that there are things she can do because she is no longer waiting to be heard.

Bill Williams said:

Then why was that verdict definitively annulled?

Click to expand...

Vixen said:

Political reasons.

The Italians didn't want to see their boy serve life whilst the person found guilty of the actual killing roams free in the USA.

Click to expand...

Uh huh...political reasons. Sure. You really have no clue just how ludicrous that is, do you? In essence, you're saying that the Italians would rather have a sexual killer out and about amongst them rather than in jail just because his partner in crime was in the US. That wouldn't say much for them if it were true. But it's not because it's ridiculous.

Once again, you forget/ignore there is not a shred of evidence placing Knox in the bedroom where Kercher was clearly killed. Of course, she could have killed Kercher in the bathroom where her DNA was found (for clearly logical and innocent reasons) and then dragged her into the bedroom. No evidence of this exists either, but since when does that mean anything when one is desperate for excuses?

Welshman said:

Misconduct by police and prosecution

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314

Falsehoods told by Vixen

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: The postal police claimed to hear the washing machine cycle come to a finish.
Truth: The washing machine was not running. The washing machine story was among the false claims fed to the police to the media. The washing machine running was never presented as evidence in court or used in motivation reports.

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: Police didn't think she'd had a shower.
Truth: The police never claimed Amanda had not showered. The testimony from an officer says the opposite from the link below. At trial it was not part of the prosecution’s case Amanda had not showered
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/frequently-asked-questions/

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: Why would she buy bleach first thing in the morning?
Truth: Quintavelle in his testimony never said that Amanda purchased bleach. The till was checked and there was no record of any purchase of bleach receipts. No evidence has been presented that Amanda and Raffaele purchased bleach. The presence of bleach receipts was false story fed by the police to the media.

Post dated 20.03.2016
Claim: and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.
Truth: Amanda’s DNA was not on the clasp and this has never been part of the prosecution’s case. There is no record of the defence agreeing Amanda’s DNA was on the clasp and there is no evidence Vinci used Photoshop.

Post dated 22.03.2016
Claim: Blood was found on Raff’s underpants Truth: No blood was every found on Raffaele’s clothing. Post dated 22.03.2016
Claim: Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade.
Truth: Stefanoni found no such tissue on the blade and the prosecution have never claimed there was any human biological material on the blade. When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species.

Post dated 24.03.2016
Claim: The bloody pulp incident happened (he claims) when Raff was already in jail.
Truth: Raffaele said in his book that the incident happened during the interrogation at the police station.
Post dated 10.05.2016
Claim: Only one was of sufficient quality to produce a near full profile (15 alleles : legal standard UK =10) of the murder victim, Mez.
Truth: The prosecution never claimed there were 15 alleles on the knife.

Post dated 11.05.2016
The defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez.
Truth: The defence teams have never accepted there was a full DNA profile of Meredith on the knife and there is no record of this.
Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: Forensic police believed the blood in the bidet, sink and cotton bud were signs of the murderer rinsing the knife off.
Truth: There is no record of the prosecution saying the blood in the bathroom came from drippings from a knife.

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: a long convoluted story surrounding a mop found propped up by the front door of the cottage when postal police arrived was concocted by the pair, which any marine would be proud of in the scheme of tallest of tall stories about burst pipes and leaks as of the time of the murder.
Truth: There is no record of the postal police asking about the mop and there is no record of any conversation regarding the mop between Amanda, Raffaele and the postal police. There was an actual leak in Raffaele’s apartment as seen in the link below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/frequently-asked-questions/

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: She rang her mother for the first time since arriving in Europe ahead of the discovery of the body.
Truth: Vixen provides no evidence from phone records to back up her claim Amanda had never previously phoned her mother when she was in Europe.

Post dated 07.07.2016
Claim: What was Raff’s near full DNA profile doing on Mez’s bra clasp (whom he claimed he had never met)
Truth: Raffaele has never said he had not met Meredith.
Post dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: and having Mez - who shook a mean mojito - 'steal' her job was all too much for the poor reject.
Truth: Meredith was never offered a job at Le Chic.

Posted dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: She has never shown one iota of regret or remorse, nor ever shed one little bitty tear for her 'friend'.

Truth: The testimony from witnesses contradict this as seen in the link below :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-behavior-myths/

Post dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood.
Truth: There was no size 37 female footprint in Meredith’s room. The defence clearly showed all the footprints belonged to Rudy as detailed below
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

Post dated 08.06.2016
Claim: Oh come off it. Raff's footprint on the bathmat, and the feint, smaller, female footprint nearby.
Truth: No evidence has been presented there was a female footprint by the bathmat.
Post dated: 12.06.2016
Claim: when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'
Truth: This contradicts what the experts said. Experts who did not work for the defence could not rule out a single attacker. Dr Lali who carried out the autopsy could not say if there was more than one attacker. Dr Bacci who worked for the prosecution said the following :-
“the biological date cannot tell us if it was one or more persons who killed Meredith”
Dr Liviero, police doctor testifying for the prosecution said the following :-
“A single attacker could have done it”

Post dated: 13.06.2016
Claim: The defense experts came up with some of the most ridiculous 'expert opinion','Mez threw herself onto the one sliver of glass, and that caused the wounds found on her arms and hands'.
Truth: There is no record of the defence saying this.

Post dated: 04.12.2016
Claim: The court was satisfied that the prosecution forensic trajectory experts showed that the rock in all probability beyond reasonable doubt was thrown from inside the room, based on factors such as angle, resting place, distribution of glass and estimated velocity.

Truth: The prosecution never produced any experts on forensic trajectory. In fact the prosecution never had any expert witnesses to support a staged break in.

Post dated 05.06.2016

Claim: Amanda was getting through €300- cash daily - this certainly suggests a drug habit and it would appear Mez was ripped off her rent for dirty money.

Truth: Amanda’s bank statements are available in the link below and do not show 300 euros being taken out every day. The fact Amanda was willing to make her bank statements publicly available indicates Amanda was not taking huge sums from her bank account and was in such dire financial straits she would need to resort to stealing money.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Amanda-Knox-Bank-Records-2007.pdf

Post dated: 06.06.2017
Claim: There is also the case of the paper scattered under Filomena's window which had Amanda Knox' footprint on it.
Truth: No such footprint exists.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412

Vixen constantly bangs on about how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was overwhelming. If this was true, why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics above? If the prosecution had a slam dunk case, why is that the tactics the prosecution had to resort to were clearly the tactics prosecutors would resort when they have no case or evidence? I have listed some of the numerous falsehoods Vixen has said in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why do PGP have to lie on an industrial scale to argue their case?

Click to expand...

Nice collection of falsehoods. I wasn't sure at first if this litany of falsehoods was Vixen's or Trump's. So much in common.You can add to the list her claim that Dr. Peter Gill said that DNA doesn't transfer after 24 hours and that there was no grill under Filomena's window at the time of the murder. There are more but there is, by necessity, a limit on how many can be posted due to space limitations.

Just to clarify the highlighted part: blood was found on Raff's underwear, but it was Knox's menstrual blood. Having no underwear due to her inability to access the cottage after the discovery of the murder, Amanda had to borrow Raff's underwear. This is why she bought the "sexy g-string lingerie" at Bubbles. Of course, it wasn't really sexy or a G-string (they were cotton with a cartoon cow on them), but why let facts get in the way of a good and lucrative story?

Samson said:

Amanda Knox talks about being kidnapped (as a girl) and emerging as a woman.
I wonder which cases she is active in. She is a writer and no doubt a researcher I would hope to see her being specific. There is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4741368/Amanda-Knox-speaks-trial-jail-defined-her.html

I am not suggesting she owes anyone anything after her experience, more that there are things she can do because she is no longer waiting to be heard.

Click to expand...

You say that you are not suggesting that she owes anyone anything but then immediately say that there is more that she can do. You also say that there is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You are right about the fact that she owes no one anything. But bringing attention to wrongful convictions and how they happen is important. Knowledge can help prevent future wrongful convictions and help right past and current ones.

Stacyhs said:

You say that you are not suggesting that she owes anyone anything but then immediately say that there is more that she can do. You also say that there is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You are right about the fact that she owes no one anything. But bringing attention to wrongful convictions and how they happen is important. Knowledge can help prevent future wrongful convictions and help right past and current ones.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed I am saying she owes no one anything. I could then say "but" there is more she could do. But I mean "however", as in.

1. Amanda Knox owes no one. eg Think Donald Trump
2. There is more she can do as she now has a voice.

Both statements are true, and of course I don't know what cases are occupying her. Typically she would make it known if she has a specific case, I guess I am curious. On IA people make it plain what cases they are working on for example.

I will give an example of a group in New Zealand PPIP I think
An independent body formed 2 years ago and said their first two cases were Michael October and Scott Watson, both convicted of murder.

I follow closely the local cases, and there has not been an utterance since I have been aware of. Well, not quite true I suppose Chris Gallavin made a substantial documentary on the Watson case.

May be I do too much stream of consciousness....

Samson said:

Yes, indeed I am saying she owes no one anything. I could then say "but" there is more she could do. But I mean "however", as in.

1. Amanda Knox owes no one. eg Think Donald Trump
2. There is more she can do as she now has a voice.

Both statements are true, and of course I don't know what cases are occupying her. Typically she would make it known if she has a specific case, I guess I am curious. On IA people make it plain what cases they are working on for example.

I will give an example of a group in New Zealand PPIP I think
An independent body formed 2 years ago and said their first two cases were Michael October and Scott Watson, both convicted of murder.

I follow closely the local cases, and there has not been an utterance since I have been aware of. Well, not quite true I suppose Chris Gallavin made a substantial documentary on the Watson case.

May be I do too much stream of consciousness....

Click to expand...

Ah...you have explained it a bit better now. However, as Amanda is not a lawyer or an investigator, I doubt that she is personally "working" on any cases. From what I have read and understand, she is more engaged in educating others on how and why wrongful convictions occur. For example, speaking at legal conferences and law schools helping lawyers and future lawyers become more aware of how and why they happen.

LondonJohn said:

No, No. You're missing the whole point here.

And the point is this:

1) The court in Kiszko's trial determined that there was sufficient evidence to PROVE his guilt (of committing the sexual murder of Molseed) BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

2) It subsequently transpired that a) Kiszko could not possibly have committed the sex murder, and that b) there was proof BARD that a totally different man (who had zero connection to Kiszko) was actually the murderer.

So...... therefore........

How could Kiszko's original trial have found him guilty BARD, when we now know that Kiszko factually had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder?

Shall I tell you the (extremely simple and easy to divine) answer, Vixen?

It's this:

THE ORIGINAL TRIAL GOT IT WRONG.


Now, Vixen. How do you think we can apply the principle on display in the case of Stefan Kiszko to the Massei and Nencini verdicts in the Knox/Sollecito case...........?

Click to expand...

<fx VIXEN HEAD SPINNING>

Seriously though, I don't know why we bother. Vixen is clearly unable to understand the concept of courts getting it wrong sometimes.

LondonJohn said:

No, No. You're missing the whole point here.

And the point is this:

1) The court in Kiszko's trial determined that there was sufficient evidence to PROVE his guilt (of committing the sexual murder of Molseed) BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

2) It subsequently transpired that a) Kiszko could not possibly have committed the sex murder, and that b) there was proof BARD that a totally different man (who had zero connection to Kiszko) was actually the murderer.

So...... therefore........

How could Kiszko's original trial have found him guilty BARD, when we now know that Kiszko factually had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder?

Shall I tell you the (extremely simple and easy to divine) answer, Vixen?

It's this:

THE ORIGINAL TRIAL GOT IT WRONG.


Now, Vixen. How do you think we can apply the principle on display in the case of Stefan Kiszko to the Massei and Nencini verdicts in the Knox/Sollecito case...........?

Click to expand...

No, he was not found 'incontravertibly innocent', the verdict was found to be unsafe after his doctor came forward to vouch for his sperm count.


For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

I am not saying he did this, but simply pointing out that it is not 'proof of innocence', just an expert opinion claiming that someone with Kiszko's condition was unlikely to produce much live sperm. You note, he didn't say 'none at all'. There have been cases of men deemed infertile, with weak or few spermotozoa successfully becoming fathers normally.

An undercover reporter on tv documentary 'Panorama', a respected BBC feature, demonstrated that by approaching various 'expert witnesses' who were listed on a register, under the guise of needing an expert to get him out of an accident charge, and with bogus details, deliberately designed to enable the 'expert' to see through the phoney claim, he was able to persuade almost all of them to agree to give expert evidence on his behalf to get him off the hook in court, subject to greasing their palms with money (or rather, 'fees').

Just sayin'.

Samson said:

Amanda Knox talks about being kidnapped (as a girl) and emerging as a woman.
I wonder which cases she is active in. She is a writer and no doubt a researcher I would hope to see her being specific. There is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4741368/Amanda-Knox-speaks-trial-jail-defined-her.html

I am not suggesting she owes anyone anything after her experience, more that there are things she can do because she is no longer waiting to be heard.

Click to expand...

She should grow up. Since when was a 20-year old a 'kid'? As for, 'the Black guys call me their "little baby girl"' - snorts of scepticism - and prancing about in a little red riding hood outfit, who is she kidding?

Mind you, they do say psychopaths are arrested at a young emotional age, usually because of a traumatic incident. For example, Mary Bell, child killer aged 8, was used by her prostitute mum as a toddler prostitute.

Vixen said:

For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

Click to expand...

Peter Gill wasn't a defense expert. He was never part of the case. Had nothing to do with Knox's exoneration. He was just a private citizen that took interest in a blatant miscarriage of justice and used his substantial expertise to give his own opinion. It's a real thorn in the side for the PGP, whose experts consist of online psychics and obsessive internet weirdos.

Vixen said:

She should grow up. Since when was a 20-year old a 'kid'? As for, 'the Black guys call me their "little baby girl"' - snorts of scepticism - and prancing about in a little red riding hood outfit, who is she kidding?

Mind you, they do say psychopaths are arrested at a young emotional age, usually because of a traumatic incident. For example, Mary Bell, child killer aged 8, was used by her prostitute mum as a toddler prostitute.

Click to expand...

For someone who resists like the plague using the word "innocent" in relation to what the courts in Italy decided about Knox and Sollecito, you are immensely wreckless in chucking in the word "psychopath" in relation to this.

While it is true you'll use any opportunity to defame innocent people, it would be nice if once in a while there was an actual citation from some neutral source to justify your slander.

Vixen said:

No, he was not found 'incontravertibly innocent', the verdict was found to be unsafe after his doctor came forward to vouch for his sperm count.


For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

I am not saying he did this, but simply pointing out that it is not 'proof of innocence', just an expert opinion claiming that someone with Kiszko's condition was unlikely to produce much live sperm. You note, he didn't say 'none at all'. There have been cases of men deemed infertile, with weak or few spermotozoa successfully becoming fathers normally.

An undercover reporter on tv documentary 'Panorama', a respected BBC feature, demonstrated that by approaching various 'expert witnesses' who were listed on a register, under the guise of needing an expert to get him out of an accident charge, and with bogus details, deliberately designed to enable the 'expert' to see through the phoney claim, he was able to persuade almost all of them to agree to give expert evidence on his behalf to get him off the hook in court, subject to greasing their palms with money (or rather, 'fees').

Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where the real culprit was discovered because he had given a DNA sample in relation to another alleged offence, and his DNA matched that left on Molseed's underwear/body? And the real culprit had no connection whatsoever with Kiszko. THIS is the evidence which shows that Kiszko categorically had nothing to do with Molseed's murder - the evidence showing Kiszko could not produce sperm led to the vacation of his conviction, but his total innocence was proven by the discovery of the real culprit. I pointed this out pretty simply in both my previous posts. You seem not to have taken it on board......

So, Vixen: back to the actual matter at hand. The court in Kiszko's original trial decided that there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Yet we now know for certain that Kiszko definitely was not the culprit. So..... the original court, by definition, made a (serious) error in deciding that Kiszko had, beyond all reasonable doubt, been the man who sexually assaulted and murdered Lesley Molseed.

And then I ask you once again, Vixen: how do you imagine we can take the example of the court's error of judgement in the Kiszko case, and apply it to the Massei and Nencini courts in the Knox/Sollecito case?

Vixen said:

For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

Click to expand...

bagels said:

Peter Gill wasn't a defense expert. He was never part of the case. Had nothing to do with Knox's exoneration. He was just a private citizen that took interest in a blatant miscarriage of justice and used his substantial expertise to give his own opinion. It's a real thorn in the side for the PGP, whose experts consist of online psychics and obsessive internet weirdos.

Click to expand...

Why does Vixen have to lie to make points in this thread. As you say, bagels, no one close to this case was ever Dr. Peter Gill's "client".

Instead of hurling abuse at people, rather than dealing with/refuting their claims, why does Vixen not provide one, just one forensic-DNA expert who actually agrees with Stefanoni's original work?

It seems that slander and abuse is the only tool in Vixen's toolbox.

Vixen said:

She should grow up.

Click to expand...

What possible relevance does this comment have in relation to the horrible murder in Perugia in 2007? The comment shows a completely unhealthy obsession with a public figure - like tuning into BBC4 to hear the latest about Diana.

However, if this thread ever becomes one of examining the challenges facing exonerees - including the dynamics of being subject to multiyear abuse, slut-shaming and stalking from unhinged individuals - perhaps that comment would at least be in the ballpark of interest.....

..... as a case in point.

Vixen said:

No, he was not found 'incontravertibly innocent', the verdict was found to be unsafe after his doctor came forward to vouch for his sperm count.


For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

I am not saying he did this, but simply pointing out that it is not 'proof of innocence', just an expert opinion claiming that someone with Kiszko's condition was unlikely to produce much live sperm. You note, he didn't say 'none at all'. There have been cases of men deemed infertile, with weak or few spermotozoa successfully becoming fathers normally.

An undercover reporter on tv documentary 'Panorama', a respected BBC feature, demonstrated that by approaching various 'expert witnesses' who were listed on a register, under the guise of needing an expert to get him out of an accident charge, and with bogus details, deliberately designed to enable the 'expert' to see through the phoney claim, he was able to persuade almost all of them to agree to give expert evidence on his behalf to get him off the hook in court, subject to greasing their palms with money (or rather, 'fees').

Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

A joke that spun off the track for those young girls. Tragic. Cases become complex only when the wrong guys end up in jail, and that was one of them.