Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

That's a knowingly untrue claim, given I gave the relevant quotes.

Not at all. You consistently make claims without providing evidence and I, as well as others, have called you on it on several occasions. I've had to ask you to provide quotes and cite the source.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vinci was torn part under cross examination. The court preferred Rinaldi & Boemia. Massei let Papa Raff have his crumb of comfort that the shoeprint in the room was Rudy's, even though, like the size 37 ladies ASCIS, that actual shoe was never recovered, either. However, he accepted the bathmat fooprint was highly compatible with Raff's foot and not at all compatible with Amanda's or Rudy's.

Vinci the fraud photoshopped her images to make them look compatible. Hardly scientific. Paid handsomely by the defense to blag it.

Massei preferred R and B. Hellmann accepted Vinci's conclusion it was not compatible with Raffaele. Marasca makes no mention of the bath mat footprint and assigns it to no one.

I truly have to laugh at this:

"Massei let Papa Raff have his crumb of comfort that the shoeprint in the room was Rudy's, even though, like the size 37 ladies ASCIS, that actual shoe was never recovered, either. "

No one, not even the prosecution, continued to claim the bloody shoeprints belonged to anyone but Guede after Vinci proved the sole pattern match Guede's Nike Outbreak 2 shoes.

The "ladies" shoe was never proved to be an ASCIS and Vinci found it to be a partial print of Guede's shoe as this picture shows No evidence was presented of Amanda ever having owned a pair.

Vinci didn't "photoshop" the images. He highlighted them with Crimescope which makes the image details more visible.

So now even Vinci is dishonest and was paid off, huh? Along with Hellmann and any other expert who disagreed with the prosecution experts?

 

[Stacyhs]

No, you have the same access to resources as me. If I have the knowledge Stefanoni specifically stated it was not menstrual blood in the bathroom, how come you do not?

I quoted from TJMK about the false claims regarding the noise violation in DD. YOUR claim was regarding Stefanoni saying that the blood was not menstrual. But nice try at deflection. Your continuing failure to provide the quote and page citation shows you cannot because you would if you could.

Once again, it is not my responsibility to go searching for evidence supporting your claims. It is yours. But you know that, don't you?

 

[Grinder]

Be that as it may, how does one reconcile that if they really meant the perception to be different, they could have easily changed the "boiler plate" language to make it clear?

This has been bugging me as I've been lurking for the last 3 years.

530.2 could have been easily worded "because it was shown that beyond a reasonable doubt, the applicants did not commit the act."
While 530.1 says: "because the applicants did not commit the act"

My point is if the intent was to cause a difference in perception then they should have worded it accordingly. They are lawyers, that's what they do.

I must accept that when they write "because the applicants did not commit the act", then they darn well mean they did not commit the act. Those are extremely powerful words. My perception, after spending a lot of time with my lawyer friends, is that they make it clear and unambiguous in their documents.

I know, I'm free to believe anything I want Grinder, and I accept your statement that a lawyer told you that, in Italy, there is a perception difference between the two rulings, but my perception differs.

530,2 is basically exactly that
The pro forma part is the wording in the motivation report. The lawyer's statement was provided by me against my POV. Except for a tiny group it is evident that a comma 2 is at a minimum perceived to be a lessor form of not guilty than a comma 1. In a similar way as a Scot seeing a "not proven" verdict interprets that to mean not as clear an acquitted as "not guilty". The law was updated a few years ago but the courts obviously still use the different commas and the public interprets them differently.

Art. 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code
of acquittal judgment.
1. If the fact does not exist, if the accused has not committed, if the offense is not or is not required by law as a crime or if the offense was committed by a person not responsible [85 scp] or not punishable for a ' other reason, the court ruling of acquittal on their cause in the device [254 trans.].
2. The judge pronounces acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence that the thing certain, that the accused committed it, that constitutes a criminal offense or the offense was committed by the person responsible.​

The code as you can see does not have "for not have committing the crime" in the code.

Toto used an article that quoted an news source that quoted the "for not having committed the act (crime)" as proof it is not perceived as a lesser acquittal but as of yet no one has provided a comma 2 verdict that didn't use the pro forma phrase.

 

[Vixen]

I quoted from TJMK about the false claims regarding the noise violation in DD. YOUR claim was regarding Stefanoni saying that the blood was not menstrual. But nice try at deflection. Your continuing failure to provide the quote and page citation shows you cannot because you would if you could.

Once again, it is not my responsibility to go searching for evidence supporting your claims. It is yours. But you know that, don't you?

p331 Darkness Descending. If you dispute a fact, the onus is on you to state why. Do you really think a Forensic Scientist wouldn't know the difference between various bodily fluids. The idea is contemptible.

Because you make things up, yourself, you think everyone else has the same low standards as you. For example, your claim Amanda and Raff remain the warmest of friends.

 

[Vixen]

Massei preferred R and B. Hellmann accepted Vinci's conclusion it was not compatible with Raffaele. Marasca makes no mention of the bath mat footprint and assigns it to no one.

I truly have to laugh at this:

"Massei let Papa Raff have his crumb of comfort that the shoeprint in the room was Rudy's, even though, like the size 37 ladies ASCIS, that actual shoe was never recovered, either. "

No one, not even the prosecution, continued to claim the bloody shoeprints belonged to anyone but Guede after Vinci proved the sole pattern match Guede's Nike Outbreak 2 shoes.

The "ladies" shoe was never proved to be an ASCIS and Vinci found it to be a partial print of Guede's shoe as this picture shows No evidence was presented of Amanda ever having owned a pair.

Vinci didn't "photoshop" the images. He highlighted them with Crimescope which makes the image details more visible.

So now even Vinci is dishonest and was paid off, huh? Along with Hellmann and any other expert who disagreed with the prosecution experts?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/71669571e5c5f8752b.png[/qimg]

Unfortunately for you, Hellmann was spiked, shredded, expunged.

 

[Vixen]

Machiavelli has announced that Carla Vecchiotti has been found guilty of professional misconduct and for lying in the #Olgiata case. It follows we can have no confidence in her professional integrity in the Kercher case.

This is someone who allows herself to be wined and dined by the defense whilst supposedly giving impartial evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Machiavelli has announced that Carla Vecchiotti has been found guilty of professional misconduct and for lying in the #Olgiata case. It follows we can have no confidence in her professional integrity in the Kercher case.

This is someone who allows herself to be wined and dined by the defense whilst supposedly giving impartial evidence.

Emerges also a glaring error committed by the experts (Pascali, Vecchiotti and Arbarello): in boxes that hold some findings of Olgiata crime, in fact, are found the hairy formations belonging to Samuele Lorenzi, the son of Annamaria Franzoni killed in Cogne 30 January 2002. Vincenzo Pascali had dealt with both cases and apparently there had been, on the part of his team, little foresight in handling the exhibits. - See more at: http://www.nottecriminale.it/delitt...erta-dell-assassino.html#sthash.8L2riiur.dpuf​

The only references in the last month I can find are blogs. Do you have some proof? Mach doesn't count.

 

[Planigale]

Emerges also a glaring error committed by the experts (Pascali, Vecchiotti and Arbarello): in boxes that hold some findings of Olgiata crime, in fact, are found the hairy formations belonging to Samuele Lorenzi, the son of Annamaria Franzoni killed in Cogne 30 January 2002. Vincenzo Pascali had dealt with both cases and apparently there had been, on the part of his team, little foresight in handling the exhibits. - See more at: http://www.nottecriminale.it/delitt...erta-dell-assassino.html#sthash.8L2riiur.dpuf​

The only references in the last month I can find are blogs. Do you have some proof? Mach doesn't count.

From Wikipedia (google translate) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delitto_dell'Olgiata
'The Civil Court of Rome on 21.04.2016 ruling at first instance sentenced the technical consultants of Pascali office Vicenzo Lorenzo, Arbarello Paul and Carla Vecchiotti for negligence in the performance of examinations of exhibits on the murder of the Countess, liquidating damages total of more than EUR 150,000 attributed, at the request of close relatives of the countess, the Foundation Alberica Filo della Torre in order to be used in charitable activities.'

So it appears a civil not criminal case, brought by the husband of the murder victim. Presumably subject to appeal. The murder occurred in 1991. The big error appears to be by the prosecutor who recorded a phone conversation of the murderer trying to sell the stolen jewels but failed to listen to the recording until 2011. Pascali et al carry out an independent analysis in 2007 and fail to identify some blood stains? That are subsequently identified by the carabinieri laboratory in 2011. Resulting in the conviction of the murderer. The husband has complained about the whole investigation being negligent and taking 20 years to solve the crime. I think Pascali et al. as 'civilian' consultants got caught up in this. Presumably it is difficult to sue the state agents. I cannot judge the negligence case against Pascali et al as there is no technical information.

ETA
The husband's main complaint was against the investigators / prosecutors but was unsuccessful
https://www.facebook.com/FondazioneFiloDellaTorre
'If, on the other hand, those prosecutors had acquired the above evidence of evidence, would have been spared to me and to my children 20 years of agony. If these prosecutors had not taken over the dr. Ssa Loy, and if I hadn't insistitamente tenaciously and asked for the reopening of the investigation, the murder would have remained to this day go unpunished.
Today the court of cassation declares that no one will pay for these incredible mistakes, because everything is prescribed.
I leave you to every comment."
Peter Mattei

 

[acbytesla]

Ford is good. Probably the best, but only one important parallel. Note the families of the victims behave disgracefully, like the Kerchers, in the face of conclusive evidence they hated the wrong people.

Nothing about this is strange. The family of the slain child Maria Ridulph have not acted any differently to the recent exoneration of Jack McCullough a 70 year old man convicted about 5 years ago in a murder that took place 5 decades before in Illinois. Interesting that McCullough is also a resident of Seattle. The authorities in this case like with Amanda also acted in a corrupt fashion. They deliberately ignored and withheld exculpatory evidence that would have cleared him. The family has vilified the new prosecutor that uncovered the problems with the case.

 

[Planigale]

Machiavelli has announced that Carla Vecchiotti has been found guilty of professional misconduct and for lying in the #Olgiata case. It follows we can have no confidence in her professional integrity in the Kercher case.

This is someone who allows herself to be wined and dined by the defense whilst supposedly giving impartial evidence.

Does this apply to Mignini? Napoleoni? Steffanoni (not before a court but demonstratively provided false verbal and written testimony to court with reference to the DNA testing of the knife)?

The evidence should speak for itself. The fact is the sample from the blade was quantified as having no detectable DNA which for other samples resulted in no further processing. Unusually Steffanoni typed a sample that was quantified as having no detectable DNA. She subsequently misled the court about this in written and verbal testimony.

 

[Planigale]

Unfortunately for you, Hellmann was spiked, shredded, expunged.

As expected from your post - not true. Callunia anyone?

 

[LondonJohn]

As expected from your post - not true. Callunia anyone?

Exactly. And in addition, one could just as easily employ the same poor thinking and bias to write that "Massei was spiked, shredded, expunged" or "Nencini was spiked, shredded, expunged".

It's funny: sometimes I wish that there was decent, objective, intellectually-honest argument being made (here or elsewhere) in favour of the convictions of Knox and/or Sollecito, because that would present a proper challenge to my point of view. But then I pinch myself and realise that in fact, while it's probably possible to make such arguments in certain very narrow respects, it's next to impossible to make such arguments in the sense of the overarching judicial or factual guilt of Knox or Sollecito. Which is precisely why I have been comfortable and confident to reach my own provisional conclusions on the case in the first place.

 

[Desert Fox]

Nothing about this is strange. The family of the slain child Maria Ridulph have not acted any differently to the recent exoneration of Jack McCullough a 70 year old man convicted about 5 years ago in a murder that took place 5 decades before in Illinois. Interesting that McCullough is also a resident of Seattle. The authorities in this case like with Amanda also acted in a corrupt fashion. They deliberately ignored and withheld exculpatory evidence that would have cleared him. The family has vilified the new prosecutor that uncovered the problems with the case.

It is this pattern of misconduct among prosecutors seemingly everywhere which really bothers me. Often they aided by judges as well.

 

[Mr Fied]

Exactly. And in addition, one could just as easily employ the same poor thinking and bias to write that "Massei was spiked, shredded, expunged" or "Nencini was spiked, shredded, expunged".

It's funny: sometimes I wish that there was decent, objective, intellectually-honest argument being made (here or elsewhere) in favour of the convictions of Knox and/or Sollecito, because that would present a proper challenge to my point of view. But then I pinch myself and realise that in fact, while it's probably possible to make such arguments in certain very narrow respects, it's next to impossible to make such arguments in the sense of the overarching judicial or factual guilt of Knox or Sollecito. Which is precisely why I have been comfortable and confident to reach my own provisional conclusions on the case in the first place.

I just do not understand this idiotic compulsion with Hellmann.

The case is over, the highest court came to the decision that the pair are not guilty. (retaining their presumed innocence )

There was only one previous court who therefore arrived at the correct verdict.

 

[acbytesla]

It is this pattern of misconduct among prosecutors seemingly everywhere which really bothers me. Often they aided by judges as well.

It certainly seems that many of these wrongful convictions follow an ugly pattern. As in the Kercher case the police and judges in the Ridulph murder worked in concert to do the wrong thing. Sadly, once the police focus in on a specific suspect they often doggedly do everything within their power to bag their prey. They must take their shot. Frankly, the evidence against Jack McCullough IMO was worse than it was against Amanda. An eyewitness which identified him in a photo lineup almost 5 decades later. And the police hid the fact that 50 years earlier the same witness did not identify him. The authorities also moved the time line to fit the suspect. Sound familiar?

I read this recent story and realize that people are immoral and dishonest once an idea solidifies into a belief. As in the thousands of years of countless religions they become fixated on foolishness they will not only stoop to lying and obfuscation but to killing, even themselves to keep their belief alive. The stupidity of man/woman knows no bounds.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly. And in addition, one could just as easily employ the same poor thinking and bias to write that "Massei was spiked, shredded, expunged" or "Nencini was spiked, shredded, expunged".

It's funny: sometimes I wish that there was decent, objective, intellectually-honest argument being made (here or elsewhere) in favour of the convictions of Knox and/or Sollecito, because that would present a proper challenge to my point of view. But then I pinch myself and realise that in fact, while it's probably possible to make such arguments in certain very narrow respects, it's next to impossible to make such arguments in the sense of the overarching judicial or factual guilt of Knox or Sollecito. Which is precisely why I have been comfortable and confident to reach my own provisional conclusions on the case in the first place.

I just do not understand this idiotic compulsion with Hellmann.

The case is over, the highest court came to the decision that the pair are not guilty. (retaining their presumed innocence )

There was only one previous court who therefore arrived at the correct verdict.

Arguably all the lower courts got "spiked, shredded, and expunged." (We can now add those three words to our growing Italian, legal vocabulary!)

 

[Anode]

How the Brits really feel about the ECHR:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...etch-what-has-the-echr-ever-done-for-us-video

 

[Desert Fox]

It certainly seems that many of these wrongful convictions follow an ugly pattern. As in the Kercher case the police and judges in the Ridulph murder worked in concert to do the wrong thing. Sadly, once the police focus in on a specific suspect they often doggedly do everything within their power to bag their prey. They must take their shot. Frankly, the evidence against Jack McCullough IMO was worse than it was against Amanda. An eyewitness which identified him in a photo lineup almost 5 decades later. And the police hid the fact that 50 years earlier the same witness did not identify him. The authorities also moved the time line to fit the suspect. Sound familiar?

I read this recent story and realize that people are immoral and dishonest once an idea solidifies into a belief. As in the thousands of years of countless religions they become fixated on foolishness they will not only stoop to lying and obfuscation but to killing, even themselves to keep their belief alive. The stupidity of man/woman knows no bounds.

Samson and I were talking about the Norfolk Four and it seems very much this same thing. When the DNA kept coming back not being them, they just kept adding more people and some kind of seven man gangbang.

 

[Bill Williams]

It seems Carla Vecchiotti has been civilly, not criminally, sanctioned.

Of course the conspiratorially minded - like me - suspects this may be good old fashioned pay-back of some kind.

Still - remove Conti & Vecchiotti from the second trial and there remains no DNA expert anywhere who'll vouch for Stefanoni's original forensic work.

But it sure will be fun for some to cut into Vecchiotti. Kind of like saying Peyton Manning played poorly last Super Bowl, but never mentioning that the Broncos won.