Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

I have corrected you on this multiple times. That you say this again just shows you will not accept facts. The courts are clear. The did not rule on who stabbed the victim. The case was never put to them by the prosecution that Guede stabbed Kercher. Since the case was not put they could not come to a judgement.
There is no scientific evidence that Knox wielded the knife. The Manga Sollecito had included NO knife killing of vampires. (Actually vampires did the killing this was not Buffy!)

I really should not bother with you lies.

Fact: Massei ruled that Amanda wielded the knife that caused the fatal stab wound.

Fact: Raff's manga comic was called Blood- The Last Vampire. Blood, an ancient Japanese vampire dating back 950 years IIRC meets a sticky end at Halloween, her body posed in a similar position to Mez', in Raff's comic.

The reader can judge for themself which one of us is a liar.

 

[Planigale]

Fact: Massei ruled that Amanda wielded the knife that caused the fatal stab wound.

Fact: Raff's manga comic was called Blood- The Last Vampire. Blood, an ancient Japanese vampire dating back 950 years IIRC meets a sticky end at Halloween, her body posed in a similar position to Mez', in Raff's comic.

The reader can judge for themself which one of us is a liar.

Have you read it? I have. The heroine Saya is a vampire she uses a katana not a knife. She does the killing she is not killed. You just talk nonsense. The most convincing evidence of Knox's innocence is the number of lies you tell.

 

[Desert Fox]

Damn, I have watched that movie and it was pretty good. . . .Actually it was a Korean, not Japanese, movie if I remember correctly.

 

[acbytesla]

Fact: Massei ruled that Amanda wielded the knife that caused the fatal stab wound.

Fact: There is no evidence whatsoever from which anyone can draw that conclusion. If there is, point to it.

Fact: Raff's manga comic was called Blood- The Last Vampire. Blood, an ancient Japanese vampire dating back 950 years IIRC meets a sticky end at Halloween, her body posed in a similar position to Mez', in Raff's comic.

Fact: This is not true. And it still is not evidence that Raffaele committed a murder.

The reader can judge for themself which one of us is a liar.

Ditto.

 

[Bill Williams]

Fact: Massei ruled that Amanda wielded the knife that caused the fatal stab wound.

Fact: There is no evidence whatsoever from which anyone can draw that conclusion. If there is, point to it.

Draw which conclusion? That Amanda wielded the knife, or that Massei believed Amanda wielded the knife. I think Vixen is referring to the latter.

Vixen errs when saying that Massei found this as fact. Massei said that Amanda's DNA could have got onto the knife just as easily in using it for murder as using it for cutting food.

Even this consideration (ie. that the lone piece of Amanda's DNA found is at the spot one might think is there because of striking with it as if a weapon), therefore, leads one to hold that the biological trace attributable to Amanda and found on the knife handle, could have derived from the use of the knife for the purpose of striking, rather than to cut food; it could have derived, therefore, from the harmful action carried out against Meredith and as a consequence, a biological trace attributable to Meredith remained in the tiny striations present on the face of the blade, in spite of the subsequent cleaning, and which does not appear otherwise explainable as to how, in this regard, it was to be found there (Meredith had never been in Raffaele Sollecito’s house and could never have used this knife).​

Whatever you make of Massei's illogic here, one thing is clear - Massei did NOT find it as factual, as per Vixen's statement. He found it as possible.

Then again, there is the issue of the striations.... which no one else but Stefanoni claimed to have seen, and which Stefanoni said could not be photographed.

How silly does Vixen want to make all this?

 

[Vixen]

Have you read it? I have. The heroine Saya is a vampire she uses a katana not a knife. She does the killing she is not killed. You just talk nonsense. The most convincing evidence of Knox's innocence is the number of lies you tell.

Bollocks. You are probably referring to a more recent film version, one of many.

I attached a copy of the death scene from Raff's comic for you before and some PIP got the mods to remove.

Thank you for confirming you wilfully twist the truth and deny it, in order to deceive and mislead the unwary reader. So much for your quasi-'objective scientist' stance.

QED::

 

[acbytesla]

Bollocks. You are probably referring to a more recent film version, one of many.

I attached a copy of the death scene from Raff's comic for you before and some PIP got the mods to remove.

Thank you for confirming you wilfully twist the truth and deny it, in order to deceive and mislead the unwary reader. So much for your quasi-'objective scientist' stance.

QED::

Why should anyone believe you? You consistently make posts that one would politely describe as factually incorrect or others would describe as outright lies. IE: No bars on the first floor windows.

 

[acbytesla]

Draw which conclusion? That Amanda wielded the knife, or that Massei believed Amanda wielded the knife. I think Vixen is referring to the latter.

Vixen errs when saying that Massei found this as fact. Massei said that Amanda's DNA could have got onto the knife just as easily in using it for murder as using it for cutting food.

​

Whatever you make of Massei's illogic here, one thing is clear - Massei did NOT find it as factual, as per Vixen's statement. He found it as possible.

Thanks Bill. I was pointing out the illogicality of the conclusion that Vixen said Massei made. Thank you for pointing out that this is just another of Vixen's "lies", I mean factual errors.

 

[Vixen]

Draw which conclusion? That Amanda wielded the knife, or that Massei believed Amanda wielded the knife. I think Vixen is referring to the latter.

Vixen errs when saying that Massei found this as fact. Massei said that Amanda's DNA could have got onto the knife just as easily in using it for murder as using it for cutting food.

​

Whatever you make of Massei's illogic here, one thing is clear - Massei did NOT find it as factual, as per Vixen's statement. He found it as possible.

Then again, there is the issue of the striations.... which no one else but Stefanoni claimed to have seen, and which Stefanoni said could not be photographed.

How silly does Vixen want to make all this?

You must be quoting a modified PIP version. Judges don't talk in terms of could. They are paid handsomely to come to a verdict, not sit on the fence. Thus they won't use terms like 'could be guilty' or 'could be innocent'. They are expected to judge not attach conditionals and qualifiers.

Let me help with the proper and correct translation:

so that she could not scream again, and another of her
attackers struck her again on the neck, but on the left side because, probably, they
were on the other side with respect to the person who had inflicted the 4cm deep
wound, causing [in their turn] a lesion 8cm deep. Meredith tried to withdraw the
part of her body that was once again and more deeply attainted but, held by the
hand of whoever was holding her mouth shut and countered by the presence of the
one who had caused the 4cm-deep wound, she ended up being driven back towards
the knife that still remained in the wound itself, and occasioned a second incision on
the epiglottis, as has been seen, almost as if it were [a case of] a second blow being
inflicted upon her.
This dynamic requires the presence of a second attacker, of a second knife. This Court holds that the second attacker is Amanda Knox and the second knife is Exhibit 36. The outcome of the genetic investigation with a quantity of DNA indicated as
‚too low‛ was placed under censure and doubts about reliability. Equally, the
incompatibility of this knife with the wounds suffered by Meredith was affirmed.
On these matters, the considerations already made must be recalled, which led this
Court to evaluate the outcome of the genetic investigation as reliable, and this knife
as absolutely compatible with the most serious wound. p 376 http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)

 

[Vixen]

Thanks Bill. I was pointing out the illogicality of the conclusion that Vixen said Massei made. Thank you for pointing out that this is just another of Vixen's "lies", I mean factual errors.

Your natural instincts are to dissemble because you know, or ought to know, Massei ruled as follows:

so that she could not scream again, and another of her
attackers struck her again on the neck, but on the left side because, probably, they
were on the other side with respect to the person who had inflicted the 4cm deep
wound, causing [in their turn] a lesion 8cm deep. Meredith tried to withdraw the
part of her body that was once again and more deeply attainted but, held by the
hand of whoever was holding her mouth shut and countered by the presence of the
one who had caused the 4cm-deep wound, she ended up being driven back towards
the knife that still remained in the wound itself, and occasioned a second incision on
the epiglottis, as has been seen, almost as if it were [a case of] a second blow being
inflicted upon her.
This dynamic requires the presence of a second attacker, of a second knife. This Court holds that the second attacker is Amanda Knox and the second knife is Exhibit 36. The outcome of the genetic investigation with a quantity of DNA indicated as
‚too low‛ was placed under censure and doubts about reliability. Equally, the
incompatibility of this knife with the wounds suffered by Meredith was affirmed.
On these matters, the considerations already made must be recalled, which led this
Court to evaluate the outcome of the genetic investigation as reliable, and this knife
as absolutely compatible with the most serious wound. p 376 http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...eport_(English)

Your conduct proves you know Amanda and Raff are guilty but you have to be less than frank because you need to pretend they are innocent. Whether that's to 'save face', as you described yourself, your need to 'be on the winning side' or because you get commission, you are a stranger to telling the truth.

 

[Vixen]

Why should anyone believe you? You consistently make posts that one would politely describe as factually incorrect or others would describe as outright lies. IE: No bars on the first floor windows.

You don't know the meaning of 'polite'.

Re the lower window bars: that has no relevance at all. Fact is, the upper windows did not have bars as the date of the murder, so the expert rock climber using them to prise himself up was little more than cheating. He was not t risk of falling backwards from the sheer 12'4" drop, as he had bars to grip onto. Something a bareback climber would not have had.

 

[Bill Williams]

You must be quoting a modified PIP version. Judges don't talk in terms of could. They are paid handsomely to come to a verdict, not sit on the fence. Thus they won't use terms like 'could be guilty' or 'could be innocent'. They are expected to judge not attach conditionals and qualifiers.

Let me help with the proper and correct translation:

Vixen - you've quoted a different part of Massei. My intent was to show the rational for what you almost-rightly claimed upthread; that he thought Amanda wielded Exhibit 36. But it is not a biased translation that Massei elevated his "could haves" to a fact on which he made on a now-annulled verdict.

You could do us all a kindness by quoting from another translation if you have access to it.... the section I am looking for is on the Massei-page 404, noting that often the page numbers of the translation are different that the pagination as it appears in the original Italian-language Massei M.R.

ETA - I am in error for saying that Massei did not find it as factual - he did, as Vixen's translation shows. My intent was to show that his fact arose from a "could have", as page 404 of his M.R. shows.

 

[bagels]

Not really. To burgle a building, either a door or a window has to be accessed. Rudy was found with a lightweight aluminium glass-breaking hammer in his rucksack in Milan, so if he were to burgle, he would have used that. Professional burglars don't make unnecessary noise.

Your claim, oh, there were two burglaries where the burglar broke the window pane, is on a par with saying two lots of safe were blown open with dynamite, therefore it must have been the same gang, or two goals were scored by a football, therefore it must have been the same footballer.

Terrible logic.

Lol. My logic is flawless. Rudy's bloody footprints at a second story bar climbing break-in. Rudy holding stolen loot from another second story bar climbing break-in blocks away. You're suggesting it is merely a coincidence Rudy is, very unfortunately for him, tied by strong criminal evidence, to two very similar break-ins, and he isn't responsible for them.

Where you're having trouble is you're confusing two random break-ins in the same town with two break-ins connected to the same person. If there were two break-ins and the only thing connecting them was the vague method of entry, of course you couldn't logically tie them to a single person. Rudy is himself the connection, being present at both of them. It's illustrative that you can't see that, because the part of your brain that normally would make the connection shuts down so you can maintain your faith in Amanda's guilt.

 

[acbytesla]

Your natural instincts are to dissemble because you know, or ought to know, Massei ruled as follows:

so that she could not scream again, and another of her
attackers struck her again on the neck, but on the left side because, probably, they
were on the other side with respect to the person who had inflicted the 4cm deep
wound, causing [in their turn] a lesion 8cm deep. Meredith tried to withdraw the
part of her body that was once again and more deeply attainted but, held by the
hand of whoever was holding her mouth shut and countered by the presence of the
one who had caused the 4cm-deep wound, she ended up being driven back towards
the knife that still remained in the wound itself, and occasioned a second incision on
the epiglottis, as has been seen, almost as if it were [a case of] a second blow being
inflicted upon her.
This dynamic requires the presence of a second attacker, of a second knife. This Court holds that the second attacker is Amanda Knox and the second knife is Exhibit 36. The outcome of the genetic investigation with a quantity of DNA indicated as
‚too low‛ was placed under censure and doubts about reliability. Equally, the
incompatibility of this knife with the wounds suffered by Meredith was affirmed.
On these matters, the considerations already made must be recalled, which led this
Court to evaluate the outcome of the genetic investigation as reliable, and this knife
as absolutely compatible with the most serious wound. p 376 http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...eport_(English)

Your conduct proves you know Amanda and Raff are guilty but you have to be less than frank because you need to pretend they are innocent. Whether that's to 'save face', as you described yourself, your need to 'be on the winning side' or because you get commission, you are a stranger to telling the truth.

No, I know no such thing. I KNOW there is no evidence that would lead a rational mind to draw the conclusion that this knife was used to kill anyone let alone that Amanda Knox wielded the knife in such a fashion. If Massei did in fact conclude this I must apologize for thinking this was just another of your many fabrications.

Sometimes liars do occasionally tell the truth. Ie: Like when Rudy said on the Skype call that Knox was not there.

 

[acbytesla]

You don't know the meaning of 'polite'.

Re the lower window bars: that has no relevance at all. Fact is, the upper windows did not have bars as the date of the murder, so the expert rock climber using them to prise himself up was little more than cheating. He was not t risk of falling backwards from the sheer 12'4" drop, as he had bars to grip onto. Something a bareback climber would not have had.

Oh, but I do. In fact I'm usually described as polite. But I must admit I choose not to be polite to people who are dishonest as well as despicable. I cannot get myself to treat people politely that smear the good names of so many people with impunity and reckless abandon.
ie:
Judge Hellman
Dr. Hampikian
Dr. Gill
Steve Moore
Judge Heavey
Judge Bruno
Judge Marasca
Detective Douglas
Madison Paxton
Dr. Conti
Dr. Vechiotti
Edda Mellas
Curt Knox
Amanda Knox
Raffaele Sollecito

These are just a few of the people you have disparaged and said dishonest things about. I'm sure there are others.

But you expect people to be polite to you? Seriously?

You must feel privileged.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, but I do. In fact I'm usually described as polite. But I must admit I choose not to be polite to people who are dishonest as well as despicable. I cannot get myself to treat people politely that smear the good names of so many people with impunity and reckless abandon.
ie:
Judge Hellman
Dr. Hampikian
Dr. Gill
Steve Moore
Judge Heavey
Judge Bruno
Judge Marasca
Detective Douglas
Madison Paxton
Dr. Conti
Dr. Vechiotti
Edda Mellas
Curt Knox
Amanda Knox
Raffaele Sollecito

These are just a few of the people you have disparaged and said dishonest things about. I'm sure there are others.

But you expect people to be polite to you? Seriously?

You must feel privileged.

ROFL <fx wipes away tears of laughter>. You should be on stage.

ETA: I've never had any communication with any of these people. I do not recall offering any critique of the works of Hampikan or Paxton, so you've plucked those out of air.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - you've quoted a different part of Massei. My intent was to show the rational for what you almost-rightly claimed upthread; that he thought Amanda wielded Exhibit 36. But it is not a biased translation that Massei elevated his "could haves" to a fact on which he made on a now-annulled verdict.

You could do us all a kindness by quoting from another translation if you have access to it.... the section I am looking for is on the Massei-page 404, noting that often the page numbers of the translation are different that the pagination as it appears in the original Italian-language Massei M.R.

ETA - I am in error for saying that Massei did not find it as factual - he did, as Vixen's translation shows. My intent was to show that his fact arose from a "could have", as page 404 of his M.R. shows.

Bill, there is no page 404. Are you able to locate the para you refer to here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)

 

[acbytesla]

ROFL <fx wipes away tears of laughter>. You should be on stage.

ETA: I've never had any communication with any of these people. I do not recall offering any critique of the works of Hampikan or Paxton, so you've plucked those out o:f air.

No, I'm sure you don't remember. You have never taken a moment or a care about the truth or anyone. They simply don't matter to you. Yet you yourself expect to be treated politely.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, there is no page 404. Are you able to locate the para you refer to here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)

It turns out we are using the same translation, the one headed up by Peggy Ganong. (So much for the unsourced claim from you that the translation has a PIP FOA bias!)

The page number refers to the original page as per the Italian language original. Ganong quite rightly adopted the convention of including that page number in the text as bolded-numbers in square brackets: because the English translation they put out resulted in the English version having text appear on different pages.

So to avoid confusion (!) it has been common to refer to the page of the original, not the page of the translation since there can be many translation formats, but only one original.

Be that as it may, this is the paragraph on page 404 of the Italian version as translated by Peggy and her team:

Even this consideration (ie. that the lone piece of Amanda's DNA found is at the spot one might think is there because of striking with it as if a weapon), therefore, leads one to hold that the biological trace attributable to Amanda and found on the knife handle, could have derived from the use of the knife for the purpose of striking, rather than to cut food; it could have derived, therefore, from the harmful action carried out against Meredith and as a consequence, a biological trace attributable to Meredith remained in the tiny striations present on the face of the blade, in spite of the subsequent cleaning, and which does not appear otherwise explainable as to how, in this regard, it was to be found there (Meredith had never been in Raffaele Sollecito’s house and could never have used this knife).​

If you are having trouble finding it a simply word search on any of the phrases should suffice. Search on "could have derived".... should get you two hits. Clearly Massei errs in elevating an unproven "could have" to a fact.

Please remember - Massei verdict is annulled. It is unclear in law as to hat remains of the facts as found. Indeed it is reasonable to conclude that since Marasca/Bruno annulled the conviction(s) and other judges are referring to that action a exonerating Ak and RS (in similar motivation reports which list a set of facts) that the notion that AK wielded a knife that night is also annulled.

Your mileage (obviously) varies.

 

[Methos]

Vixen - you've quoted a different part of Massei. My intent was to show the rational for what you almost-rightly claimed upthread; that he thought Amanda wielded Exhibit 36. But it is not a biased translation that Massei elevated his "could haves" to a fact on which he made on a now-annulled verdict.

You could do us all a kindness by quoting from another translation if you have access to it.... the section I am looking for is on the Massei-page 404, noting that often the page numbers of the translation are different that the pagination as it appears in the original Italian-language Massei M.R.

ETA - I am in error for saying that Massei did not find it as factual - he did, as Vixen's translation shows. My intent was to show that his fact arose from a "could have", as page 404 of his M.R. shows.

Bill, there is no page 404. Are you able to locate the para you refer to here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)

Bill was referring to the page number printed on the page of the original report in Italian. It's page number 408 of this pdf-file.
This is the part Bill quoted in Italian:

Anche tale considerazione, quindi, fa ritenere che la traccia biologica riconducibile ad Amanda e rinvenuta sul manico del coltello, potè derivare dall'uso del coltello finalizzato a colpire piuttosto che a tagliare degli alimenti; potè derivare, quindi, dall'azione lesiva condotta contro Meredith e di conseguenza sulle piccolissime striature presenti nella faccia della lama restd, malgrado la successiva pulitura, una traccia biologica riconducibile a Meredith e che non appare altrimenti spiegabile secondo quanto, al riguardo, si e avuto modo di rilevare (Meredith non era mai stata a casa di Raffaele Sollecito e non aveva mai potuto usare tale coltello).

Btw you might want to check if your links are working before posting.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)