Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Has Peter Quennell's site gone off-line?

 

[carbonjam72]

If I am going to be the target of personal attack, I'll be off.

Apologies Vixen, no offense meant.

It's just I was so impressed by Hellman's handling of the acquittals, I find it frustrating to hear people criticize it, and be unwilling to provide any support for their criticism with actual examples.

So I'll be interested to see any offending passages from Hellman you would care to share.

 

[Vixen]

Apologies Vixen, no offense meant.

It's just I was so impressed by Hellman's handling of the acquittals, I find it frustrating to hear people criticize it, and be unwilling to provide any support for their criticism with actual examples.

So I'll be interested to see any offending passages from Hellman you would care to share.

Thanks for your gracious words, carbonjam72. I'll try to reread Hellmann in a new light and get back to you in due course.

Problem is, no matter how correct a judgment, it has to be legally robust, even if one disagrees with it.

Can anyone advise whether Judge Bruni was ever involved in mafia proceedings against him? ISTR reading it somewhere, but can find no mention on google.

 

[Vixen]

Years later it was discovered and it was determined that it had just been washed and was still wet when it was thrown into the laundary basket. how is this even possible if it isn't simply the product of someone's imagination?

Apologies, it was six weeks, not years.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meredith-kerchers-jumper-missed-by-police-154469

 

[Bill Williams]

Glass fragment impression found in every show print suggests the glass was embedded in the shoe, at least if we're going to be reasonable.

Apologies f I've misjudged you, but I think the reason you are "equally skeptical" is you simply like to argue, and feel you are out-smarting people with your dazzling sophistry. And that this feeling you get makes you giggle. Claiming to be "Bi-skeptical" simply maximizes your odds of another peversely "thrilling encounter".

You do cause me though, to reflect.

If you can't cite a single paragraph from Hellman to support your view, you're just not for real. Others will give you a good go though. So, Enjoy.

If I am going to be the target of personal attack, I'll be off.

Well, it is not a personal attack to comment on the content of your posts.

Since joining 2 days ago, you've made 50 posts, most with the content of casting doubt on the Hellmann-Zanetti court; which suspiciously looks like what the Marasca-Bruno court is about to write!!.

First it was to suggest that Hellmann-Zanetti might have been unethical to find guilt on Knox's alleged calunnia, simply to throw the wolves a bone. (As witnessed by Hellmann's post-March 27, 2015, comments - that action, if true, did not work! But those comments show that Hellmann was well aware that he'd not be the most popular judge in PLE circles, so it sort'a bolsters the claim that he'd tried to throw them a bone.)

Then with post #4172, your post suggests that Hellmann was out of his depth as a criminal-judge. Frankly, that is a tired, worn-out guilter-meme from perhaps 4 years ago, as an ad hominem way for guilters to claim that Hellmann got it wrong.

If it interests you, in this post-exoneration world, you can scroll back onto former continuations, where Machiavelli thrashed out a theme where he accused the president of the Appeals Court of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, of being a criminal for appointing Hellmann in the first place. You see, in the guilter world (made redundant in March of this year) it was not just their allegations of Hellmann's factoid-incompetence, it was the behind the scenes, Masonic-led criminality!

However, all that is past history. Why bother commenting at all about Hellmann.....? Other than that he got it right, and was slapped down by a party-ridden judiciary in March 2013, where Chieffi was simply trying to bolster the "power of the PMs"?

Back when you started posting, you also got the forensics completely wrong. You claimed that perhaps AK and RS were wearing gloves as the reason why their forensics were not found on the outside-handle of Meredith's door. You simply did not respond when corrected - the correct answer is that the outside handle was never tested: because as the PLE said, they thought of that handle as not part of the crimescene!!!! (That reality didn't phase you, you simply moved on....)

You then changed tack, by suggesting that Postal Inspector Battistelli found Knox remarkably nonplussed by Meredith's locked door. The reality was that everyone except Filomena was equally nonplussed, even Battistelli. Once again, you simply drop things and move on as if you'd not been corrected.

I asked you at the time (about Battistelli vs. Knox's assessment of what the locked door meant), "I am curious as to why you are now trying to put them on opposite sides of this issue." You gave no answer.

You then made the remarkable statement about Hellmann - returning to critiquing him: "Excuse me, but it wasn't Hellmann's place to judge the merits of the case. This was already done by Massei. Hellman was supposed to deal with the legal points in the appeal."

Once again, when corrected (Hellmann's court was a fact-finding court acc. to Italian process) you did make mention of being corrected, but simply made no acknowledgement of the implications of being corrected, and moved on.

I mentioned to you that your speculations were unproductive. Your answer? You said that the Marasca-Bruno decision of March 27, 2015, was based on "insufficient evidence." It clearly was not. It was a decision based on Hellmann's 4-year-old reasoning, that AK and/or RS were not involved, and that the sub-charges were crimes which did not exist. Once again, you ignored that and moved on.

When Strozzi said that police in many countries typically DO deny suspects comfort breaks at interrogation, you took the police's side in your post where you asked rhetorically, "but did Amanda ASK if she could have a comfort break?" Of course she did. When corrected, you simply ignored that and moved on.

You also said that Hellmann's 2011 acquittals was based partly on his appointment of Conti & Vecchiotti, who in yours words were appointed for a "limited exercise". This earned a response from Sept79 which said, "Are you, Vixen, actually saying that Stefanoni's findings should still be the defining scientific evidence in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution?"

Once again, it is partially ignored ignored. You said, "I have no idea. However, you would hope a very high up scientific police officer was trustworthy, professional and credible." Leaving it at that jaw-dropping statement, you moved on.

You then shifted gears, at first seeming to concede that Anna Donnino's presence as translator/interpretor/mediator/diplomat was appalling. Yet it makes it seem like you are on a crusade to forever throw things back on the wrongfully prosecuted by saying, out of the blue, "I am curious as to why Raf never complained about police brutality." (Have you read his book? Have you followed the actions against him and Grumbal initiated by Mignini?)

Then you say: "No, I have never posted on any forum before, apart from Mensa. I have read all the books on the case."

Then there is post #4264 where one last time Hellmann takes a thrashing from you:

I have to say, bearing in mind Cheffi's assessment of Hellmann, page 16 para 3 (about the non- existence of the staged burglary), p17 para 2, how of course, the pair would turn off their phones, to have a romantic evening in, and p 20 para 1 about "a clear violation of the law" ( amongst several others) in that defense lawyers were allowed to introduce new DNA evidence, without giving the prosecution the same opportunity, together with the denial of anything by Stefanoni, well, hey, what can one say?

Hellmann was quibbling with the conclusions the first court came to, when he should have looked at whether the reasons were within the range of a reasonable conclusion. Instead, he substitutes his own reasoning. This is fine in a philosophical debate, but in law, you need to be there at the trial, looking at the witnesses putting forward their testimony, perhaps even asking a few questions yourself. For example, "Mr Quintavalle, what made you wait a year?"

But do you know what? Hellmann is so far left field, the guy is a genius! There should be a Hellmann movie. Insofar 'Face of an Angel' is based on Barbie Nadeau, and a 'Don't Look Now' type journey through the labyrinthe alleys of Perugia, with Cara Delevinge providing the love interest against a Dante-ian Infernesque intrigue of dreams and nightmares, 'Face of Hell' should be a feel good movie.​

"Instead he substitutes his own reasoning"!??!???! You simply circle back to purposely misunderstand the appeals' court role!!! At that point we're right back at the beginning where you are tearing into Hellmann for completely illogical reasons, as if nothing had been presented at all.

This is not an ad hominem, character-based assessment of your posting history here. It is not a personal attack to comment on the content of your posts. There's an agenda here, that (frankly) is overwritten by the events of March 27, 2015.

 

[Vixen]

Well, it is not a personal attack to comment on the content of your posts.

Since joining 2 days ago, you've made 50 posts, most with the content of casting doubt on the Hellmann-Zanetti court; which suspiciously looks like what the Marasca-Bruno court is about to write!!.

First it was to suggest that Hellmann-Zanetti might have been unethical to find guilt on Knox's alleged calunnia, simply to throw the wolves a bone. (As witnessed by Hellmann's post-March 27, 2015, comments - that action, if true, did not work! But those comments show that Hellmann was well aware that he'd not be the most popular judge in PLE circles, so it sort'a bolsters the claim that he'd tried to throw them a bone.)

Then with post #4172, your post suggests that Hellmann was out of his depth as a criminal-judge. Frankly, that is a tired, worn-out guilter-meme from perhaps 4 years ago, as an ad hominem way for guilters to claim that Hellmann got it wrong.

If it interests you, in this post-exoneration world, you can scroll back onto former continuations, where Machiavelli thrashed out a theme where he accused the president of the Appeals Court of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, of being a criminal for appointing Hellmann in the first place. You see, in the guilter world (made redundant in March of this year) it was not just their allegations of Hellmann's factoid-incompetence, it was the behind the scenes, Masonic-led criminality!

However, all that is past history. Why bother commenting at all about Hellmann.....? Other than that he got it right, and was slapped down by a party-ridden judiciary in March 2013, where Chieffi was simply trying to bolster the "power of the PMs"?

Back when you started posting, you also got the forensics completely wrong. You claimed that perhaps AK and RS were wearing gloves as the reason why their forensics were not found on the outside-handle of Meredith's door. You simply did not respond when corrected - the correct answer is that the outside handle was never tested: because as the PLE said, they thought of that handle as not part of the crimescene!!!! (That reality didn't phase you, you simply moved on....)

You then changed tack, by suggesting that Postal Inspector Battistelli found Knox remarkably nonplussed by Meredith's locked door. The reality was that everyone except Filomena was equally nonplussed, even Battistelli. Once again, you simply drop things and move on as if you'd not been corrected.

I asked you at the time (about Battistelli vs. Knox's assessment of what the locked door meant), "I am curious as to why you are now trying to put them on opposite sides of this issue." You gave no answer.

You then made the remarkable statement about Hellmann - returning to critiquing him: "Excuse me, but it wasn't Hellmann's place to judge the merits of the case. This was already done by Massei. Hellman was supposed to deal with the legal points in the appeal."

Once again, when corrected (Hellmann's court was a fact-finding court acc. to Italian process) you did make mention of being corrected, but simply made no acknowledgement of the implications of being corrected, and moved on.

I mentioned to you that your speculations were unproductive. Your answer? You said that the Marasca-Bruno decision of March 27, 2015, was based on "insufficient evidence." It clearly was not. It was a decision based on Hellmann's 4-year-old reasoning, that AK and/or RS were not involved, and that the sub-charges were crimes which did not exists. Once again, you ignored that and moved on.

When Strozzi said that police in many countries typically DO deny suspects comfort breaks at interrogation, you took the police's side in your post where you asked rhetorically, "but did Amanda ASK if she could have a comfort break?" Of course she did. When corrected, you simply ignored that and moved on.

You also said that Hellmann's 2011 acquittals was based partly on his appointment of Conti & Vecchiotti, who in yours words were appointed for a "limited exercise". This earned a response from Sept79 which said, "Are you, Vixen, actually saying that Stefanoni's findings should still be the defining scientific evidence in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution?"

Once again, it is partially ignored ignored. You said, "I have no idea. However, you would hope a very high up scientific police officer was trustworthy, professional and credible." Leaving it at that jaw-dropping statement, you moved on.

You then shift gears, at first seeming to concede that Anna Donnino's presence as translator/interpretor/mediator/diplomat was appalling. Yet it makes it seem like you are on a crusade to forever throw thinks back on the wrongfully prosecuted by saying, out of the blue, "I am curious as to why Raf never complained about police brutality." (Have you read his book? Have you followed the actions against him and Grumbal initiated by Mignini?)

Then you say: "No, I have never posted on any forum before, apart from Mensa. I have read all the books on the case."

Then there is post #4264 where one last time Hellmann takes a thrashing from you:

​

"Instead he substitutes his own reasoning"!??!???! At that point we're right back at the beginning where you are tearing into Hellmann for completely illogical reasons, as if nothing had been presented at all.

This is not an ad hominem, character-based assessment of your posting history here. It is not a personal attack to comment on the content of your posts. There's an agenda here, that (frankly) is overwritten by the events of March 27, 2015.

You should take no further response as meaning, I have nothing further to add as of this point. Someone has to have the last word, and I am happy for it to be whoever.

It was my personal honest opinion it was perplexing to read Hellmann's report. I cannot help my visceral response. Normally I can follow a judge's reasoning even if it is convoluted.

I am beginning to realise that in Italy, anything goes. What we expect as rigorous reasoning in the higher courts of England & Wales doesn't apply as a model in Italy.

Having said that, I did find myself admiring Massei's motivation report, even though it could have been interpreted differently in places. The caveat is, I am only a layman. I can well imagine the prosecution slanted the evidence to win a conviction.

 

[Bill Williams]

You should take no further response as meaning, I have nothing further to add as of this point. Someone has to have the last word, and I am happy for it to be whoever.

It was my personal honest opinion it was perplexing to read Hellmann's report. I cannot help my visceral response. Normally I can follow a judge's reasoning even if it is convoluted.

I am beginning to realise that in Italy, anything goes. What we expect as rigorous reasoning in the higher courts of England & Wales doesn't apply as a model in Italy.

Having said that, I did find myself admiring Massei's motivation report, even though it could have been interpreted differently in places. The caveat is, I am only a layman. I can well imagine the prosecution slanted the evidence to win a conviction.

Except subsequent posts do not exhibit that! The posts cycle back to claims debunked.

No problem with being perplexed by Hellmann's report. If you admire the Massei report, then that's probably the reason Hellmann's reasoning is perplexing. At least you stay away from the Nencini report, which takes judicial booberie to a higher level.

As an admirer of the Massei report - you do realize, don't you, that the March 2013 Chieffi ISC report trashes substantial issues that Massei finds? One is motive. Massei found the motive, in convicting AK and RS, to be Rudy's and Rudy's alone, into which AK and RS attached themselves, in a last second, "choice for evil." It seems, then, that no one but you find Massei convincing. Guilters rarely cite it, Hellmann trashed it, Chieffi bypassed it, Nencini substituted his own buffoonery.

And it is clear what the March 2015 ISC court thought of it!

Massei's 2009 conclusions were not what Prosecutor Mignini advanced at trial, nor was it what got Chieffi hot and bothered. The florence prosecutor, Crini, barely made mention of Massei at all.

With your permission, many here will simply remind you of the times you simply cycle back to claims you imply, or make, then ignore and return to later as if nothing had been refuted.

 

[Dan O.]

Apologies, it was six weeks, not years.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meredith-kerchers-jumper-missed-by-police-154469

That's what happens when you rely on the tabloids for your facts. This is the same bloody blue adidas sweatshirt we have already been talking about. It was not "missed" by the police but somehow overlooked as a potential piece of evidence. The sweetshirt first appears in photo dsc_0113 where we see the edge of a sleeve sticking out from the corner of the duvet in front of the wardrobe in Meredith's room. A closer view in dsc_0158 clearly shows the sleeve is inside out. After Meredith's body is removed, the sweatshirt appears in several more photos right up to the end of the set for November 3. The police appear to be very interested in collecting blood samples from the floor and the wardrobe as if identifying the owner of all this blood is the most important thing.

The sweatshirt next appears being withdrawn from the clothes hamper in the December 18 video at time index 43:24

 

[Vixen]

Except subsequent posts do not exhibit that! The posts cycle back to claims debunked.

No problem with being perplexed by Hellmann's report. If you admire the Massei report, then that's probably the reason Hellmann's reasoning is perplexing. At least you stay away from the Nencini report, which takes judicial booberie to a higher level.

As an admirer of the Massei report - you do realize, don't you, that the March 2013 Chieffi ISC report trashes substantial issues that Massei finds? One is motive. Massei found the motive, in convicting AK and RS, to be Rudy's and Rudy's alone, into which AK and RS attached themselves, in a last second, "choice for evil." It seems, then, that no one but you find Massei convincing. Guilters rarely cite it, Hellmann trashed it, Chieffi bypassed it, Nencini substituted his own buffoonery.

And it is clear what the March 2015 ISC court thought of it!

Massei's 2009 conclusions were not what Prosecutor Mignini advanced at trial, nor was it what got Chieffi hot and bothered. The florence prosecutor, Crini, barely made mention of Massei at all.

With your permission, many here will simply remind you of the times you simply cycle back to claims you imply, or make, then ignore and return to later as if nothing had been refuted.

Hi Bill, I agree the motives given for the crimes are an absolute shambles. It's obvious to me "too many judges spoil the verdict". The Italian system is dreadful. The whole point of a judgment is to bring closure to a matter. In Italy, it just goes on and on....and on.

There is an adage, which I agree with, "Justice delayed, is justice denied".

You know as well as I do that simply refuting a claim is not the same as "being right".

If you have a view and mine differs, we can explain why - it's a forum after all - but there is no way I am going to try to brow beat someone into agreeing with me.

You are right. I avoid conflict. I don't tend to argue with people. On the Mensa forums, there are the most amazing flame wars over the most trivial points. I am sure readers of this forum do not want to be bored rigid by two people or more engaged in "handbagging".

I can only say that my views are honestly come by and they can be right or they can be wrong. Hey, we are all part-saint, part-jerk.

 

[Vixen]

That's what happens when you rely on the tabloids for your facts. This is the same bloody blue adidas sweatshirt we have already been talking about. It was not "missed" by the police but somehow overlooked as a potential piece of evidence. The sweetshirt first appears in photo dsc_0113 where we see the edge of a sleeve sticking out from the corner of the duvet in front of the wardrobe in Meredith's room. A closer view in dsc_0158 clearly shows the sleeve is inside out. After Meredith's body is removed, the sweatshirt appears in several more photos right up to the end of the set for November 3. The police appear to be very interested in collecting blood samples from the floor and the wardrobe as if identifying the owner of all this blood is the most important thing.

The sweatshirt next appears being withdrawn from the clothes hamper in the December 18 video at time index 43:24

OK, thanks.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hi Bill, I agree the motives given for the crimes are an absolute shambles. It's obvious to me "too many judges spoil the verdict". The Italian system is dreadful. The whole point of a judgment is to bring closure to a matter. In Italy, it just goes on and on....and on.

There is an adage, which I agree with, "Justice delayed, is justice denied".

You know as well as I do that simply refuting a claim is not the same as "being right".

If you have a view and mine differs, we can explain why - it's a forum after all - but there is no way I am going to try to brow beat someone into agreeing with me.

You are right. I avoid conflict. I don't tend to argue with people. On the Mensa forums, there are the most amazing flame wars over the most trivial points. I am sure readers of this forum do not want to be bored rigid by two people or more engaged in "handbagging".

I can only say that my views are honestly come by and they can be right or they can be wrong. Hey, we are all part-saint, part-jerk.

The point is - the motive is not in shambles. There was no motive for AK and/or RS to have been involved. That's the point. I never said you avoided conflict, so it is puzzling why you'd say that.

You know as well as I do that simply refuting a claim is not the same as "being right".

I do not "know this". If you make a claim and it is refuted, the claim remains refuted. Any other way of putting it is argumentative (which you claim to avoid) using sophistry as an argumentative principle.

Yet you return to the claim......

 

[Grinder]

Apologies, it was six weeks, not years.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meredith-kerchers-jumper-missed-by-police-154469

First of all I asked first

Secondly it wasn't the years that was most egregious it was the condition.

It is quite amazing they did not spot Mez' then wet jumper, just washed, in the laundry basket, for several years.

It wasn't wet, it hadn't been washed and lastly it wasn't years.

 

[Antony]

If I am going to be the target of personal attack, I'll be off.

I don't understand how name-calling is helpful or even polite.

This is a pattern of behaviour that we've seen before. A PG contributor posts, making a show of impartiality, but soon begins trotting out long-discredited arguments. In this case, it's Hellmann who becomes the subject of attack on unspecified grounds, rather than the defendants - who all of a sudden have at least theoretical protection against defamation.

Once the contributor gets their arguments and unsupported assertions chopped up and handed to them on a plate, they start to complain about personal attacks and name-calling. It was just a matter of how long it would take.

 

[Kaosium]

It is a puzzle the defense did not insist on bringing this evidence.

That's a strange way of looking at it, it's even more inexplicable that it wasn't tested as a matter of course by the prosecution. After all it's a stain that lit up like it was semen under a crime scope that was found on a pillow that rested underneath the hips of a mostly naked murder victim who had the DNA of an attacker inside her.

AIUI they did not, as they feared the police would frame Raf for it.

It was found by Raffaele's defense, no one was (officially) aware of it until Prof. Vinci examined the pillowcase, circa May of 2009. Near the end of the Trial of the First Instance they filed a request to have the stain tested, which they reiterated in their appeal (pre-Hellmann) and then again in further appeals. The prosecution and Maresca (Kercher lawyer) always objected to it being tested, Raffaele's defense just didn't demand it be tested during the Massei trial by Stefanoni's lab, a rational fear considering the crap foisted upon the court from that quarter.

Why was it not part of the evidence? Seems strange to me.

Yes, it's very strange. One possible reason is the prosecution and Maresca knew it was Rudy Guede's and it being tested would destroy the fantasy Mignini was pitching to the court (and sold to the Kerchers) which absolved Rudy Guede of most of the responsibility of the crime ('poor, poor Rudy' as Mignini put it in court), instead having Amanda Knox as the instigator of the crime, with Rudy and Raffaele the besotted sycophants of Mistress Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

This is a pattern of behaviour that we've seen before. A PG contributor posts, making a show of impartiality, but soon begins trotting out long-discredited arguments. In this case, it's Hellmann who becomes the subject of attack on unspecified grounds, rather than the defendants - who all of a sudden have at least theoretical protection against defamation.

Once the contributor gets their arguments and unsupported assertions chopped up and handed to them on a plate, they start to complain about personal attacks and name-calling. It was just a matter of how long it would take.

I feel like I've stumbled into a medieval rural community and after some initial hospitality, I am suddenly surrounded by the villagers wielding pitchforks.

"Argh, you don't be argh-sking no questions around here!"

Er, thanks for your warm welcome, Antony.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a pattern of behaviour that we've seen before. A PG contributor posts, making a show of impartiality, but soon begins trotting out long-discredited arguments. In this case, it's Hellmann who becomes the subject of attack on unspecified grounds, rather than the defendants - who all of a sudden have at least theoretical protection against defamation.

Once the contributor gets their arguments and unsupported assertions chopped up and handed to them on a plate, they start to complain about personal attacks and name-calling. It was just a matter of how long it would take.

This is what I was getting at.

Key to this is the claim asserted by the contributor that, "the motives given for the crimes are an absolute shambles. It's obvious to me 'too many judges spoil the verdict'. The Italian system is dreadful."

Given that the finality of it is, "they didn't do it, most of the crimes they were tried for did not exist," it is no wonder that someone with this agenda would want to (now) say it is all the courts' fault.

It's not that "the motives (offered by the courts) are in shambles," as if the problem was a confused court system, which was so confused that they did not know how to prosecute two obviously guilty people.....

.... it's that there was NO motive from the git-go for AK or RS to have been involved at all.

This is a pattern of behaviour that we've seen before. It is not apparent from the posts that the person is PG, really. There's lots of rhetorical retreat room in the posts. I was only trying to look at this objectively.....

It is clear that the only way to look at this objectively is to accept that the finality of it is as per March 27, 2015. There is an obvious agenda for reopening 4 year-old guilter memes as if there is some question.... maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.... I could be right, so could you. It's still a matter of opinion, or as per upthread.....

The whole point of a judgment is to bring closure to a matter. In Italy, it just goes on and on....and on.

There is an adage, which I agree with, "Justice delayed, is justice denied".

You know as well as I do that simply refuting a claim is not the same as "being right".

If you have a view and mine differs, we can explain why - it's a forum after all - but there is no way I am going to try to brow beat someone into agreeing with me.

You are right. I avoid conflict. I don't tend to argue with people. On the Mensa forums, there are the most amazing flame wars over the most trivial points. I am sure readers of this forum do not want to be bored rigid by two people or more engaged in "handbagging".

I can only say that my views are honestly come by and they can be right or they can be wrong. Hey, we are all part-saint, part-jerk.​

........ which is bloated sophistry. (And that is the mildest, most fair rendering of the posts, not the poster.)

 

[Bill Williams]

I feel like I've stumbled into a medieval rural community and after some initial hospitality, I am suddenly surrounded by the villagers wielding pitchforks.

"Argh, you don't be argh-sking no questions around here!"
Er, thanks for your warm welcome, Antony.

You are asking questions which have long since been answered. Then, you simply return to the issue as if it is still a question; not acknowledging the answer at all.

 

[Grinder]

According to Yummi/Mach and implied by Vixen (google "Amanda Knox" Vixen and get 189,000 hits and they are referring to her as a vixen) it was the defenses fault the stain wasn't tested. If the prosecution saw it and didn't test it that obviously raises a huge red flag. The reason given for not testing was that the bloody shoe print would be compromised. I have already put the above reason forward but no response. So I ask again why wouldn't a photo suffice of the shoe print? How could any visible stain on the pillow below the body not be tested. If it was from someone other than Rudi, Raf or Giacomo then we'd have the accomplice, no?

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, it is not a personal attack to comment on the content of your posts.

Since joining 2 days ago, you've made 50 posts, most with the content of casting doubt on the Hellmann-Zanetti court; which suspiciously looks like what the Marasca-Bruno court is about to write!!.

First it was to suggest that Hellmann-Zanetti might have been unethical to find guilt on Knox's alleged calunnia, simply to throw the wolves a bone. (As witnessed by Hellmann's post-March 27, 2015, comments - that action, if true, did not work! But those comments show that Hellmann was well aware that he'd not be the most popular judge in PLE circles, so it sort'a bolsters the claim that he'd tried to throw them a bone.)

Then with post #4172, your post suggests that Hellmann was out of his depth as a criminal-judge. Frankly, that is a tired, worn-out guilter-meme from perhaps 4 years ago, as an ad hominem way for guilters to claim that Hellmann got it wrong.

If it interests you, in this post-exoneration world, you can scroll back onto former continuations, where Machiavelli thrashed out a theme where he accused the president of the Appeals Court of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, of being a criminal for appointing Hellmann in the first place. You see, in the guilter world (made redundant in March of this year) it was not just their allegations of Hellmann's factoid-incompetence, it was the behind the scenes, Masonic-led criminality!

However, all that is past history. Why bother commenting at all about Hellmann.....? Other than that he got it right, and was slapped down by a party-ridden judiciary in March 2013, where Chieffi was simply trying to bolster the "power of the PMs"?

Back when you started posting, you also got the forensics completely wrong. You claimed that perhaps AK and RS were wearing gloves as the reason why their forensics were not found on the outside-handle of Meredith's door. You simply did not respond when corrected - the correct answer is that the outside handle was never tested: because as the PLE said, they thought of that handle as not part of the crimescene!!!! (That reality didn't phase you, you simply moved on....)

You then changed tack, by suggesting that Postal Inspector Battistelli found Knox remarkably nonplussed by Meredith's locked door. The reality was that everyone except Filomena was equally nonplussed, even Battistelli. Once again, you simply drop things and move on as if you'd not been corrected.

I asked you at the time (about Battistelli vs. Knox's assessment of what the locked door meant), "I am curious as to why you are now trying to put them on opposite sides of this issue." You gave no answer.

You then made the remarkable statement about Hellmann - returning to critiquing him: "Excuse me, but it wasn't Hellmann's place to judge the merits of the case. This was already done by Massei. Hellman was supposed to deal with the legal points in the appeal."

Once again, when corrected (Hellmann's court was a fact-finding court acc. to Italian process) you did make mention of being corrected, but simply made no acknowledgement of the implications of being corrected, and moved on.

I mentioned to you that your speculations were unproductive. Your answer? You said that the Marasca-Bruno decision of March 27, 2015, was based on "insufficient evidence." It clearly was not. It was a decision based on Hellmann's 4-year-old reasoning, that AK and/or RS were not involved, and that the sub-charges were crimes which did not exist. Once again, you ignored that and moved on.

When Strozzi said that police in many countries typically DO deny suspects comfort breaks at interrogation, you took the police's side in your post where you asked rhetorically, "but did Amanda ASK if she could have a comfort break?" Of course she did. When corrected, you simply ignored that and moved on.

You also said that Hellmann's 2011 acquittals was based partly on his appointment of Conti & Vecchiotti, who in yours words were appointed for a "limited exercise". This earned a response from Sept79 which said, "Are you, Vixen, actually saying that Stefanoni's findings should still be the defining scientific evidence in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution?"

Once again, it is partially ignored ignored. You said, "I have no idea. However, you would hope a very high up scientific police officer was trustworthy, professional and credible." Leaving it at that jaw-dropping statement, you moved on.

You then shifted gears, at first seeming to concede that Anna Donnino's presence as translator/interpretor/mediator/diplomat was appalling. Yet it makes it seem like you are on a crusade to forever throw things back on the wrongfully prosecuted by saying, out of the blue, "I am curious as to why Raf never complained about police brutality." (Have you read his book? Have you followed the actions against him and Grumbal initiated by Mignini?)

Then you say: "No, I have never posted on any forum before, apart from Mensa. I have read all the books on the case."

Then there is post #4264 where one last time Hellmann takes a thrashing from you:

​

"Instead he substitutes his own reasoning"!??!???! You simply circle back to purposely misunderstand the appeals' court role!!! At that point we're right back at the beginning where you are tearing into Hellmann for completely illogical reasons, as if nothing had been presented at all.

This is not an ad hominem, character-based assessment of your posting history here. It is not a personal attack to comment on the content of your posts. There's an agenda here, that (frankly) is overwritten by the events of March 27, 2015.

Oh Dear. For Heaven's sake. Nice summary.

 

[RoseMontague]

According to Yummi/Mach and implied by Vixen (google "Amanda Knox" Vixen and get 189,000 hits and they are referring to her as a vixen) it was the defenses fault the stain wasn't tested. If the prosecution saw it and didn't test it that obviously raises a huge red flag. The reason given for not testing was that the bloody shoe print would be compromised. I have already put the above reason forward but no response. So I ask again why wouldn't a photo suffice of the shoe print? How could any visible stain on the pillow below the body not be tested. If it was from someone other than Rudi, Raf or Giacomo then we'd have the accomplice, no?

Simples. Swab a section of the stain that doesn't show part of the shoe print. You have the photos as a backup as well.

The prosecution simply didn't want possibly exculpatory evidence to be admitted. None of them believed it would belong to anyone other than Rudy Guede, in my opinion.