Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[kwill]

You have geniuses who deduce that Meredith's friends were only catty and vicious and not reliable witnesses.

Why, thank you.

For the record, they were catty and vicious. They were gossiping. Their observations about Amanda's behavior reflect their true feelings and character -- the problem is that those observations mean nothing about Amanda's true feelings and character.

I didn't think it was the complicated of a thing, but clearly I was wrong.

While you're here, maybe you can tell us your source for the contention that Amanda was "sobbing for 2 hours" on Halloween night because Meredith didn't call her back?

Or, failing that, possibly you can explain how the English women's testimony about how annoying they found Amanda translates to Amanda wanting Meredith dead?

 

[carbonjam72]

Did you know that Spezi was also convicted for calunnia in Milan, and found to be a liar? And that the motivations report also acknowledges that Narducci's body was swapped? I am talking about a calunnia conviction, not a defamation one. Has no penal effect because time limit has expired, but acknowledges a judicial truth. It's MIlan, and it's note the only one.

No, but I'd like to see it. I can't believe anyone would believe that utter foolishness.

A double body swap? For what purpose? How does swapping a buried body help to conceal a crime? It's buried! Who would notice?

And if the body from the lake isn't truly Narducci, how do you know Narducci was even dead at the time of the so-called swap, but the more accurate term would be substitution or even false presentation.

If the body in the lake was not Narducci, then there was no Narducci corpse, hence no "body swap" could occur. All you have is a misidentified corpse. And there's no reason to believe even that happened.

So yes, I'd be curious to know what Spezi is thought to have lied about. And by the way, you have a court system that has tormented two obviously innocent people for over 7 years on scary stories a child wouldn't believe.

When your lab techs stop concealing their data, computer experts stop destroying computers they're supposed to be studying, stop collecting evidence with the dirty gloved hands instead of using disposable tweasers, stop recycling career criminal homeless heroin addicts as super-witnesses, stop using half-deaf crazy ladies or lying adventurers pretending to have super memories none of whom come forward for a year before sharing their gifts, start prosecuting your lying thugs you call police, and turn over interrogation recordings which if they don't exist would be reason to fire the whole damn incompetent clown car of cops, then maybe we can start taking your word for something,

I would though appreciate it if you could clarify the issues with Spezi and the double swap. I am fascinated by that dimension of these discussions. Especially if there are links to any of these documents. Thanks Mach, hoping for acquittal in a few hours now.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Straw men. This is an exercise of downplaying, denying and twisting.

Btw a statement like "not supported by anyone who knows her" is intrinsically nonsense to the point... what else but a laugh? supported by someone sho knows her... Don't you see how ridiculous you sound? "support" here means information, not supporters...

It's not based on opinions of few college girls, it is not because "a few colleg girls found annoying". No. It's information about facts, partly reported by witnesses, and it's not only the college girls: it's information about facts, partly reported facts, and those reported facts come from a variety of witnesses. There's multiple sources, includes writings and diaries, witnesses' reports and more, in all this there is abundant evidence to draw opinions about aspects of a personality.

You should rather think about your comrades mouthing that Stefanoni doesn't have a PhD or lied or that Mignini is corrupt.
You have geniuses who deduce that Meredith's friends were only catty and vicious and not reliable witnesses.
Those in your company should not dare to object to the fact that I have an opinion about a human charachter, based on evident factual data.

-

And what exactly does any of this have to do with proving Amanda hated Meredith enough to kill her?

d

-

 

[griffinmill]

Yes, I didn't communicate well here. Dr Gill has been terrific in speaking out on this case. My sense is that he wrote his book in large measure because he wanted to have a chapter on this case.

His previous statements though have been very cautious, criticizing the DNA evidence without taking an overt position on guilt or innocence, IIUC.

I'm just a little amazed that after 7+ years, within hours of a final verdict, we're finally having an unequivocal statement from a a leading authority, in no uncertain terms, that the DNA evidence used to convict isn't just weak, but that you'd have to be an idiot to believe the arguments its being used in.

I'm glad to see it being said, I'm just a little perplexed that its taken this long for people in a position to make these kinds of statements in public, to do so. I'm not talking of US experts. Where are all the British crime scene investigation experts explaining the case? Where are all those people?

Why have the Kerchers been allowed to go on talking about their "search for truth" without being asked to actually deal with the evidence?

I'll skip the Gill stuff because it's patently obvious the other side of the argument is Gill is just opportunistically making the leap to the green fields of defense work. Opinions will differ.

But your question as to why the Kercher's haven't "actually dealt with the evidence" in their search for the truth is galling. They've had more access to information than anyone on this board by a mile.

They came to their decision. You can disagree that they're right, but it's absurd to think they haven't been vigilant in coming to that belief, and you could at least respect that.

 

[griffinmill]

-


-

And what exactly does any of this have to do with proving Amanda hated Meredith enough to kill her?

d

-

Are people really that confused when Mach offers his opinions on Knox as opposed to when he discusses the actual evidence that convicted her at trial?

 

[sept79]

I'll skip the Gill stuff because it's patently obvious the other side of the argument is Gill is just opportunistically making the leap to the green fields of defense work. Opinions will differ.

But your question as to why the Kercher's haven't "actually dealt with the evidence" in their search for the truth is galling. They've had more access to information than anyone on this board by a mile.
They came to their decision. You can disagree that they're right, but it's absurd to think they haven't been vigilant in coming to that belief, and you could at least respect that.

Are you implying that they have access to the electronic data files?

 

[griffinmill]

Are you implying that they have access to the electronic data files?

The ones the defense never formally requested in court? Or barely alluded to in the Nencini appeal despite their case shattering importance?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Are people really that confused when Mach offers his opinions on Knox as opposed to when he discusses the actual evidence that convicted her at trial?

-

Nope. Mach wasn't talking about evidence against Amanda,

d

-

 

[Samson]

Did you know that Spezi was also convicted for calunnia in Milan, and found to be a liar? And that the motivations report also acknowledges that Narducci's body was swapped?I am talking about a calunnia conviction, not a defamation one. Has no penal effect because time limit has expired, but acknowledges a judicial truth. It's MIlan, and it's note the only one.

This is a lie.

 

[Numbers]

This article from BBC may be of interest:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32045964

"The US state department has said officials are monitoring the case."

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you implying that they have access to the electronic data files?

The ones the defense never formally requested in court? Or barely alluded to in the Nencini appeal despite their case shattering importance?

griffinmill, you can have your opinions but you cannot have the facts.

At the beginning of the Florence trial in 2013, the Sollecito defence asked for and were denied:

- a testing of the presumed semen stain on the pillow case
- additional genetic testing of Exhibit 165B​

And were denied. It is safe to say that if these had been allowed, then the EDFs of those tests would have been forthcoming, as they were when the RIS Carabinieri did their testing on Sample 36I. The RIS handed them over as a matter of procedure.

That guilters keep throwing this back at the defence as if they never complained is ludicrous.

Potentially the retesting of 165B would have answered ALL questions surrounding the additional contributors - including the identities of the non-Raffaele male-contributors.

It was plain that Nencini was not out after the truth - and has been made plain here, Stefanoni had already secured the cooperation of an earlier court which refused to order her to release the EDFs, lest it be thought the defence were accusing her of a crime. That set the tone for any further requests.

Look at the example of the RIS Carabinieri and get serious about this issue.

 

[codyjuneau]

"MY, WHAT BIG TEETH YOU HAVE..."

http://gmancasefile.com/1/post/2015/03/my-what-big-teeth-you-have.html

EXCLUSIVE: The DNA evidence on the kitchen knife and bra clasp used against Amanda Knox is 'like a fictional CSI TV show' says world's leading forensic profiler

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-leading-forensic-profiler.html#ixzz3VLxyXUS8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

.
I love Steve Moore's analogy! It really is apt. Mignini and his pack preyed on the innocence and trust of both Raffaele and Amanda.

When the forensic results came in which clearly showed that Meredith was murdered by Rudy Guede, a local street wise burglar well known to the police, the pack did not have the guts or the honour to admit they made a mistake. They have been digging themselves deeper ever since. Will the Italian Supreme Court take away their shovels tomorrow, or borrow them to continue digging until the hole caves in and buries them all? Their choice.

To be continued ... or not.

Cody
.

 

[Kaosium]

I'll skip the Gill stuff because it's patently obvious the other side of the argument is Gill is just opportunistically making the leap to the green fields of defense work. Opinions will differ.

Dr. Peter Gill already has a job, a prestigious one at that. Who would think he'd be intending to start a new career?

But your question as to why the Kercher's haven't "actually dealt with the evidence" in their search for the truth is galling. They've had more access to information than anyone on this board by a mile.

They came to their decision. You can disagree that they're right, but it's absurd to think they haven't been vigilant in coming to that belief, and you could at least respect that.

KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele to the compensation, jointly with each other, for damages in dealings with the constituted plaintiffs John Leslie Kercher, Arline Carol Lara Kercher, Lyle Kercher, John Ashley Kercher, and Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher, damages to be liquidated in another trial and awarding an immediately executive provisional [compensation] equal to the amount of 1,000,000 euro each in favour of John Leslie Kercher and Arline Carol Lara Kercher, and to 800,000 euro each in favour of Lyle Kercher, John Ashley Kercher and Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher, in addition to a lump-sum refund, Value Added Tax and CPA as required by law;

"Shame and eternal shame, nothing but shame!"

--Bourbon, Henry V; Act IV Scene 5. William Shakespeare

Those who live in glass houses ought not throw stones.

Especially at those who've rock solid foundations, like Dr. Peter Gill.

The Kerchers and their sycophants should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Samson]

Dr. Peter Gill already has a job, a prestigious one at that. Who would think he'd be intending to start a new career?





"Shame and eternal shame, nothing but shame!"

--Bourbon, Henry V; Act IV Scene 5. William Shakespeare

Those who live in glass houses ought not throw stones.

Especially at those who've rock solid foundations, like Dr. Peter Gill.

The Kerchers and their sycophants should be ashamed of themselves.

If events are adverse, this will run close to the saddest day I can imagine.
We are encountering a new paradigm that is a variant on fundamentalism.

 

[Kauffer]

The ones the defense never formally requested in court? Or barely alluded to in the Nencini appeal despite their case shattering importance?

Stefanoni actively lobbied the Micheli court to prevent raw data from being released to the defence - here's her response to the formal request from defence consultant, Pascali.

"No other information, especially of a computerized nature, such as the log files requested by Professor V. Pascali, is necessary, to a genetic scientist, for the interpretation of analytical data, unless one hypothesizes falsification of the data presented. If your Honor deems it necessary to provide this information (the only ever time in forensic history known to this office) the undersigned is willing as long as the technical consultant for the defense utilizes the same standard parameters of analysis utilized by our laboratories and recognized internationally, otherwise the data would be manipulated in a subjective manner."

His honour, Judge Micheli, did not consider it necessary.

The lack of discovery in this case, including this, is a violation of Italian law and the international principle of "equality of arms", which Italian law, constitutionally, is required to embrace.


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...fanoni-Micheli-Pascali-extra-data-request.pdf

 

[Kauffer]

I'll skip the Gill stuff because it's patently obvious the other side of the argument is Gill is just opportunistically making the leap to the green fields of defense work. Opinions will differ.

But your question as to why the Kercher's haven't "actually dealt with the evidence" in their search for the truth is galling. They've had more access to information than anyone on this board by a mile.
They came to their decision. You can disagree that they're right, but it's absurd to think they haven't been vigilant in coming to that belief, and you could at least respect that.

Is this the 'secret' evidence we've all been looking for? Perhaps it's the 'double secret' evidence? Or maybe it's just 'all the other evidence' which is often referred to on the hate sites but never actually seen or cited.

I wonder what John and Arline Kercher make of the complete absence of any physical evidence in their daughter's bedroom belonging to Ms Knox. Did it ever concern them? Who explained it away for them - convinced them that it isn't important?

 

[Samson]

I'll skip the Gill stuff because it's patently obvious the other side of the argument is Gill is just opportunistically making the leap to the green fields of defense work. Opinions will differ.

But your question as to why the Kercher's haven't "actually dealt with the evidence" in their search for the truth is galling. They've had more access to information than anyone on this board by a mile.

They came to their decision. You can disagree that they're right, but it's absurd to think they haven't been vigilant in coming to that belief, and you could at least respect that.

My contempt for the Kercher family knows no bounds.

 

[codyjuneau]

I'll skip the Gill stuff because it's patently obvious the other side of the argument is Gill is just opportunistically making the leap to the green fields of defense work. Opinions will differ.

But your question as to why the Kercher's haven't "actually dealt with the evidence" in their search for the truth is galling. They've had more access to information than anyone on this board by a mile.
They came to their decision. You can disagree that they're right, but it's absurd to think they haven't been vigilant in coming to that belief, and you could at least respect that.

Is this the 'secret' evidence we've all been looking for? Perhaps it's the 'double secret' evidence? Or maybe it's just 'all the other evidence' which is often referred to on the hate sites but never actually seen or cited.

I wonder what John and Arline Kercher make of the complete absence of any physical evidence in their daughter's bedroom belonging to Ms Knox. Did it ever concern them? Who explained it away for them - convinced them that it isn't important?

.
I suspect they have been fed all kinds of 'confidential' backroom BS of the same kind that Machiavelie continually posts here.

Cody
.

 

[JREF2010]

griffinmill, you can have your opinions but you cannot have the facts.

At the beginning of the Florence trial in 2013, the Sollecito defence asked for and were denied:

- a testing of the presumed semen stain on the pillow case
- additional genetic testing of Exhibit 165B​

And were denied. It is safe to say that if these had been allowed, then the EDFs of those tests would have been forthcoming, as they were when the RIS Carabinieri did their testing on Sample 36I. The RIS handed them over as a matter of procedure.

That guilters keep throwing this back at the defence as if they never complained is ludicrous.

Potentially the retesting of 165B would have answered ALL questions surrounding the additional contributors - including the identities of the non-Raffaele male-contributors.

It was plain that Nencini was not out after the truth - and has been made plain here, Stefanoni had already secured the cooperation of an earlier court which refused to order her to release the EDFs, lest it be thought the defence were accusing her of a crime. That set the tone for any further requests.

Look at the example of the RIS Carabinieri and get serious about this issue.

Thats a point Ive never heard before that the RIS Carabinieri handed theirs over without being requested, how very interesting.

Anyway I have some more proof Stefoni is a liar.
I have studied pictures of her.


My method is that I can tell by just looking at pictures of people, "who is guilty, who is lying". Its very easy for me to tell very quickly by using this method of studying pictures.

I dont need any other science, or Judges, no courts needed, I only need to stare at the picture of a person and I can tell very quickly if they are lying. I dont need DNA or Forensic's results, blah on all that...waste of my time!

I call this method of investigation the "Serious Crime Staring at Pictures Method".

Here is an example below-

 

[codyjuneau]

.
I cannot bring myself to judge the Kerchers. The human brain has an amazing ability to discard information it does not want to hear. I like to think that in the same situation I would be more logical, I would also like to think that in a really tough interrogation I would not cave to the pressure, but I cannot be sure of either.

If I truly believed that someone had murdered my daughter or son, there would be no punishment I would consider excessive, none.

The same also goes for some lying delusional prosecutor railroading my son or daughter into a 25 or 30 year prison term.

Cody
.